# What’s next from Canon in 2020?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 17, 2020)

> Now that we’ve seen the big first-quarter announcements from Canon in the EOS-1D X Mark III and the development of the EOS R5, RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM, extenders as well as the vertical video shooting EOS Rebel T8i. We always want to know what’s coming next.
> I’ll break down what we know at this time, you can consider this information between [CR2] and [CR3].
> *Canon EOS R6*
> We expect this camera to be announced in May, with a June shipping date. The announcement and ship date aren’t yet confirmed, but that’s what we have been told.
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## melgross (Feb 17, 2020)

Canon really has that fire under them running hot.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 17, 2020)

I don't see Canon having to rush to make a slew of native RF Great Whites. Maybe you get out a couple with the R1X next year. I think the 200-400 L zoom is a good candidate considering how much smaller they managed to make the 70-200 RF body. Otherwise, and extra inch or two from the EF/RF adapter doesn't make much difference on lenses that size anyway, and I dont see many Pros complaining about that for the time being.


----------



## Brown (Feb 17, 2020)

What happened to the $800 RF camera?


----------



## ivanku (Feb 17, 2020)

is the rumored release for the R5 still July?


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 17, 2020)

PureClassA said:


> I don't see Canon having to rush to make a slew of native RF Great Whites. Maybe you get out a couple with the R1X next year. I think the 200-400 L zoom is a good candidate considering how much smaller they managed to make the 70-200 RF body. Otherwise, and extra inch or two from the EF/RF adapter doesn't make much difference on lenses that size anyway, and I dont see many Pros complaining about that for the time being.


Maybe 300mm f2.8 might be announced sooner rather than later. It seems to be quite a good seller in big white along with 500mm f4 .


----------



## dog8food (Feb 17, 2020)

How 'bout a 28mm f/2 pancake?


----------



## SV (Feb 17, 2020)

Seems odd at this stage that we know the sensor size in MegaPixels of the R6 and not the R5


----------



## marathonman (Feb 17, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


******* if they don't have 16k for $1.6K in 2020.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 17, 2020)

SV said:


> Seems odd at this stage that we know the sensor size of the R6 and not the R5,


It’s APS FF, you can see the sensor in the press pictures.

Edit: I meant FF, as pointed out below by edoorn


----------



## avoidingconcrete (Feb 17, 2020)

Brown said:


> What happened to the $800 RF camera?



RP is well on its way to 800


----------



## Max TT (Feb 17, 2020)

Thanks for R6 update. Not so patiently waiting.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Feb 17, 2020)

PureClassA said:


> I don't see Canon having to rush to make a slew of native RF Great Whites. Maybe you get out a couple with the R1X next year. I think the 200-400 L zoom is a good candidate considering how much smaller they managed to make the 70-200 RF body. Otherwise, and extra inch or two from the EF/RF adapter doesn't make much difference on lenses that size anyway, and I dont see many Pros complaining about that for the time being.


No EF 500/4 Mark III and no EF 300/2.8 Mark III, then the R5 announcement, hmmm. I wouldn't be surprised if the next 500/4L is RF mount, and maybe DO. And quite possibly the same price as the EF 600 III


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 17, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> Maybe 300mm f2.8 might be announced sooner rather than later. It seems to be quite a good seller in big white along with 500mm f4 .


Not saying they "Wont" just saying there doesn't seem to be a need to rush. The RF line penetration at this stage is still in its infancy. Those big old suckers usually get stuck on things like the R5 level of cameras or more particularly the R1x types. I just think we wont see too much in that department until that R1X gets it's full blown, official announcement.


----------



## ivanku (Feb 17, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



are you still expecting the R5 to be released in July?


----------



## Joepatbob (Feb 17, 2020)

Brown said:


> What happened to the $800 RF camera?


Just wait until all the Rs go on sale when the R5 is released.


----------



## Gloads (Feb 17, 2020)

Well damn, looks like I will have to buy the R5 as a future backup to the R3, as I refuse to lose another year waiting until Q4, after waiting a year already. Canon is going to get my money either way, but I would rather put it towards an RF 500 f/4, instead of a second body. Optionally I could start with an RP or R, or spend that money on a grey market 5DS.

How does the 5DS AF compare to the R AF?


----------



## Architect1776 (Feb 17, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



The sleeping giant has awakened.
Watch out as this looks to be pretty exciting for Canon users.
It now makes sense why things looked slow or non existent for "Innovation" by Canon these last few years.
They were ramping up the R mount, exploring and getting ready to do it right rather than first.
Even the 1DX MII shows a huge leap forward in comparison the a small evolution of the Nikon D6 and for that matter the Sony a9II which was no real difference from the a9 except for marketing to those who must have the newest iphone crowd.


----------



## Hector1970 (Feb 17, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> Maybe 300mm f2.8 might be announced sooner rather than later. It seems to be quite a good seller in big white along with 500mm f4 .


The EF 300mm is a lovely balance between quality and weight. It would be a good one for RF. I’d assume they have a plan for 300/400/500/600 and eventually 800mm.
I’ve the 300 2.8II and 600 F4 II and could not see myself rebuying them for an R.
Thank god for the adapter. The 600 is great but heavy and awkward to move around. The 300mm is a gem.


----------



## Architect1776 (Feb 17, 2020)

PureClassA said:


> I don't see Canon having to rush to make a slew of native RF Great Whites. Maybe you get out a couple with the R1X next year. I think the 200-400 L zoom is a good candidate considering how much smaller they managed to make the 70-200 RF body. Otherwise, and extra inch or two from the EF/RF adapter doesn't make much difference on lenses that size anyway, and I dont see many Pros complaining about that for the time being.



The short flange advantage is lost mostly on telephotos, it is for WA lenses more.


----------



## Architect1776 (Feb 17, 2020)

Brown said:


> What happened to the $800 RF camera?



RP is $999.00, pretty close.


----------



## davo (Feb 17, 2020)

I would love the R6 to be a high iso performing version of the R5 without the high spec video but it seems from the rumors it will be a lower level R.
( Why does my name have M50 under it? I must have to change something in my profile.. I shoot a 5D mark iiii  )


----------



## neurorx (Feb 17, 2020)

I was disappointed that the 100-500 was an F7.1 lens given other brands have 6.3 options at 600mm


----------



## chris_overseas (Feb 17, 2020)

Looks like the upcoming R5, 100-500 and extenders will all be on display at The Photography Show in Birminghan next month:

"Exciting news! The recently announced EOS R5, RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1L IS USM lens and new extenders will be making an appearance at the show. Make sure you visit our stand to get your first glimpse at the new additions to the EOS R System."

https://www.canon.co.uk/the-photography-show/ 

Does this mean the release date might be closer than we think?


----------



## edoorn (Feb 17, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> It’s APS, you can see the sensor in the press pictures.


You’re not talking about the R5 are you? Since that’s obviously full frame


----------



## slclick (Feb 17, 2020)

davo said:


> I would love the R6 to be a high iso performing version of the R5 without the high spec video but it seems from the rumors it will be a lower level R.
> ( Why does my name have M50 under it? I must have to change something in my profile.. I shoot a 5D mark iiii  )


The tag corresponds to your length of account on CR. You can change it to personalize it in Account Details/Custom Title


----------



## jazzytune (Feb 17, 2020)

chris_overseas said:


> Looks like the upcoming R5, 100-500 and extenders will all be on display at The Photography Show in Birminghan next month:
> 
> "Exciting news! The recently announced EOS R5, RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1L IS USM lens and new extenders will be making an appearance at the show. Make sure you visit our stand to get your first glimpse at the new additions to the EOS R System."
> 
> ...


My guess is that there are already some prototypes being tested at the moment by some photographers and that some of these prototypes will be at the show for demo. The final version might be ready in July after some corrections are made to the firmware following the input from the testers...


----------



## Larsskv (Feb 17, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> A fast ultra-wide L prime will also be announced in 2020.



I get a little worried about this statement. It has earlier been hinted about a 24mm f1.4 or f1.2, and I really do hope they release that one before an even wider lens. Should we all adjust our expectations about the 24mm coming in 2020? Thanks!


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 17, 2020)

edoorn said:


> You’re not talking about the R5 are you? Since that’s obviously full frame



Sorry, brainfart, it's obviously FF as you say. I was thinking the sequence was APS-C, APS-H, APS.


----------



## padam (Feb 17, 2020)

neurorx said:


> I was disappointed that the 100-500 was an F7.1 lens given other brands have 6.3 options at 600mm


Those are bigger, heavier lenses with worse optical quality. There is a reason why they are cheaper, this one will be priced close to 3000$ with the teleconverters being similarly expensive.
This lens is aiming to be a EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM II replacement (or a direct rival to the Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM OSS) with even better optical quality and very lightweight as well.
Also likely to work very well with a teleconverter.


----------



## edoorn (Feb 17, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Sorry, brainfart, it's obviously FF as you say. I was thinking the sequence was APS-C, APS-H, APS.


It does make me wonder if there’s (still) a possibility of an aps-c R camera. I would not be interested personally, but sure that plenty others are


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 17, 2020)

chris_overseas said:


> Looks like the upcoming R5, 100-500 and extenders will all be on display at The Photography Show in Birminghan next month:
> 
> "Exciting news! The recently announced EOS R5, RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1L IS USM lens and new extenders will be making an appearance at the show. Make sure you visit our stand to get your first glimpse at the new additions to the EOS R System."
> 
> ...


It will be at WPPI next week too. It’ll be “on display”. Meaning no one will be able to put their hands on it. And not surprising this far out. Once Canon makes the full announcement with the final official specs, that will change. Maybe NAB in April is what Im thinking. If the camera can do 8K, that’s a great place to have it hands on for the first time


----------



## chayphotog (Feb 17, 2020)

R5 making it’s official debut in March (14-17)





The Photography and Video Show 2021 - Canon UK


Join us at The Photography and Video Show at the NEC, Birmingham between 18th to 21st September 2021.




www.canon.co.uk


----------



## navastronia (Feb 17, 2020)

padam said:


> Those are bigger, heavier lenses with worse optical quality. There is a reason why they are cheaper, this one will be priced close to 3000$ with the teleconverters being similarly expensive.
> This lens is aiming to be a EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM II replacement (or a direct rival to the Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM OSS) with even better optical quality and very lightweight as well.
> Also likely to work very well with a teleconverter.



FWIW, Jared Polin said in a video published yesterday that he believes the 100-500 will come in around $2K. I'm tempted to agree, and I also can't see myself buying it if it hits around $3K.

Maybe there will be an L series 70-300 or 70-400, with a faster aperture, that hits around the price you mention, and _that _will replace the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM II.

EDIT: and there will certainly be space for one of the above in Canon's lineup, given how slow the 100-500 is at the telephoto end.


----------



## Adelino (Feb 17, 2020)

SV said:


> Seems odd at this stage that we know the sensor size of the R6 and not the R5,


Maybe more indication that the R6 will use the 1DXIII sensor? That is supposed to be a very nice sensor even if smaller than the current 6 series. High ISO and high DR would make it worth the loss of megapixels. Also it is supposed to be sharper than other sensors due to something with the filter(?)


----------



## jazzytune (Feb 17, 2020)

SV said:


> Seems odd at this stage that we know the sensor size of the R6 and not the R5,


We know the sensor size (36 x 24mm), we just don't know the pixel density!


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 17, 2020)

SV said:


> Seems odd at this stage that we know the sensor size of the R6 and not the R5,



Hm? If you're talking about resolution, we "know" neither. [CR3] rumors say that the R5 is 45MP and the R6 is 20MP, but neither is confirmed by Canon (indeed Canon has not confirmed even the _existence_ of the R6!)


----------



## Drcampbellicu (Feb 17, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



thanks for the updates on these exciting new bodies
I am overdue for a new camera 

do you get a sense that the R6 will be a semipro or prosumer camera?


----------



## Stephen Stanford (Feb 17, 2020)

Sharlin said:


> Hm? If you're talking about resolution, we "know" neither. [CR3] rumors say that the R5 is 45MP and the R6 is 20MP, but neither is confirmed by Canon (indeed Canon has not confirmed even the _existence_ of the R6!)


I


----------



## Stephen Stanford (Feb 17, 2020)

I'm guessing that 45MP has to be correct.
8K has been confirmed so from here the math is simple:
8K is 7680 x 4320 (33,177,600) or 34MP
However, that's16:9
The camera sensor is 4 x 3 so it means that the pixel resolution would have to be
7680 x 5760 (44,236,800) or 45MP

Edit:
I incorrectly stated the sensor ratio is 4:3
when the correct ratio is actually 3:2, oops!

So, I'll redo the math:
At 3:2 the pixel resolution would have to be:
7680 x 5120 (39,321,600) or 40MP

Thanks to Melgross and Sharmin for spotting the error.


----------



## BadHorse (Feb 17, 2020)

The R5 (or R6) are exciting but I can't see myself switching from EF until there's more practical primes available. I lust after the RF 50mm and 85mm F/1.2 but know that the novelty would wear off quickly as my arms got tired of the weight. A set of nice F/1.4 primes would make it a lot easier to rationalize switching.


----------



## LensFungus (Feb 17, 2020)

Hi, I'm a time traveller from the year 2500. Has Canon already bought Sony after all the money they made with the Canon EOS R5?


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Feb 17, 2020)

RF 500mm f5.6 DO!!

(Like Nikon’s 500mm PF)

Not that I’ll be able to afford it but it’s always good to have some new lens porn.


----------



## Dexter75 (Feb 17, 2020)

I don’t believe the R6 rumors at all. Why would they get everyone all hyped up for the R5 and then announce and release an inferior camera a month before it? Also, if we are supposed to believe this is a mirrorless 6D, why would they go from 26 megapixels back to 20? Besides, Canon only mentioned the R5 and seven new lenses for 2020, no mention of any other cameras. None of it makes any sense. Not happening. I also don’t believe we will be seeing a pancake lens or affordable primes. Canon has shown they are only interested in big expensive lenses aside from a couple scraps they threw to potential RP owners. This site said a pancake lens and slower primes would be out by early 2020, it’s mid February and Canon has said nothing about them. Not happening.


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 17, 2020)

Stephen Stanford said:


> The camera sensor is 4 x 3 so it means that the pixel resolution would have to be
> 7680 x 5760 (44,236,800) or 45MP



The sensor aspect ratio is 3:2, actually. There are two possibilities: if the R5 only records "UHD" 8K (7680x4320), then roughly 40MP is sufficient. On the other hand, if it shoots "DCI" 8K (8192x4320), then 45MP is needed. Of course, the resolution _could_ be even larger, those are just lower bounds. It's not very likely though.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Feb 17, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> We have also been told that Canon will announce at least one DO super-telephoto prime lens for the RF mount. There is a possibility of two being announced. Expect slower aperture lenses, since Canon already has the amazing big white lenses that are easily adapted to the RF mount.


The wording here is interesting. It suggests that we shouldn't expect fast aperture big whites for RF any time soon.

It begs the question, should we expect this at all, or will Canon rely on the (very good performing) EF-RF adapter to allow people to use big whites on any future RF camera? It does kinda make sense to not shut out people using DSLRs from using new big whites, as the 1DX MkIII just came out, and I think it's been said in the past that telephotos have little to gain from the shorter RF flange distance.

I guess at least it wouldn't be hard or cost a lot of development money to take a big white design intended for EF, just make it a little longer in the rear, and release a native RF version as well.


----------



## bbasiaga (Feb 17, 2020)

BadHorse said:


> The R5 (or R6) are exciting but I can't see myself switching from EF until there's more practical primes available. I lust after the RF 50mm and 85mm F/1.2 but know that the novelty would wear off quickly as my arms got tired of the weight. A set of nice F/1.4 primes would make it a lot easier to rationalize switching.


One of the best things canon did for us in this new mount is make a $100US adapter available for EF lenses. There is no 'switching'. Just buy a new body and use your same glass. If new and better RF designs come out over the years, you can certainly switch your glass out in the future. 

This is the upgrade path I'm looking at. Get and R6 or its equivalent when it arrives on the market, and keep my glass. Maybe add a few RF zooms as they become available and reduce in price. 

-Brian


----------



## slclick (Feb 17, 2020)

Dexter75 said:


> I don’t believe the R6 rumors at all. Why would they get everyone all hyped up for the R5 and then announce and release an inferior camera a month before it? Also, if we are supposed to believe this is a mirrorless 6D, why would they go from 26 megapixels back to 20? Besides, Canon only mentioned the R5 and seven new lenses for 2020, no mention of any other cameras. None of it makes any sense. Not happening. I also don’t believe we will be seeing a pancake lens or affordable primes. Canon has shown they are only interested in big expensive lenses aside from a couple scraps they threw to potential RP owners. This site said a pancake lens and slower primes would be out by early 2020, it’s mid February and Canon has said nothing about them. Not happening.


Do some searching in the forums and blogs, it's not inferior but a very different tool (at least what we believe it to be) This isn't a 5D to 6D type scenario.These new bodies, it's like comparing a wrench and a screwdriver, not a paper cup vs bone china. I wouldn't be so fast to lump the R6 in with the RP


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 17, 2020)

ivanku said:


> is the rumored release for the R5 still July?



Yes.


----------



## padam (Feb 17, 2020)

navastronia said:


> FWIW, Jared Polin said in a video published yesterday that he believes the 100-500 will come in around $2K. I'm tempted to agree, and I also can't see myself buying it if it hits around $3K.


The lens costs at least as much to produce as the RF 70-200/2.8 IS USM (probably more since it is a bit bigger and heavier), so really unlikely.


----------



## navastronia (Feb 17, 2020)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> The wording here is interesting. It suggests that we shouldn't expect fast aperture big whites for RF any time soon.
> 
> It begs the question, should we expect this at all, or will Canon rely on the (very good performing) EF-RF adapter to allow people to use big whites on any future RF camera? It does kinda make sense to not shut out people using DSLRs from using new big whites, as the 1DX MkIII just came out, and I think it's been said in the past that telephotos have little to gain from the shorter RF flange distance.
> 
> I guess at least it wouldn't be hard or cost a lot of development money to take a big white design intended for EF, just make it a little longer in the rear, and release a native RF version as well.



I think that without a 1-series RF camera, Canon sees little reason to push out large aperture, RF-mount big whites. I think that when a 1-series RF camera debuts, so also will RF big whites, since sports and press folks tend to use them and as of yet, don't have an RF camera suitable to their needs.


----------



## navastronia (Feb 17, 2020)

padam said:


> The lens costs at least as much to produce as the RF 70-200/2.8 IS USM (probably more since it is a bit bigger and heavier), so really unlikely.



What does the RF 70-200/2.8 L IS USM cost to produce?


----------



## BadHorse (Feb 17, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> One of the best things canon did for us in this new mount is make a $100US adapter available for EF lenses. There is no 'switching'. Just buy a new body and use your same glass. If new and better RF designs come out over the years, you can certainly switch your glass out in the future.


Part of my obsession is that some of the EF glass is pretty old: do I spend $100 to use a $350 EF 50mm F/1.4 that was released in 1993? The 1.2 was released in 2006 -- I don't have one and I've resisted temptation because I was hoping something with faster AF would emerge for RF.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Feb 17, 2020)

BadHorse said:


> The 1.2 was released in 2006 -- I don't have one and I've resisted temptation because I was hoping something with faster AF would emerge for RF.


It did, the RF 50mm 1.2. What more do you want?


----------



## WelshTony (Feb 17, 2020)

I'm keen to know if the R6 will have one or two card slots. If it is supposed to be "inferior" to the R5, which the official announcement has said will have two card slots, , in addition to the fewer magapixels will they also reduce the card slots to one on the R6?


----------



## slclick (Feb 17, 2020)

navastronia said:


> What does the RF 70-200/2.8 L IS USM cost to produce?


Exactly.


----------



## Clearview45 (Feb 17, 2020)

Any news about a c100 mark III?


----------



## AdmiralFwiffo (Feb 17, 2020)

I'd love to see a refresh of the 180mm macro on RF. Longer is so much better for macro for getting light in and not chasing away your subject. But we'll probably get the 100mm macro instead.

I'll echo others in asking for light-weight 1.4 and 1.8 primes. A 10-24 or 11-24 f/4 would be nice too.


----------



## slclick (Feb 17, 2020)

WelshTony said:


> I'm keen to know if the R6 will have one or two card slots. If it is supposed to be "inferior" to the R5, which the official announcement has said will have two card slots, , in addition to the fewer magapixels will they also reduce the card slots to one on the R6?


See above tool analogy


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 17, 2020)

WelshTony said:


> I'm keen to know if the R6 will have one or two card slots. If it is supposed to be "inferior" to the R5, which the official announcement has said will have two card slots, , in addition to the fewer magapixels will they also reduce the card slots to one on the R6?



If it's going to be a "6D" class body then yes, almost certainly. If it's going to be a smaller, RP-style body, there's likely not even room for a second slot.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 17, 2020)

AdmiralFwiffo said:


> I'd love to see a refresh of the 180mm macro on RF. Longer is so much better for macro for getting light in and not chasing away your subject. But we'll probably get the 100mm macro instead.
> 
> I'll echo others in asking for light-weight 1.4 and 1.8 primes. A 10-24 or 11-24 f/4 would be nice too.



I'd love to see an RF180mm F/4L IS STM. I picked the STM to make it even quieter to not scare away the bugs


----------



## TinTin (Feb 17, 2020)

chris_overseas said:


> Looks like the upcoming R5, 100-500 and extenders will all be on display at The Photography Show in Birminghan next month:
> 
> "Exciting news! The recently announced EOS R5, RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1L IS USM lens and new extenders will be making an appearance at the show. Make sure you visit our stand to get your first glimpse at the new additions to the EOS R System."
> 
> ...



For me, the next paragraph is more interesting, containing, as it does, this statement about the EOS R5:

"*Including high-speed, high-resolution, 8K video...*"

That seems to knock on the head those speculations that the 8K video will be some "crippled" effort, such as a timelapse mode. I don't understand the "high-resolution" description in connection to 8K video though, as if you could have low-resolution, mid-resolution and high-resolution versions of it.


----------



## BadHorse (Feb 17, 2020)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> It did, the RF 50mm 1.2. What more do you want?


It weighs nearly 1kg and costs over 2 grand. I'm sure it's great but I'm not sure it's a good fit for me.


----------



## Joaquim (Feb 17, 2020)

I'm confused about the R3 nomenclature speculation. Did Canon have a '3' numbered DSLR as well in the past?


----------



## Cat_Interceptor (Feb 17, 2020)

While the R5 is certainly going to be in the kit one day...... still want a genuine 7D mk II replacement. That kinda sucks such a great camera line will cease.


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 17, 2020)

_"We have also been told that Canon will announce at least one DO super-telephoto prime lens for the RF mount. There is a possibility of two being announced. Expect slower aperture lenses, since Canon already has the amazing big white lenses that are easily adapted to the RF mount."_

I wonder if any RF owners buying new big whites to use with an adapter? Adapters are great for:

1. lenses you own, and 
2. used bargains, and for 
3. lenses that are essential and unavailable now in RF. 

My own strong opinion is that spending $10,000+ on a lens only to put it on an adapter that adds wobble, inconvenience, and is a visual mismatch is not as appealing as awaiting a lens designed for the camera. 

My prediction is that if Canon wants to sell (m)any new lenses to owners of (only) RF bodies, they need to be offered in an RF mount. It's technically trivial to create a second version of any existing EF mount lens like the wonderful 400mm f2.8 IS III. Change one mechanical part and lengthen a few flex circuits. It's also feasible to sell one version with an adapter built on that can be de-mated for EF users, but is solid and a visual match for RF buyers. And the optical designers may well be able to improve performance, weight, size, or cost by designing specifically for the RF mount, although I suspect that that kind of R&D investment in big whites won't be a priority as long as EF sales dominate.

Suggestion/prediction #1: New EF big whites can be offered with a "free" adapter styled to actually match the lens. Possibly with a detachment button requiring more deliberate action for removal.

Suggestion/prediction #2: When the mirrorless tide hits the sideline pros, Canon can offer big white conversions: Maybe $3-500 for a solid bolt-on adapter that replaces the rear bayonet and adds a control ring, or $700-1000 for a replacement rear housing.

Suggestion/prediction #3: All RF TCs can be offered in a lengthened TC+EF/RF adapter form. Three bayonet connection is too many for a $10,000 lens on a $4000 body.

Personally, if I believe they're planning a RF400 DO f4 (or 300 f2.8) lens weighing no more than 2kg I might well skip the 100-500 and let the prime and TCs anchor my long end above the RF70-200.

I may not be typical in my cringing at the adapters in this context. Is any RF-only owner buying new EF big whites?


----------



## JoeDavid (Feb 17, 2020)

neurorx said:


> I was disappointed that the 100-500 was an F7.1 lens given other brands have 6.3 options at 600mm


It worries me a little that Canon is introducing such slow lenses. For the new 24-205 non-L they actually say “the RF24-105mm F4-7.1 IS STM packs a broad zoom range and a bright maximum aperture”. Who considers f7.1 a bright aperture for a 105mm Mirrorless or DSLR lens? It’s bright compared to f16 I guess.


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 17, 2020)

WelshTony said:


> I'm keen to know if the R6 will have one or two card slots. If it is supposed to be "inferior" to the R5, which the official announcement has said will have two card slots, , in addition to the fewer magapixels will they also reduce the card slots to one on the R6?



With the new Canon Cloud (I don't recall their brand) giving real-time continuous backups, the notion of a second card slot will be going by the wayside as archaic insurance. I'd even boldly suggest that before long some cameras (like smartphones) will have NO card slots, but just some internal memory.


----------



## padam (Feb 17, 2020)

navastronia said:


> What does the RF 70-200/2.8 L IS USM cost to produce?


We don't know of course, but it is safe to assume that Canon defines a similar profit margin on all of these new lenses.
And these have a similar build quality and the same level of optical quality, same L designation, same physical design.
So a price close to 2700$ or more is a realistic estimation.
In simpler terms, white means expensive, even the 100-400 II was 2200$, this has to be a good deal more than that with increased development costs, inflation, etc.


----------



## TinTin (Feb 17, 2020)

Joaquim said:


> I'm confused about the R3 nomenclature speculation. Did Canon have a '3' numbered DSLR as well in the past?



Some people were using the R3 nomenclature to indicate an R series equivalent of the 5DS and 5DSR cameras.


----------



## Hyperion (Feb 17, 2020)

Are there any rumors about how much money will I earn before July?


----------



## 6degrees (Feb 17, 2020)

Canon RF 14-21mm f/1.4
or
Canon RF 16-28mm f/2
(Otherwise will take Canon RF 15-35mm F2.8, but not as exciting)

After:

Canon EOS R5
Canon RF 85mm F1.2


----------



## slclick (Feb 17, 2020)

Joaquim said:


> I'm confused about the R3 nomenclature speculation. Did Canon have a '3' numbered DSLR as well in the past?


No but they had an excellent EOS 3 film body, I still use mine. It was basically on par with the 5D series in digital. (The EOS 5 film body was a much inferior model)


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 17, 2020)

padam said:


> We don't know of course, but it is safe to assume that Canon defines a similar profit margin of all of these new lenses.
> And these have a similar build quality and the same level of optical quality, same L designation, same physical design.
> So a price close to 2700$ or more is a realistic estimation.



I don't assume that Canon has a constant profit margin on all lenses. I'll be there's a wide range depending on what competitors offer, who the customer is, and how new a lens is (to cover development costs).

My assumption is that the RF70-200 was a ground-up development to create virtually a new category (compact near-normal portrait lens that reaches 200) with no competition, and lots of development cost to cover. I assume that the 100-500 is a redesign of the venerable 100-400 with a stretch at the high end, and some design benefits due to RF. 

$1999 is possible as a way to grab attention and sell more R5 bodies, because this shouldn't cost more to manufacture than a 100-400, and didn't have the R&D investment of the RF70-200, which is a 2.8 trinity lens (as opposed to the longest lens an enthusiast might buy if not going to the big whites). Then again, the RF seems to command a premium because they're selling to we early adopters, so adding a 15% premium top the $1999 gives room for future discounts. I'll predict $2299 like the 24-70 f2.8 with $2099 by year end sales.


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 17, 2020)

AdmiralFwiffo said:


> I'll echo others in asking for light-weight 1.4 and 1.8 primes. A 10-24 or 11-24 f/4 would be nice too.



I'm fine with the RF35mm 1.8 as my pretty-fast prime.

I'd sell the EF 11-24 in a heartbeat for an RF (as I'm not an adapter fan if I can avoid it).


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 17, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> [..]
> My own strong opinion is that spending $10,000+ on a lens only to put it on an adapter that adds wobble, inconvenience, and is a visual mismatch is not as appealing as awaiting a lens designed for the camera.
> [..]


I recall you mentioned this before, but I am confused why Canon made the RF extenders white instead of satin to match both the body and lens end of the RF mount. Now it goes grey - white - grey - white for RF whites


----------



## AEWest (Feb 17, 2020)

edoorn said:


> It does make me wonder if there’s (still) a possibility of an aps-c R camera. I would not be interested personally, but sure that plenty others are


Doubtful. Why introduce yet another line of lenses in a contracting market?


----------



## navastronia (Feb 17, 2020)

Hyperion said:


> Are there any rumors about how much money will I earn before July?



I would also like to know this for/about myself, if anyone can help


----------



## RGB86 (Feb 17, 2020)

Joaquim said:


> I'm confused about the R3 nomenclature speculation. Did Canon have a '3' numbered DSLR as well in the past?


Makes sense that they skipped it for the digital era, as a "Canon 3D" would imply a wildly different kind of camera.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Feb 17, 2020)

BadHorse said:


> It weighs nearly 1kg and costs over 2 grand. I'm sure it's great but I'm not sure it's a good fit for me.


It is completely ridiculous to complain about wanting a 50mm prime better than the EF 50mm 1.2, and then also complain that the RF 50mm 1.2 is too big/expensive.

Contrary to what most people on this forum like to think, the EF 50mm 1.2 is a pretty good lens. I'm sorry but the narrative of it being a piece of junk just isn't true. It does have its flaws, but it is still a very good lens, regardless of when it was released.

It's not possible for Canon to make a lens that significantly exceeds the performance of the EF 50mm 1.2 that is not both large and expensive.

And while we're on the topic of cost, the EF 50mm 1.2 cost $1600 when it came out, which adjusted for inflation is, you guessed it, just shy of $2000 in today's dollars. 

Everyone complaining that Canon didn't make the successor to the EF 50mm 1.2 that they wanted simply doesn't want to foot the bill or carry around the weight of the lens that they _did_ make as a successor to it. And that's really not a problem anyone can solve. You can't ask for a lens that's a lot better than an already good lens and then not accept the fact that that lens is big and expensive. (And again, really not much more expensive than its predecessor was when it was first released.)


----------



## gregster (Feb 17, 2020)

TinTin said:


> For me, the next paragraph is more interesting, containing, as it does, this statement about the EOS R5:
> 
> "*Including high-speed, high-resolution, 8K video...*"
> 
> That seems to knock on the head those speculations that the 8K video will be some "crippled" effort, such as a timelapse mode. I don't understand the "high-resolution" description in connection to 8K video though, as if you could have low-resolution, mid-resolution and high-resolution versions of it.



By high resolution it could mean they're outputting 1:1 without resampling or other algorithms in play to reduce image quality, or it could simply mean it's high resolution, as in, better than 4K. Anyone's guess at this point.


----------



## AEWest (Feb 17, 2020)

Joaquim said:


> I'm confused about the R3 nomenclature speculation. Did Canon have a '3' numbered DSLR as well in the past?


No. 3D would have been quite confusing to a lot of people ouputting two dimensional images.


----------



## slclick (Feb 17, 2020)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> It is completely ridiculous to complain about wanting a 50mm prime better than the EF 50mm 1.2, and then also complain that the RF 50mm 1.2 is too big/expensive.
> 
> Contrary to what most people on this forum like to think, the EF 50mm 1.2 is a pretty good lens. I'm sorry but the narrative of it being a piece of junk just isn't true. It does have its flaws, but it is still a very good lens, regardless of when it was released.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure ANYONE has ever said it's junk. It has quirks and is best used by patient shooters in the right circumstances but it is praised and uniquely positioned in the pantheon of fast glass. I think the more relevant question is why didn't they make a successor for the 50 1.4? Continue the 24/28/35 IS line at under $699 in a double gauss would have made perfect sense. However now with the RF line, who knows what type of 50's we shall see. No doubt there will be a nifty RF Fifty, those always sell like hotcakes, but not pancakes.


----------



## BadHorse (Feb 17, 2020)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> It is completely ridiculous to complain about wanting a 50mm prime better than the EF 50mm 1.2, and then also complain that the RF 50mm 1.2 is too big/expensive.


Actually I'm more interested in a 50mm F/1.4 -- I think it's safe to say there's been technological advances in the last 27 years that leave room for improvement on the current EF F/1.4.

Sigma released one 6 years ago that weighs 800g and goes for under a grand -- this is what I'm hoping for in an RF mount.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 17, 2020)

Dexter75 said:


> I don’t believe the R6 rumors at all. Why would they get everyone all hyped up for the R5 and then announce and release an inferior camera a month before it? Also, if we are supposed to believe this is a mirrorless 6D, why would they go from 26 megapixels back to 20? Besides, Canon only mentioned the R5 and seven new lenses for 2020, no mention of any other cameras. None of it makes any sense. Not happening. I also don’t believe we will be seeing a pancake lens or affordable primes. Canon has shown they are only interested in big expensive lenses aside from a couple scraps they threw to potential RP owners. This site said a pancake lens and slower primes would be out by early 2020, it’s mid February and Canon has said nothing about them. Not happening.


You're right. CR just made it all up for clickbait. Just like they made up the R5 and got all of that completely wrong. Oh... wait...

And no one said the R6 is getting released before the R5. All signs right now point to a near simultaneous release date following a May 2020 announcement.

And who said it's "inferior"? The R5 will be a $3500 camera. The R6 looks like it will be a lot cheaper. No one said it's direct successor to the 6D. That's an assumption. The difference between 20-26MP isn't all that much, and 20MP is a lot more suited to 4K video work than 26MP. It's just a different camera for a different use or a less expensive camera for a different price point audience. 

You seem to think nothing that has been reported here is real in the least, so why bother visiting the site anyway? Save some time and check out Sony Alpha Rumors. They are always right in their predictions......


----------



## melgross (Feb 17, 2020)

Stephen Stanford said:


> I'm guessing that 45MP has to be correct.
> 8K has been confirmed so from here the math is simple:
> 8K is 7680 x 4320 (33,177,600) or 34MP
> However, that's16:9
> ...


The camera sensor isn’t 4:3, it’s 3:2.


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 17, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> I recall you mentioned this before, but I am confused why Canon made the RF extenders white instead of satin to match both the body and lens end of the RF mount. Now it goes grey - white - grey - white for RF whites



I’m not sure they put much priority into resolving how a TC would look on an RF application. In a way the only sensible approach is all satin metallic but that adds its own weirdness.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 17, 2020)

Cat_Interceptor said:


> While the R5 is certainly going to be in the kit one day...... still want a genuine 7D mk II replacement. That kinda sucks such a great camera line will cease.


I think we will eventually see an RF body with an APS-C (think R7) to replace the 7D line. What's unique about the 7D is that it's a crop body widely used by pros as compliments to other FF bodies like the 5D and 1DX lines to get extra reach on telephotos. I think we will see more than that one similar to Rebels now, but I think the 7D gets an RF replacement first


----------



## mpb001 (Feb 17, 2020)

There still seems to be some confusion over where the R6 will fit in the R lineup. I have read on other internet sources that it will sit below the RP? This does not seem accurate to me because an R6 will have a new sensor and IBIS for starters. It would be great if we could get some clarification on this?


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 17, 2020)

slclick said:


> I'm not sure ANYONE has ever said it's junk. It has quirks and is best used by patient shooters in the right circumstances but it is praised and uniquely positioned in the pantheon of fast glass. I think the more relevant question is why didn't they make a successor for the 50 1.4? Continue the 24/28/35 IS line at under $699 in a double gauss would have made perfect sense. However now with the RF line, who knows what type of 50's we shall see. No doubt there will be a nifty RF Fifty, those always sell like hotcakes, but not pancakes.



Not that they are the leader but Nikon offers an outstanding L-quality Z mount 50 f1.8 weighing 412g for $599. That sets a good bracket for the 50mm. Room between that and the $2k f1.2 for a reasonably sized 1.4 for $1000-1200 or so.


----------



## joestopper (Feb 17, 2020)

SV said:


> Seems odd at this stage that we know the sensor size in MegaPixels of the R6 and not the R5



We can nail it down:
Given there is 8k and that's also in 3:2, we get at least 40mp.
And whether it is 40 or 45 is really no big difference.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 17, 2020)

mpb001 said:


> There still seems to be some confusion over where the R6 will fit in the R lineup. I have read on other internet sources that it will sit below the RP? This does not seem accurate to me because an R6 will have a new sensor and IBIS for starters. It would be great if we could get some clarification on this?


Not gonna know anything solid for probably another couple months. But no, I dont think anyone is thinking this is a sub-RP model. Probably $1200 - $1500


----------



## Danglin52 (Feb 17, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> Maybe 300mm f2.8 might be announced sooner rather than later. It seems to be quite a good seller in big white along with 500mm f4 .



The 200-400 f4, 300 f2.8 II & 500 f4 II did not get the updates and weight loss program of the EF 400 f2.8 III and EF 600 f4 III. Since they were not upgraded as EF lenses, I think it likely they will be refreshed on the RF platform. While I would like a much lighter/smaller 200-400 f4 w/ 1.4x TC, this is more of a niche lens and will probably be the last one updated or replaced with a similar option. Basically, I agree the 300 & 500 are probably going to be the first big whites related with the RF mount. Since the EF lenses adapt so well to the R, I don't think Canon is going to be in a hurry and may deliver other, unique lenses in the telephoto range.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 17, 2020)

SV said:


> Seems odd at this stage that we know the sensor size in MegaPixels of the R6 and not the R5


We really don't know either. We have rumored data. And often before, Canon has tested multiple sensor builds in a camera to see what they want the final product to be. 8K, like 4K, has more than one format, although they are relatively close. So the sensor could be 40MP - 45MP depending on the 8K Canon wants. Like you said, the difference between 40 and 45MP is almost undetectable. But shaving off 5MP might free up just enough CPU power to do something else, elsewhere in the camera, while still getting a legitimate 8K format. I dunno, thats a bit beyond my scope, but seems logical.

I think it's certainly SAFER to assume the specs of 20MP on the R6 as the sensor seems to be the same as a sensor they JUST made. The R5 sensor is totally new, so Canon has more wiggle room to play with it before it gets announced. If they had finalized the exact dimensions, they probably would have had it in the development announcement


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Feb 17, 2020)

BadHorse said:


> Actually I'm more interested in a 50mm F/1.4 -- I think it's safe to say there's been technological advances in the last 27 years that leave room for improvement on the current EF F/1.4.
> 
> Sigma released one 6 years ago that weighs 800g and goes for under a grand -- this is what I'm hoping for in an RF mount.


The reason for the demise of the 50mm 1.4, or any mid-priced prime like that, is the fact that the photography landscape has changed _dramatically_ since the 50mm 1.4 came out in 1993.

We were still a decade away from cell phones that had awful cameras on them when the 50mm 1.4 came out. Today, a modern cell phone camera can do a whole lot of what a DSLR equipped with a mid-range prime lens can do.

Cameras were popular in 1993, because well, if you wanted to take a photo, buying a camera was pretty much your only choice. Today, the standalone camera market is collapsing, and the market is just too small to have any meaningful number of customers willing to buy a lens that falls between all of the existing low cost 50mm EF options and a high end professional 50mm RF f1.2.

I mean, ultimately we are talking about kind of a specialty lens here. Modern high ISO sensor performance and very good performing zooms have left most primes to be in a pretty niche market to begin with.


----------



## Dexter75 (Feb 17, 2020)

PureClassA said:


> You're right. CR just made it all up for clickbait. Just like they made up the R5 and got all of that completely wrong. Oh... wait...
> 
> And no one said the R6 is getting released before the R5. All signs right now point to a near simultaneous release date following a May 2020 announcement.
> 
> ...



you’re dreaming if you think the R5 is going to be $3500. Just like their overpriced RF lenses, Canon is going to charge a huge premium for being the only one with features their competition does not have. $5k for the R5 and if the R6 is even real, it’s going to be $3k.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 17, 2020)

Dexter75 said:


> you’re dreaming if you think the R5 is going to be $3500. Just like their overpriced RF lenses, Canon is going to charge a huge premium for being the only one with features their competition does not have. $5k for the R5 and if the R6 is even real, it’s going to be $3k.


How much you want to bet on this? We have a forum of witnesses.


----------



## joestopper (Feb 17, 2020)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> The wording here is interesting. It suggests that we shouldn't expect fast aperture big whites for RF any time soon.
> 
> It begs the question, should we expect this at all, or will Canon rely on the (very good performing) EF-RF adapter to allow people to use big whites on any future RF camera? It does kinda make sense to not shut out people using DSLRs from using new big whites, as the 1DX MkIII just came out, and I think it's been said in the past that telephotos have little to gain from the shorter RF flange distance.
> 
> I guess at least it wouldn't be hard or cost a lot of development money to take a big white design intended for EF, just make it a little longer in the rear, and release a native RF version as well.



I guess, their first priority for new RF whites is compactness, not speed..Why -> the main big whites have got recent updates in EF. Also, the RF 70-200 is about compactness, and not necessarily higher IQ (in fact vignetting has been reported to be quite behind the EF MK III).

With all this, my guess is an RF 400 F/4 DO that is super compact.


----------



## avoidingconcrete (Feb 17, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> One of the best things canon did for us in this new mount is make a $100US adapter available for EF lenses. There is no 'switching'. Just buy a new body and use your same glass. If new and better RF designs come out over the years, you can certainly switch your glass out in the future.
> 
> This is the upgrade path I'm looking at. Get and R6 or its equivalent when it arrives on the market, and keep my glass. Maybe add a few RF zooms as they become available and reduce in price.
> 
> -Brian


Exactly. I went from the 6D2 to the R and all my lenses work better with the adapter than before without.


----------



## Cbenedict (Feb 17, 2020)

ivanku said:


> are you still expecting the R5 to be released in July?


I don't know if it was bad translation or what, but the Japanese press release for the R5 said early April.(maybe thats just a full spec release and preorder?)


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Feb 17, 2020)

neurorx said:


> I was disappointed that the 100-500 was an F7.1 lens given other brands have 6.3 options at 600mm


Yes but they're inevitably bulkier, because they have to have a 95 mm front element vs 71 mm (probably 77 mm filter thread) for a 500 mm f/7.1, as well as being a bit longer. You can always make a bigger lens but I'm very pleased they've decided to keep this one small.

If you need a bigger lens there's the 500/4L IS II, or the 400/4 DO II with a 1.4x = 560 mm f/5.6.


----------



## jazzytune (Feb 17, 2020)

Hamster said:


> I don't know if it was bad translation or what, but the Japanese press release for the R5 said early April.(maybe thats just a full spec release and preorder?)


Likely for info. brochures release and pre-order...


----------



## slclick (Feb 17, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> Yes but they're inevitably bulkier, because they have to have a 95 mm front element vs 71 mm (probably 77 mm filter thread) for a 500 mm f/7.1, as well as being a bit longer. You can always make a bigger lens but I'm very pleased they've decided to keep this one small.
> 
> If you need a bigger lens there's the 500/4L IS II, or the 400/4 DO II with a 1.4x = 560 mm f/5.6.


Who thinks a Canon is going to be on par or worse than Tammy or Sigma C ? The IQ alone has got to be a step above, regardless of aperture on the long end. Not to mention the contrast, distortion, CA and color.


----------



## mariosk1gr (Feb 17, 2020)

Joaquim said:


> I'm confused about the R3 nomenclature speculation. Did Canon have a '3' numbered DSLR as well in the past?


Im not sure about the R3 either... it seems not going to happen in my opinion. But for the curiosity there was back in time Canon EOS 3 as a film camera body. I still have the Canon EOS 5 to shoot with film and my ef lenses.


----------



## David - Sydney (Feb 17, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> I'm fine with the RF35mm 1.8 as my pretty-fast prime.
> 
> I'd sell the EF 11-24 in a heartbeat for an RF (as I'm not an adapter fan if I can avoid it).


I'm not a EF 11-24mm owner but wouldn't the CPL /vari ND adpters be very useful for that lens? Yes they are expensive but filter systems for the 11-24mm are more expensive.


----------



## David - Sydney (Feb 17, 2020)

AEWest said:


> Doubtful. Why introduce yet another line of lenses in a contracting market?


Is there a compelling reason for APS-C option with the R5 specs? Speed/pixels on subject/AF performance would greatly exceed the 7Dii. Assuming that the R5 weather sealing is good (and should be!). The only downside is cost and perhaps the 7D line was an anomaly for cost/performance in the past.


----------



## David - Sydney (Feb 17, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> Yes but they're inevitably bulkier, because they have to have a 95 mm front element vs 71 mm (probably 77 mm filter thread) for a 500 mm f/7.1, as well as being a bit longer. You can always make a bigger lens but I'm very pleased they've decided to keep this one small.
> 
> If you need a bigger lens there's the 500/4L IS II, or the 400/4 DO II with a 1.4x = 560 mm f/5.6.


I concur... the front element is smaller than the competition so the cost should be highly competitive or similar to the current 100-400mm. The question is optical/AF performance with the 1.4x TC (should be good) and the 2x TC (which is doubtful @ f14).


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Feb 17, 2020)

slclick said:


> Who thinks a Canon is going to be on par or worse than Tammy or Sigma C ? The IQ alone has got to be a step above, regardless of aperture on the long end. Not to mention the contrast, distortion, CA and color.


Even the 100-400 often resolves more detail than the Sigma C or the Tamron, because it's sharper at the long end and more likely to focus accurately. I'm sure we can expect the same and more of the 100-500.


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 17, 2020)

Danglin52 said:


> The 200-400 f4, 300 f2.8 II & 500 f4 II did not get the updates and weight loss program of the EF 400 f2.8 III and EF 600 f4 III. Since they were not upgraded as EF lenses, I think it likely they will be refreshed on the RF platform. While I would like a much lighter/smaller 200-400 f4 w/ 1.4x TC, this is more of a niche lens and will probably be the last one updated or replaced with a similar option. Basically, I agree the 300 & 500 are probably going to be the first big whites related with the RF mount. Since the EF lenses adapt so well to the R, I don't think Canon is going to be in a hurry and may deliver other, unique lenses in the telephoto range.



I'll let the designers and resident experts worry about what is possible, but a RF200-400 in the spirit of the RF70-200, maybe with DO or the IS III magic helium secrets to to cut its weight from 3.6kg to maybe 2.4-2.7kg? Even without the 1.4x.

As I frequently note, the 400 and 600 IS III ultralights can easily be "New RF lenses announced!" with virtually no engineering except one structural part. Perhaps when the R1 is announced they'll flood these into the mix so that pros have a complete line of big whites from day one. 

A 300 f2.8 update seems an obvious choice, but I wonder if (hope) the first big white RF answers the question: "What big long lens design would show off the RF mount's capabilities the best?" A 200-500 f4 DO that I believe the recent 100-400(+100) f5.6(+1.5) has some openly wishing for?


----------



## mariosk1gr (Feb 17, 2020)

Canon with 1DC, 5D4, C200, 1Dx Mark III and some others, is using DCI 4k. But they didn't take the same route with the EOS R (UHD only). I think and feel that R5 will come with DCI 8k also. So that means horizontal pixels will be at less 8192 for 8k DCI. If we do the math for 3:2 aspect ratio then we have 8192x5460=44728320 which translates to 45mp. So the R5 is 45mp as the rumours say. Heif files will be amazing from this camera I imagine! Processing will be much faster and that also translates to faster eye ef detection and remember that EOS R is already very close to sony performance with latest firmware. If we get 4k ff 60/120 and 10bit inside or outside with an addition of atomos ninja v then I can't ask nothing more from Canon. Then that will be the best all around milc on the market and noone can complain anymore.


----------



## David - Sydney (Feb 17, 2020)

I'm intrigued about the 2x TC... what will it be used for? It could be used on the 100-500mm but it would be really slow. It would work well on the 70-200mm but that it is less common today. Perhaps 1.x TC stacked with 2x TC on the 70-200mm to give 200-560mm f7.1. A long DO lens is the only. Guessing that it will be 300 or 400mm but the rumour is for slower apertures than today ie smaller front element and hence cost. I guess that we will see what the strenth of the adapters (EF-RF/1.x/2x TC) when they are combined with heavier EF lens


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 17, 2020)

LensFungus said:


> Hi, I'm a time traveller from the year 2500. Has Canon already bought Sony after all the money they made with the Canon EOS R5?


You tell us!


----------



## David - Sydney (Feb 17, 2020)

I am interested to know people's thoughts about switchers - specifically Sony switchers. They all moved to Sony from Nikon/Canon because of specs. Assuming that the R5 is all we expect it to be, it will exceed existing specs and have ergonomics and colours that Sony users have been complaining about. They have been very vocal about how good Sony is compared to the rest but will they be open to switching systems?


----------



## mariosk1gr (Feb 17, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> You tell us!


You tell us how great the Canon electric cars are..! Propably they own Tesla since then...


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 17, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> With the new Canon Cloud (I don't recall their brand) giving real-time continuous backups, the notion of a second card slot will be going by the wayside as archaic insurance. I'd even boldly suggest that before long some cameras (like smartphones) will have NO card slots, but just some internal memory.



And a requirement to only shoot in a range of a high speed 4G/5G network... 
I'd even suggest some cameras won't have a sensor, they'd be googling existing images from the place you're in and uploading them to the cloud.


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 17, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> Yes but they're inevitably bulkier, because they have to have a 95 mm front element vs 71 mm



And the simple math says that that element that is 34% larger in diameter will weigh 2.4 times the 5.6 lens front element (assuming a simple case where all elements scale up, etc.) The cube of the diameter is no friend to light weigh large lenses.

I'll take an RF400mm f4 DO that also zooms out to 200 and weighs 2kg. Big brother of the RF70-200. Or a 2kg RF300 f 2.8 would be fine.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 17, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> I am interested to know people's thoughts about switchers - specifically Sony switchers.


Losers!


----------



## Stuart (Feb 17, 2020)

Will the R6 have the 6Dmk2 sensor on IBIS?


----------



## slclick (Feb 17, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Losers!


I belong to a FB photo group of about 400 people and there has been a LOT of talk by Sony users wondering if they should sell their gear now or later what with the R 5 coming for best value. I cannot believe how easy it is for people to switch. So many facets of hassle, problems, even cost... no thank you. On top of it, what are they really getting? Not any better at photographic technique I can tell you.


----------



## mjg79 (Feb 17, 2020)

I hope Canon is going to push DO technology - it's such a perfect fit for mirrorless.

Nikon has made two really amazing lenses in the 300/4 PF and 500/5.6 PF. If you haven't ever held the 300 you would likely be shocked by how small and light it is. It, to be frank, makes the Canon 300/4 L really look like a museum piece. Before anyone gets upset, I own that lens, have done for years, enjoy it, love the build quality and hood, though wish it had the newer IS but the Nikon is in another league and is so much smaller and lighter.

It will be very hard to make a non-DO 300/2.8 or 500/4 radically smaller and as such one ends up regardless carrying a large lens whether or not the camera is smaller. But as they say a sportsman should play to his own strengths, not his opponent's. And DO lenses would suite the R cameras so well. I would love a very small and high quality 70-300 DO for travel and a 300/4 L DO and 500/5.6 L DO for wildlife.


----------



## slclick (Feb 17, 2020)

Stuart said:


> Will the R6 have the 6Dmk2 sensor on IBIS?


Most likely not. I think the number 6 is just a nomenclature coincidence and will have zero to do with the 6D line. Just a way to differentiate with the level above and below.


----------



## brad-man (Feb 17, 2020)

Dexter75 said:


> I don’t believe the R6 rumors at all. Why would they get everyone all hyped up for the R5 and then announce and release an inferior camera a month before it? Also, if we are supposed to believe this is a mirrorless 6D, why would they go from 26 megapixels back to 20? Besides, Canon only mentioned the R5 and seven new lenses for 2020, no mention of any other cameras. None of it makes any sense. Not happening. I also don’t believe we will be seeing a pancake lens or affordable primes. Canon has shown they are only interested in big expensive lenses aside from a couple scraps they threw to potential RP owners. This site said a pancake lens and slower primes would be out by early 2020, it’s mid February and Canon has said nothing about them. Not happening.


"_A man's got to believe in something. I believe I'll have another drink_." WC Fields


----------



## dsut4392 (Feb 17, 2020)

padam said:


> Those are bigger, heavier lenses with worse optical quality. There is a reason why they are cheaper, this one will be priced close to 3000$ with the teleconverters being similarly expensive.
> This lens is aiming to be a EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM II replacement (or a direct rival to the Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM OSS) with even better optical quality and very lightweight as well.
> Also likely to work very well with a teleconverter.



And the optical elements are made of crystallized unicorn tears.


----------



## tron (Feb 17, 2020)

Jasonmc89 said:


> RF 500mm f5.6 DO!!
> 
> (Like Nikon’s 500mm PF)
> 
> Not that I’ll be able to afford it but it’s always good to have some new lens porn.


You are more spot on than you think at least as far my intentions are:

500PF + D500 sometimes between mid 2020 to mid 2021


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 17, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> I'm intrigued about the 2x TC... what will it be used for? It could be used on the 100-500mm but it would be really slow. It would work well on the 70-200mm but that it is less common today. Perhaps 1.x TC stacked with 2x TC on the 70-200mm to give 200-560mm f7.1. A long DO lens is the only. Guessing that it will be 300 or 400mm but the rumour is for slower apertures than today ie smaller front element and hence cost. I guess that we will see what the strenth of the adapters (EF-RF/1.x/2x TC) when they are combined with heavier EF lens



Bad news: the rear element of the RF70-200 goes all the way back. Not a TC host candidate.


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 17, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> I am interested to know people's thoughts about switchers - specifically Sony switchers. They all moved to Sony from Nikon/Canon because of specs. Assuming that the R5 is all we expect it to be, it will exceed existing specs and have ergonomics and colours that Sony users have been complaining about. They have been very vocal about how good Sony is compared to the rest but will they be open to switching systems?



I'm a Nikon switcher (late last year). Loved the Z6 and kit lens but didn't like the look of the future lens offerings compared to Canon - and am happy given what I've seen. The RF70-200 was the deal-sealer. Lenses like the 400 f2.8 IS III were also persuasive, but I'm awaiting RF lenses. Ruled out Sony's bad ergonomics and questionable color. Would have hesitated between 9 series and 7 series (on reason the R5 will be a killer). Bought a Canon fisheye and flash from a client who was dumping Canon for Sony. I have politely not mentioned the R5.


----------



## Stephen Stanford (Feb 17, 2020)

Sharlin said:


> The sensor aspect ratio is 3:2, actually. There are two possibilities: if the R5 only records "UHD" 8K (7680x4320), then roughly 40MP is sufficient. On the other hand, if it shoots "DCI" 8K (8192x4320), then 45MP is needed. Of course, the resolution _could_ be even larger, those are just lower bounds. It's not very likely though.


Yes, I stand corrected.
8K would have to be
40MP (7680 x 4320) at a minimum and for DCI 8K
45MP (8192 x 4320) as you quite correctly stated.
Thanks for the correction.
(What the heck was I thinking!?)


----------



## Danglin52 (Feb 17, 2020)

slclick said:


> I belong to a FB photo group of about 400 people and there has been a LOT of talk by Sony users wondering if they should sell their gear now or later what with the R 5 coming for best value. I cannot believe how easy it is for people to switch. So many facets of hassle, problems, even cost... no thank you. On top of it, what are they really getting? Not any better at photographic technique I can tell you.



I know a few people who switched to Sony but kept all of their Canon glass in case they wanted to return.


----------



## slclick (Feb 17, 2020)

Danglin52 said:


> I know a few people who switched to Sony but kept all of their Canon glass in case they wanted to return.


That would be a good plan as well but too often folks need to sell to buy.


----------



## Stephen Stanford (Feb 17, 2020)

melgross said:


> The camera sensor isn’t 4:3, it’s 3:2.


Yes, I stand corrected.
8K would have to be
40MP (7680 x 4320) at a minimum and for 8K DCI
45MP (8192 x 4320)
Thanks for the correction.
(What the heck was I thinking!?)


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 17, 2020)

slclick said:


> I belong to a FB photo group of about 400 people and there has been a LOT of talk by Sony users wondering if they should sell their gear now or later what with the R 5 coming for best value. I cannot believe how easy it is for people to switch. So many facets of hassle, problems, even cost... no thank you. On top of it, what are they really getting? Not any better at photographic technique I can tell you.



I was tempted to switch to Sony A7RIV but didn't simply because of the cost and potential need to use adopted glass (EF on E mount). If Canon didn't announce these new cameras now, I'd be in the process of switching already, reluctantly. If you have enough budget, why sticking to outdated gear when you can enjoy more advanced tech? That applies to enthusiasts and semi-pros with money. If it's a matter of pure business, you'll be considering switching only when you current gear is nearly worn out.


----------



## slclick (Feb 17, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I was tempted to switch to Sony A7RIV but didn't simply because of the cost and potential need to use adopted glass (EF on E mount). If Canon didn't announce these new cameras now, I'd be in the process of switching already, reluctantly. If you have enough budget, why sticking to outdated gear when you can enjoy more advanced tech? That applies to enthusiasts and semi-pros with money. If it's a matter of pure business, you'll be considering switching only when you current gear is nearly worn out.


Because advanced tech will only garner so much. I enjoy better color, better skin tones, better glass, better ergonomics, better software/menus, better customer care and weather sealing. It's a total package which transcends DR.


----------



## ivanku (Feb 17, 2020)

Hamster said:


> I don't know if it was bad translation or what, but the Japanese press release for the R5 said early April.(maybe thats just a full spec release and preorder?)


i believe that April was the ETA for the canon cloud service


----------



## mppix (Feb 18, 2020)

Joaquim said:


> I'm confused about the R3 nomenclature speculation. Did Canon have a '3' numbered DSLR as well in the past?


Canon EOS-3








Canon EOS-3 - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





Canon never used 2D and 3D for obvious reasons and "4" has a bad connotation in some cultures.


----------



## myplanet (Feb 18, 2020)

PureClassA said:


> I think we will eventually see an RF body with an APS-C (think R7) to replace the 7D line. What's unique about the 7D is that it's a crop body widely used by pros as compliments to other FF bodies like the 5D and 1DX lines to get extra reach on telephotos. I think we will see more than that one similar to Rebels now, but I think the 7D gets an RF replacement first



You don't get more reach with a cropped sensor, reach is determined by the focal length of the lens, the image size is the same, what is different is the sensor size. To use a math analogy, the numerator stays the same, the denominator is reduced, which leads to the misconception that you are getting more reach with cropped sensors. It's an illusion that it is bigger, it's not bigger, just looks bigger as it takes up more space on a smaller sensor. When you think about it logically, obviously it isn't actually any closer, and the lens doesn't have any more reach, that dirty little misconception figured into some of early digital purchases. The benefit of the the 7D was the dual Digic processors, with one dedicated to AF, like the 1DX.

Personally, I don't know why they continue to make cropped sensors, in a contracting market, one would think less R&D and the economy of scale would out weigh the costs savings of producing a smaller sensor, I guess not. Not sure why they continue with the Rebel series, seriously, why not get that target population into an RP/RF format?


----------



## mppix (Feb 18, 2020)

Stuart said:


> Will the R6 have the 6Dmk2 sensor on IBIS?


No way they will use an old DSLR sensor that was heavily criticized at launch ~4y ago.
It may have the 1DXiii sensor. R6 is rumored to have 20MP..


----------



## raptor3x (Feb 18, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> Bad news: the rear element of the RF70-200 goes all the way back. Not a TC host candidate.
> 
> View attachment 188772



Just means that you can't use a teleconverter with a protrusion. The protruding elements aren't a fundamental requirement of teleconverters.


----------



## jam05 (Feb 18, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> It’s APS FF, you can see the sensor in the press pictures.
> 
> Edit: I meant FF, as pointed out below by edoorn


take 8k video at 3:2 and do the arrithmetic


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 18, 2020)

myplanet said:


> You don't get more reach with a cropped sensor, reach is determined by the focal length of the lens, the image size is the same, what is different is the sensor size. To use a math analogy, the numerator stays the same, the denominator is reduced, which leads to the misconception that you are getting more reach with cropped sensors. It's an illusion that it is bigger, it's not bigger, just looks bigger as it takes up more space on a smaller sensor. When you think about it logically, obviously it isn't actually any closer, and the lens doesn't have any more reach, that dirty little misconception figured into some of early digital purchases. The benefit of the the 7D was the dual Digic processors, with one dedicated to AF, like the 1DX.
> 
> Personally, I don't know why they continue to make cropped sensors, in a contracting market, one would think less R&D and the economy of scale would out weigh the costs savings of producing a smaller sensor, I guess not. Not sure why they continue with the Rebel series, seriously, why not get that target population into an RP/RF format?



Given two sensors with nearly identical pixel density....


30MP Canon EOS R / 5D4 on 400mm lens = effective 400mm reach

32MP Canon 90D on 400mm lens = effective 640mm reach


----------



## Adelino (Feb 18, 2020)

WelshTony said:


> I'm keen to know if the R6 will have one or two card slots. If it is supposed to be "inferior" to the R5, which the official announcement has said will have two card slots, , in addition to the fewer magapixels will they also reduce the card slots to one on the R6?


My guess is yes to that, but I know nothing it's a wild guess


----------



## Czardoom (Feb 18, 2020)

slclick said:


> Because advanced tech will only garner so much. I enjoy better color, better skin tones, better glass, better ergonomics, better software/menus, better customer care and weather sealing. It's a total package which transcends DR.



I know this is a big generalization, but I think you can categorize the Sony fans and switchers as being mostly gear-heads. They refer to "new tech" or the "latest tech" as if cameras were a new technology that is evolving quickly. In reality, there has been virtually no difference in the last 2 or 3 generation of anyone's cameras in terms of IQ - and only minor slow changes in other areas. But gear-heads are interested in having the latest - almost a need to have the latest. Whether they actually believe that the latest tech will be visible in their photography, I can't say. Whether they are most interested in boasting to others who don't have the latest is also a possibility, in my opinion. 

The other non gear-head group (probably a minority on internet forums from what I can tell) would be mostly interested in exactly the things you mention. They don't compare specs from the various brands, they look at what is most important to them. They interpret value - not as which camera has the most specs, but the overall quality of the product. The first group looks at Sony and constantly says, " I get more value for the price." I would respond that having better color is not an additional spec item, but is more important. All cameras have ergonomics, so it's even on the spec sheet, but clearly not even in practice. The same for the other items you mention.

I think camera companies are not too concerned with switchers. They make a lot of noise on forums, but camera companies are more interested in serious photographers. People who are in it for the long haul. People who aren't looking for a tech gadget, but a tool as part of their photo equipment. And that means lenses - which you can use for a lifetime, where the camera's lifespan is probably 7-10 at the most.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 18, 2020)

slclick said:


> Because advanced tech will only garner so much. I enjoy better color, better skin tones, better glass, better ergonomics, better software/menus, better customer care and weather sealing. It's a total package which transcends DR.



It's not about the dynamic range only, it's about having a new gear. Everyone values different things in the camera specs. For me, 61Mp and higher DR were very tempting but not enough to switch. I also have a GAS but I'm holding it under control and been waiting since 2018, a little bit too long.


----------



## dslrdummy (Feb 18, 2020)

Some time ago I owned the 400 f5.6. It is a very sharp lens considering how long it has been around. An RF version with IS that can take extenders would be very appealing.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Feb 18, 2020)

joestopper said:


> We can nail it down:
> Given there is 8k and that's also in 3:2, we get at least 40mp.
> And whether it is 40 or 45 is really no big difference.



It's also possible its an 80mp sensor downsampled to 8K and the high FPS numbers are for cRAW.


----------



## Trout Bum (Feb 18, 2020)

mariosk1gr said:


> You tell us how great the Canon electric cars are..! Propably they own Tesla since then...


If they don't have flying cars by then, I'm not coming back...


----------



## TMACIOSZEK (Feb 18, 2020)

Interesting cameras in the works. The R6 is a puzzling one to me as the megapixels are lower than the "R" but the frames per second and video speeds are better. Will be interesting to see the suggested use of the R6 compared to the R. The R5 is clearly the more professional of them all.


----------



## TMACIOSZEK (Feb 18, 2020)

dog8food said:


> How 'bout a 28mm f/2 pancake?



I'd prefer an RF 85mm f/1.4 with IS.


----------



## pj1974 (Feb 18, 2020)

PureClassA said:


> Given two sensors with nearly identical pixel density....
> 
> 
> 30MP Canon EOS R / 5D4 on 400mm lens = effective 400mm reach
> ...



These sensors are vastly different pixel density. 

The Canon EOS R/5DIV cameras have 30MP with a FF (32mm x 24mm) sensor size
The Canon EOS 90D camera has 32MP with a APS-C (22mm x 15mm) sensor size.
The Canon 90D is a 1.6x crop sensor. Meaning the FF sensors are 2.56 times the surface area.

That's why I am keen for a R5 to be between 40 and 70MP in resolution, because it gives a good amount of "cropability".


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 18, 2020)

pj1974 said:


> These sensors are vastly different pixel density.
> 
> The Canon EOS R/5DIV cameras have 30MP with a FF (32mm x 24mm) sensor size
> The Canon EOS 90D camera has 32MP with a APS-C (22mm x 15mm) sensor size.
> ...


I said pixel density. I should have said pixel count. We are putting the same amount of resolution into a crop area as a 35mm area, which increases effective reach with highly similar/ near identical pixel resolutions


----------



## slclick (Feb 18, 2020)

TMACIOSZEK said:


> I'd prefer an RF 85mm f/1.4 with IS.


We can have both.


----------



## seasonascent (Feb 18, 2020)

BadHorse said:


> Part of my obsession is that some of the EF glass is pretty old: do I spend $100 to use a $350 EF 50mm F/1.4 that was released in 1993? The 1.2 was released in 2006 -- I don't have one and I've resisted temptation because I was hoping something with faster AF would emerge for RF.


I reckon Sigma wouldn't be too far away from releasing some nice 1.4 primes for RF.


----------



## pj1974 (Feb 18, 2020)

PureClassA said:


> I said pixel density. I should have said pixel count. We are putting the same amount of resolution into a crop area as a 35mm area, which increases effective reach with highly similar/ near identical pixel resolutions



Precisely, that's why I wrote, so others reading would not get confused. 

I certainly appreciate high pixel dense sensors, for the reason that it provides an effective way to have sufficient quantity of pixels to maintain image quality when cropped.

At each stage of my evolution throughout the APS-C (1.6x crop) DSLR bodies in particular, I have appreciated the increase in pixel density, going from 8MP with the 350D to 24MP in my current 80D for the same sized sensor.

I look froward to what Canon provides in the R5,. A 40-45MP FF sensor will likely do very well. and I feel a good balance.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 18, 2020)

dslrdummy said:


> Some time ago I owned the 400 f5.6. It is a very sharp lens considering how long it has been around. An RF version with IS that can take extenders would be very appealing.


Canon: here is a 400/F7.1 IS. Solved


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 18, 2020)

raptor3x said:


> Just means that you can't use a teleconverter with a protrusion. The protruding elements aren't a fundamental requirement of teleconverters.



Good to know. Any good options out there or are we hoping they develop one for this?


----------



## Dragon (Feb 18, 2020)

I would put a few bucks on the R6 being 24MP with 6k/4k down conversion. I can see the temptation to reuse the 1DX3 sensor, but from a market perspective, 24MP makes a lot more sense and Canon is usually pretty sensible. It is entirely possible that a prototype of the R6 exists with the 20MP sensor simply because of development timelines, but I am thinking the shipping product will be 24MP.


----------



## Dragon (Feb 18, 2020)

Stuart said:


> Will the R6 have the 6Dmk2 sensor on IBIS?


That was already used on the RP and it has nowhere near enough bandwidth to handle the proposed specs. I do think the shipping R6 will have a 24MP sensor, though.


----------



## canonnews (Feb 18, 2020)

chris_overseas said:


> Looks like the upcoming R5, 100-500 and extenders will all be on display at The Photography Show in Birminghan next month:
> 
> "Exciting news! The recently announced EOS R5, RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1L IS USM lens and new extenders will be making an appearance at the show. Make sure you visit our stand to get your first glimpse at the new additions to the EOS R System."
> 
> ...



Note that they said "glimpse".


----------



## canonnews (Feb 18, 2020)

Dragon said:


> I would put a few bucks on the R6 being 24MP with 6k/4k down conversion. I can see the temptation to reuse the 1DX3 sensor, but from a market perspective, 24MP makes a lot more sense and Canon is usually pretty sensible. It is entirely possible that a prototype of the R6 exists with the 20MP sensor simply because of development timelines, but I am thinking the shipping product will be 24MP.



it would make little difference downsampling from 5.5k to 4k versus downsampling from 6k to 4k.


----------



## canonnews (Feb 18, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> It's also possible its an 80mp sensor downsampled to 8K and the high FPS numbers are for cRAW.


that's not really possible.
cRAW wouldn't change a thing for fps.


----------



## canonnews (Feb 18, 2020)

pj1974 said:


> These sensors are vastly different pixel density.
> 
> The Canon EOS R/5DIV cameras have 30MP with a FF (32mm x 24mm) sensor size
> The Canon EOS 90D camera has 32MP with a APS-C (22mm x 15mm) sensor size.
> ...



the R5 will be around 40-45MP - it's really not going to be 70MP in my opinion and hit 20fps. you're thinking the wrong camera.

the R5s will be over 80 and IMO possibly even over 100MP


----------



## mclaren777 (Feb 18, 2020)

Is there literally no news about the 5DV? Not even a CR1-level rumor?

I'm worried that Canon is going to focus too much on mirrorless and leave us with nothing but the 1DX3.


----------



## Chad Letain (Feb 18, 2020)

I'm using an EOS R for wildlife photography despite all the negativity it's received for this purpose. I'm using the RF to EF converter with the 400 F 5.6 L prime, sometimes the 1.4 extender II and I get terrific results. I will be upgrading my telephoto this year and hope that a 400 or 500 DO prime is released for the RF mount. I'd be happy with them being F 4 as long as there is IS. It'd be really nice to know what he heck Canon plans on doing though. It's getting a bit frustrating trying to decide what route to go!


----------



## Dragon (Feb 18, 2020)

PureClassA said:


> Given two sensors with nearly identical pixel density....
> 
> 
> 30MP Canon EOS R / 5D4 on 400mm lens = effective 400mm reach
> ...


But take an 80MP R5s/R3 and a 90D and you are in the same place. It still has nothing to do with the size of the sensor, just the pixel pitch (i.e. density). BTW, I think you meant pixel count, not pixel density.


----------



## Dragon (Feb 18, 2020)

mclaren777 said:


> Is there literally no news about the 5DV? Not even a CR1-level rumor?
> 
> I'm worried that Canon is going to focus too much on mirrorless and leave us with nothing but the 1DX3.


They just gave you a new Rebel . Seriously, I suspect they will pop out several R series bodies and see what the market reaction is and then decide whether to release more DSLRs. All the EF lenses will work fine and any normal DSLR is not going to be able to match the FPS of the Rs without the machine gun mechanism that has to be in the 1DX3 and if you go mirror up for electronic shutter, then you lose the viewfinder. They want you to play with an R first and see if you love it. If enough don't, then you may see a 5D5, but probably not this year.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 18, 2020)

Dragon said:


> But take an 80MP R5s/R3 and a 90D and you are in the same place. It still has nothing to do with the size of the sensor, just the pixel pitch (i.e. density). BTW, I think you meant pixel count, not pixel density.


I amended that in a subsequent post, densoty vs count. But I was specifically trying to use very similar resolution sensors from a current crop and current FF body. Obviously having a radically higher resolution FF body (like 80-100MP) makes it a moot point


----------



## Dragon (Feb 18, 2020)

canonnews said:


> it would make little difference downsampling from 5.5k to 4k versus downsampling from 6k to 4k.


It makes little difference in the theoretical IQ, but it makes a huge difference in the required math to do the down sampling. The 3:2 (i.e. 9:4 spatial) filter is relatively easy. Random ratios are a lot harder because they require dynamic coefficients as you move across the page.


----------



## Dragon (Feb 18, 2020)

PureClassA said:


> I amended that in a subsequent post, densoty vs count. But I was specifically trying to use very similar resolution sensors from a current crop and current FF body. Obviously having a radically higher resolution FF body (like 80-100MP) makes it a moot point


The new AA filter premiered in the iDX3 will also help. The 90D has a pretty aggressive AA filter. Enough so that I don't see too much difference in detail between the 90D and the 5DSR (no AAF). I think the AAF is important for a lot of subjects, so a filter with a sharper cut-off (i.e. less early MTF loss) will be welcome. It is hard, because you don't have the option of negative filter coefficients (i.e. no darkons available).


----------



## i_SH (Feb 18, 2020)

About dynamic range Canon 1 DX III


----------



## Dragon (Feb 18, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> Good to know. Any good options out there or are we hoping they develop one for this?


The released TC images have protruding elements, so they are not meant for the 70-200. Historically, Kenko and Tamron have had the only decent non-protruding TCs, so time will tell if either jumps into the ring to support what will probably be a relatively few lenses that don't accept the Canon TCs. Depending on the exit angle from the rear element, some lenses may not work well at all with TCs and this is clearly a bigger issue with the short back throw of mirrorless. The protruding elements are there to catch the light at a sensible beam diameter for the majority of lenses that support TCs.


----------



## pj1974 (Feb 18, 2020)

canonnews said:


> the R5 will be around 40-45MP - it's really not going to be 70MP in my opinion and hit 20fps. you're thinking the wrong camera.
> 
> the R5s will be over 80 and IMO possibly even over 100MP



Cheers, canonnews... 
Yes, I don't EXPECT the R5 to be 70MP, - rather I was just stating that 40-70MP is my *ideal range of "megapickles" *for a FF mirrorless 'do it all' body.  

In one sense I'd love a 100MP 50fps beast with a _medium format_ sensor, f/1.0 lenses - which combined are still small and inexpensive, but hey, we all know that's not gonna!! Can't break them laws 'o physics! 

Really appreciate your input here on the CR forum, mate. Cheers!


----------



## padam (Feb 18, 2020)

mclaren777 said:


> Is there literally no news about the 5DV? Not even a CR1-level rumor?
> 
> I'm worried that Canon is going to focus too much on mirrorless and leave us with nothing but the 1DX3.


They are doing 4 FF cameras this year, we know 3 of them, if 4th is the high-megapixel mirrorless camera (which is not taken for granted), then we can expect the 5D Mark V next year, which would explain why there is no rumour about it yet. They might have the technology to put IBIS in it, too - or price it lower than the R5 due to the lack of it, keeping it more simple.


----------



## Rule556 (Feb 18, 2020)

dog8food said:


> How 'bout a 28mm f/2 pancake?



Make it a 20mm f2.8 and I think you might get one.


----------



## hne (Feb 18, 2020)

If the RF 2x converter doesn't fit the RF 70-200/2.8L, what is it supposed to be used with? The RF 85/1.2L has its rear element pretty much sticking out of the bayonet. The RF 100-500/4.5-7.1 becomes a 200-1000/9-14 resulting in a whopping 5000 ISO needed to reach 1/1000s action-stopping shutter speeds on an Ev 12 overcast day.
There has got to be something way faster coming soon, or Canon wants people to stack a mount converter on the tele converter.


----------



## edoorn (Feb 18, 2020)

agree, teleconverters are meant for long tele primes (if you ask me )


----------



## mppix (Feb 18, 2020)

i_SH said:


> About dynamic range Canon 1 DX III
> View attachment 188800


DPreview breaking news: canon has an ISO invariant sensor, Sony does not.


----------



## mppix (Feb 18, 2020)

PureClassA said:


> Given two sensors with nearly identical pixel density....
> 30MP Canon EOS R / 5D4 on 400mm lens = effective 400mm reach
> 32MP Canon 90D on 400mm lens = effective 640mm reach


There is a lot more than this to the story
- Yes, you gain 1.6x in reach
- You loose 2.56 times the light or about 1.3 stops so a f4 lens becomes an effective f6.4; f5.6 becomes an effective ~f9
- A crop sensor requires lenses that resolve "1.6^2=2.56 times" as well if measured in resolution (lenses for 32MP aps-c sensor should be designed for 82MP ff equivalent)
- Crop sensors reach the diffraction limit 1.6 times faster, the 90D has a diffraction limit around f5.1

Edits: clarifications and multiplier for diffraction (thanks for comments)


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 18, 2020)

Dragon said:


> The 90D has a pretty aggressive AA filter. Enough so that I don't see too much difference in detail between the 90D and the 5DSR (no AAF).



I'm confused, did you mean the 90D has a _weak_ AA filter? "Aggressive" to me would imply a strong filter ie. more blurring.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 18, 2020)

Looks very promising, if R5 has a similar DR, it'll be quite satisfactory, although still lagging behind A7RIV.



i_SH said:


> About dynamic range Canon 1 DX III
> View attachment 188800


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 18, 2020)

padam said:


> They are doing 4 FF cameras this year, we know 3 of them, if 4th is the high-megapixel mirrorless camera (which is not taken for granted), then we can expect the 5D Mark V next year, which would explain why there is no rumour about it yet. They might have the technology to put IBIS in it, too - or price it lower than the R5 due to the lack of it, keeping it more simple.



IBIS seems to be impossible for a mirrored camera. Both Nikon and Canon have said or at least hinted at this when asked. I would also not expect the lack of ibis to lower the cost of a DSLR, it’s a bigger body with more moving parts... or at least it is free profit.


----------



## Antono Refa (Feb 18, 2020)

PureClassA said:


> I think the 200-400 L zoom is a good candidate considering how much smaller they managed to make the 70-200 RF body.



The RF 70-200mm does not accept tele extenders, which probably helps make it smaller.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 18, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Looks very promising, if R5 has a similar DR, it'll be quite satisfactory, although still lagging behind A7RIV.


lagging behind.. are.you.serioius? admit it was a joke.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 18, 2020)

mppix said:


> There is a lot more than this to the story
> - Yes, you gain 1.6x in reach
> *- You loose 1.6x of light so a f4 lens becomes an effective f6.4; f5.6 becomes an effective ~f9*
> - A crop sensor requires lenses that resolve 1.6^2=2.56 times as well (lenses for 32MP aps-c sensor should be designed for 82MP ff equivalent)
> - Crop sensors reach the diffraction limit 1.6^2=2.56 times faster, the 90D has a diffraction limit around f5.1



so let me understand:

1. shooting in identical lighting conditions, FF vs APS-C, are you saying that you have to shoot with x1.6 wider aperture to compensate for crop factor? correct?

2. and you further suggest that x1.6 should be used as an aperture value multiplier to workout a correct aperture value to compensate for the x1.6 crop factor.. as in: F6.4 = 1.6 x F4. right?

3. are you saying that double the amount of light for F4 is F8? and 4 times amount of light is F16?

please enlighten me!


----------



## Kit. (Feb 18, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> IBIS seems to be impossible for a mirrored camera.


The first IBIS for an ILC was implemented in a mirrored camera (by Minolta).


----------



## padam (Feb 18, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> IBIS seems to be impossible for a mirrored camera. Both Nikon and Canon have said or at least hinted at this when asked. I would also not expect the lack of ibis to lower the cost of a DSLR, it’s a bigger body with more moving parts... or at least it is free profit.


I guess you haven't heard about Sony A-mount then.
In case of no IBIS, the EOS R5 sits above the 5D V so the latter wouldn't be as expensive.
Canon and Nikon also hinted that a lot of parts in mirrorless cameras like the EVF is also expensive to make.


----------



## Joules (Feb 18, 2020)

padam said:


> Canon and Nikon also hinted that a lot of parts in mirrorless cameras like the EVF is also expensive to make.


Oh, I'm curious about that part. Could you quote or link a source where they hinted at that?


----------



## padam (Feb 18, 2020)

Joules said:


> Oh, I'm curious about that part. Could you quote or link a source where they hinted at that?


*WB:* Is there something inherent about mirrorless technology that allows you to make a full-frame camera starting at such a low price-point, compared to a DSLR?
*Canon:* It's really difficult to pinpoint what technology made this camera so affordable. There's some components that can be made more inexpensive with the introduction of the mirrorless system, but at the same time, there are other components that need to be implemented for mirrorless. The EVF is one thing that generally makes the mirrorless camera more expensive than a DSLR to produce.





__





Juicy technical tidbits on the Canon EOS RP - IR Interview/Q&A


We had a chance to sit down with some high-level Canon engineering execs at the recent launch event for the EOS RP, to answer our usual round of technical questions about the product. I was particularly interested to see this model,…



www.imaging-resource.com


----------



## B77 (Feb 18, 2020)

I just hope Sony announces their version of EOS R5 type specifications as soon as possible for one single reason - price. If Canon will be left to offer "the best camera on the market", as they already claimed with EOS R, where they tried to sell you old specifications for $2k+, they will throw some ridiculous price tag on EOS R5 as well. If Sony comes out with the same specifications for normal price, they will be at least forced to offer a reasonable price. I mean, phones are coming out with 8K video and 4K full frame cameras are $1.000 and Canon is still trying to sell us 4K 1.7 crop for $2.000+....


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 18, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> lagging behind.. are.you.serioius? admit it was a joke.



Yes, by PTP measurements. Sony A9II also lags behind A7RIV. I wonder what the R5 will show.





__





Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting






www.photonstophotos.net


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 18, 2020)

B77 said:


> I just hope Sony announces their version of EOS R5 type specifications as soon as possible for one single reason - price. If Canon will be left to offer "the best camera on the market", as they already claimed with EOS R, where they tried to sell you old specifications for $2k+, they will throw some ridiculous price tag on EOS R5 as well. If Sony comes out with the same specifications for normal price, they will be at least forced to offer a reasonable price. I mean, phones are coming out with 8K video and 4K full frame cameras are $1.000 and Canon is still trying to sell us 4K 1.7 crop for $2.000+....


And R5 doesn’t even come with an inbuilt flash! I mean there is inbuilt LED light in every single phone! No Facebook, no Instagram, no Twitter!!


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 18, 2020)

B77 said:


> I just hope Sony announces their version of EOS R5 type specifications



They've already got A7 and A7R lines. They're unlikely to announce anything new in that department this year. Definitely not A7RV.


----------



## BillB (Feb 18, 2020)

mclaren777 said:


> Is there literally no news about the 5DV? Not even a CR1-level rumor?
> 
> I'm worried that Canon is going to focus too much on mirrorless and leave us with nothing but the 1DX3.


There will also be the 5DIV, just as there is now, at least until a 5DV shows up.


----------



## Quackator (Feb 18, 2020)

navastronia said:


> FWIW, Jared Polin said in a video published yesterday that he
> believes the 100-500 will come in around $2K.



With f=7.1 at the long end my guesstimate is three digit.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 18, 2020)

[/QUOTE]


Quarkcharmed said:


> Yes, by PTP measurements. Sony A9II also lags behind A7RIV. I wonder what the R5 will show.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You mean: very slightly behind in certain Secondary metrics and light years ahead in most critical areas? 
Lagging behind meaning: to fail to keep pace with others.


----------



## Quackator (Feb 18, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> I am interested to know people's thoughts about switchers - specifically Sony switchers.
> They all moved to Sony from Nikon/Canon because of specs.



And many of them use EF glass with Metabones or MC-11 adapters.
Switching back is just one body away.

Canon will price the R5 aggressively to win those suckers 
back - and then milk them on lenses.


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 18, 2020)

Quackator said:


> With f=7.1 at the long end my guesstimate is three digit.



Absolutely not. The lens is basically an EF 100–400mm f/4.5-5.6 L II but with extra 100mm at the tele end added so there’s less need for an extender. Canon’s white L lenses don’t have three-figure prices. That just does not happen.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Feb 18, 2020)

Sharlin said:


> Absolutely not. The lens is basically an EF 100–400mm f/4.5-5.6 L II but with extra 100mm at the tele end added so there’s less need for an extender. Canon’s white L lenses don’t have three-figure prices. That just does not happen.


The Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L USM Lens has a retail price of £589 in the UK, so doesn't that qualify as a white L lens with a 3 digit price tag?


----------



## telemaque (Feb 18, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> so let me understand:
> 
> 1. shooting in identical lighting conditions, FF vs APS-C, are you saying that you have to shoot with x1.6 wider aperture to compensate for crop factor? correct?
> 
> ...



May I suggest to have a look at the below link, that is a nice example and explanation on the effect of sensor size onto the FOV, DOV etc...
Difference in sensor sizes = crop factor. Here the crop factor considered is 2 comparing FF vs M4/3.









What is equivalence and why should I care?


Equivalence, at its most simple, is a way of comparing different formats (sensor sizes) on a common basis. Sounds straightforward enough, but the concept is still somewhat controversial and not always clearly understood. We thought it was about time we explained - and demonstrated - what...




www.dpreview.com


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 18, 2020)

telemaque said:


> May I suggest to have a look at the below link, that is a nice example and explanation on the effect of sensor size onto the FOV, DOV etc...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am familiar with FOV and DOF concept. 
However, exposure levels are not affected by crop factor. In fact are Also not affected by sensor size, pixel pitch, room temperature and humidity


----------



## canonnews (Feb 18, 2020)

mppix said:


> DPreview breaking news: canon has an ISO invariant sensor, Sony does not.



dpreview: we're no longer measuring ISO invariance. No reason given.


----------



## canonnews (Feb 18, 2020)

padam said:


> They are doing 4 FF cameras this year, we know 3 of them, if 4th is the high-megapixel mirrorless camera (which is not taken for granted), then we can expect the 5D Mark V next year, which would explain why there is no rumour about it yet. They might have the technology to put IBIS in it, too - or price it lower than the R5 due to the lack of it, keeping it more simple.



I'm not sure IBIS will ever make it into the DSLR's .. and if it does, it will be limited because of the communication limits of the EF mount.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 18, 2020)

canonnews said:


> I'm not sure IBIS will ever make it into the DSLR's .. and if it does, it will be limited because of the communication limits of the EF mount.


Wikipedia suggest that sensor shift image stabilisation was first used in Minolta digital SLRs.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 18, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> You mean: very slightly behind in certain Secondary metrics and light years ahead in most critical areas?



Which crucial areas do you mean? The metric in question was the DR by Potonstophotos. The 1DXIII is ahead of the A9II which is impressive, but a bit behind the A7RIV. Apart from the sensor performance, there's little to compare between 1DXIII and A7IV in other areas, as the cameras have totally different purposes.


----------



## padam (Feb 18, 2020)

canonnews said:


> I'm not sure IBIS will ever make it into the DSLR's .. and if it does, it will be limited because of the communication limits of the EF mount.


They obviously can't make it as good as on mirrorless, and it is ineffective to use with the optical viewfinder.
But would still be a big deal to have all those EF lenses enhanced, which are still way more popular than other mounts.
I mean, if they come out with a 5D Mark V, there should be a feature to make it sell well at a high price.

But maybe the R5 sensor with Digic X coupled with the renewed AF system, faster cards and possibly an articulating screen is enough for the target audience.


----------



## Memdroid (Feb 18, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> You mean: very slightly behind in certain Secondary metrics and light years ahead in most critical areas?
> Lagging behind meaning: to fail to keep pace with others.





> Which crucial areas do you mean? The metric in question was the DR by Potonstophotos. The 1DXIII is ahead of the A9II which is impressive, but a bit behind the A7RIV. Apart from the sensor performance, there's little to compare between 1DXIII and A7IV in other areas, as the cameras have totally different purposes.



It is a negligible difference and hardly noticeable in real world use.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 18, 2020)

> SecureGSM said: : You mean: very slightly behind in certain Secondary metrics and light years ahead in most critical areas?
> Lagging behind meaning: to fail to keep pace with others.





> Which crucial areas do you mean? The metric in question was the DR by Potonstophotos. The 1DXIII is ahead of the A9II which is impressive, but a bit behind the A7RIV. Apart from the sensor performance, there's little to compare between 1DXIII and A7IV in other areas, as the cameras have totally different purposes.


You said: “ Looks very promising, if R5 has a similar DR, it'll be quite satisfactory, although still lagging behind A7RIV.”
That’s R5 Compared to a7rIV though not 1DxIII
Lagging is way too strong of a word to use. It is a very slightly behind. So slightly that it makes no practical difference in photography. Although I understand that camera with 1/3 EV wider dynamic range affords one photos that were impossible to capture otherwise. It is essential. I see.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 18, 2020)

padam said:


> I mean, if they come out with a 5D Mark V, there should be a feature to make it sell well at a high price.



I doubt they ever release 5DV. I'd be very interested to see it but I doubt. I think we've already seen all the best and the last full frame DSLRs from Canon. That's enough for smooth transition to the RF mount.


----------



## padam (Feb 18, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I doubt they ever release 5DV. I'd be very interested to see it but I doubt. I think we've already seen all the best and the last full frame DSLRs from Canon. That's enough for smooth transition to the RF mount.


A lot of people still prefer looking the optical viewfinder (again, just look up more interviews about where they tell there is still demand for DSLRs), and the 5D is an important 'iconic' product line. They've already developed some things for the 1DX III which is not going to be their biggest seller, why would they just throw that right away.
The EOS R5 is filled up with techology, but it still does not look as durable as a 5D, so there is certainly a place for it. They just don't need to rush it, which will instantly make people think that they are killing it.
The 6D line might be coming to an end however, seeing how little the D780 has changed, they can certainly top that with a mirrorless camera.


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 18, 2020)

Ian_of_glos said:


> The Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L USM Lens has a retail price of £589 in the UK, so doesn't that qualify as a white L lens with a 3 digit price tag?



Oops, true  It's around 700 € here. But surely that's the only one under €$£1000?


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 18, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> You said: “ Looks very promising, if R5 has a similar DR, it'll be quite satisfactory, although still lagging behind A7RIV.”
> That’s R5 Compared to a7rIV though not 1DxIII



Yep, I'm extrapolating this new sensor design to the R5. I'm not buying 1DXIII but I really hope the R5 will be better than 5D yet with more megapixels.



SecureGSM said:


> Lagging is way too strong of a word to use. It is a very slightly behind. Do slightly tat it makes no practical difference in photography. Although I understand that camera with 1/3 EV wider dynamic affords one photos that were impossible able to capture otherwise. It is essential. I see.



1/3 EV isn't not good enough to make me switch to Sony. But if say R5 performs worse than 5D, I'll be hugely disappointed.


----------



## tron (Feb 18, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I doubt they ever release 5DV. I'd be very interested to see it but I doubt. I think we've already seen all the best and the last full frame DSLRs from Canon. That's enough for smooth transition to the RF mount.











The Canon EOS 5D Mark V is in the works [CR2]


We have been told that Canon still has plans to update its most popular professional full-frame camera, the EOS 5D Mark IV. The EOS 5D Mark V apparently appeare



www.canonrumors.com


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 18, 2020)

padam said:


> A lot of people still prefer looking the optical viewfinder (again, just look up more interviews about where they tell there is still demand for DSLRs), and the 5D is an important 'iconic' product line. They've already developed some things for the 1DX III which is not going to be their biggest seller, why would they just throw that right away.



I've shot action/concerts with my 5DIV as well as landscapes, so I do like the OVF too. But because I'm shooting more landscapes and less action, I care less and less about the OVF.
At the same time nothing can prevent Canon from putting the R5's sensor and DIGIC X into 5DV and release it in 2021-2022. I just doubt they'd do that. Shrinking market, less moneyz on RnD etc.



padam said:


> The EOS R5 is filled up with techology, but it still does not look as durable as a 5D, so there is certainly a place for it. They just don't need to rush it, which will instantly make people think that they are killing it.



Why doesn't it look as durable as 5D? We only saw it on promo pictures.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 18, 2020)

tron said:


> The Canon EOS 5D Mark V is in the works [CR2]
> 
> 
> We have been told that Canon still has plans to update its most popular professional full-frame camera, the EOS 5D Mark IV. The EOS 5D Mark V apparently appeare
> ...



But that's CR2. The 5DV might be 'in the works', it doesn't mean the release is imminent.


----------



## padam (Feb 18, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Why doesn't it look as durable as 5D? We only saw in on promo pictures.


Yes, that is a clear indication that is it just like the R but slightly tweaked, thicker and wider body, so don't expect 5D level of weather sealing with a fully articulated screen. Hopefully the EVF won't fog up, that was a main weakness on the R.
If they make a mirrorless camera with full weather sealing, it would be just as huge and heavy as the Panasonic S1 series.

Keeping the 5D line makes perfect sense instead of trying to force everyone on mirrorless. Just because they are not focusing on EF development anymore, it is delusional to think that it is dead, they've just released the 850D and they will keep on making entry level DSLRs as well as long as they can.


----------



## tron (Feb 18, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I've shot action/concerts with my 5DIV as well as landscapes, so I do like the OVF too. But because I'm shooting more landscapes and less action, I care less and less about the OVF.
> At the same time nothing can prevent Canon from putting the R5's sensor and DIGIC X into 5DV and release it in 2021-2022. I just doubt they'd do that. Shrinking market, less moneyz on RnD etc.
> 
> 
> ...


And maybe that's why they might introduce 5D5. The research has already been done for R5. They don't have to make anything new they can just put R5's sensor and electronics in a mirrored body.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 18, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Yep, I'm extrapolating this new sensor design to the R5. I'm not buying 1DXIII but I really hope the R5 will be better than 5D yet with more megapixels.
> 
> 
> 
> 1/3 EV isn't not good enough to make me switch to Sony. But if say R5 performs worse than 5D, I'll be hugely disappointed.



Anyone that switched brand because of a 1/3 of a stop of sensor DR advantage, deserves no respect


----------



## AccipiterQ (Feb 18, 2020)

I'm just here for an L-series pancake lens.


----------



## tron (Feb 18, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> But that's CR2. The 5DV might be 'in the works', it doesn't mean the release is imminent.


Who said imminent?


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 18, 2020)

padam said:


> Yes, that is a clear indication that is it just like the R but slightly tweaked


The form factor similar to the R doesn't mean the weather sealing is the same. The '5' implies the same level of quality/sealing as in 5D line.



padam said:


> don't expect 5D level of weather sealing with a fully articulated screen. Hopefully the EVF won't fog up, that was a main weakness on the R.



The flip screen might be a complication but if the R5 isn't weather sealed on par with the 5D, its value drops in my view. I don't want to pay $$$ for a leaking camera. 5DIV works very well in terms of weather sealing.


----------



## tron (Feb 18, 2020)

canonnews said:


> I'm not sure IBIS will ever make it into the DSLR's .. and if it does, it will be limited because of the communication limits of the EF mount.


Even if at the worst case they make it work only for non IS lenses (finding them by using a lens database the way they use it for jpeg correction) it will still be useful like when using lenses like 85 1.2L, 135 2L, 24-70 2.8L I and II (to name but a few).


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 18, 2020)

tron said:


> And maybe that's why they might introduce 5D5. The research has already been done for R5. They don't have to make anything new they can just put R5's sensor and electronics in a mirrored body.



Mirrored 5DV with flip screen and better sensor would be very nice. Would I buy it when I see Canon is putting all efforts into the R line? I don't know. If they announce it right now, before the R5 release, I'd be confused. But if they ever announce it, it'll be long after the R5 release. And I'll have bought either R5 or R5s by then.
That is, the market for 5DV shrinks significantly after the R5 release.


----------



## LRPP (Feb 18, 2020)

7D Mark II is 20.2 MP. The full frame equivalent should be 51.7 MP (45MP is about 17 MP crop).
Where is the 7D MarkII upgrade?


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 18, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Anyone that switched brand because of a 1/3 of a stop of sensor DR advantage, deserves no respect



If R5 is worse than 5DIV, it'll be more than a stop difference between the R5 and the A7RIV. 
But most importantly, I don't seek respect for being loyal to a brand. If Canon were paying me, maybe. But currently it's me who pays Canon. So it's Canon who should respect me as a customer and release cameras with good dynamic range.


----------



## raptor3x (Feb 18, 2020)

padam said:


> They obviously can't make it as good as on mirrorless, and it is ineffective to use with the optical viewfinder.
> But would still be a big deal to have all those EF lenses enhanced, which are still way more popular than other mounts.
> I mean, if they come out with a 5D Mark V, there should be a feature to make it sell well at a high price.
> 
> But maybe the R5 sensor with Digic X coupled with the renewed AF system, faster cards and possibly an articulating screen is enough for the target audience.



The IBIS in the Pentax DSLRs like the K1ii and K-3ii is very good, significantly better than what Sony has in their mirrorless bodies. Unfortunately for them weather sealing and IBIS are really the only reasons to buy Pentax.


----------



## tron (Feb 18, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Mirrored 5DV with flip screen and better sensor would be very nice. Would I buy it when I see Canon is putting all efforts into the R line? I don't know. If they announce it right now, before the R5 release, I'd be confused. But if they ever announce it, it'll be long after the R5 release. And I'll have bought either R5 or R5s by then.
> That is, the market for 5DV shrinks significantly after the R5 release.


Maybe yes, maybe not. R5 will have much better handling than R undoubtedly but it will not be 100% the same with 5 series. Due to the flip screen and the less camera depth they have less space so they put less buttons. Having used many 5 series (and one 7) I prefer their handling than my R's. Plus I trust them more.

R is nice for landscapes and when you are not in a hurry. I would have lost images If I was using the R in critical situations. Once in a while it blurs so much (irrespective of lens) I cannot fix it either by trying to focus or turning the manual focus ring. This remains a mystery and I cannot duplicate it so no point of losing my camera to service for weeks. The only time I had a much less severe issue was when I was using my 500mm f/4L IS II pointing to an area that cannot focus in combination with "Don't drive lens when cannot AF" setting but that can be fixed in ONE second by turning the manual focus ring to clear the view.

Also a 5DV would make me consolidate 5DIV and 5DsR into one general purpose camera.

I am NO R hater. I already have 4 RF lenses: 24-105, 35, 15-35 and 24-70 by the way!


----------



## tron (Feb 18, 2020)

LRPP said:


> 7D Mark II is 20.2 MP. The full frame equivalent should be 51.7 MP (45MP is about 17 MP crop).
> Where is the 7D MarkII upgrade?


I am with you on that. I would love a 7DMarkIII (preferably without an AA filter). A totally new sensor would suffice. Everything else is just fine.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 18, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> The RF 70-200mm does not accept tele extenders, which probably helps make it smaller.


The current 200-400 L has one built in already. I think can still manage to shave off some
Size and weight in RF


----------



## AE-1Burnham (Feb 18, 2020)

mppix said:


> Canon EOS-3
> 
> 
> 
> ...



When I first read through the rumoured specs (potentially overly optimistic specs..!) I thought, "Hrmmm, could this be an R3 instead of an R5..?" as it reminded me of the market placement of the EOS 3 back in the day,-and they probably don't want to hurt the 5-series for a generation or more..? Anyways, my own history with the EOS 3 is that I never quite saw the EOS 3's "experimental" (in Canon speak "non-conservative") features to be attractive, but I have owned a EOS 1N and a EOS 1V. Eitherway, exciting stuff coming this year from Canon!


----------



## BeenThere (Feb 18, 2020)

So R6 is like a baby R5. Half the resolution and no 8K video, otherwise very similar?


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 18, 2020)

tron said:


> Maybe yes, maybe not. R5 will have much better handling than R undoubtedly but it will not be 100% the same with 5 series. Due to the flip screen and the less camera depth they have less space so they put less buttons. Having used many 5 series (and one 7) I prefer their handling than my R's. Plus I trust them more.



I realise there may be some sacrifices because of the flip screen but still I guess the R5 should be pretty close to the 5DIV because it's a standard for 5-series cameras of Canon. The R wasn't in that category.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 18, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Mirrored 5DV with flip screen and better sensor would be very nice. Would I buy it when I see Canon is putting all efforts into the R line? I don't know. If they announce it right now, before the R5 release, I'd be confused. But if they ever announce it, it'll be long after the R5 release. And I'll have bought either R5 or R5s by then.
> That is, the market for 5DV shrinks significantly after the R5 release.




I sort of agree with you but I think Canon has a reputational interest in this. 
If they tell their loyal 5D customers that they are no longer offering development in their preferred (OVF) line then the owners ready to upgrade will then think if it is worth to change brands and that little voice at the back of their minds reminds them how Canon cut them adrift. One thing Canon _cannot_ afford to do is say "hey guys, here is a replacement for that great 5D series but you will have to accept some compromises....".

Despite all the hoo-ha, mirrorless is still relatively new for most people and Sony have only (relatively) recently offered serious competition to Canon with the A7IV and the A9. The market is still turning, not 'has turned'. This is why IMO they persevered and released the 1Dxiii and I would be a bit surprised if a 5DV did not appear. .


----------



## tron (Feb 18, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I realise there may be some sacrifices because of the flip screen but still I guess the R5 should be pretty close to the 5DIV because it's a standard for 5-series cameras of Canon. The R wasn't in that category.


Yes, I have seen the pictures. More buttons than the R, less than the 5DIV.


----------



## reef58 (Feb 18, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I've shot action/concerts with my 5DIV as well as landscapes, so I do like the OVF too. But because I'm shooting more landscapes and less action, I care less and less about the OVF.
> At the same time nothing can prevent Canon from putting the R5's sensor and DIGIC X into 5DV and release it in 2021-2022. I just doubt they'd do that. Shrinking market, less moneyz on RnD etc.
> 
> 
> ...



It seems people keep forgetting approximately half of the ICLC market is DSLR. I don't think Canon is just going to say nah we don't need that half of the market. We will give that to Nikon. I realize the DSLR market is shrinking but 50% of a market Canon dominates is nothing to sneeze at.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 18, 2020)

Mikehit said:


> Despite all the hoo-ha, mirrorless is still relatively new for most people and Sony have only (relatively) recently offered serious competition to Canon with the A7IV and the A9. The market is still turning, not 'has turned'. This is why IMO they persevered and released the 1Dxiii and I would be a bit surprised if a 5DV did not appear. .



Yep. They'll release 5DV if they have resources *and* think it'll be profitable. The R5 is better than a prospective 5DV in all regards, except some (small) percentage of customers who prefer OVF specifically. Before the R5 announcement, the 5DV rumour seemed to be plausible, currently it's not.
I'm not saying nobody needs 5DV. I'm saying(guessing) the market for it will be too small.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 18, 2020)

reef58 said:


> It seems people keep forgetting approximately half of the ICLC market is DSLR. I don't think Canon is just going to say nah we don't need that half of the market. We will give that to Nikon. I realize the DSLR market is shrinking but 50% of a market Canon dominates is nothing to sneeze at.



And the largest portion of that 'half of the market' is crop-DSLRs. Full frame DSLRs are a niche market when compared to crop DSLRs.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 18, 2020)

reef58 said:


> I don't think Canon is just going to say nah we don't need that half of the market.


But 5D line isn't a big part of that market. Because there's R5 announced already, we're talking about those who need all the same specs but with OVF. Not too many people I guess.


----------



## BeenThere (Feb 18, 2020)

BadHorse said:


> Actually I'm more interested in a 50mm F/1.4 -- I think it's safe to say there's been technological advances in the last 27 years that leave room for improvement on the current EF F/1.4.
> 
> Sigma released one 6 years ago that weighs 800g and goes for under a grand -- this is what I'm hoping for in an RF mount.


Have you noticed that Sigma lenses are lower in cost than similar Canon lenses?


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 18, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Yep. They'll release 5DV if they have resources *and* think it'll be profitable. The R5 is better than a prospective 5DV in all regards, except some (small) percentage of customers who prefer OVF specifically. Before the R5 announcement, the 5DV rumour seemed to be plausible, currently it's not.
> I'm not saying nobody needs 5DV. I'm saying(guessing) the market for it will be too small.



Looking at it from a different side, which FF DSLRs with OVF have been announced lately? 1DxIII, D6 and .... ?


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 18, 2020)

tron said:


> Yes, I have seen the pictures. More buttons than the R, less than the 5DIV.


We were elaborating on the prospective weather sealing. Less buttons possibly means easier to seal?


----------



## mpb001 (Feb 18, 2020)

It seems to me that the rumored R6 would be the mirrorless equivalent to the 6D or 6DII, except it will have IBIS and a new sensor, rumored to be 20 MP, which doesn't make that much sense to me. I would think an R6 would have a new sensor in the 24-26 MP range. Especially since the R5 will be 45MP.


----------



## yeahright (Feb 18, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> If R5 is worse than 5DIV, it'll be more than a stop difference between the R5 and the A7RIV.
> But most importantly, I don't seek respect for being loyal to a brand. If Canon were paying me, maybe. But currently it's me who pays Canon. So it's Canon who should respect me as a customer and release cameras with good dynamic range.


Why should the R5 sensor be worse than that of the 5DIV, which by the time the R5 comes out will be almost 4 years old...?


----------



## Go Wild (Feb 18, 2020)

When you read that even after this amazing specs of the R5, the camera still not good for some....well, then something´s wrong in the photography world!  Now, that said, I do understand that everybody has different "personal specs", different needs...but damn....this camera with 12/20FPS, 40/45mp should be more than ok for most of the jobs/hobbies in photography. This camera can do everything, from landscape to wildlife, weddings, etc...even comercial photography if you don´t need those MF specs.
However I do understand if it´s not the camera that fit´s your needs, but that´s why camera brands launch more than 1 models.

Now....What i am failing to understand is this new R6. So let´s see what we know so far:

- Canon Rumors said to us that the camera don´t have that top LCD. That could lead us to a camera "RP style" witch means entry-level camera. However this camera is "only" 20MP when the EOS RP is 26.2MP! So why the less MP? Isn´t this weird if you are an entry level hobbist looking for a entry level camera for example? Less mp should mean less desire for the camera. Unless...it is much more cheaper than the EOS RP.

- Then we have the video specs....And video specs give us...4K60fps!!! Unless the rumor is incorrect, this entry-entry level camera will have PRO video specs!! At least in FPS...How come? Does it come with lot´s of limitations? Like no AF in 4k60, with huge crop?

-Then you have the 12FPS mechanical and 20 FPS Electronic shutter...Just like the EOS R5!!! Woww....Should an entry-entry level camera make the same FPS as the TOP model??

- SO...We have top specs in a modest 20mp sensor (Which I dont consider modest at all considering for example the 1DxmkIII), with a body that is rumored like the entry level RP (no top lcd).

We don´t really know too much about this camera but man...this specs are unbelievably confusing!!  

- What should we expect?

- Entry-entry leve camera below RP in price but crazy TOP specs but low MP sensor?
- EOS R replacement with TOP video improvement, TOP FPS but less resolution sensor?
- EOS R6 will be a video-centric camera? (this would explain 20mp sensor and TOP specs in video and FPS)
- EOS R6 is a completely new segment camera that can be considered a baby R5 with more affordable price
- EOS r6 is a APS-C camera to introduce the 7dmkII (and XXD cameras) with 20mp sensor and TOP specs of video and FPS.

Pick up your choice!!


----------



## neurorx (Feb 18, 2020)

padam said:


> Those are bigger, heavier lenses with worse optical quality. There is a reason why they are cheaper, this one will be priced close to 3000$ with the teleconverters being similarly expensive.
> This lens is aiming to be a EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM II replacement (or a direct rival to the Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM OSS) with even better optical quality and very lightweight as well.
> Also likely to work very well with a teleconverter.


I think I would prefer the 5.6 and shorter reach vs 100 mm and 7.1. Guess we can see what the f stop drop off is between 400 and 500mm.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 18, 2020)

yeahright said:


> Why should the R5 sensor be worse than that of the 5DIV, which by the time the R5 comes out will be almost 4 years old...?


We were just theorising 'what if'. Hopefully it won't be worse. Moreover if we extrapolate the 1DXIII sensor performance, it should be better than 5DIV's.
But it's Canon. Full frame 6DII sensor isn't better than the very old 6D.


----------



## Deleted member 68328 (Feb 18, 2020)

As long as what's next includes a 5D Mark V, I'm all good...


----------



## tron (Feb 18, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> We were elaborating on the prospective weather sealing. Less buttons possibly means easier to seal?


A couple of less buttons easier to seal???? They can be sealed the same way the rest of the buttons either excellently or decently or .... whatever! Just like 1Dx or 5D series or R...


----------



## padam (Feb 18, 2020)

Go Wild said:


> - Then we have the video specs....And video specs give us...4K60fps!!! Unless the rumor is incorrect, this entry-entry level camera will have PRO video specs!! At least in FPS...How come? Does it come with lot´s of limitations? Like no AF in 4k60, with huge crop?


It is not so confusing where this new model will sit in the model range: it is mid-level, not entry level. IBIS is not an entry-level feature at all. Less megapixels means fast enough for uncropped 4k full sensor readout and great low-light performance in video.
So it will go above the EOS R and under the EOS R5
So expect it to be around 2200-2500$ (closer to the latter)
The A7IV will probably also come with 4k60p and also cost a similar amount of money.


----------



## Go Wild (Feb 18, 2020)

padam said:


> It is not so confusing where this new model will sit in the model range: it is mid-level, not entry level. IBIS is not an entry-level feature at all. Less megapixels means fast enough for uncropped 4k full sensor readout and great low-light performance in video.
> So it will go above the EOS R and under the EOS R5
> So expect it to be around 2200-2500$ (closer to the latter)
> The A7IV will probably also come with 4k60p and also cost a similar amount of money.



Ok, its understandable! However, this will only attract vloggers and youtube content creators...  It will not be a desirable photo camera at all! The "old" Sony A7 III has 24MP and I predict that a new Sony A7 IV when it´s coming probably will have more a bit. Maybe 28 or so. MP are not important to me, and a difference between 24 and 20MP is completely negligible....But you know market! So...if this camera is made with great video specs to rivalize with the A7III/IV....well...don´t know if will stand out! For me, 20fps with 4k60 and 20mp would be perfectly fine...but for the market....don´t know. I can already see those travel bloggers complain about those 20MP and the most funny is that they don´t ever print a single photo! 

EDIT: Ohhh another thing.....It will have no top LCD?? How come a camera with no top LCD placed above the EOS R?


----------



## padam (Feb 18, 2020)

Go Wild said:


> Ok, its understandable! However, this will only attract vloggers and youtube content creators...  It will not be a desirable photo camera at all! The "old" Sony A7 III has 24MP and I predict that a new Sony A7 IV when it´s coming probably will have more a bit. Maybe 28 or so. MP are not important to me, and a difference between 24 and 20MP is completely negligible....But you know market! So...if this camera is made with great video specs to rivalize with the A7III/IV....well...don´t know if will stand out! For me, 20fps with 4k60 and 20mp would be perfectly fine...but for the market....don´t know. I can already see those travel bloggers complain about those 20MP and the most funny is that they don´t ever print a single photo!


From the specs it could be the top vlogging/YT camera of the year actually, that alone makes it popular, especially if it keeps C-Log as well (I think everything above the EOS R will have C-Log from now on).

The A7IV will likely going to be using the exact same sensor with new processor that enables 1.5x 4k60p crop mode.
The EOS R is also there with 30MP for those who think 20MP is not enough (it is), everything is well segmented and has its place and usage.


----------



## Gloads (Feb 18, 2020)

padam said:


> They are doing 4 FF cameras this year, we know 3 of them, if 4th is the high-megapixel mirrorless camera (which is not taken for granted), then we can expect the 5D Mark V next year, which would explain why there is no rumour about it yet. They might have the technology to put IBIS in it, too - or price it lower than the R5 due to the lack of it, keeping it more simple.


I understand the want of a 5DV. What I believe is that with the announcement of the end of development of new EF lenses, they are sending a very clear signal that they are done with DSLRs (and the last Rebel was late). One way to look at it is this; Why would Canon not get consumers in to RF mount bodies sooner, especially when they can still use their EF lenses? Consumers are not going to stampede away from Canon in protest, when their glass is still usable. I guess it boils down to this question; Will you wait until next year for an unannounced, and uvrumored 5DV, when you can buy an R5 six months sooner?


----------



## Dragon (Feb 18, 2020)

Sharlin said:


> I'm confused, did you mean the 90D has a _weak_ AA filter? "Aggressive" to me would imply a strong filter ie. more blurring.


Yes, I meant strong. The 90D has a higher pixel density than the 5DSR (which has a cancelled AAF), but not a lot more detail (to my eye anyway).


----------



## Dragon (Feb 18, 2020)

Go Wild said:


> When you read that even after this amazing specs of the R5, the camera still not good for some....well, then something´s wrong in the photography world!  Now, that said, I do understand that everybody has different "personal specs", different needs...but damn....this camera with 12/20FPS, 40/45mp should be more than ok for most of the jobs/hobbies in photography. This camera can do everything, from landscape to wildlife, weddings, etc...even comercial photography if you don´t need those MF specs.
> However I do understand if it´s not the camera that fit´s your needs, but that´s why camera brands launch more than 1 models.
> 
> Now....What i am failing to understand is this new R6. So let´s see what we know so far:
> ...


There is also the possibility that the 20MP sensor in a prototype was borrowed from the 1DS3 for testing purposes while a different sensor is being developed. Canon doesn't have a history of re-using 1 series sensors in lower level cameras.


----------



## Dexter75 (Feb 18, 2020)

PureClassA said:


> How much you want to bet on this? We have a forum of witnesses.



Too specific of a price to be on, however, you say $3500 and I say $5k. So let’s set the over/under at $4200. I’ll take the over for $50.


----------



## padam (Feb 18, 2020)

Gloads said:


> I understand the want of a 5DV. What I believe is that with the announcement of the end of development of new EF lenses, they are sending a very clear signal that they are done with DSLRs (and the last Rebel was late). One way to look at it is this; Why would Canon not get consumers in to RF mount bodies sooner, especially when they can still use their EF lenses? Consumers are not going to stampede away from Canon in protest, when their glass is still usable. I guess it boils down to this question; Will you wait until next year for an unannounced, and uvrumored 5DV, when you can buy an R5 six months sooner?


As I said, the answer is simple. Not everyone likes change. Yes, the EOS R5 is a step towards being DSLR-like with the controls, it is still not the same (less buttons, more tightly packed). No matter how good the EVF is, it is still not the same (when someone says it is, he is not telling the truth, EVFs have quite a way to go still). The adapters function the same, but the handling (weight distribution) compared to directly mounting an EF lens on a body is not the same. Durability is not quite the same as of now.
They have made significant improvements to the 1DX III AF system, why wouldn't they want to put that into a new 5D as well for people who want a DSLR, but don't want the 1DX form factor and pricing but with all the improvements the new sensor can bring? Just doesn't make sense to me.
I mean, there is only a handful of new RF lenses they can come up with every year. It still takes plenty of time to grow.
So EF might be down, but very far from being out (especially for video), as with DSLRs.


----------



## Go Wild (Feb 18, 2020)

Dragon said:


> There is also the possibility that the 20MP sensor in a prototype was borrowed from the 1DS3 for testing purposes while a different sensor is being developed. Canon doesn't have a history of re-using 1 series sensors in lower level cameras.



Yep, I believe that until we don´t know things better we can only try to guess what´s coming. Canon always tries different sensors when a camera is in tests but...don´t know...




padam said:


> From the specs it could be the top vlogging/YT camera of the year actually, that alone makes it popular, especially if it keeps C-Log as well (I think everything above the EOS R will have C-Log from now on).
> 
> The A7IV will likely going to be using the exact same sensor with new processor that enables 1.5x 4k60p crop mode.
> The EOS R is also there with 30MP for those who think 20MP is not enough (it is), everything is well segmented and has its place and usage.



Indeed, for vlogging it will be a huge camera, with those [email protected] specially if they are not cropped. I understand the segmentation you talk. But from listening to those youtubers, I know they want everything and they will thumbs down the camera if the MP will be too low. I make it clear that of course I don´t agree with this and I also don´t listen to these "influencers"...But the truth is that a big number of them´s they actually don´t understand too much of photography but they are specs geeks! 

well, I don´t think this will be a camera for my use, I will get the R5, let´s see what´s coming with this R6. Maybe could become a very handy solution to a backup body!


----------



## padam (Feb 18, 2020)

Go Wild said:


> I know they want everything and they will thumbs down the camera if the MP will be too low. I make it clear that of course I don´t agree with this and I also don´t listen to these "influencers"...But the truth is that a big number of them´s they actually don´t understand too much of photography but they are specs geeks!


That's very unlikely. The main 'problems' were the lack of IBIS, 4k crop, worse low-light, high frame rates and dual card slots.
Since Canon cameras do not dual-record video as of now (the 1DX III does proxy recording), that last one is not significant. (And they are pushing this new image.canon cloud service with their newest cameras which does provide instant raw backup).
Since all the rest has been set up really well (articulating touchscreen, DPAF, a good number of lenses with IS, adapters, Canon colours) it could be a very well-received and very popular camera.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 18, 2020)

Brown said:


> What happened to the $800 RF camera?



It's probably the RP price when the newer RF cameras show up.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 18, 2020)

SV said:


> Seems odd at this stage that we know the sensor size in MegaPixels of the R6 and not the R5



Both are based on the same type of rumors. Canon has not said anything officially at all about the R5 or even acknowledged that it exists at this point.


----------



## Gloads (Feb 18, 2020)

padam said:


> As I said, the answer is simple. Not everyone likes change. Yes, the EOS R5 is a step towards being DSLR-like with the controls, it is still not the same (less buttons, more tightly packed). No matter how good the EVF is, it is still not the same (when someone says it is, he is not telling the truth, EVFs have quite a way to go still). The adapters function the same, but the handling (weight distribution) compared to directly mounting an EF lens on a body is not the same. Durability is not quite the same as of now.
> They have made significant improvements to the 1DX III AF system, why wouldn't they want to put that into a new 5D as well for people who want a DSLR, but don't want the 1DX form factor and pricing but with all the improvements the new sensor can bring? Just doesn't make sense to me.
> I mean, there is only a handful of new RF lenses they can come up with every year. It still takes plenty of time to grow.
> So EF might be down, but very far from being out (especially for video), as with DSLRs.


When I replied I had not seen the timely rumor. I agree on most of your points, especially the EVF vs OVF. So assuming that this roadmap item is actually produced, has the same features as the R5 (execpt IBIS), and ships in 2021, how many will wait for it vs the R5. Or more importantly, as Canon is very unlikely to announce a 5DV before the R5 is shipping, how many will wait for an announcement after the R5 is already shipping (and hopefully proven)?


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 18, 2020)

PureClassA said:


> Not saying they "Wont" just saying there doesn't seem to be a need to rush. The RF line penetration at this stage is still in its infancy. Those big old suckers usually get stuck on things like the R5 level of cameras or more particularly the R1x types. I just think we wont see too much in that department until that R1X gets it's full blown, official announcement.



The EF 300mm f/2.8 was introduced in November 1987 only a few months after Canon revealed the EOS system. The first pro EOS body, the EOS-1, was not introduced until September 1989.


----------



## padam (Feb 18, 2020)

Gloads said:


> When I replied I had not seen the timely rumor. I agree on most of your points, especially the EVF vs OVF. So assuming that this roadmap item is actually produced, has the same features as the R5 (execpt IBIS), and ships in 2021, how many will wait for it vs the R5. Or more importantly, as Canon is very unlikely to announce a 5DV before the R5 is shipping, how many will wait for an announcement after the R5 is already shipping (and hopefully proven)?


It is not for people who are getting into RF, those who do that are unlikely to switch back (but if they do, they still have another option).
It is for people who are perfectly happy with EF and DSLRs.
There are still plenty of them out there and it won't make that much difference when they are going to announce it.
You have a 5D Mark III (or a 6D, etc.) and you upgrade to a 5D Mark V (or a discounted 5D Mark IV), no need to do anything else, job done.

Or you can buy an EOS R5 and get your wallet gets progressively lighter by those fancy, new and exciting RF lenses because that's probably what it will demand in the long run, not adapted lenses, which are only a stop-gap solution.


----------



## TMACIOSZEK (Feb 18, 2020)

padam said:


> It is not for people who are getting into RF, those who do that are unlikely to switch back (but if they do, they still have another option).
> It is for people who are perfectly happy with EF and DSLRs.
> There are still plenty of them out there and it won't make that much difference when they are going to announce it.
> You have a 5D Mark III (or a 6D, etc.) and you upgrade to a 5D Mark V (or a discounted 5D Mark IV), no need to do anything else, job done.
> ...



I've found this to be true. The only lens in EF mount I still use on the R is the Tamron 85mm f/1.8 VC and only because I've spent too much on RF glass already to justify replacing it. The RF versions of the trinity fully outperform their EF equivalents on the R.


----------



## jansberg (Feb 18, 2020)

A set of compact primes to add to the 35 1.8 IS.. 24 f/2, 50 f/1.8, 85 f/1.8 and 100 f/2


----------



## Rule556 (Feb 18, 2020)

Dexter75 said:


> you’re dreaming if you think the R5 is going to be $3500. Just like their overpriced RF lenses, Canon is going to charge a huge premium for being the only one with features their competition does not have. $5k for the R5 and if the R6 is even real, it’s going to be $3k.



I agree. My guess is that the only thing RP-like on the R6 will be a smaller form factor. It will be priced above the R and will be focused mostly on video whereas the R5 will be the larger all-arounder.

I've always maintained that the R is the new 6D. We may not see an R mark II, but in a couple of years you'll see an upgraded version in the same price range with a new designation. Likely still with no IBIS to keep price down for prosumers like me.


----------



## Rule556 (Feb 18, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> You tell us!



First rule of time travel. Bring references back with you to the past. How else will you win big on all of those superbowl bets?


----------



## scyrene (Feb 18, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> lagging behind.. are.you.serioius? admit it was a joke.



Not this again!



SecureGSM said:


> so let me understand:
> 
> 1. shooting in identical lighting conditions, FF vs APS-C, are you saying that you have to shoot with x1.6 wider aperture to compensate for crop factor? correct?
> 
> ...



Not this again!!



B77 said:


> I mean, *phones are coming out with 8K video* and 4K full frame cameras are $1.000 and Canon is still trying to sell us 4K 1.7 crop for $2.000+....



NOT THIS AGAIN!!!


----------



## scyrene (Feb 18, 2020)

tron said:


> And maybe that's why they might introduce 5D5. The research has already been done for R5. They don't have to make anything new they can just put R5's sensor and electronics in a mirrored body.



My view (and I've been wrong about things before) is that releasing a 5D5 is a sensible move. I see the situation as akin to the 90D being released with very similar specs to an M series body - it gives people a choice at this point, where DSLR sales are still significant. I wouldn't be surprised if the R5 got something extra though, IBIS is the obvious choice, both for technical reasons and to tempt people across. But it seems foolish to abandon the sector so soon.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 18, 2020)

LRPP said:


> 7D Mark II is 20.2 MP. The full frame equivalent should be 51.7 MP (45MP is about 17 MP crop).
> Where is the 7D MarkII upgrade?



*Crickets*


----------



## scyrene (Feb 18, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> If R5 is worse than 5DIV, it'll be more than a stop difference between the R5 and the A7RIV.
> But most importantly, I don't seek respect for being loyal to a brand. If Canon were paying me, maybe. But currently it's me who pays Canon. So it's *Canon* who *should respect me as a customer and release cameras with good dynamic range.*



So wait, are you now implying their cameras _don't_ have 'good dynamic range'? Has a tiny bit behind some competitors become 'bad'?


----------



## amorse (Feb 18, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> If R5 is worse than 5DIV, it'll be more than a stop difference between the R5 and the A7RIV.
> But most importantly, I don't seek respect for being loyal to a brand. If Canon were paying me, maybe. But currently it's me who pays Canon. So it's Canon who should respect me as a customer and release cameras with good dynamic range.


Honestly, I'd bet on better DR than worse at this point in time. The 1DXIII results just got posted on photons to photos and its DR is class leading according to the first tests - beats the 5D IV and the a9II and is a hair behind the A7RIV. 

If they improved the DR from the last generation, I'd expect them to implement that improvement in the R5 as well, though the margins between these cameras' performance are pretty small.


----------



## Czardoom (Feb 18, 2020)

scyrene said:


> Not this again!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Did you really think ignorance and stupidity would end?


----------



## amorse (Feb 18, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Looking at it from a different side, which FF DSLRs with OVF have been announced lately? 1DxIII, D6 and .... ?


Nikon D780 too.

To be fair though, not a lot of full frame bodies have come around to their typical renewal cycle recently either, so we shouldn't expect release of those bodies until they're well past their expected date. Many full frame bodies are released on a largely predictable schedule with some exceptions. Let's look at some of the renewal cycles to see which bodies should have appeared by now and haven't:

1DX - ~4 year cycles - last version in 2016, newest version announced for 2020 on target
5D - 3-4 year cycles since 5D - last version in 2016, should be due this year; typically released near September
6D - ~4.5 year cycles - last one released in 2017, so we could expect one in 2021
5DS - there's only been one release in 2015, so who knows what a typical release cycle is, though there is no suggestion a new version is coming.
D6 - 4 year cycles - last one was 2016, newest version announced for 2020 on target
D850 - 2-3 year cycles - last version in 2017, newest version should be in 2020
D750 - 6 year cycles - last version in 2014, newest version announced for 2020 on target
D600 - Unsure of cycle, but Nikon openly cancelled this line so I don't see a new one coming
K1 - honestly, who knows if Pentax will even release another full frame camera at this rate, though they did openly say they thought people would come back to mirrored shooting recently, so I don't see them moving to mirrorless.
a99 - 4 year cycles - last version was 2016, newest version would be due late 2020, though I'll bet it will never be renewed considering the success of their mirrorless line.

I'm blanking on other full frame cameras which have traditionally had an OVF which have not been released, so I would argue that while there is a lot of movement toward mirrorless, we haven't seen a lot of OVF-driven lines miss their scheduled renewals in favour of a mirrorless alternative just yet.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Feb 18, 2020)

canonnews said:


> that's not really possible.
> cRAW wouldn't change a thing for fps.



— was thinking cRAW so as not to saturate the buffer in a few seconds with 80mp files.


----------



## BeenThere (Feb 18, 2020)

Quackator said:


> And many of them use EF glass with Metabones or MC-11 adapters.
> Switching back is just one body away.
> 
> Canon will price the R5 aggressively to win those suckers
> back - and then milk them on lenses.


Just who is getting milked on lenses? I use Canon lenses.


----------



## BeenThere (Feb 18, 2020)

LRPP said:


> 7D Mark II is 20.2 MP. The full frame equivalent should be 51.7 MP (45MP is about 17 MP crop).
> Where is the 7D MarkII upgrade?


Just think of the R6 as the FF variant with similar resolution, likely better high ISO, similar mechanical frame rate, but EVF instead of OVF.


----------



## SaP34US (Feb 18, 2020)

My thoughts confirmed R5
1. 40-50mp
2. EVF of the R or better
3. Flippy
4. 8k 30 fps
5. 4k 120 fps
6. Magnesium alloy body
7. Fully weather sealed
8. 2 card slots likely CFexpress
9. 12 fps m/20 fps e
10. Digic X
11. Black and maybe black and silver
12. 3499-4499 usd maybe as low as 3000
My guess for R6 is as follows
forum factor as the RP
1. 20-26 mp
2. Better EVF then the RP but not the same as the R5 (not that the one on the RP is bad)
3. Flippy screen
4. 4k at 60 fps video uncropped maybe downssampled from 5.5k
5. 1080 at 120fps
6. No Magnesium Alloy body
7. Minimal weather sealing if any
8. One or 2 card slots likely SD UHS-II maybe UHS III
9. Photos 20-24 fps
10. Digic 9 if there is such a processor likely Digic X
11. Black and possibly other colors
12. Either 799-999 usd or 1299-1599 usd


----------



## neurorx (Feb 18, 2020)

navastronia said:


> FWIW, Jared Polin said in a video published yesterday that he believes the 100-500 will come in around $2K. I'm tempted to agree, and I also can't see myself buying it if it hits around $3K.
> 
> Maybe there will be an L series 70-300 or 70-400, with a faster aperture, that hits around the price you mention, and _that _will replace the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM II.
> 
> EDIT: and there will certainly be space for one of the above in Canon's lineup, given how slow the 100-500 is at the telephoto end.


I sincerely hope so. I really like my 100-400 II and still find that F5.6 is still pretty slow for many things. I'll likely use an adapter with it vs the R in development.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 18, 2020)

scyrene said:


> So wait, are you now implying their cameras _don't_ have 'good dynamic range'? Has a tiny bit behind some competitors become 'bad'?


No, I'm not implying that.


----------



## MadScotsman (Feb 18, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> A fast ultra-wide L prime will also be announced in 2020.



I keep parsing this over and over. I'm hung up on the "ultra" part of ultra-wide.

I've googled a bit and it seems to me that most photographers talk about wide-angle they are taking about lenses that are 24mm and up a bit.

But ULTRA wide to me would be below 24mm. 

14mm and the like? 

11mm?

Does anyone consider 24mm ULTRA wide?

Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 18, 2020)

amorse said:


> Honestly, I'd bet on better DR than worse at this point in time. The 1DXIII results just got posted on photons to photos and its DR is class leading according to the first tests - beats the 5D IV and the a9II and is a hair behind the A7RIV.
> 
> If they improved the DR from the last generation, I'd expect them to implement that improvement in the R5 as well, though the margins between these cameras' performance are pretty small.



That's exactly what I said in my previous message. The message you responded to was a response to an attack from SecureGSM...


----------



## amorse (Feb 18, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> That's exactly what I said in my previous message. The message you responded to was a response to an attack from SecureGSM...


Missed that one! These threads get so long so fast.


----------



## Go Wild (Feb 19, 2020)

Is it July already? Damn....."#$#$%"!!#"±


----------



## Quackator (Feb 19, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> Just who is getting milked on lenses? I use Canon lenses.



And you will buy Canon RF lenses after buying the R5 for sure.
They will price the R5 aggressively to make sure you won't
stick to Sony.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 19, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> If R5 is worse than 5DIV, it'll be more than a stop difference between the R5 and the A7RIV.
> But most importantly, I don't seek respect for being loyal to a brand. If Canon were paying me, maybe. But currently it's me who pays Canon. So it's Canon who should respect me as a customer and release cameras with good dynamic range.


at ISO 200 there is a ZERO difference in DR between a7Riv and 5DIV. you keep referring to metrics that are meaningless for any practical purposes. I am sorry, you your logic is weak. if you live in ISO 100 world and require even more DR and cannot afford exposure bracketing, then consider 5DIV DPRAW mode that essentially offer up to an additional 1 stop of DR in highlight areas.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 19, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> at ISO 200 there is a ZERO difference in DR between a7Riv and 5DIV. you keep referring to metrics that are meaningless for any practical purposes. I am sorry, you your logic is weak. if you live in ISO 100 world and require even more DR and cannot afford exposure bracketing, then consider 5DIV DPRAW mode that essentially offer up to an additional 1 stop of DR in highlight areas.



That's nonsense. Of course the DR measurements at ISO 100 are very practical, in terms of camera comparison. ISO 100 is used very often and in many cases it's ISO 100 only.
For landscapes, unless it's night shooting, I mostly use ISO 100. Sometimes ISO 50 which gives the same DR on 5DIV. It's very practical to me and to many landscape shooters. I prefer to not bracket when possible especially when shooting seascapes.

DPRAW + DPRSplit tool is unreliable. I've already referred to this my post several times: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/i...ic-range-using-dpaf-sensors.37447/post-787672
You can't reliably extract additional stop of DR from 5DIV.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 19, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> That's nonsense. Of course the DR measurements at ISO 100 are very practical, in terms of camera comparison. ISO 100 is used very often and in many cases it's ISO 100 only.
> For landscapes, unless it's night shooting, I mostly use ISO 100. Sometimes ISO 50 which gives the same DR on 5DIV. It's very practical to me and to many landscape shooters. I prefer to not bracket when possible especially when shooting seascapes.
> 
> DPRAW + DPRSplit tool is unreliable. I've already referred to this my post several times: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/i...ic-range-using-dpaf-sensors.37447/post-787672
> You can't reliably extract additional stop of DR from 5DIV.


that is in your very specific isolated use case where you live in ISO 100 world exclusively. and yes, you can extract up to an additional stop with DPRAW.
it is very practical for you, not for event shooters, wedding photogs, PJs, etc. who rarely even touch ISO 100 unless shoot in controlled light where your DR issue does not even exist.

in outset, the issue that you are referring to is an isolated use case, that isn't an issue for the absolute majority of photographers.
all the best.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 19, 2020)

Speaking as a switcher to Sony, I did so anticipation a 12-18 month wait for a camera with >8 FPS with autofocus. Kept EF lenses to use on Sony and hopefully on future Canon body. Have few regrets, as this is coming to pass. Was worried for a while, though. Was starting to think about selling rest of EF glass to go native Sony. That was a long quiet. R is nice, but not for action.

So, yes, I expect to sell some Sony bodies and get a couple R5s. That said, I’ll keep an A7R4 and possibly an A9 and a few lenses, as I expect Canon to refresh at about 48 months, and there might be some big developments in that time. Canon’s silence has caused me to be OK straddling systems. Not cost efficient, but a little better for me than most because I rely on multiple remotes. I think blind loyalty to a system leads to rationalization. My work in past year was noticeably helped by features EF didn’t have (especially 20 FPS, but also eye AF at the time). Looking forward to both on RF.

On lens side of things, canon RF options make me jealous, but lack of Sigma Art, etc. lens makers having figured out RF mount is less ideal.


----------



## canonnews (Feb 19, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> — was thinking cRAW so as not to saturate the buffer in a few seconds with 80mp files.


CFExpress will take care of that.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 19, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> that is in your very specific isolated use case where you live in ISO 100 world exclusively.


Landscape photography is a specific isolated use case?



SecureGSM said:


> and yes, you can extract up to an additional stop with DPRAW.
> [.............]
> in outset, the issue that you are referring to is an isolated use case, that isn't an issue for the absolute majority of photographers.



I've shown you an example where it failed. It's not 'isolated'. I had quite a few spoiled images before I stopped using DPRSplit. No, it can't be used reliably. Sometimes it works, but this conversion is not documented and can't be used _reliably _in anyone's workflow.


----------



## canonnews (Feb 19, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Landscape photography is a specific isolated use case?


Not all landscape photography requires max DR and ISO 100. I usually want faster shutter speeds even with landscape photography than ISO 100 allows.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 19, 2020)

canonnews said:


> Not all landscape photography requires max DR and ISO 100. I usually want faster shutter speeds even with landscape photography than ISO 100 allows.



However, as above, most of my landscape shots are ISO 100 or 50. Nightscapes can be in the range of ISO 100-3200. Sometimes I use higher ISOs during the daytime to shoot foliage in the wind etc. Of course it's my specific workflow but ISO 100 (or whatever base ISO) is a default go-to ISO for many landscape shooters and sensor's performance at ISO 100 is improtant for landscapes.

In fact the aggressive arguments from SecureGSM come for nothing as I wasn't blaming Canon's dynamic range. On the contrary, 1DXIII on Photonstophotos looks pretty impressive. I only stated that I wanted the future R5 to also improve in DR compared to 5DIV.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 19, 2020)

Adelino said:


> Maybe more indication that the R6 will use the 1DXIII sensor? That is supposed to be a very nice sensor even if smaller than the current 6 series. High ISO and high DR would make it worth the loss of megapixels. Also it is supposed to be sharper than other sensors due to something with the filter(?)



The 1D X Mark III sensor is a full 36x24 mm, the same size as Canon's other FF cameras.


----------



## AEWest (Feb 19, 2020)

mclaren777 said:


> Is there literally no news about the 5DV? Not even a CR1-level rumor?
> 
> I'm worried that Canon is going to focus too much on mirrorless and leave us with nothing but the 1DX3.


Bingo!


----------



## AEWest (Feb 19, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Mirrored 5DV with flip screen and better sensor would be very nice. Would I buy it when I see Canon is putting all efforts into the R line? I don't know. If they announce it right now, before the R5 release, I'd be confused. But if they ever announce it, it'll be long after the R5 release. And I'll have bought either R5 or R5s by then.
> That is, the market for 5DV shrinks significantly after the R5 release.


Agreed. Why buy new into an obsolete mount? I would really have to hate EVF to consider it, and if I did I would buy a used 5D4 at a good price as I expect that prices will fall once R5 is introduced.


----------



## davo (Feb 19, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> With the new Canon Cloud (I don't recall their brand) giving real-time continuous backups, the notion of a second card slot will be going by the wayside as archaic insurance. I'd even boldly suggest that before long some cameras (like smartphones) will have NO card slots, but just some internal memory.


I am NOT going to put up with the cost and hassle of having 300-600 45meg files uploading to the cloud during a shoot (2/3rd of which I dont even want to keep. Not even an option out in nowhere land shoots.


----------



## AJ (Feb 19, 2020)

I think Canon's next move will be a 50 mm f/7.1


----------



## Quackator (Feb 19, 2020)

davo said:


> I am NOT going to put up with the cost and hassle of having 300-600 45meg files uploading to the cloud during a shoot (2/3rd of which I dont even want to keep. Not even an option out in nowhere land shoots.



Seeing that they intend offer 10 GB of long time storage (at a cost, presumably)
and then knowing that many jobs render 30-40 GB of data before culling.......
This is not a sevice geared towards my needs.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 19, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> However, as above, most of my landscape shots are ISO 100 or 50. Nightscapes can be in the range of ISO 100-3200. Sometimes I use higher ISOs during the daytime to shoot foliage in the wind etc. Of course it's my specific workflow but ISO 100 (or whatever base ISO) is a default go-to ISO for many landscape shooters and sensor's performance at ISO 100 is improtant for landscapes.
> 
> In fact the aggressive arguments from SecureGSM come for nothing as I wasn't blaming Canon's dynamic range. On the contrary, 1DXIII on Photonstophotos looks pretty impressive. I only stated that I wanted the future R5 to also improve in DR compared to 5DIV.


my argument comes across your statement that 5D IV DR is "lagging behind" a7rIV. where in reality it is only slightly behind at ISO 100 and already at parity at ISO 200. I pointed out that your language is in-concise to obvious Canon's product disadvantage.


----------



## Proscribo (Feb 19, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Looks very promising, if R5 has a similar DR, it'll be quite satisfactory, although still lagging behind A7RIV.


If you think 1DXIII is lagging behind A7RIV I have bad news for you:


A7RIV is lagging behind the original A7R (at base gain)!


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 19, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> my argument comes across your statement that 5D IV DR is "lagging behind" a7rIV. where in reality it is only slightly behind at ISO 100 and already at parity at ISO 200.



So you're unhappy with the 'lagging behind' term I used? Seriously? I hope Canon sensors weren't abused.
It's 0.8 stops behind at ISO 100, according to PTP. 




__





Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting






www.photonstophotos.net




Whether it's a big difference or not I don't know, it depends on the usage, but it's still 'lagging behind'.

1DXIII is almost there. I'd be happy if R5 performs like 1DXIII and would be disappointed if it's worse than 5DIV. That's my criteria as a prospective buyer. Obviously it doesn't apply to your buying decisions.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 19, 2020)

Proscribo said:


> A7RIV is lagging behind the original A7R (at base gain)!


And?.. How does it change the fact the 1DXIII lags behind the A7RIV?


----------



## digigal (Feb 19, 2020)

davo said:


> I am NOT going to put up with the cost and hassle of having 300-600 45meg files uploading to the cloud during a shoot (2/3rd of which I dont even want to keep. Not even an option out in nowhere land shoots.


These guys are just nuts when they talk stuff like this when most of my shooting is in the Arctic, Antarctic, Africa, Mongolia, etc ie anywhere there is no internet or phone access!


----------



## AEWest (Feb 19, 2020)

amorse said:


> Nikon D780 too.
> 
> To be fair though, not a lot of full frame bodies have come around to their typical renewal cycle recently either, so we shouldn't expect release of those bodies until they're well past their expected date. Many full frame bodies are released on a largely predictable schedule with some exceptions. Let's look at some of the renewal cycles to see which bodies should have appeared by now and haven't:
> 
> ...


According to Mr. Nikon's (Thom Hogan) site, his dealer contacts indicate the D780 hit their shelves with a thud. No lineups or shortages. Are Nikon users buying Z models instead? Or just holding onto existing DSLRs? Time will tell.


----------



## Sdiver2489 (Feb 19, 2020)

Some of you are comparing a 61MP sensor to a 30MP sensor and coming out with parity if the dynamic range is the same on a pixel basis? You are missing one big factor if you do. When equalized to the same resolution the 5Div sensor doesn't match the dynamic range of the Sony A7Riv until ISO3200.

I'm confident Canon will do significantly better with the R5. I don't know if they will best the a7Riii/iv sensors which are amazing...but they'll come close enough for most.

What Canon lacks right now is third party support. Sony's open mount specification has let users start taking advantage of cheap third party glass. Canon has some amazing RF lenses and some real snoozers(IMO) in the F7.1 zooms and half step backs (35mm comes to mind).

If Canon can really optimize the IBIS to best the competition (which early reports indicate they have) and the sensor is in the ballpark performance-wise. All they need to do is be competitive in terms of focusing and they'll have a great A7Riii/iv competitor. I don't know if it will best the performance of the A9ii in terms of readout speed but that will have to remain to be seen.

I'll give the system some more time to flesh itself out but hopefully this is the start of something good from Canon!


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 19, 2020)

Sdiver2489 said:


> Some of you are comparing a 61MP sensor to a 30MP sensor and coming out with parity if the dynamic range is the same on a pixel basis? You are missing one big factor if you do.


those charts from photonstophotos show normalised comparison, not on per-pixel basis.


----------



## Adelino (Feb 19, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> The 1D X Mark III sensor is a full 36x24 mm, the same size as Canon's other FF cameras.


Sorry I should say less mega pixel rather than smaller.


----------



## Sdiver2489 (Feb 19, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> those charts from photonstophotos show normalised comparison, not on per-pixel basis.



Where does it say that?


----------



## Joules (Feb 19, 2020)

digigal said:


> These guys are just nuts when they talk stuff like this when most of my shooting is in the Arctic, Antarctic, Africa, Mongolia, etc ie anywhere there is no internet or phone access!


Just wait for Mr. Musk to hook you up


----------



## Joules (Feb 19, 2020)

I think we had enough discussion on DR in the other over-1000-pages-long threads to hear every side of the argument and all relevant technical aspects. Can't we just agree that there are differences in what people value (e.G. normalized vs per pixel DR, base ISO vs high ISO or both) and how much of a difference is required for them to feel that it matters?

I'm the last guy to complain about the technical discussion, but I think it was recently enough for all the back and forth on the subject to be fresh in our minds or else wise easy to read up again.


----------



## canonnews (Feb 19, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> However, as above, most of my landscape shots are ISO 100 or 50. Nightscapes can be in the range of ISO 100-3200. Sometimes I use higher ISOs during the daytime to shoot foliage in the wind etc. Of course it's my specific workflow but ISO 100 (or whatever base ISO) is a default go-to ISO for many landscape shooters and sensor's performance at ISO 100 is improtant for landscapes.



ISO 100 is important, but the immediate demand that it requires max DR for landscapes is overblown IMO. those days are long gone. it's for basically one style of landscape photography which requires extensive shadow lifting and you can't bracket exposures. there are tons of landscape styles that don't require the image to look the way that style does.

Bracketing will always yield better results than an ISO invariant shadow push if it's possible to do bracketting. But this is entirely off topic and a derailing 

dpreview made ISO invariance the holy grail of sensors until of course, canon caught up.


----------



## canonnews (Feb 19, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> And?.. How does it change the fact the 1DXIII lags behind the A7RIV?



The 1DX Mark III is designed to push out 1-2Gigapixels per second for processing. when you design for speed you suffer with DR.
So you can't compare the two cameras directly a better judge would be the D6 and A9II. which are the best fast sensors used by the competition.

The 1DX Mark III only trails the A7R IV by .4EV. No one's going to ever notice a .4 EV difference in the real world.

If a 5D or R5 receives a similar bump up that the 1DX Mark II and 5DIV shared then we should see the R5 pretty close to the A7R IV.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 19, 2020)

Sdiver2489 said:


> Where does it say that?


Here 


Sensor Analysis Primer – Engineering and Photographic Dynamic Range


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Feb 19, 2020)

canonnews said:


> The 1DX Mark III is designed to push out 1-2Gigapixels per second for processing. when you design for speed you suffer with DR.
> So you can't compare the two cameras directly a better judge would be the D6 and A9II. which are the best fast sensors used by the competition.
> 
> The 1DX Mark III only trails the A7R IV by .4EV. No one's going to ever notice a .4 EV difference in the real world.
> ...



If that's the case I would prefer the R5 to be a little slower to preserve the DR. If it can do 20fps at 45mp that's even faster readout than 1dx iii


----------



## unfocused (Feb 19, 2020)

Joules said:


> I think we had enough discussion on DR in the other over-1000-pages-long threads to hear every side of the argument and all relevant technical aspects...


Amen!


----------



## padam (Feb 19, 2020)

Chris.Chapterten said:


> If that's the case I would prefer the R5 to be a little slower to preserve the DR. If it can do 20fps at 45mp that's even faster readout than 1dx iii


They probably have a faster readout speed per pixel, but not quite as fast for the whole sensor area.
The 1DX III can record 5.5k RAW at 60fps as well, which is much faster than 20fps, it just needs to disable the AF to work with that.
I also think the 45MP estimation is a bit too much, in that case 20fps might be in some sort of a crop mode.
Of course if 4k 120fps recording is correct (I guess in a 2x crop mode), then it is certainly a fast readout sensor.


----------



## Quackator (Feb 19, 2020)

padam said:


> I also think the 45MP estimation is a bit too much, (...)



40 or 45MP are prerequisite for 8k, depending on wether it is UHD 8k or DCI 8k.
There's no way around it.



padam said:


> Of course if 4k 120fps recording is correct (I guess in a 2x crop mode), then it is certainly a fast readout sensor.



20fps translate to 50ms for the full cycle of a shot.
Sensor readout will be shorter than the full cycle.

The Nikon Z7 takes these 50ms for sensor readout time.

So yes, it is fast.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 19, 2020)

padam said:


> They probably have a faster readout speed per pixel, but not quite as fast for the whole sensor area.
> The 1DX III can record 5.5k RAW at 60fps as well, which is much faster than 20fps, it just needs to disable the AF to work with that.
> I also think the 45MP estimation is a bit too much, in that case 20fps might be in some sort of a crop mode.
> Of course if 4k 120fps recording is correct (I guess in a 2x crop mode), then it is certainly a fast readout sensor.



The 1DxIII drops down to 12-bit capture when using the electronic shutter, RAW video is also 12-bit. I expect the R5 to do the same, so the bandwidth needed for readout in e-shutter and movie mode is less than the bandwidth needed for mechanical stills mode.


----------



## BeenThere (Feb 19, 2020)

digigal said:


> These guys are just nuts when they talk stuff like this when most of my shooting is in the Arctic, Antarctic, Africa, Mongolia, etc  ie anywhere there is no internet or phone access!


Bring out the Sat-Phone. Low connection rates?


----------



## FitzwaterPhoto (Feb 19, 2020)

SV said:


> Seems odd at this stage that we know the sensor size in MegaPixels of the R6 and not the R5


As far as I am concerned they are both rumors until Canon says what they are. We "know" the R5 is 45MP like we "know" the R6 is 20.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 19, 2020)

canonnews said:


> ISO 100 is important, but the immediate demand that it requires max DR for landscapes is overblown IMO. those days are long gone. it's for basically one style of landscape photography which requires extensive shadow lifting and you can't bracket exposures. there are tons of landscape styles that don't require the image to look the way that style does.


Basically you need high DR when there's high contrast in the scene, which happens all the time. It doesn't depend on style, unless the style is shooting in fog or in shadows. Postprocessing style comes after that, and generally the cleaner the image is (less noise), the more room for postprocessing you have for whatever style.
With the exposure bracketing, I prefer to avoid it when possible. Extensive shadow lifting as a global adjustment in Lightroom isn't that extensive. For 5DIV, shadows +100 is just about +2 stops. I rarely go above +50.



canonnews said:


> The 1DX Mark III is designed to push out 1-2Gigapixels per second for processing. when you design for speed you suffer with DR.



Doesn't it come at a cost of reduced bit depth, e.g. 14 -> 12 bits, but that doesn't apply to landscape setting. If there are other sacrifices in the sensor apart from 12 bit, they're going to be the same for R5 as well because it also requires high throughput and 8K.



canonnews said:


> If a 5D or R5 receives a similar bump up that the 1DX Mark II and 5DIV shared then we should see the R5 pretty close to the A7R IV.



That's what I'm hoping for. Even +0.5ev to 5DIV would be great.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 19, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> [..]
> Doesn't it come at a cost of reduced bit depth, e.g. 14 -> 12 bits, but that doesn't apply to landscape setting. If there are other sacrifices in the sensor apart from 12 bit, they're going to be the same for R5 as well because it also requires high throughput and 8K.
> [..]



According to the manual it only drops down to 12-bit when using the electronic shutter, mechanical is using the full bit depth. I'm guessing it drops down to 12-bit to speed up the readout speed and get the rolling shutter artefacts down that way.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 19, 2020)

Quackator said:


> 40 or 45MP are prerequisite for 8k, depending on wether it is UHD 8k or DCI 8k.
> There's no way around it.
> 
> 
> ...


Jesus here we go again! Where are you going to see 8K? certainly not at the Cinema (8K is oversampled to 4K and still even 2K). Where are the 8K UHD TVs? and are you going to stand just in front of the TV to benefit from 8K? 8K in a standard cinema with a 54ft diagonal screen would put you between the screen & the front row anything further back than the front row is effectively 4K and further back, 2K.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 19, 2020)

jeffa4444 said:


> 8K in a standard cinema with a 54ft diagonal screen would put you between the screen & the front row anything further back than the front row is effectively 4K and further back, 2K.



Does that mean that 2k in a standard cinema is 720 from the back? Are the people at the back not worth 2k?


----------



## navastronia (Feb 19, 2020)

jeffa4444 said:


> Jesus here we go again! Where are you going to see 8K? certainly not at the Cinema (8K is oversampled to 4K and still even 2K). Where are the 8K UHD TVs? and are you going to stand just in front of the TV to benefit from 8K? 8K in a standard cinema with a 54ft diagonal screen would put you between the screen & the front row anything further back than the front row is effectively 4K and further back, 2K.



You seem upset, but I'm not sure why.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 19, 2020)

*Don't Be Fooled. 8K TVs Are A Waste Of Money For Most ...*
www.forbes.com › sites › kevinmurnane › 2018/10/28 › dont-be-fool...


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 19, 2020)

navastronia said:


> You seem upset, but I'm not sure why.


Im not upset Im simply pointing out that 8K is impractical in most situations to view.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 19, 2020)

Mikehit said:


> Does that mean that 2k in a standard cinema is 720 from the back? Are the people at the back not worth 2k?


Its all about the resolving power of the human eye which is effected by distance from the source.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 19, 2020)

jeffa4444 said:


> Its all about the resolving power of the human eye which is effected by distance from the source.


er….yes. 

I suggest you re-read my post.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 19, 2020)

Sdiver2489 said:


> Some of you are comparing a 61MP sensor to a 30MP sensor and coming out with parity if the dynamic range is the same on a pixel basis? You are missing one big factor if you do. When equalized to the same resolution the 5Div sensor doesn't match the dynamic range of the Sony A7Riv until ISO3200.
> 
> I'm confident Canon will do significantly better with the R5. I don't know if they will best the a7Riii/iv sensors which are amazing...but they'll come close enough for most.
> 
> ...



If the mirror-up AF performance of the 1D X Mark III is any indication, it will be Sony who needs to upgrade their AF performance to be competitive. It's unreal.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 19, 2020)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> The wording here is interesting. It suggests that we shouldn't expect fast aperture big whites for RF any time soon.
> 
> It begs the question, should we expect this at all, or will Canon rely on the (very good performing) EF-RF adapter to allow people to use big whites on any future RF camera? It does kinda make sense to not shut out people using DSLRs from using new big whites, as the 1DX MkIII just came out, and I think it's been said in the past that telephotos have little to gain from the shorter RF flange distance.
> 
> I guess at least it wouldn't be hard or cost a lot of development money to take a big white design intended for EF, just make it a little longer in the rear, and release a native RF version as well.



I think we'll see both EF and RF versions of new Super Telephoto lenses that can be sent to Canon to be converted from one mount to the other.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 19, 2020)

Joaquim said:


> I'm confused about the R3 nomenclature speculation. Did Canon have a '3' numbered DSLR as well in the past?



No, but they did have an EOS 3 film camera.


----------



## Quackator (Feb 19, 2020)

jeffa4444 said:


> Jesus here we go again! Where are you going to see 8K?



8k is for production, not for playout.
Stuff like this is actively requested, sold and employed:





The coming olympic games will be produced in 8k,
that's for sure.


----------



## Dragon (Feb 19, 2020)

mppix said:


> There is a lot more than this to the story
> - Yes, you gain 1.6x in reach
> - You loose 1.6x of light so a f4 lens becomes an effective f6.4; f5.6 becomes an effective ~f9
> - A crop sensor requires lenses that resolve 1.6^2=2.56 times as well (lenses for 32MP aps-c sensor should be designed for 82MP ff equivalent)
> - Crop sensors reach the diffraction limit 1.6^2=2.56 times faster, the 90D has a diffraction limit around f5.1


Actually, your math needs a little work. Light input is an area function, so FF has 2.56 times the light or about 1.3 stops advantage.
MTF is a linear function, so the lens needs to resolve 1.6 times as well on crop for same pixel count as FF
Diffraction is also a linear function.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 19, 2020)

Hamster said:


> I don't know if it was bad translation or what, but the Japanese press release for the R5 said early April.(maybe thats just a full spec release and preorder?)



That was for the cloud based service they mentioned would be useful with the R5, not the camera itself.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Feb 19, 2020)

I'm not really a fan of Jared Polin or any of these hysterical "youtube smartass'es". But this video is quite interesting. And it's _not _completely off-topic even though it says it is about a DSLR (1DX III)...


----------



## mppix (Feb 19, 2020)

Dragon said:


> Actually, your math needs a little work. Light input is an area function, so FF has 2.56 times the light or about 1.3 stops advantage.
> MTF is a linear function, so the lens needs to resolve 1.6 times as well on crop for same pixel count as FF
> Diffraction is also a linear function.


Thanks for pointing it out.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 19, 2020)

In the question of “Well what happens to SONY?” After Canon looks to eat their lunch.... looks like Sony is having some issues: 



Bloomberg - Are you a robot?


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Feb 19, 2020)

Canon's 2020 production schedule and parts? Sony appears to have parts problems that are going to impact it's mirrorless production.
https://petapixel.com/2020/02/19/sony-axes-mirrorless-camera-features-due-to-parts-shortage-report/


----------



## unfocused (Feb 19, 2020)

PureClassA said:


> ...
> 
> 
> Bloomberg - Are you a robot?



Hah, I thought this was a political comment.


----------



## max (Feb 19, 2020)

I have used 5D's for a long time now... I am waiting to see how this develops, but would love to see 135mm f/2.
I usually use 5D mark III, 50mm 1.2 and 135mm f/2 90% of the time. 
The 28-70 2.8 doesn't seem like a replacement because of the weight.

But bring on the 135L and I will probably change systems.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 19, 2020)

jeffa4444 said:


> *Don't Be Fooled. 8K TVs Are A Waste Of Money For Most ...*
> www.forbes.com › sites › kevinmurnane › 2018/10/28 › dont-be-fool...


I actually agree with your basic premise. On a side note, I'm finding it very amusing how television programs are cranking down the clarity in post production to conceal wrinkles and skin imperfections that show up on those 4K televisions. Spend all that money on 4K and then smear the details because no one wants to see what the actors and actresses really look like in 4K.


----------



## slclick (Feb 19, 2020)

max said:


> I have used 5D's for a long time now... I am waiting to see how this develops, but would love to see 135mm f/2.
> I usually use 5D mark III, 50mm 1.2 and 135mm f/2 90% of the time.
> The 28-70 2.8 doesn't seem like a replacement because of the weight.
> 
> But bring on the 135L and I will probably change systems.


Bring on the R5 and I will use my 135L with it.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 19, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Hah, I thought this was a political comment.


LOL I saw that after the link pasted and posted and was thinking... "Whaaaa???" I checked it after. It SHOULD be the link to an article about Sony having supply issues with DRAM and having to sacrifice upcoming CAMERA features in order to keep building the PS5 supplies


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 19, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> I think we'll see both EF and RF versions of new Super Telephoto lenses that can be sent to Canon to be converted from one mount to the other.



Amen. And the beauty is that with virtually no engineering resources, then can announce a whole slew of new RF lenses for professionals. Nearly doubling the RF lens selection in a snap. Certainly the 400 and 600 IS III models can be offered in RF. Others maybe, or just await until they (300, 500) are imminently freshened.

Maybe sooner, but certainly by (or with) the announcement of the R1, when "Mirrorless Turns Pro." Imagine the forest of white long lenses as a backdrop for the new body.

If there are low-volume orphans or lenses with imminent replacements they might not bother.

As I've said before I'll bet Canon is selling essentially no big whites to those whose primary camera is an RF. That might not yet be a big market, but as mirrorless grows it will become apparent and your prediction will come true.

I think Canon will be happy to have twice as many SKUs for big whites, and won't mind the inventory issues, but if they did, they might adopt my patent-pending invention of an RF-mount lens provided with a dematable (for EF) adapter that is not readily removed when the lens is mounted.


----------



## seasonascent (Feb 19, 2020)

jeffa4444 said:


> Jesus here we go again! Where are you going to see 8K? certainly not at the Cinema (8K is oversampled to 4K and still even 2K). Where are the 8K UHD TVs? and are you going to stand just in front of the TV to benefit from 8K? 8K in a standard cinema with a 54ft diagonal screen would put you between the screen & the front row anything further back than the front row is effectively 4K and further back, 2K.


He literally wasn't even referring to whether 8K was practical or not. He was talking about necessary Mp to achieve 8K. Not sure why you're arguing something he wasn't even talking about.


----------



## cayenne (Feb 19, 2020)

BadHorse said:


> It weighs nearly 1kg and costs over 2 grand. I'm sure it's great but I'm not sure it's a good fit for me.



I never got around to getting the EF 50 1.2.....so I'll likely get the R5, and EF adapter for all my current glass....and likely the 50 1.2 RF lens will be my first RF lens purchase....

cayenne


----------



## max (Feb 19, 2020)

Quackator said:


> 40 or 45MP are prerequisite for 8k, depending on wether it is UHD 8k or DCI 8k.
> There's no way around it.


8K resolution consists of 7680 x 4320 pixels (4320p - or the equivalent of 33.2 Megapixels)
Does it need some extra for some reason? (non sarcastic).
I remember that some cameras don't use the full fram for video, that's why I am asking.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 19, 2020)

max said:


> 8K resolution consists of 7680 x 4320 pixels (4320p - or the equivalent of 33.2 Megapixels)
> Does it need some extra for some reason? (non sarcastic).


The reason is that FF _stills_ are shot at 3:2, not at 16:9.


----------



## Stephen Stanford (Feb 19, 2020)

The sensor would be 3:2 so the pixel ratio would be 7680 x 5120 (39,321,600) or 40MP for standard 8K.
If it filmed wide 8K (8192 x 4320) then with the 3:2 sensor the pixel resolution would have to be 8192 x 5461 (44,736,512) or 45MP


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 20, 2020)

jeffa4444 said:


> Jesus here we go again! Where are you going to see 8K? certainly not at the Cinema (8K is oversampled to 4K and still even 2K). Where are the 8K UHD TVs? and are you going to stand just in front of the TV to benefit from 8K? 8K in a standard cinema with a 54ft diagonal screen would put you between the screen & the front row anything further back than the front row is effectively 4K and further back, 2K.


Aren't 8k televisions available right now? Think I saw some on Amazon. Yup. There are several 8k UHD televisions there right now.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 20, 2020)

Stuart said:


> Will the R6 have the 6Dmk2 sensor on IBIS?





myplanet said:


> You don't get more reach with a cropped sensor, reach is determined by the focal length of the lens, the image size is the same, what is different is the sensor size. To use a math analogy, the numerator stays the same, the denominator is reduced, which leads to the misconception that you are getting more reach with cropped sensors. It's an illusion that it is bigger, it's not bigger, just looks bigger as it takes up more space on a smaller sensor. When you think about it logically, obviously it isn't actually any closer, and the lens doesn't have any more reach, that dirty little misconception figured into some of early digital purchases. The benefit of the the 7D was the dual Digic processors, with one dedicated to AF, like the 1DX.
> 
> Personally, I don't know why they continue to make cropped sensors, in a contracting market, one would think less R&D and the economy of scale would out weigh the costs savings of producing a smaller sensor, I guess not. Not sure why they continue with the Rebel series, seriously, why not get that target population into an RP/RF format?



The balance between pixel density and frame rate and cost.

The 5Ds had the same pixel density as the 7D mark II. One can go 10 fps for 31 raw images for $1700. The other can only do 5 fps for 14 raw images for $3500. (prices over most of the time they have been on the market.)

Even if cost differences are eliminated, given the same generation of technology the smaller sensor will always be able to give faster frame rate for more frames at the same pixel density. Only if a heretofore unseen technology that allows Canon to double the frame rate when only reading part of the sensor (but still in full bit depth) surfaces will this change.

As for the Rebels, that path is already pretty clear: EOS M.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 20, 2020)

PureClassA said:


> Given two sensors with nearly identical pixel density....
> 
> 
> 30MP Canon EOS R / 5D4 on 400mm lens = effective 400mm reach
> ...



Nah, the 20 MP 7D mark II and the 50 MP 5Ds have identical pixel density.

A FF camera with identical pixel density to the 90D would weigh in at 80 MP, not 45 MP.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 20, 2020)

raptor3x said:


> Just means that you can't use a teleconverter with a protrusion. The protruding elements aren't a fundamental requirement of teleconverters.



Not having protruding elements appears to limit the ability to give the highest image quality, though.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 20, 2020)

Czardoom said:


> I know this is a big generalization, but I think you can categorize the Sony fans and switchers as being mostly gear-heads. They refer to "new tech" or the "latest tech" as if cameras were a new technology that is evolving quickly. In reality, there has been virtually no difference in the last 2 or 3 generation of anyone's cameras in terms of IQ - and only minor slow changes in other areas. But gear-heads are interested in having the latest - almost a need to have the latest. Whether they actually believe that the latest tech will be visible in their photography, I can't say. Whether they are most interested in boasting to others who don't have the latest is also a possibility, in my opinion.
> 
> The other non gear-head group (probably a minority on internet forums from what I can tell) would be mostly interested in exactly the things you mention. They don't compare specs from the various brands, they look at what is most important to them. They interpret value - not as which camera has the most specs, but the overall quality of the product. The first group looks at Sony and constantly says, " I get more value for the price." I would respond that having better color is not an additional spec item, but is more important. All cameras have ergonomics, so it's even on the spec sheet, but clearly not even in practice. The same for the other items you mention.
> 
> I think camera companies are not too concerned with switchers. They make a lot of noise on forums, but camera companies are more interested in serious photographers. People who are in it for the long haul. People who aren't looking for a tech gadget, but a tool as part of their photo equipment. And that means lenses - which you can use for a lifetime, where the camera's lifespan is probably 7-10 at the most.



GAS is all that is keeping the ILC industry afloat. The real photographers are such a small group compared to the GASsers that if they were the only market for upper level cameras then cameras like the 1-series would cost upwards of $10K and the 5D series would cost what the 1-series currently does.

All one has to look at are new lens designs, which are all offerings sacrificed on the altar of the Gods of the Flat Test Chart, because the GASsers all want the *SHARPEST* lens (as measured by how sharp the corners/edges are of a flat test chart shot at relatively close distance), even when that design costs compromises like rougher out of focus rendering.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 20, 2020)

canonnews said:


> that's not really possible.
> cRAW wouldn't change a thing for fps.



It would reduce the amount of data per image that has to be written to the card.

At ISO 100 the 90D has uncompressed raw files that are about 38.6 MB. The same scene using C-RAW is only 24 MB at the same 32 MP resolution.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 20, 2020)

Sharlin said:


> Absolutely not. The lens is basically an EF 100–400mm f/4.5-5.6 L II but with extra 100mm at the tele end added so there’s less need for an extender. Canon’s white L lenses don’t have three-figure prices. That just does not happen.



EF 70-200mm f/4 L


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 20, 2020)

canonnews said:


> I'm not sure IBIS will ever make it into the DSLR's .. and if it does, it will be limited because of the communication limits of the EF mount.



So Canon's early transition to an all electronic mount in 1987 is _finally_ catching up to bite them in the butt?


----------



## navastronia (Feb 20, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> All one has to look at are new lens designs, which are all offerings sacrificed on the altar of the Gods of the Flat Test Chart, because the GASsers all want the *SHARPEST* lens (as measured by how sharp the corners/edges are of a flat test chart shot at relatively close distance), even when that design costs compromises like rougher out of focus rendering.



Will you cite some examples, preferably with comparison images, so that I and surely others can see if we agree? Is the OOF rendering of the RF 85/1.2 L demonstrably worse than that of the EF 85/1.2 L II? Surely, we have all already seen how the two compare in sharpness.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 20, 2020)

Sharlin said:


> Oops, true  It's around 700 € here. But surely that's the only one under €$£1000?



With U.S. Dollars, the price is pre-tax, not post-tax as in Europe. So a high three-digit price in the U.S. for any particular lens probably means a low four-digit price for the very same lens in Europe.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 20, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> But that's CR2. The 5DV might be 'in the works', it doesn't mean the release is imminent.



Move past the headline...


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 20, 2020)

tron said:


> Even if at the worst case they make it work only for non IS lenses (finding them by using a lens database the way they use it for jpeg correction) it will still be useful like when using lenses like 85 1.2L, 135 2L, 24-70 2.8L I and II (to name but a few).



It should also then be possible to turn off the lens IS and use it with IS lenses, too.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 20, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Mirrored 5DV with flip screen and better sensor would be very nice. Would I buy it when I see Canon is putting all efforts into the R line? I don't know. If they announce it right now, before the R5 release, I'd be confused. But if they ever announce it, it'll be long after the R5 release. And I'll have bought either R5 or R5s by then.
> That is, the market for 5DV shrinks significantly after the R5 release.



Shrinks, yes.

Disappears, hardly.

Not every 5D Mark IV buyer is going to immediately jump to the R5. Perhaps not even half or one-quarter of them will.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 20, 2020)

navastronia said:


> Will you cite some examples, preferably with comparison images, so that I and surely others can see if we agree? Is the OOF rendering of the RF 85/1.2 L demonstrably worse than that of the EF 85/1.2 L II? Surely, we have all already seen how the two compare in sharpness.



I think so. The RF 85mm f/1.2 L is a bit more balanced than the EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS, but the OOF areas are still nowhere as smooth to my eye as the EF 85mm f/1.2 L II. But all of the YouTubers and other "influencers" are so obsessed on flat field performance that they don't care what the background looks like.


----------



## navastronia (Feb 20, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> I think so. The RF 85mm f/1.2 L is a bit more balanced than the EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS, but the OOF areas are still nowhere as smooth to my eye as the EF 85mm f/1.2 L II. But all of the YouTubers and other "influencers" are so obsessed on flat field performance that they don't care what the background looks like.



I guess the other point then is that it's hard to compare or make claims about things that people aren't often testing.


----------



## navastronia (Feb 20, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> I think so. The RF 85mm f/1.2 L is a bit more balanced than the EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS, but the OOF areas are still nowhere as smooth to my eye as the EF 85mm f/1.2 L II. But all of the YouTubers and other "influencers" are so obsessed on flat field performance that they don't care what the background looks like.



I remember a thread more than a year ago where some forumers were going on and on about the 35/1.4 L II and how the way the lens renders transitions from in-focus to OOF backgrounds was "bad" somehow, and I'm still mystified whenever I think about that. That's not to say that bokeh doesn't matter -- it does -- but personally, I think that the differences between good and bad bokeh are often extremely slight in premium glass. My Sigma ART 35/1.4, for instance, has wretched bokeh wide open especially on fine-textured subjects like grass, but that's an $800 lens, not an L lens starting at twice that much.

YuengLinger posted last year some comparison photos of the EF 85/1.2 L II vs. the EF 85/1.4 L IS vs. the RF 85/1.2 L and they all looked pretty damn nice, with the RF lens looking the smoothest.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 20, 2020)

navastronia said:


> I guess the other point then is that it's hard to compare or make claims about things that people aren't often testing.



As Roger Cicala (who perhaps has unwittingly contributed most to this obsession with flat test chart performance) has often said, everyone wants to be able to "measurebate" when looking at two lenses and only compare single number scores. One is a "winner" with a score of 78, while the other is a "loser" with a score of _only_ 76. And although Roger has also written plenty of articles that point to how to select a lens for a specific task based on that lens' characteristics well beyond acutance at the edge of the field when the lens is focused for best performance at the center of the field, no one listens to that because it forces them to think for themselves instead of letting some number at DxOMark (for "lens megapixels", whatever the heck that is) do their thinking for them.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 20, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Yep. They'll release 5DV if they have resources *and* think it'll be profitable. The R5 is better than a prospective 5DV in all regards, except some (small) percentage of customers who prefer OVF specifically. Before the R5 announcement, the 5DV rumour seemed to be plausible, currently it's not.
> I'm not saying nobody needs 5DV. I'm saying(guessing) the market for it will be too small.



I'm guessing you are grossly underestimating the percentage of current 5-Series users who prefer OVFs.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 20, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> Have you noticed that Sigma lenses are lower in cost than similar Canon lenses?



Have you noticed they don't AF worth a crap compared to "similar" Canon lenses?


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 20, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> We were just theorising 'what if'. Hopefully it won't be worse. Moreover if we extrapolate the 1DXIII sensor performance, it should be better than 5DIV's.
> But it's Canon. Full frame 6DII sensor isn't better than the very old 6D.



It's not the unmitigated disaster everyone a LOT of folks made it out to be, either. There's no practical real world difference between the two.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 20, 2020)

Gloads said:


> I understand the want of a 5DV. What I believe is that with the announcement of the end of development of new EF lenses, they are sending a very clear signal that they are done with DSLRs (and the last Rebel was late). One way to look at it is this; Why would Canon not get consumers in to RF mount bodies sooner, especially when they can still use their EF lenses? Consumers are not going to stampede away from Canon in protest, when their glass is still usable. I guess it boils down to this question; Will you wait until next year for an unannounced, and uvrumored 5DV, when you can buy an R5 six months sooner?



The 5D Mark V is far from unrumored. A recent post here placed it at [CR2].


----------



## navastronia (Feb 20, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> As Roger Cicala (who perhaps has unwittingly contributed most to this obsession with flat test chart performance) has often said, everyone wants to be able to "measurebate" when looking at two lenses and only compare single number scores. One is a "winner" with a score of 78, while the other is a "loser" with a score of only 76. And although Roger has also written plenty of articles that point to how to select a lens for a specific task based on that lens' characteristics well beyond acutance at the edge of the field when the lens is focused for best performance at the center of the field, no one listens to that because it forces them to think for themselves instead of letting some number at DxOMark (for "lens megapixels", whatever the heck that is) do their thinking for them.



Absolutely true. As far as test charts go, I find Christopher Frost's YouTube reviews the most enjoyable, and for my own evaluation of OOF characteristics and sharpness, I browse flickr and get a feeling for how lenses render. Scientific, no, but it does help me personally.


----------



## navastronia (Feb 20, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> It's not the unmitigated disaster everyone a LOT of folks made it out to be, either. There's no practical real world difference between the two.



My favorite thing about all the DR kerfuffle is that the dynamic range of the 6D II, 5D IV, and 1DX III are all functionally the same by ISO 1600. And when do I truly care about dynamic range performance? Well, since I mainly photograph people (indoors and out, sometimes in bad light), it's when I'm at or above ISO 1600, of course. So I really can't care.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 20, 2020)

Czardoom said:


> Did you really think ignorance and stupidity would end?



... and naivete too...


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 20, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> Just think of the R6 as the FF variant with similar resolution, likely better high ISO, similar mechanical frame rate, but EVF instead of OVF.



And far less pixel density (per dollar or per frame rate, take your pick), which is the entire point of the 7D Mark II for many users.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 20, 2020)

MadScotsman said:


> I keep parsing this over and over. I'm hung up on the "ultra" part of ultra-wide.
> 
> I've googled a bit and it seems to me that most photographers talk about wide-angle they are taking about lenses that are 24mm and up a bit.
> 
> ...



20mm is generally considered Ultrawide on FF.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 20, 2020)

navastronia said:


> My favorite thing about all the DR kerfuffle is that the dynamic range of the 6D II, 5D IV, and 1DX III are all functionally the same by ISO 1600. And when do I truly care about dynamic range performance? Well, since I mainly photograph people (indoors and out, sometimes in bad light), it's when I'm at or above ISO 1600, of course. So I really can't care.
> View attachment 188833



My comment was regarding the 6D vs the 6D Mark II.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 20, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> That's exactly what I said in my previous message. The message you responded to was a response to an attack from SecureGSM...



"Attack?" 

This post?

Really?


----------



## navastronia (Feb 20, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> My comment was regarding the 6D vs the 6D Mark II.



Yeah, and in expanding on that, I'm saying that by ISO 1600, it's irrelevant to compare dynamic range performance on most cameras, like the ones I described --- which includes the 6D mk. II, which gets dumped on all the time. At common usable ISOs, it keeps pace with the just-released 1DX mk. III.

Additionally, there is so little daylight between the 6D and 6D mk. II sensors, it makes me laugh how often people bring it up, as if they could tell, if presented with 2 photos, which one was taken on which body, even at low ISOs where there is *some* measurable difference.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 20, 2020)

AEWest said:


> According to Mr. Nikon's (Thom Hogan) site, his dealer contacts indicate the D780 hit their shelves with a thud. No lineups or shortages. Are Nikon users buying Z models instead? Or just holding onto existing DSLRs? Time will tell.



The difference is that with Nikon the Z-series is the first mount in Nikon's history that finally sheds all of the disadvantages of hanging on to mechanical, rather than all-electronic, communication between camera and lens. Canon crossed that bridge in 1987, so it is a bit different in Canonland.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 20, 2020)

jeffa4444 said:


> Im not upset Im simply pointing out that 8K is impractical in most situations to view.



Impractical to _view_ is not the same thing as impractical for _capture_ before post processing. With 8K, cropping, panning/scanning, etc. are all on the table before outputting to 4K, 2K, or even FHD.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 20, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> I'm guessing you are grossly underestimating the percentage of current 5-Series users who prefer OVFs.


Yeah all that talk is just my un-educated guess. Some people may prefer OVF but would shoot with EVF as well. There aren't many genres that _require_ zero lag and OVF.


----------



## Quackator (Feb 20, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Not every 5D Mark IV buyer is going to immediately jump to the R5.



Every single 5D Mk4 buyer I know is ready to jump, some 
just want to wait for a couple of months for the first price 
adjustment. None of them says to prefer OVF and mirror.

You might be surprised.


----------



## Quackator (Feb 20, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> But all of the YouTubers and other "influencers" are so obsessed on flat field performance that they don't care what the background looks like.



Good thing I'm no influencer.





Bokeh Masters by Trust your Eyes: Preise


Bokeh Masters, Wettbewerb, Ablauf




www.bokeh-masters.com





Read the process part first and then go to comparison to do your own double blind test.

Only after completing your own go to home and look at the
all star results, in order to not spoil it for you.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 20, 2020)

Quackator said:


> Good thing I'm no influencer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, even though it tells me which lens is worth buying if I ever back to the market for a FF 50mm prime lens, the only Canon 50mm lens present in the tests was 50/1.8 STM.

Also, I'm not convinced on the practical utility of just 77 comparisons and just 1 scene to rank 74 lenses with so vast differences in focal range.


----------



## padam (Feb 20, 2020)

Another leaked picture, pre-production model is in the hands of professionals, availability expected before the Tokyo Olympics


----------



## tron (Feb 20, 2020)

Quackator said:


> Every single 5D Mk4 buyer I know is ready to jump, some
> just want to wait for a couple of months for the first price
> adjustment. None of them says to prefer OVF and mirror.
> 
> You might be surprised.


How many 5D MkIV buyers do you know?


----------



## Mark3794 (Feb 20, 2020)

padam said:


> Another leaked picture, pre-production model is in the hands of professionals, availability expected before the Tokyo Olympics


Look at this chunky boy!


----------



## AlanF (Feb 20, 2020)

Quackator said:


> Every single 5D Mk4 buyer I know is ready to jump, some
> just want to wait for a couple of months for the first price
> adjustment. None of them says to prefer OVF and mirror.
> 
> You might be surprised.


You clearly don't know me. Or Tron. Or...
I might buy, but it will be despite the EVF. Why can't some people get it into their heads that there are cons as well as pros of EVF.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 20, 2020)

Whether I buy an R5 or not depends on the lenses that come out for my own personal needs. If the R 100-500mm is light, sharp and with fast AF, it will draw me in. If it isn't, then I will just wait and stick with my current excellent gear.


----------



## Go Wild (Feb 20, 2020)

padam said:


> Another leaked picture, pre-production model is in the hands of professionals, availability expected before the Tokyo Olympics



LOVE at first sight!


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 20, 2020)

Go Wild said:


> LOVE at first sight!



It's a very sexy-looking device. I'm not very fond of the more angular look of the R and RP, but this one brings back just enough "Canon curves" while still being recognizably its own thing.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 20, 2020)

He's holding it tight, clearly indicates a heavy camera with 45Mp, not just a lightweight 40...



padam said:


> Another leaked picture, pre-production model is in the hands of professionals, availability expected before the Tokyo Olympics


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 20, 2020)

navastronia said:


> I remember a thread more than a year ago where some forumers were going on and on about the 35/1.4 L II and how the way the lens renders transitions from in-focus to OOF backgrounds was "bad" somehow, and I'm still mystified whenever I think about that. That's not to say that bokeh doesn't matter -- it does -- but personally, I think that the differences between good and bad bokeh are often extremely slight in premium glass. My Sigma ART 35/1.4, for instance, has wretched bokeh wide open especially on fine-textured subjects like grass, but that's an $800 lens, not an L lens starting at twice that much.
> 
> YuengLinger posted last year some comparison photos of the EF 85/1.2 L II vs. the EF 85/1.4 L IS vs. the RF 85/1.2 L and they all looked pretty damn nice, with the RF lens looking the smoothest.


I don't know nuthin' about no got dang test charts or yootube in-fluencers.  What I can tell you is that the oof areas and transitions rendered by the RF 85mm f/1.2L are absolutely horrid and that you should never buy the lens. I tell you this as an actual owner of the lens, not some guy just pontificating.  Stay away.  I used to own the EF 35mm f/1.4L II... horrible lens.


----------



## BillB (Feb 20, 2020)

navastronia said:


> Additionally, there is so little daylight between the 6D and 6D mk. II sensors, it makes me laugh how often people bring it up, as if they could tell, if presented with 2 photos, which one was taken on which body, even at low ISOs where there is *some* measurable difference.


If I remember right, the uproar when the 6DII came out was because the DR of the 6DII wasn't any better than the 6D when some noisy people wanted a bump in the DR magic number that would match the 5DIV.


----------



## BillB (Feb 20, 2020)

Quackator said:


> Every single 5D Mk4 buyer I know is ready to jump, some
> just want to wait for a couple of months for the first price
> adjustment. None of them says to prefer OVF and mirror.
> 
> You might be surprised.


This 5DIV owner not going to buy either an R5 or an 5DV in the foreseeable future. If Canon does not release a 5DV, most likely it will keep the 5DIV on the market.


----------



## Quackator (Feb 20, 2020)

tron said:


> How many 5D MkIV buyers do you know?



Given that I run two professional rental studios.... a bunch of them.


----------



## Quackator (Feb 20, 2020)

Kit. said:


> Well, even though it tells me which lens is worth buying if I ever
> back to the market for a FF 50mm prime lens, the only Canon
> 50mm lens present in the tests was 50/1.8 STM.



We had to make do with what the visitors to the event brought.
This isn't a permanent thing, for lack of time, and it doesn't try 
to cover every lens on the market.



Kit. said:


> Also, I'm not convinced on the practical utility of just 77 comparisons
> and just 1 scene to rank 74 lenses with so vast differences in focal range.



It is meant to give people a rough idea, and to exercise some image 
analysis without the brand name or price tag overshadowing every 
thought.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 20, 2020)

Quackator said:


> Given that I run two professional rental studios.... a bunch of them.


Maybe you are biasing your observations to those who shoot in rental studios rather than the great outdoors?


----------



## Quackator (Feb 20, 2020)

Some do both.


----------



## BeenThere (Feb 20, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> And far less pixel density (per dollar or per frame rate, take your pick), which is the entire point of the 7D Mark II for many users.


Did not know the price had been announced.


----------



## BeenThere (Feb 20, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Have you noticed they don't AF worth a crap compared to "similar" Canon lenses?


Not my experience.


----------



## Go Wild (Feb 20, 2020)

Sharlin said:


> It's a very sexy-looking device. I'm not very fond of the more angular look of the R and RP, but this one brings back just enough "Canon curves" while still being recognizably its own thing.



Yep! True! I really like this look, the R and RP ins not so beautiful. But this one..... Yaayy!!


----------



## BeenThere (Feb 20, 2020)

padam said:


> Another leaked picture, pre-production model is in the hands of professionals, availability expected before the Tokyo Olympics


I never shoot while wearing cuff links.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 20, 2020)

Quackator said:


> It is meant to give people a rough idea, and to exercise some image
> analysis without the brand name or price tag overshadowing every
> thought.


I haven't found anything surprising at the top of my list, and I don't think I can trust its bottom: maybe those lenses were just unlucky in framing vs. their alternatives in comparison.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 20, 2020)

Quackator said:


> Every single 5D Mk4 buyer I know is ready to jump, some
> just want to wait for a couple of months for the first price
> adjustment. None of them says to prefer OVF and mirror.
> 
> You might be surprised.



It's going to be a lot more than two months before the price on this one drops any. And that is assuming the coronavirus doesn't delay production.


----------



## AEWest (Feb 20, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> It's going to be a lot more than two months before the price on this one drops any. And that is assuming the coronavirus doesn't delay production.


I agree. I wouldn't expect a price drop in the first year unless Canon charges a substantial premium over a 5D (say $5K) and they find the sales slow because of this.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 20, 2020)

Quackator said:


> Good thing I'm no influencer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My results:

First: Schneider 150mm f/3.5 (Medium Format)
Second: EF 85mm f/1.2 L II on APS-C
Third: EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II (At longer focal lengths/narrower angles of view there's not much field curvature that needs correcting)
Fourth: Olympus 45mm f/1.8 (Many MFT lenses leave the correction to software in the camera's processing engine - I know no specifics for this lens)
Fifth: Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.8G (2011 budget design)
Sixth: Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM on FF (2010 design well before the obsession with FF correction that marks the later ART series)
Seventh: Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM on APS-C (2010 design well before the obsession with FF correction that marks the later ART series)
Eighth: Nikon 50mm f/1.8 (unknown version - presumably pre-AF era since no AF or AF-S in designation)
Ninth: EF 85mm f/1.2 L II on FF
Tenth: Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.8G (older, less corrected design)
Eleventh: Leica 50mm f/2 Apo-Summicron-M ASPH on FF
Twelvth: Canon 85mm f/1.8 on FF
Thirteenth: Fuji 56mm f/1.2 FX R on APS-C
Fourteenth: Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 VC on FF (2012 version?)
Fifteenth: EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro on APS-C (non-L) - This is the first one that surprised me as it is optimized for close focus and has significant flat field correction.
Sixteenth: Nikon 85mm f/1.4 on FF (Unknown version - presumably pre-AF era since no AF or AF-S in designation)
Seventeenth: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM on APS-C (2008 design well before the obsession with FF correction that marks the later ART series)
Eighteenth: Sony 35mm f/2.8 FE ZA (First E-mount lens on list - only scored a 3)
Nineteenth: Leica 50mm f/0.96 Noctilux-M ASPH shot at f/2.4 on FF
Twentieth: Sigma 50mm f/2.8 DG Macro on FF (1998 design. Though a macro, doesn't show as much (if any) flat field correction as more expensive macro lenses)
Twenty-first: Sony 50mm f/1.8 E OSS on APS-C (cheap 2011 design)
Twenty-second: Nikkor AF-S 50mm f/1.4G on FF(2011 standard double Gauss design)

Everything else scored 2 or less points. This included another example of the EF 85mm f/1.2 L II on APS-C and of the EF 85mm f/1.8 on FF. Also included the EF 100mm f/2.8 L Macro that is highly corrected for field curvature and optimized for close focus, two Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM, the current EF 35mm f/2 IS, and both Canon FD 85mm f/1.8 lenses. All of the zooms other than the Tamron listed above.

Dead last: One of the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART samples. The other one scored 1 point.

On the global poll, the older sigmas beat the "sharper" ART lenses hands down. Other than the Otus at the top of the list, most of the top 15 are older designs less corrected for flat field and thus "softer" on the edges and corners than newer high end designs. The Otus is an interesting lens with very flat field of focus but distinctive mild astigmatism on the outer 1/3 of the field.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 20, 2020)

Quackator said:


> Every single 5D Mk4 buyer I know is ready to jump, some
> just want to wait for a couple of months for the first price
> adjustment. None of them says to prefer OVF and mirror.
> 
> You might be surprised.



I'm a 5D Mark IV buyer/user. I'm far from ready to jump.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 20, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> Did not know the price had been announced.



If the 45 MP R5 is introduced for less than the original $1,799 price of the Canon EOS 7D Mark II I'll eat my shoes.

If the R6 is introduced for less than 1/2.56X ($703) the original $1,799 price of the Canon EOS 7D Mark II, which would be the same price per pixel density, then I'll eat my shoes, my socks, and my underwear.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 20, 2020)

Kit. said:


> Well, even though it tells me which lens is worth buying if I ever back to the market for a FF 50mm prime lens, the only Canon 50mm lens present in the tests was 50/1.8 STM.
> 
> Also, I'm not convinced on the practical utility of just 77 comparisons and just 1 scene to rank 74 lenses with so vast differences in focal range.



Even that one scene was shot at different exposures with different camera positions that affected how the blown out highlights affected each other. There were several conspicuous lenses absent that should have been included, i.e. EF 135mm f/2, EF 200mm f/2.8, EF 200mm f/2, Nikon 105mm f/1.4, etc. There weren't very many of the modern "sharpness is everything" lenses on the list either.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 20, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Even that one scene was shot at different exposures with different camera positions that affected how the blown out highlights affected each other.


Yeah, I noticed that some bokeh ball combinations looked better just because of slightly lower exposure, leading to less overexposed (less distracting) highlights.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 20, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> I never shoot while wearing cuff links.



I never shoot with my thumb sticking way up in the air like that.


----------



## Rule556 (Feb 20, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> I never shoot with my thumb sticking way up in the air like that.



How uncultured.


----------



## myplanet (Feb 22, 2020)

AlanF said:


> You clearly don't know me. Or Tron. Or...
> I might buy, but it will be despite the EVF. Why can't some people get it into their heads that there are cons as well as pros of EVF.




Trying to get more insight, what are the downsides of the EVF? Battery usage, not sure of the amount, but that doesn't bother me, I don't go through a battery when shooting, so, a spare or two solves that issue for me. I think the AF is better, so that is a plus, I like the DOF WYSIWYG of the EVF. Lag is stated to be an issue, I haven't found it an issue, but I don't shoot sports or BIF, so I tend not to think about it from that perspective. Lag versus blackout on a dslr, again, doesn't really factor in my shooting, so looking at others opinions.

I love my 5D3, but I also love my R. For me, I love the feel of the 5D3, fits my hands. To me the 2 cons of the R, it's slow (not going to be an issue based on R5 specs), and it's too small. I bought the grip to give it a better feel in the hands. I would love a R with the form factor of the 5D, but with a fully articulating screen, which may be a sealing issue, I don't know, just guessing, as they didn't put one on the 1Dx3.

As much as I love the 5D3, not sure I would go back, I love the RF glass. My understanding of the RF physics, that the better optics are with wide lenses, not telephoto.


----------



## Czardoom (Feb 23, 2020)

myplanet said:


> Trying to get more insight, what are the downsides of the EVF? Battery usage, not sure of the amount, but that doesn't bother me, I don't go through a battery when shooting, so, a spare or two solves that issue for me. I think the AF is better, so that is a plus, I like the DOF WYSIWYG of the EVF. Lag is stated to be an issue, I haven't found it an issue, but I don't shoot sports or BIF, so I tend not to think about it from that perspective. Lag versus blackout on a dslr, again, doesn't really factor in my shooting, so looking at others opinions.
> 
> I love my 5D3, but I also love my R. For me, I love the feel of the 5D3, fits my hands. To me the 2 cons of the R, it's slow (not going to be an issue based on R5 specs), and it's too small. I bought the grip to give it a better feel in the hands. I would love a R with the form factor of the 5D, but with a fully articulating screen, which may be a sealing issue, I don't know, just guessing, as they didn't put one on the 1Dx3.
> 
> As much as I love the 5D3, not sure I would go back, I love the RF glass. My understanding of the RF physics, that the better optics are with wide lenses, not telephoto.



I switched over to mirrorless a couple of years ago for the sole reason of being able to see and better judge exposure in the EVF. That, as far as I am concerned is the only plus - although you do get a lighter view in the EVF in darker conditions, so I guess that makes two pluses. You do NOT get DOF WYSIWYG in the EVF with the R or any other mirrorless camera that I have seen, so no advantage there. Cons: Battery usage, lag, more difficult to use in many cases in sunlight (depending on the sun's angle - almost impossible in some cases).


----------



## Rule556 (Feb 23, 2020)

Czardoom said:


> You do NOT get DOF WYSIWYG in the EVF with the R or any other mirrorless camera that I have seen, so no advantage there.



The R has a DOF preview that can be mapped to a button. I have it on the multi function button behind the shutter. It allows you to visualize the actual DOF. Of course, the camera focuses fully open so normally you’re seeing DOF on the thinner side.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 23, 2020)

Rule556 said:


> The R has a DOF preview that can be mapped to a button. I have it on the multi function button behind the shutter. It allows you to visualize the actual DOF. Of course, the camera focuses fully open so normally you’re seeing DOF on the thinner side.



But DSLRs have that button too, so it's not an advantage of EVFs (which I believe was the discussion).


----------



## Joules (Feb 23, 2020)

scyrene said:


> But DSLRs have that button too, so it's not an advantage of EVFs (which I believe was the discussion).


DSLR also don't show the true DOF for certain apertures because the focusing screen tends to increase it. Only in LiveView or an EVF will DOF preview really do what it is supposed to.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 23, 2020)

Joules said:


> DSLR also don't show the true DOF for certain apertures because the focusing screen tends to increase it. Only in LiveView or an EVF will DOF preview really do what it is supposed to.



Okay, fair point, I'd forgotten that. It's been a long time since I shot wider than f/2.8


----------



## Joules (Feb 23, 2020)

myplanet said:


> Trying to get more insight, what are the downsides of the EVF?


There is always going to be a delay between something happening in the scene and it being displayed in the EVF.

That is because first, the image needs to be read from the sensor. Then it needs to be processed to look like the JPEG would, if you'd take a picture at this instant (WYSIWYG). Then time could pass until the EVF is ready to be refreshed. And the refresh also takes a time, because pixels don't change state instantly. All these delays add up. If this lag is an issue depends on how small each amount of time is and how fast the subject moves. So it depends on the camera and use case. We will likely come to a point where for all but the most extreme use cases, the cameras will have so little delay that it is not an issue anymore. We'll see how close to that we are in Canon land once the R5 releases.

Then there might also be the issue of blur. It depends on the implementation. But usually displays refresh at a fixed rate, e.g. 60 times per second on most current consumer displays. During the time between the refreshes, the image stays constant. Displays only cause the illusion of motion across the screen. If you follow an object that moves around on the screen with your eye, you will see this object blur, because your eyes moves while the images actually are still for the duration between refreshes. The quicker the refreshes, the less the blur is visible. That's the reason why for video games with fast action for example, high refreshrates like 144 Hz or 200 Hz and beyond have become so popular, and why that's also the refresh rate of certain EVFs*. Once you hit a sufficiently high refresh rate, using techniques like backlight stobing or black frame insertion to effectively turn the display on just before and off just after a refresh can completely eliminate the blur. This is similar to how the old CRT monitors achieve their blur free motion.

If you want to see the effect demonstrated, or check out how good your display is, this website is a popular way for that:









Blur Busters TestUFO Motion Tests. Benchmark for monitors & displays.


Blur Busters UFO Motion Tests with ghosting test, 30fps vs 60fps vs 120hz vs 144hz vs 240hz, PWM test, motion blur test, judder test, benchmarks, and more.




www.testufo.com





The images move at different refresh rate, so if you follow one with your eye you'll be able to see the difference in perceived blur.

But as long as EVFs on Canon mirrorless don't use sufficiently advanced tech, there's a blurring of fast moving subjects that is different from how an OVF looks.

*The removable EVF for the M cameras has 120 Hz, for the EVF on the Canon R and RP I haven't found any official information, but hopefully the R5 will have 120 Hz or more, since they already have that as an option for the lower end accessory.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 23, 2020)

myplanet said:


> Trying to get more insight, what are the downsides of the EVF?


“I’ve finally figured out what’s wrong with photography. It’s a one-eyed man looking through a little ’ole. Now, how much reality can there be in that?” — David Hockney

Now, with the EVF, what the one-eye man is looking at through the hole is a TV.

(or at least that's implied in the idea that the EVF has WYSIWYG)


----------



## Rule556 (Feb 23, 2020)

scyrene said:


> But DSLRs have that button too, so it's not an advantage of EVFs (which I believe was the discussion).



To be clear, they inferred that it wasn’t possible, not that it wasn't better than an OVF.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 23, 2020)

Joules said:


> DSLR also don't show the true DOF for certain apertures because the focusing screen tends to increase it. Only in LiveView or an EVF will DOF preview really do what it is supposed to.



Unless the EVF has the same resolution the final image, you're not getting a "true" DoF preview. Blur too small to see on a scaled down version seen in the EVF may be large enough to see on the full resolution image.


----------



## Joules (Feb 23, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Unless the EVF has the same resolution the final image, you're not getting a "true" DoF preview. Blur too small to see on a scaled down version seen in the EVF may be large enough to see on the full resolution image.


Sure, but in case of an OVF the DOF you're seeing is altered beyond just the viewing dependent aspect.

I didn't say you're getting true DOF on an EVF, but that the DOF buttons does what it's supposed to do. That is, show how the image looks at the given aperture and view size.


----------



## myplanet (Feb 24, 2020)

Jared Polin had a video last week where he had a Hoodman Loupe over the screen of the 1Dx3 in LiveView, and he came away very impressed with the shots he was getting shooting a woman college basketball game, and extrapolating that to what he thinks Canon can do on the mirrorless front.

I guess I don't know what to think with sensor heating issues and it's effect on image noise and sensor life. Do you think Canon has an improved heat sink, like some of the astro-conversions? Battery life isn't as big of a deal to me, my LowePro Whistler 450 has enough space to tuck 4 spare batteries

My most pressing question is the price of the new RF 100-500, I'm thinking $2399 or $2599. The RF 24-105 f/4 was $100 cheaper on sale than the EF, which I didn't understand, but happily enjoyed. If the EF 100-400 list price is $2199, I'm assuming the new lens will be a bit more, but maybe Canon will quiet the 7.1 folks by just a modest increase, instead of the $600 difference for the 70-200. I hate all the suspense.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 24, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Impractical to _view_ is not the same thing as impractical for _capture_ before post processing. With 8K, cropping, panning/scanning, etc. are all on the table before outputting to 4K, 2K, or even FHD.


I think your trying to teach me to suck eggs! Were renting Red 8K cameras


Michael Clark said:


> Impractical to _view_ is not the same thing as impractical for _capture_ before post processing. With 8K, cropping, panning/scanning, etc. are all on the table before outputting to 4K, 2K, or even FHD.


I think your trying to teach me to suck eggs! We rent Red 8K cameras Im well aware as Ive stated that oversampling / pan & scan are available to those that chose to shoot full 8K (which often they dont). My point was outputting 8K as a viewable image is impractical unless you know something I dont?


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 24, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Aren't 8k televisions available right now? Think I saw some on Amazon. Yup. There are several 8k UHD televisions there right now.


They are. However viewing distances remain the same so practically they add very little to the viewing experience.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 24, 2020)

jeffa4444 said:


> I think your trying to teach me to suck eggs! We rent Red 8K cameras Im well aware as Ive stated that oversampling / pan & scan are available to those that chose to shoot full 8K (which often they dont).


Then what did agitate you so much in this post?



jeffa4444 said:


> My point was outputting 8K as a viewable image is impractical unless you know something I dont?


Your point was irrelevant, unless one really needs to output the captured 8k as a 8k viewable image (for example, for security applications).


----------



## slclick (Feb 24, 2020)

jeffa4444 said:


> They are. However viewing distances remain the same so practically they add very little to the viewing experience.


Yet they detract much from your savings.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 24, 2020)

Kit. said:


> Then what did agitate you so much in this post?
> 
> 
> Your point was irrelevant, unless one really needs to output the captured 8k as a 8k viewable image (for example, for security applications).


Its not irrelevant when TV companies are trying to sell consumers 8K TVs without them understanding the limitations, its not irrelevant when movie theatres will not be able to handle 8K content yet producers are being told they are future proofing. 

Refresh rates, and wider color gamut are worthwhile investments, 8K origination for oversampling but people need to understand the physical limitations of the human eye and viewing distances. Security applications by comparison to domestic is a much smaller market and even then it only relates to using specific enhancing technology most ordinary people would not need.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 24, 2020)

jeffa4444 said:


> Its not irrelevant when TV companies are trying to sell consumers 8K TVs without them understanding the limitations, its not irrelevant when movie theatres will not be able to handle 8K content yet producers are being told they are future proofing.
> 
> Refresh rates, and wider color gamut are worthwhile investments, 8K origination for oversampling but people need to understand the physical limitations of the human eye and viewing distances. Security applications by comparison to domestic is a much smaller market and even then it only relates to using specific enhancing technology most ordinary people would not need.


So what are the limitations again? If I am sitting 10' from a 55" screen that is outputting my 720, 1080, 2k, 4k, or 8k... what are the limitations to me as a consumer at those various outputs if I happen to have an 8k television? Are you saying I will see no difference? After all, I won't be in a theater and viewing from 100' away or changing my viewing distance at all. My viewing distance is a permanent constant. After that is considered, then what is the benefit to the content producer? I'll see no difference in video between my 1080 vs 8k SOOC? My assumption is that the bigger the screen the higher the resolution needs to be to look good.

My present screen is just 1080, which looks great to me. However, I am comparing to what I was used to watching on a CRT television or projection TV for most of my life. Big 4k televisions can be had now for under $500. I would imagine 8k will get cheap too. It's funny because I can remember when 1080 HD DVD players were going for near $1,000 20 years ago.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 24, 2020)

jeffa4444 said:


> Its not irrelevant when TV companies are trying to sell consumers 8K TVs without them understanding the limitations, its not irrelevant when movie theatres will not be able to handle 8K content yet producers are being told they are future proofing.


Are you talking about... Sony?

As far as I know, Canon is not a TV company or a movie producer.


----------



## slclick (Feb 24, 2020)

8k tv buyers most likely make up less than 1% of consumers. It's not an issue.


----------



## slclick (Feb 24, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> So what are the limitations again? If I am sitting 10' from a 55" screen that is outputting my 720, 1080, 2k, 4k, or 8k... what are the limitations to me as a consumer at those various outputs if I happen to have an 8k television? Are you saying I will see no difference? After all, I won't be in a theater and viewing from 100' away or changing my viewing distance at all. My viewing distance is a permanent constant. After that is considered, then what is the benefit to the content producer? I'll see no difference in video between my 1080 vs 8k SOOC? My assumption is that the bigger the screen the higher the resolution needs to be to look good.
> 
> My present screen is just 1080, which looks great to me. However, I am comparing to what I was used to watching on a CRT television or projection TV for most of my life. Big 4k televisions can be had now for under $500. I would imagine 8k will get cheap too. It's funny because I can remember when 1080 HD DVD players were going for near $1,000 20 years ago.


What is really being broadcast in 8K at this point to take advantage of your screen rez handling it? 4K broadcasting is still not at the saturation level.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 24, 2020)

slclick said:


> What is really being broadcast in 8K at this point to take advantage of your screen rez handling it? 4K broadcasting is still not at the saturation level.


Yeah, but that is not my question. My question has to do with video I "might" take with an 8k or even 4k camera and playing it back on my television... which isn't 4k right now, but might be by Christmas. I just saw a 55" 4k UHD TV in Walmart for $398. Am I to understand that if I shoot in 4k on an R5 (no crop) that the picture wouldn't be any better than if I had shot at 1080 if played back on a 4k TV? That's what I am getting at since it seems a bunch of us now have the capability to shoot 4k and that 4k televisions are getting dirt cheap compared to 3 years ago. I should have been more clear, but I assumed that what was being said was that there is no advantage to 8k camera video for a consumer. Isn't there if that consumer is playing back on an 8k TV? All this talk about viewing distance vs human eye resolution, when most everyone at home is sitting 10-15" from the screen, is getting a little cumbersome on my brain. It is like reading about DR. I won't be broadcasting or have my video shown in theaters. Like most everyone else here, my stuff will be shown at home.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 24, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Yeah, but that is not my question. My question has to do with video I "might" take with an 8k or even 4k camera and playing it back on my television... which isn't 4k right now, but might be by Christmas. I just saw a 55" 4k UHD TV in Walmart for $398. Am I to understand that if I shoot in 4k on an R5 (no crop) that the picture wouldn't be any better than if I had shot at 1080 if played back on a 4k TV?


My laptop screen is 4k and I'm nearsighted, so if I want to say "your non-4k youtube video looks like crap", I have every right to do so, especially if the video was shot at 24p.


----------



## slclick (Feb 24, 2020)

"Thanks for staying with us after that 8k segue, now back to 'What's Next from Canon in 2020'


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 24, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> So what are the limitations again? If I am sitting 10' from a 55" screen that is outputting my 720, 1080, 2k, 4k, or 8k... what are the limitations to me as a consumer at those various outputs if I happen to have an 8k television? Are you saying I will see no difference? After all, I won't be in a theater and viewing from 100' away or changing my viewing distance at all. My viewing distance is a permanent constant. After that is considered, then what is the benefit to the content producer? I'll see no difference in video between my 1080 vs 8k SOOC? My assumption is that the bigger the screen the higher the resolution needs to be to look good.
> 
> My present screen is just 1080, which looks great to me. However, I am comparing to what I was used to watching on a CRT television or projection TV for most of my life. Big 4k televisions can be had now for under $500. I would imagine 8k will get cheap too. It's funny because I can remember when 1080 HD DVD players were going for near $1,000 20 years ago.


Hey, DVD was a 720i resolution capable. No 1080P at the time. 
Pal/secam/ntsc. BluRay was an 1080p tech initially and then they upgraded standard to 2K.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 26, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> So what are the limitations again? If I am sitting 10' from a 55" screen that is outputting my 720, 1080, 2k, 4k, or 8k... what are the limitations to me as a consumer at those various outputs if I happen to have an 8k television? Are you saying I will see no difference? After all, I won't be in a theater and viewing from 100' away or changing my viewing distance at all. My viewing distance is a permanent constant. After that is considered, then what is the benefit to the content producer? I'll see no difference in video between my 1080 vs 8k SOOC? My assumption is that the bigger the screen the higher the resolution needs to be to look good.
> 
> My present screen is just 1080, which looks great to me. However, I am comparing to what I was used to watching on a CRT television or projection TV for most of my life. Big 4k televisions can be had now for under $500. I would imagine 8k will get cheap too. It's funny because I can remember when 1080 HD DVD players were going for near $1,000 20 years ago.



The average US TV size is 60" = optimum viewing distances as follows, 1080P 7.7ft, 4K 4ft, 8K 2ft


----------



## slclick (Feb 26, 2020)

jeffa4444 said:


> The average US TV size is 60" = optimum viewing distances as follows, 1080P 7.7ft, 4K 4ft, 8K 2ft


Closer to 45-47 according to multiple electronics stats orgs.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 26, 2020)

jeffa4444 said:


> The average US TV size is 60" = optimum viewing distances as follows, 1080P 7.7ft, 4K 4ft, 8K 2ft


----------



## slclick (Feb 26, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


>


OMG that totally sailed right by me, LOL


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 26, 2020)

slclick said:


> OMG that totally sailed right by me, LOL


I'm a little thick.  It just means one can sit closer to a larger tv in a small room and not notice lines (old crt) or pixels. 2' from the screen? Yeah, okay. lol So there *is* an advantage to 8k in my imaginary videos I will take. I can get an 85" screen in a small room rather than having to sit 15' away from an old crt television with rabbit ears. https://www.crutchfield.com/S-0WSQQdOK2k9/learn/learningcenter/home/TV_placement.html

Now, time to listen to the Doobie Brothers.  The tedious nature of things is getting me nervous. Especially the DR that factors into all this, which is the real advantage of 4k or 8k over 1080. hmmm... is 8k art?


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Feb 26, 2020)

Quackator said:


> Every single 5D Mk4 buyer I know is ready to jump, some
> just want to wait for a couple of months for the first price
> adjustment. None of them says to prefer OVF and mirror.
> 
> You might be surprised.


As a 5D mk 4 owner may I just say that I plan to continue using this camera for several years to come. Also I prefer the OVF to every EVF that I have used - although of course I have not tried the EVF on the R5 yet. The two other photographers i know who use 5D mark 4s feel much the same way. It does everything they need it to do so there is no compelling reason to change.
However, the published specs for the R5 are interesting and if the production version lives up to expectations then i will probably buy one to be used alongside my 5D mk4, at least until I have had time to use it for a while. In the end I might keep both cameras, or move fully to the R5, or go back to using my 5D mk for all serious work but for now i want to keep an open mind rather than making an expensive mistake that i later come to regret.


----------



## Rule556 (Feb 26, 2020)

jeffa4444 said:


> The average US TV size is 60" = optimum viewing distances as follows, 1080P 7.7ft, 4K 4ft, 8K 2ft



We have a 65" and sit about 15' away. I've tried skootching up our couch a few inches a day to see if my wife notices we're getting closer, but she does. 

Every. Single. Time.

Feng Shui is really messing with my optimum viewing experience.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 26, 2020)

Rule556 said:


> We have a 65" and sit about 15' away. I've tried skootching up our couch a few inches a day to see if my wife notices we're getting closer, but she does.
> 
> Every. Single. Time.
> 
> Feng Shui is really messing with my optimum viewing experience.


"Optimum viewing" in @jeffa4444 example has little to do with optimum viewing. The advantage is being able to use ever larger televisions in ever smaller rooms without taking an IQ hit. Saving for an 85" 4k now for what will be an awesome 10' viewing distance experience. An 85" 720 or 1080 that size and at that distance would not be as good.  https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-relationship


----------



## Rule556 (Feb 26, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> "Optimum viewing" in @jeffa4444 example has little to do with optimum viewing. The advantage is being able to use ever larger televisions in ever smaller rooms without taking an IQ hit. Saving for an 85" 4k now for what will be an awesome 10' viewing distance experience. An 85" 720 or 1080 that size and at that distance would not be as good.  https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-relationship



Oh, yes. I was just being funny. Our 65" looks great at all resolutions... But real 4K content is pretty amazing.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 26, 2020)

Rule556 said:


> Oh, yes. I was just being funny. Our 65" looks great at all resolutions... But real 4K content is pretty amazing.


Yeah, I knew you were just joshing.  I have a little 1080p 38" screen right now. I'm in a tiny apartment so I don't really know where I'd put something bigger.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 26, 2020)

jeffa4444 said:


> I think your trying to teach me to suck eggs! Were renting Red 8K cameras
> 
> I think your trying to teach me to suck eggs! We rent Red 8K cameras Im well aware as Ive stated that oversampling / pan & scan are available to those that chose to shoot full 8K (which often they dont). My point was outputting 8K as a viewable image is impractical unless you know something I dont?



Every example you gave in your original comment to which I was responding was an output device, not a capture device nor an intermediate processing device.

My point stands that just because 8K is currently impractical for _output devices_ does not mean it is not useful for _capture devices_. The cameras in question are _capture devices_.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 26, 2020)

jeffa4444 said:


> Its not irrelevant when TV companies are trying to sell consumers 8K TVs without them understanding the limitations, its not irrelevant when movie theatres will not be able to handle 8K content yet producers are being told they are future proofing.
> 
> Refresh rates, and wider color gamut are worthwhile investments, 8K origination for oversampling but people need to understand the physical limitations of the human eye and viewing distances. Security applications by comparison to domestic is a much smaller market and even then it only relates to using specific enhancing technology most ordinary people would not need.




Talking about the impracticality of _output devices_ when discussing _8K for capture devices_ is irrelevant, unless the resolution of the output device exceeds the resolution of the capture device.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 27, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Talking about the impracticality of _output devices_ when discussing _8K for capture devices_ is irrelevant, unless the resolution of the output device exceeds the resolution of the capture device.


Irrelevant to who? Yours is one opinion and no one person is an expert.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 27, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> "Optimum viewing" in @jeffa4444 example has little to do with optimum viewing. The advantage is being able to use ever larger televisions in ever smaller rooms without taking an IQ hit. Saving for an 85" 4k now for what will be an awesome 10' viewing distance experience. An 85" 720 or 1080 that size and at that distance would not be as good.  https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-relationship


The reality is apart from wealthier families most homes could not cope with an 85" TV unless it was like wallpaper they are simply too small. In Europe homes are way smaller than the US and in Asia smaller still.


----------



## Trey T (Feb 27, 2020)

Brown said:


> What happened to the $800 RF camera?


That's the RP; it's the mirrorless type Rebel line. I predict that all of the RF camera will be FF sensor, per "consolidation" theme that was reported by the Canon rep couple yrs ago.

You probably want the EOS-M line (e.g. M5 or M6) as this segment will likely to use mostly (if not all) APS-C


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 3, 2020)

jeffa4444 said:


> Irrelevant to who? Yours is one opinion and no one person is an expert.



Irrelevant to those talking about capture devices, that's who. Sometimes one person can be an expert. Otherwise there would be no need for the existence of the word.


----------

