# Here are a few Canon EOS R10 specifications [CR3]



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 10, 2022)

> The Canon EOS R10 will become the entry-level RF Mount camera with APS-C image sensors. I think it’s safe to say that this camera is the likely successor to the Canon EOS M5 & Canon EOS M6 Mark II, the latter was recently discontinued by Canon.
> Canon EOS R10 Specifications
> 
> 24.2mp
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 10, 2022)

I like these specs if the 4K will be without crop and using dual pixel AF. I hope the R10 will be as small as possible.


----------



## jolyonralph (May 10, 2022)

Are there going to be any compact lenses like ef-m 22 
The M6 and the ef-m 22 is a small enough combination to fit in my pocket.


----------



## vjlex (May 10, 2022)

This sounds perfect for me. I only recently bought the M50, but it was only a stopgap until an inevitable R replacement was available. Can't believe it's only a couple weeks away from announcement!


----------



## EOS 4 Life (May 10, 2022)

jolyonralph said:


> Are there going to be any compact lenses like ef-m 22
> The M6 and the ef-m 22 is a small enough combination to fit in my pocket.


The larger mount and flange distance should make everything larger. It should still be much smaller than EF-S.


----------



## Blue Zurich (May 10, 2022)

Please have a VF or it's no use to use with already having an R6 and an iPhone 12 , well...for my uses and eyes.


----------



## lote82 (May 10, 2022)

I'm so excited about this camera ... but even more about the excuses M-lovers will find!


----------



## Chaitanya (May 10, 2022)

With decent 3rd party Macro lenses for RF crop already being available along with Venus Laowa 85mm macro, depending on size this could be a great carry around macro body(if its under $800).


----------



## JustUs7 (May 10, 2022)

lote82 said:


> I'm so excited about this camera ... but even more about the excuses M-lovers will find!


Confirming what I’ve said for a while now. The, “M is *******” folks are more worried about the, “I told you so!”, then any actual information. 

Keep saying the same thing long enough, eventually you’ll be right. 

R is *******! You heard it here first. I call dibs on credit when it gets replaced!

* Can’t say a word that begins with ‘D’ and ends with an, “MED”, it seems. Couple ‘O’s in the middle.


----------



## lote82 (May 10, 2022)

JustUs7 said:


> Confirming what I’ve said for a while now. The, “M is *******” folks are more worried about the, “I told you so!”, then any actual information.
> 
> Keep saying the same thing long enough, eventually you’ll be right.
> 
> ...


Your anger and frustration tastes good! 
Can I have more please?


----------



## John Wilde (May 10, 2022)

It could have a tiny body like the M100.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (May 10, 2022)

John Wilde said:


> It could have a tiny body like the M100.


No, but maybe as small as the m6 II


----------



## grantmasterflash (May 10, 2022)

So it will be roughly equivalent to a 5 year old camera but will be bigger in size? Time to sell all of my current gear! 
Canon has to make an R camera that's actually better than the latest M cameras for the M users to even consider buying it. If it's not better than what's the point? Yes, we could put some really expensive, large lenses on it but that's about it. Please make it better.


----------



## grantmasterflash (May 10, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> No, but maybe as small as the m6 II


Probably not as small as the m6 II as the mount is about 6 mm larger but if they could get close I'd consider it. The lenses however will always be giant in comparison. EF-M lenses are tiny. Strangely EF-M is 1 mm larger than Sony's E-mount for full frame. You always know a Sony lens because it tulips right off the mount. Maybe RF-S lenses can do the opposite?


----------



## lote82 (May 10, 2022)

grantmasterflash said:


> So it will be roughly equivalent to a 5 year old camera but will be bigger in size? Time to sell all of my current gear!
> Canon has to make an R camera that's actually better than the latest M cameras for the M users to even consider buying it. If it's not better than what's the point? Yes, we could put some really expensive, large lenses on it but that's about it. Please make it better.


You see some specs and therefore you already know how big and good the camera will be? 
You must be a genius!


----------



## EOS 4 Life (May 10, 2022)

grantmasterflash said:


> Probably not as small as the m6 II as the mount is about 6 mm larger but if they could get close I'd consider it. The lenses however will always be giant in comparison. EF-M lenses are tiny. Strangely EF-M is 1 mm larger than Sony's E-mount for full frame. You always know a Sony lens because it tulips right off the mount. Maybe RF-S lenses can do the opposite?


The E-Mount was originally for APS-C


----------



## LSXPhotog (May 10, 2022)

Excellent…I thought we only had the R7 to be excited about. I am extremely curious to learn more about this camera and any potential small lenses that may be available with them. If we’re really seeing a new entry-level APS-C RF camera then it absolutely means we’re going to see a new kit lens for it. I just hope we don’t see the outrageous trait of EF-S mount lenses not being comparable with full-frame RF.

Also, I still dream of the day we see Canon make an AE-1 inspired camera just because they’re fun.


----------



## JustUs7 (May 10, 2022)

lote82 said:


> Your anger and frustration tastes good!
> Can I have more please?


Who’s angry and frustrated? I find your giddiness amusing.


----------



## LensFungus (May 10, 2022)

Canon EF-M users who keep on telling people that replacing EF-M mount is a total unrealistic move by Canon:


----------



## Del Paso (May 10, 2022)

Well done, Canon!
This is the answer to the "M" dilemma I've been waiting for.


----------



## Del Paso (May 10, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Well done, Canon!
> This is the answer to the "M" dilemma I've been waiting for. One lens mount for all!


----------



## JustUs7 (May 10, 2022)

grantmasterflash said:


> So it will be roughly equivalent to a 5 year old camera but will be bigger in size? Time to sell all of my current gear!





grantmasterflash said:


> Canon has to make an R camera that's actually better than the latest M cameras for the M users to even consider buying it. If it's not better than what's the point? Yes, we could put some really expensive, large lenses on it but that's about it. Please make it better.


If they could spec it out like the M6II with similar size and cost, it’d be tempting if my wife’s M6II should die in a few years. The thought of putting my RF 100-400 f/5.6-8 on that sensor is a positive one.

For now the R7 sounds like a weather sealed M6II for possibly twice the money and the R10 is an M50II sensor and M6II performance (fps, etc) for maybe the same price as an M6II (total guess)?

Interested to see if everything gets the Digic X processor going forward.


----------



## David - Sydney (May 10, 2022)

I am happy for the APS-C supporters to get the camera that you guys were asking for. 
What is now interesting to me is 
- Will the M200 be replaced by R mount equivalent body?
- Will the RP be replaced?
- What RFs lenses will be available to replace the M ecosystem (assuming that it will be replaced) and what size/weight they will be. I assume a quality wide angle for the R7 users as well

EF-m lenses (all 60.9mm diameter)
11–22mm f/4 – 5.6 IS 220 g
15–45mm f/3.5 – 6.3 IS 130 g
18–55mm f/3.5 – 5.6 IS 210 g
18–150mm f/3.5 – 6.3 IS 300 g
55–200mm f/4.5 – 6.3 IS 260 g
22mm f/2 105 g
28mm f/3.5 IS Macro 130 g
32mm f/1.4 IS 235g


----------



## m4ndr4ke (May 11, 2022)

Judging by its name, I expect this R10 to be a replacement for the 80D/90D — a bit more like the 80D, since the 90D took some features from the 7D Mark II that should now be exclusive to the R7, like the joystick. And I don’t think its body will be shaped in any way like a M6 nor M5.

Also, I would expect the R7 to have the same body as the R6, or maybe even that of the R5.

Maybe a future R100 (hypothetically) could be shaped like a M6 or M5, a cute little camera for the masses.


----------



## Tremotino (May 11, 2022)

NO DUAL CARD SLOT?!?! 

ONLY SD?! NO CFexpress???

WHAT A CRIPPLED CAMERA 

this Camera will be old tech bevore it is going to be announced. What a shame Canon! 

I'M NOW SWITCHING TO SONY!!


----------



## Blue Zurich (May 11, 2022)

*with added lower case for your enjoyment*

I've said it before and I'll say it again blah blah blah...

*More choices, better for everyone (except forum complainers) *

(The rational ones are easy to spot on these type of threads and I thank you for your contributions)


----------



## masterpix (May 11, 2022)

m4ndr4ke said:


> Judging by its name, I expect this R10 to be a replacement for the 80D/90D — a bit more like the 80D, since the 90D took some features from the 7D Mark II that should now be exclusive to the R7, like the joystick. And I don’t think its body will be shaped in any way like a M6 nor M5.
> 
> Also, I would expect the R7 to have the same body as the R6, or maybe even that of the R5.
> 
> Maybe a future R100 (hypothetically) could be shaped like a M6 or M5, a cute little camera for the masses.


You mean the R-ebel camera. But it is only a matter of time until they do it, so Canon will have a full line of R series, starting from the R-ebel, to the RXX and ending up in the R1.


----------



## -pekr- (May 11, 2022)

I know the design is a highly subjective matter, but for me, EOS M5 was one of the ugliest cameras Canon has ever released. The viewfinded bump was just terrible. I really love the m6II design lines, but I also know that many ppl could not live without a viewfinder. Sony A7c design like plese - a viewfinder without a bump.


----------



## Surab (May 11, 2022)

Why does it go back to 24MP? If it's a M5/M6 or 90D replacement it should use at the very least the old 32MP sensor.

I am fully expecting the R7 to use a modern 32MP sensor, if it is a true 7D-like camera that will cost 1500+.


----------



## tapanit (May 11, 2022)

Surab said:


> Why does it go back to 24MP? If it's a M5/M6 or 90D replacement it should use at the very least the old 32MP sensor.
> 
> I am fully expecting the R7 to use a modern 32MP sensor, if it is a true 7D-like camera that will cost 1500+.


Maybe it uses the R3 24Mp sensor. A new 24Mp sensor would be better than an old 32Mp one.


----------



## PDJ (May 11, 2022)

This seems more likely to be the 90D successor, thus the double-digit naming convention.


----------



## Surab (May 11, 2022)

tapanit said:


> Maybe it uses the R3 24Mp sensor. A new 24Mp sensor would be better than an old 32Mp one.


But the R3 uses a FF sensor and this is rumored to be an APSC camera. I do hope it's a new and improved 24MP sensor though.


----------



## m4ndr4ke (May 11, 2022)

masterpix said:


> You mean the R-ebel camera. But it is only a matter of time until they do it, so Canon will have a full line of R series, starting from the R-ebel, to the RXX and ending up in the R1.


I guess so. I'm in Europe, so...no Canon Rebels here.




-pekr- said:


> I know the design is a highly subjective matter, but for me, EOS M5 was one of the ugliest cameras Canon has ever released.


You mean, one of the prettiest cameras they ever made I wish I bought it back in the day, I loved that camera. But now is too late.
The viewfinder bump is really useful. It helps to avoid hitting the screen with your nose, and moving the focusing points accidentally.




Surab said:


> Why does it go back to 24MP? If it's a M5/M6 or 90D replacement it should use at the very least the old 32MP sensor.
> 
> I am fully expecting the R7 to use a modern 32MP sensor, if it is a true 7D-like camera that will cost 1500+.


My guess is the sensor on the R7 is the same from the 90D/M6 Mark II, which is ok and has barely been used since it was released, so it makes sense reusing it.
But that sensor really hits hard on the glass. There is no kit lens, or budget lens, that can reproduce a high quality image with so many pixels in such a small area. Pixel density on that sensor is the same to that of a ~80MP full-frame sensor. That really needs GOOD glass.
I expect the R7 to be an expensive APS-C body, aimed at users that can afford the best RF lenses, so they can get the best out of that sensor.

And I hope this 24MP sensor is the same from the 80D, which is excellent, but doesn't hit as hard on the glass, and does ok with consumer level lenses.


----------



## lustyd (May 11, 2022)

LensFungus said:


> Canon EF-M users who keep on telling people that replacing EF-M mount is a total unrealistic move by Canon:


It's not unrealistic, but they will need to release an entire line of RF-M lenses to replace the current EF-M lineup. Sure they'll have an RF mount, but they need to be the size of the M lenses. Right now they have zero lenses that fit that description. It's entirely possible they will release an M6ii replacement with RF mount along with full lineup of small lenses this month, in which case none of the M users would be bothered, we'd happily buy that system. 
The frustrating thing is all the people saying just use RF lenses, or the M6ii needs a built in EVF who are entirely missing the purpose of that system. The M6ii is designed perfectly for its purpose, the main issue with it is going to be if EF lenses disapear there will be very little choice of larger lens.

And if anyone suggests a fully articulating screen they need to be shot. Creepy side glances are bad on video!


----------



## lustyd (May 11, 2022)

m4ndr4ke said:


> The viewfinder bump is really useful. It helps to avoid hitting the screen with your nose, and moving the focusing points accidentally.


Surely removing the EVF achieves the same thing, my M6ii is never anywhere near my nose!


----------



## m4ndr4ke (May 11, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Surely removing the EVF achieves the same thing, my M6ii is never anywhere near my nose!


The fact that the M6's are cameras sold most of the time without the EVF accessory offends me, I would never buy a camera without an EVF. I already have a smartphone that I can use at arms length.
Plus, the concept of the removable EVF blocks the user from attaching a flash to the camera.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 11, 2022)

-pekr- said:


> I know the design is a highly subjective matter, but for me, EOS M5 was one of the ugliest cameras Canon has ever released. The viewfinded bump was just terrible. I really love the m6II design lines, but I also know that many ppl could not live without a viewfinder. Sony A7c design like plese - a viewfinder without a bump.



I agree and same for the M50 or Nikon Z50. The design is not bad but the big viewfinder bump on the top kills the compactness. That's why i prefer the M6 or even RP.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (May 11, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> - Will the M200 be replaced by R mount equivalent body?


That does not seem possible given the larger mount and flange distance


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 11, 2022)

m4ndr4ke said:


> The fact that the M6's are cameras sold most of the time without the EVF accessory offends me, I would never buy a camera without an EVF. I already have a smartphone that I can use at arms length.
> Plus, the concept of the removable EVF blocks the user from attaching a flash to the camera.


Does your smartphone cover a focal length range from 11-200mm, and have an APS-C size sensor? If so, good for you. Mine certainly doesn’t.


----------



## lustyd (May 11, 2022)

m4ndr4ke said:


> The fact that the M6's are cameras sold most of the time without the EVF accessory offends me, I would never buy a camera without an EVF. I already have a smartphone that I can use at arms length.
> Plus, the concept of the removable EVF blocks the user from attaching a flash to the camera.


And that's great, personally I chose it because it doesn't have one. I got one in the box but I never use it as I don't need it for video.


----------



## Random Orbits (May 11, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Surely removing the EVF achieves the same thing, my M6ii is never anywhere near my nose!


My family and I were at the national parks of NM and TX a few weeks ago, and there were three times that someone took photos for us of the entire family. Each time, the person held the R5 with lens at arms length. I wonder how that can be comfortable but I guess that is what they are used to doing.


----------



## m4ndr4ke (May 11, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Does your smartphone cover a focal length range from 11-200mm, and have an APS-C size sensor? If so, good for you. Mine certainly doesn’t.


I don't take pictures with my smartphone. Not only because I have a camera that makes a much better job, but also because I hate shooting at arms length 
Of course I use the phone's camera for taking notes and snapping random stuff, but nothing that I would consider "worth keeping", it's mostly things that I delete afterwards.



Random Orbits said:


> Each time, the person held the R5 with lens at arms length. I wonder how that can be comfortable


Go figure...


----------



## steen-ag (May 11, 2022)

Tremotino said:


> NO DUAL CARD SLOT?!?!
> 
> ONLY SD?! NO CFexpress???
> 
> ...


Do that


----------



## lustyd (May 11, 2022)

Random Orbits said:


> My family and I were at the national parks of NM and TX a few weeks ago, and there were three times that someone took photos for us of the entire family. Each time, the person held the R5 with lens at arms length. I wonder how that can be comfortable but I guess that is what they are used to doing.


Were the pictures any good? There's no inherent benefit to a viewfinder, it's just there because that's how many people learned to take pictures. The stability of holding it close can still be achieved with a screen, although I imagine a good number of these cameras will never take any photos anyway, video will be the primary use-case where an EVF is not only a waste of space but takes up valuable real estate which could have been used for a mic or speaker. I also have no use for a flash on mine and would love to see a model where that is replaced with a bright LED array.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 11, 2022)

m4ndr4ke said:


> Not only because I have a camera that makes a much better job, but also because I hate shooting at arms length


I don't shoot at arms' length with my M6. I tuck in my elbows just like with my R3 and 1D X. Yes, the 3rd contact point of the eyecup is lost, but the rig is much lighter and that 3rd contact point isn't needed to hold the camera steady. 

The camera that does the best job is the one you have with you when you want to take a picture. Sometimes that's a smartphone. When traveling light, bringing a FF ILC and lenses is not feasible. Bringing an M6 and 2-3 lenses takes less space than one sneaker.


----------



## m4ndr4ke (May 11, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, the 3rd contact point of the eyecup is lost, but the rig is much lighter and that 3rd contact point isn't needed to hold the camera steady.


The EVF isn’t what would make the camera significantly heavier. It’s an electronic viewfinder, not a pentaprism, it’s a lightweight component. 
Plus, we’re comparing an oled EVF to an okay IPS LCD display.
And, yes…stability.
If you could only own one camera, would a camera like the M6 Mark II be your choice? Or would you pick something with an integrated EVF? No need to go high-end, for instance, a M50 is also very light. 

When I’m travelling light, I just take my EF 40mm f/2.8 mounted on my R6. I’m still hoping for that RF 40mm f/1.8 to become true.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 11, 2022)

m4ndr4ke said:


> The EVF isn’t what would make the camera significantly heavier. It’s an electronic viewfinder, not a pentaprism, it’s a lightweight component.
> Plus, we’re comparing an oled EVF to an okay IPS LCD display.
> And, yes…stability.


The point is not that an EVF adds weight. The point is that a FF ILC and the L-series lenses I typically use (e.g. R3 + 14-35/4L) are substantially heavier than the M6 with EF-M lenses (e.g. M6 + M11-22). The former benefits from a 3rd contact point (eyecup), for the latter it's not needed because the rig is so much lighter. The M5 would work, as well, but I don't find the EVF necessary in any way.



m4ndr4ke said:


> If you could only own one camera, would a camera like the M6 Mark II be your choice? Or would you pick something with an integrated EVF? No need to go high-end, for instance, a M50 is also very light.


If I could own only one, at this point it would be the R3. But I wouldn't always bring it with me. My iPhone is always with me, but that's a huge step down in photographic capability. The M6 fits nicely in between – only a small step down in IQ, and a lot more portable.



m4ndr4ke said:


> When I’m travelling light, I just take my EF 40mm f/2.8 mounted on my R6. I’m still hoping for that RF 40mm f/1.8 to become true.


A single 40mm lens would not suit me for travel photography. My usually kit is either the R3, 11-24/4L, 24-105/4L and TS-E 17 or the R3, 14-35/4L, 24-105/4L and 100-500. For a light load, it's the M6, M11-22 and M18-150.


----------



## bbasiaga (May 11, 2022)

As I've been thinking about this - I too wonder if this is more 90D or more Digital rebel/xxxD successor? 

Could it also be an M successor? Find out in 2 weeks. My first thought was we're still in full size body mode like the DSLRs, and not compact mirrorless. But that was just a though. 

Brian


----------



## Random Orbits (May 11, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Were the pictures any good? There's no inherent benefit to a viewfinder, it's just there because that's how many people learned to take pictures. The stability of holding it close can still be achieved with a screen, although I imagine a good number of these cameras will never take any photos anyway, video will be the primary use-case where an EVF is not only a waste of space but takes up valuable real estate which could have been used for a mic or speaker. I also have no use for a flash on mine and would love to see a model where that is replaced with a bright LED array.



The pictures turned out ok, especially after I told them how to use back-button focus. I prefer the EVF, especially when using larger lenses or when it's bright outside.


----------



## lustyd (May 11, 2022)

m4ndr4ke said:


> If you could only own one camera, would a camera like the M6 Mark II be your choice?


Yes. I own the 90D and the M6ii and I'd certainly get rid of the 90D first. As it stands the 90D is permanently mounted to my work desk for video with a 10-22 lens attached. It's not worth removing from the mount as it's too bulky to carry about, so I bought the M6ii with 11-22 for wandering about. It's basically the same camera without the bulk. Sure, the lens isn't quite as good, but it's barely noticable on video or photo if you're looking at the content, and I use my camera to create content for people to see, not critique.


----------



## Dragon (May 11, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Yes. I own the 90D and the M6ii and I'd certainly get rid of the 90D first. As it stands the 90D is permanently mounted to my work desk for video with a 10-22 lens attached. It's not worth removing from the mount as it's too bulky to carry about, so I bought the M6ii with 11-22 for wandering about. It's basically the same camera without the bulk. Sure, the lens isn't quite as good, but it's barely noticable on video or photo if you're looking at the content, and I use my camera to create content for people to see, not critique.


The M 11-22 isn't quite as fast and has slightly less range than the EF-s 10-22, but it is sharper at every focal length (particularly in the periphery) and it has IS. In my view, that makes the 11-22 a far "better" lens. I also have both a 90D and an M6 II, and the only clear advantage (other than the VF) is the cropped, oversampled 4k video, which is arguably the best 4k video in a Canon (non-cinema) camera prior to the R5 and R6. The 90D is also handy when swinging a long lens, but unfortunately the SLR AF is not that impressive.


----------



## grantmasterflash (May 11, 2022)

lote82 said:


> You see some specs and therefore you already know how big and good the camera will be?
> You must be a genius!


You could read the rumored specs too if you're able and you don't even have to be a genius. Here's a couple of numbers you should pay attention to - 24 is less than 32.5 and 14 is less than15.


----------



## Tangent (May 11, 2022)

It looks like the RF16mm F2.8 STM will fit in nicely here, its deficiencies towards the edge largely cropped out.


----------



## lote82 (May 11, 2022)

grantmasterflash said:


> You could read the rumored specs too if you're able and you don't even have to be a genius. Here's a couple of numbers you should pay attention to - 24 is less than 32.5 and 14 is less than15.


Does that mean a 32.5mp sensor is always better than a 24mp sensor? Foolish me always thinking too complicated! Never thought it's that simple! 

Thank you for enlighten me with your wisdom, Master!


----------



## Del Paso (May 11, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Were the pictures any good? There's no inherent benefit to a viewfinder, it's just there because that's how many people learned to take pictures. The stability of holding it close can still be achieved with a screen, although I imagine a good number of these cameras will never take any photos anyway, video will be the primary use-case where an EVF is not only a waste of space but takes up valuable real estate which could have been used for a mic or speaker. I also have no use for a flash on mine and would love to see a model where that is replaced with a bright LED array.


"No benefit to a viewfinder": I hope you are kidding.
Ever tried to use a 600mm or a macro without tripod only using the screen to focus and frame?


----------



## lote82 (May 11, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> The point is not that an EVF adds weight. The point is that a FF ILC and the L-series lenses I typically use (e.g. R3 + 14-35/4L) are substantially heavier than the M6 with EF-M lenses (e.g. M6 + M11-22). The former benefits from a 3rd contact point (eyecup), for the latter it's not needed because the rig is so much lighter. The M5 would work, as well, but I don't find the EVF necessary in any way.


1. No, the point is the camera is not becoming significantly heavier. EVF-DC2 for ex. weights about 30 grams. 

2. A "so much lighter" (which is not!) rig can't be held more stable because it's lighter. It's rather the opposite. Having no 3rd contact point even increases the instability!


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 11, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> "No benefit to a viewfinder": I hope you are kidding.
> Ever tried to use a 600mm or a macro without tripod only using the screen to focus and frame?


Not with the 600/4 (except on a tripod). But for macro, yes...frequently. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever used the VF with my MP-E 65, and only rarely with my EF 100L. For example this shot with the MP-E 65, which was taken with the 5DII in Live View at 5x magnification with the front of the lens shoved into a bush:





Before the R and R3, I would use the Angle Finder C with my 1D X for ground-level macros, I suppose that counts as using the VF (although it's a magnified view). But with an articulating screen, even that is no longer needed and almost all of my macro shooting is on the rear LCD.

As a relevant side note, at 5x magnification and f/16, the effective aperture of the MP-E 65 is f/96. Under most ambient lighting, that means the optical viewfinder is essentially black and therefore useless for composition.


----------



## basketballfreak6 (May 11, 2022)

Don't really understand the hate for the M series. Bought the M6II at launch as a light weight, portable solution and it does the job perfectly. Only thing I'd want would be IBIS and reduced shutter shock (which IMO is pretty bad on the M6II).


----------



## josephandrews222 (May 11, 2022)

If you read comments on/in this thread and others like it, and pay attention to the devices used by some really good photographers who post their work here and on other sites, it becomes obvious that some of them have figured out what I think I know (sort of intuitively): different jobs require different tools, and some 'jobs' require the smallest and lightest tools possible.

Many of these folks have the best full-frame gear and lenses...along with the best that Canon offers in a small-and-light set-up...the EF-M series.

I find it impossible to believe that Canon is going to cede the small-and-light market to their competitors.

I also find it impossible to believe that anything based on the R will be as small and as light as the M-series.

My two cents.


----------



## koenkooi (May 12, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> "No benefit to a viewfinder": I hope you are kidding.
> Ever tried to use a 600mm or a macro without tripod only using the screen to focus and frame?


For years the M+mp-e+mt24 was my macro rig:


The back LCD made it a lot easier to use compared to the dim OVF in my 7D.

A lighter variant with the 270Ex:


----------



## Del Paso (May 12, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Not with the 600/4 (except on a tripod). But for macro, yes...frequently. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever used the VF with my MP-E 65, and only rarely with my EF 100L. For example this shot with the MP-E 65, which was taken with the 5DII in Live View at 5x magnification with the front of the lens shoved into a bush:
> 
> 
> View attachment 203489
> ...


I certainly understand that the use of an OVF is almost impossible when using the 65mm, high magnification and closed diaphragm.
I was rather thinking of handheld macros, 100mm and ringflash. I've tried several times to use the rear LCD, but in bright sun, no chance.
Additionally, I'd need glasses, which I hate wearing when in nature...
When using my 5 D4, I too use the angle finder, or, more often, just lay on the grass or in thorns.


----------



## Del Paso (May 12, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> For years the M+mp-e+mt24 was my macro rig:
> View attachment 203490
> 
> The back LCD made it a lot easier to use compared to the dim OVF in my 7D.
> ...


A very specific "über" macro setting.
The OVF is here of course useless. Did you use the MP E hand-held (I'm quilte tempted to buy one...)

Ophrys insectifera below: 5 D4, EF 100L + ringflash.


----------



## m4ndr4ke (May 12, 2022)

Of course we're not talking about using the EVF when the camera is on a tripod. It shouldn't be necessary saying that.
I also shoot in studio environment, on tripod, and obviously I use use live view there, but we're discussing handheld shooting here.



neuroanatomist said:


> If I could own only one, at this point it would be the R3. But I wouldn't always bring it with me. My iPhone is always with me, but that's a huge step down in photographic capability. The M6 fits nicely in between – only a small step down in IQ, and a lot more portable.


Yeah, but the R3 is definitely a bigger compromise, it's understandable that it would be harder owning just one big body. That's why I wrote "no need to go high end".
If I could only own a camera (which I do), I'd pick a small to medium sized body with an integrated EVF, something between a M50 and a R5 (and I did). But the integrated EVF would be mandatory, to me.



neuroanatomist said:


> A single 40mm lens would not suit me for travel photography. My usually kit is either the R3, 11-24/4L, 24-105/4L and TS-E 17 or the R3, 14-35/4L, 24-105/4L and 100-500. For a light load, it's the M6, M11-22 and M18-150.


Yeah, my usually kit is 24-70/2.8 + 70-200/2.8 + one prime lens. But when I want to go light, I really go simple, and pick just one standard prime lens.



lustyd said:


> Yes. I own the 90D and the M6ii and I'd certainly get rid of the 90D first.


Interesting. But do you walk around without its EVF, shooting in live view?



lote82 said:


> 2. A "so much lighter" (which is not!) rig can't be held more stable because it's lighter. It's rather the opposite. Having no 3rd contact point even increases the instability!


True. The same principle applies to other apparatus, like weaponry.


----------



## koenkooi (May 12, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> A very specific "über" macro setting.
> The OVF is here of course useless. Did you use the MP E hand-held (I'm quilte tempted to buy one...)


Virtually all my MP-E photos are handheld, it takes a lot of motivation and specific tripod hardware to make it work beyond 1:1. I rarely used the MP-E the first few years I owned it due to that. Mounting it on the M, initially as a joke, made it actually practical to use. When I moved to the RP, which had a decent EVF *and* a tilty-flippy screen it became even more fun to use. And a FF sensor meant that I didn't have to tilt the camera for full-body wasp shots any longer, those would only fit diagonally on APS-C 

It's not for everyone and when I venture beyond my garden I really miss the ability for less than 1:1 magnification. I was planning to get the Laowa 100mm (EF version with actual electronic aperture control, not the stupid RF version without aperture control) when the RF100 macro came along with AF, IBIS and 1.4:1. That extra 40% magnification helps a lot.

So, if you want more than 1:1, try the EF Laowa 100mm first, that will allow medium and large sized butterflies to fit in the frame  If you want more than 2:1 the MP-E is a great option.


----------



## lote82 (May 12, 2022)

m4ndr4ke said:


> True. The same principle applies to other apparatus, like weaponry.


Yes, but for weaponry I would recommend to avoid the eyecup contact point!


----------



## Del Paso (May 12, 2022)

lote82 said:


> Yes, but for weaponry I would recommend to avoid the eyecup contact point!


Do not forget the original Sony A7, its shutter shock was particularly painful (on AK 47 level!).


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 12, 2022)

m4ndr4ke said:


> But do you walk around without its EVF, shooting in live view?


I never bought the external EVF for my M6, because I never felt the need. If necessary, although it rarely is, I wrap part of my left hand over the LCD as a shade.

I know from testing the IS of several EF-M lenses that I do a bit better than Canon’s stabilization rating. I don’t have surgeon’s hands and I drink a lot of espresso…but I have good technique and with that the light rig is easy to hold steady and doesn’t result in any fatigue that would increase shake.

As I said, it’s not the lack of an EVF that makes the M series light, it’s Canon’s design philosophy for the series, with bodies and lenses smaller than is possible with their FF-sized EF and RF mounts.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 12, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> I was rather thinking of handheld macros, 100mm and ringflash. I've tried several times to use the rear LCD, but in bright sun, no chance.
> Additionally, I'd need glasses, which I hate wearing when in nature...
> When using my 5 D4, I too use the angle finder, or, more often, just lay on the grass or in thorns.


I’ve done the laying on the ground thing with the EF 100/2.8L Macro. For example:





I far prefer just squatting down with the articulating LCD flipped out and up.

The shots in this mushroom thread post were all like that, and it was a lot easier with the articulating screen of the EOS R than with the fixed screen of the iPhone.





__





Mushrooms And Fungi Of Any Kind


Don't do much mushroom shooting, but was on a family forest walk a few weeks ago and saw a wide variety of fungi. Had only my iPhone with me. Went back a couple weeks later with my EOS R and EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS.




www.canonrumors.com





Once in a while, I'll use my full FrankenMacro rig handheld...


----------



## scyrene (May 12, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don't shoot at arms' length with my M6. I tuck in my elbows just like with my R3 and 1D X. Yes, the 3rd contact point of the eyecup is lost, but the rig is much lighter and that 3rd contact point isn't needed to hold the camera steady.


That's precisely how I shoot with my phone. Holding your arms out seems very strange, not only is it less stable but you're further from the screen so it's harder to see.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 12, 2022)

scyrene said:


> That's precisely how I shoot with my phone. Holding your arms out seems very strange, not only is it less stable but you're further from the screen so it's harder to see.


Agreed. I suspect many who believe an EVF is required on a small, light camera simply lack proper technique.


----------



## pedroesteban (May 12, 2022)

If this is an actual mock-up of the R10 and the mount is the same size as the RF mount, it really looks like the sensor is a full-frame sensor.


----------



## Bahrd (May 12, 2022)

basketballfreak6 said:


> Only thing I'd want would be IBIS and reduced shutter shock (which IMO is pretty bad on the M6II).


+ USB charging & a full remote control support from the Canon's SDK (like the non-Ms have). 
Had M had them,
I would've had M...


----------



## HikeBike (May 12, 2022)

Just my guess, but I don't see this as being the successor to the EOS M lineup. I see one of two things happening:

First option: Canon sticks with their EF hierarchy. The R10 is the successor to the 90D (with slightly reduced specs for this first model, to avoid angering those who purchased the 90D). The Rebel/850D is succeeded by the R100 series. The EOS M line is succeeded by the R1000 series.

Second option: Canon merges the 90D and Rebel/850D lines into what is the R10 series. The EOS M line is succeeded by the R100 series.

I think the price of the R10 will tell us a lot. It will be fun to see how this all pans out.


----------



## unfocused (May 12, 2022)

pedroesteban said:


> View attachment 203506
> View attachment 203507
> 
> 
> If this is an actual mock-up of the R10 and the mount is the same size as the RF mount, it really looks like the sensor is a full-frame sensor.


Source???


----------



## lote82 (May 12, 2022)

pedroesteban said:


> View attachment 203506
> View attachment 203507
> 
> 
> If this is an actual mock-up of the R10 and the mount is the same size as the RF mount, it really looks like the sensor is a full-frame sensor.


I rather have the question in mind why the R10 "sensor" is completely black ... new alien-technology?


----------



## pedroesteban (May 12, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Source???



Canon Rumors OP. I was just trying to point out that there are inconsistencies in the post and things should be taken with a grain of salt in spite of the [CR3] rating...


----------



## lote82 (May 12, 2022)

I've never seen a mock-up without inconsistencies ... 
What sense would it make to build R7 APS-C (its sensor looks like APS-C size) and making R10 full frame?


----------



## stevelee (May 12, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Were the pictures any good? There's no inherent benefit to a viewfinder, it's just there because that's how many people learned to take pictures. The stability of holding it close can still be achieved with a screen, although I imagine a good number of these cameras will never take any photos anyway, video will be the primary use-case where an EVF is not only a waste of space but takes up valuable real estate which could have been used for a mic or speaker. I also have no use for a flash on mine and would love to see a model where that is replaced with a bright LED array.


My G5X II has a popup viewfinder. Most of the time I don’t use it. But if the light is too bright out for me to see the composition on the screen, I will pop it right up. It is useless for manual focusing (which is usually not needed with such a short lens anyway). Perhaps that is different on a FF mirrorless. But the EVF is essential in many situations. Of course I would rather have an OVF, but for travel I don’t want to drag a DLSR and assorted gear along.


----------



## Sibir Lupus (May 12, 2022)

This sounds more like the successor to the M50 based on the rumored specs and naming convention. An Rxxx name would equate to something more along the lines of the M200 (smaller body with little to no front grip, no EVF, etc).


----------



## Sibir Lupus (May 12, 2022)

LensFungus said:


> Canon EF-M users who keep on telling people that replacing EF-M mount is a total unrealistic move by Canon:


It is with regards to making the R camera replacements the same small size of the M series cameras. But that doesn't seem to be a concern with Canon even though there's still a sizable market for smaller mirrorless cameras like the M50 and M200.


----------



## unfocused (May 12, 2022)

pedroesteban said:


> Canon Rumors OP. I was just trying to point out that there are inconsistencies in the post and things should be taken with a grain of salt in spite of the [CR3] rating...


Okay. Well, it may be confusing because when Canon Rumors calls an image a "mockup" what they really mean is that it is a fictional illustration based on nothing. They just grab an image off the internet and maybe do a quick Photoshop job on a few details. It isn't a mockup in any real sense of the word and is a bit misleading.


----------



## lustyd (May 12, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> "No benefit to a viewfinder": I hope you are kidding.
> Ever tried to use a 600mm or a macro without tripod only using the screen to focus and frame?


I said no inherent benefit, not no benefit. Just because you learned to do it that way doesn't make it correct or the only way. Have you dried using a screen to focus and frame for more than a few minutes? You write as though your first effort with a viewfinder was a masterpiece and took no practice.


----------



## lustyd (May 12, 2022)

m4ndr4ke said:


> Interesting. But do you walk around without its EVF, shooting in live view?


Yes, I don't use the EVF at all, it's pointless for video and doesn't add much for the occasional photo.


----------



## Del Paso (May 12, 2022)

lustyd said:


> I said no inherent benefit, not no benefit. Just because you learned to do it that way doesn't make it correct or the only way. Have you dried using a screen to focus and frame for more than a few minutes? You write as though your first effort with a viewfinder was a masterpiece and took no practice.


Not convinced at all...
Nobody said the VF was the only way, but, unlike the rear screen, it can be used without any problems with long teles, for instance.
Good luck trying to focus a hand-held 600mm using the screen.
PS: I too am sometimes using the rear screen. Only your post gave the impression it was about wonderful new world vs. obsolete past.


----------



## lustyd (May 12, 2022)

Practice more, you'll get there.


----------



## SnowMiku (May 13, 2022)

LSXPhotog said:


> I just hope we don’t see the outrageous trait of EF-S mount lenses not being comparable with full-frame RF.


I think using an RF-S lens will just make the full frame R bodies crop the sensor automatically. Just like when you use an EF-S lens with the adapter. Unless if Canon decides to change their mind and only wants full frame lenses on full frame bodies making people buy the more expensive RF full frame wide angle.


----------



## SnowMiku (May 13, 2022)

The R10 will be an interesting option for the RF 600mm (equivalent 960mm) and RF 800mm F11 (equivalent 1280mm) for those who would just end up cropping a lot if they had a full frame. The rumored 15 FPS and 24MP is definitely up to the job for birding with these lenses.


----------



## AlanF (May 13, 2022)

SnowMiku said:


> The R10 will be an interesting option for the RF 600mm (equivalent 960mm) and RF 800mm F11 (equivalent 1280mm) for those who would just end up cropping a lot if they had a full frame. The rumored 15 FPS and 24MP is definitely up to the job for birding with these lenses.


Putting them on an APS-C crop narrows the field of view by a factor of 1.6, but it doesn’t increase the reach 1.6x. The maximum extra resolution you could get on a 24 Mpx sensor vs a FF 45 Mpx is 1.17x, and that’s with a very wide aperture lens at very low iso. With a narrow f/11 lens at higher isos there would be very little extra resolution or reach because of diffraction and noise. What the R10 would give you would be a much cheaper way of getting similar resolution to an R5.


----------



## SnowMiku (May 13, 2022)

AlanF said:


> What the R10 would give you would be a much cheaper way of getting similar resolution to an R5.


Exactly, the R10 will be a lot more affordable and will pair well with the 600mm and 800mm F11.


----------



## gruhl28 (May 13, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


So, 25% fewer megapixels than the M6 Mk ii? I don't get it.

I guess most people don't need more than 24, but most people don't need 15-23fps either. With this and the R7, and the R6 and R5, we're getting very high fps with either lower or higher resolution, but I'd rather have higher resolution without having to pay for crazy-high fps. It seems Canon are focused more towards sports and journalism. I guess that's where the money is on the professional side, but for this amateur I would rather have the higher resolution at a lower price (especially in FF, could crop to APS-C for distant wildlife and still have good resolution) than have 15+ fps.


----------



## Czardoom (May 13, 2022)

gruhl28 said:


> So, 25% fewer megapixels than the M6 Mk ii? I don't get it.
> 
> I guess most people don't need more than 24, but most people don't need 15-23fps either. With this and the R7, and the R6 and R5, we're getting very high fps with either lower or higher resolution, but I'd rather have higher resolution without having to pay for crazy-high fps. It seems Canon are focused more towards sports and journalism. I guess that's where the money is on the professional side, but for this amateur I would rather have the higher resolution at a lower price (especially in FF, could crop to APS-C for distant wildlife and still have good resolution) than have 15+ fps.


Just a guess, but perhaps Canon's thinking is that that people buying the R7 will also be buying higher end lenses that will better take advantage of the 32 MP sensor. There are some websites out there that have kept track of which lenses do not really have the optics to take advantage of the 32 MP sensor that Canon put in the 90D and the 6D II. So 24 MP may be just as good as 32 MP for many folks with consumer grade lenses. So, I'd be perfectly happy with 24 MP for a crop camera. I think 32 MP would give little or no ACTUAL benefit in resolution, but would would create bigger files, slower processing, less files in the buffer. I know spec lovers and internet influencers will howl, but they don't really bother to look at photos and see what happens in real world results.


----------



## AlanF (May 13, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> Just a guess, but perhaps Canon's thinking is that that people buying the R7 will also be buying higher end lenses that will better take advantage of the 32 MP sensor. There are some websites out there that have kept track of which lenses do not really have the optics to take advantage of the 32 MP sensor that Canon put in the 90D and the 6D II. So 24 MP may be just as good as 32 MP for many folks with consumer grade lenses. So, I'd be perfectly happy with 24 MP for a crop camera. I think 32 MP would give little or no ACTUAL benefit in resolution, but would would create bigger files, slower processing, less files in the buffer. I know spec lovers and internet influencers will howl, but they don't really bother to look at photos and see what happens in real world results.


True. From experience, I had to use f/4 lenses or wider and very low isos to get more resolution than from a good 20 Mpx sensor.


----------



## takesome1 (May 13, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> "No benefit to a viewfinder": I hope you are kidding.
> Ever tried to use a 600mm or a macro without tripod only using the screen to focus and frame?


Yes, all the time. It is the best way to do macro. Every try focusing through the viewfinder when it your subject is sitting on the ground and you want a side or front view? Shooting slow moving wildlife it is a great way to shoot using the back screen, of course I seldom shoot hand held and almost always use a monopod.


----------



## Del Paso (May 13, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> Yes, all the time. It is the best way to do macro. Every try focusing through the viewfinder when it your subject is sitting on the ground and you want a side or front view? Shooting slow moving wildlife it is a great way to shoot using the back screen, of course I seldom shoot hand held and almost always use a monopod.



Understand it may be your best way to do macro , but it depends on the motives, magnification and also on one's preferences.
I just dislike peeking through a tiny screen, even more with the sun behind me. I far prefer the VF's magnified image, sometimes even with an angle-finder.
But: on a tripod or a monopod, the situation changes! Besides, I almost never use tripods or monopods and you do !
I once was asked by a friend of mine to take pictures of his huge watch collection: tripod and rear screen focusing, of course...


----------



## stevelee (May 14, 2022)

One reason that I haven't got a 5D IV when the price was down or when recently I could get a $1999 refurb Is that I would still use the 6D2 when I'd want to use the tilty flippy screen. And while $2,000 is a bargain for that camera, that would be $2,000 I could apply toward the Fujifilm 100S I keep talking myself out of buying. And I have lost one of my excuses now that B&H have the camera in stock, so a more convenient impulse purchase. It helps that I can't decide what lenses I would get with it. And obviously the 5D IV could use the panoply of fine lenses I already have. But I mention this mainly to show how my using live view for certain things colors my actions and purchases.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 14, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> I just dislike peeking through a tiny screen, even more with the sun behind me. I far prefer the VF's magnified image, sometimes even with an angle-finder.


Have you tried? Not as a one off, I mean. I shot film SLRs for years, then DSLRs. I’d used little PowerShots with only a rear LCD, but I thought I’d really miss the VF on an ILC. After buying the original M (at the fire sale price), it turned out I didn’t. 

I’d miss it on a larger rig, yes. But I don’t adapt lenses for general use on an M body, and the M lenses are small and light.


----------



## Del Paso (May 14, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Have you tried? Not as a one off, I mean. I shot film SLRs for years, then DSLRs. I’d used little PowerShots with only a rear LCD, but I thought I’d really miss the VF on an ILC. After buying the original M (at the fire sale price), it turned out I didn’t.
> 
> I’d miss it on a larger rig, yes. But I don’t adapt lenses for general use on an M body, and the M lenses are small and light.


I did!
I use the rear screen almost exclusively on my Oly Mft, even though I bought for it an accessory EVF.
If I ever buy an APS/C, provided it's a small as the, I'll certainly use the rear LCD too.
PS: I'm farsighted and hate wearing glasses...


----------



## AlanF (May 14, 2022)

lustyd said:


> I said no inherent benefit, not no benefit. Just because you learned to do it that way doesn't make it correct or the only way. Have you dried using a screen to focus and frame for more than a few minutes? You write as though your first effort with a viewfinder was a masterpiece and took no practice.


There is an inherent benefit of an evf/ovf when the camera plus lens has to be braced against your cheek for stability or for rapid tracking. Other situations have their own requirements.


----------



## sanj (May 15, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Were the pictures any good? There's no inherent benefit to a viewfinder, it's just there because that's how many people learned to take pictures. The stability of holding it close can still be achieved with a screen, although I imagine a good number of these cameras will never take any photos anyway, video will be the primary use-case where an EVF is not only a waste of space but takes up valuable real estate which could have been used for a mic or speaker. I also have no use for a flash on mine and would love to see a model where that is replaced with a bright LED array.


I am sure the pictures were 100% fine.


----------



## jam05 (May 15, 2022)

Newsflash. The Canon 24mp R10 will not replace the 32mp M6 mk 2


----------



## lustyd (May 16, 2022)

AlanF said:


> There is an inherent benefit of an evf/ovf when the camera plus lens has to be braced against your cheek for stability or for rapid tracking. Other situations have their own requirements.


Again though, that's only one way to brace a camera. You need to be more open to new/different methods


----------



## AlanF (May 16, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Again though, that's only one way to brace a camera. You need to be more open to new/different methods


Tell me a better or even just as good way for shooting rapid birds or dragonflies in flight as I am always open to new and different methods.


----------



## scyrene (May 16, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Again though, that's only one way to brace a camera. You need to be more open to new/different methods


You're being dogmatic whilst pretending to be openminded. People aren't just disagreeing because they're stubborn or blinkered, but because in some situations, one way is categorically ergonomically better.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 16, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Tell me a better or even just as good way for shooting rapid birds or dragonflies in flight as I am always open to new and different methods.


With the shutter speeds generally used for flying birds and insects, do you find stability a challenge? Certainly camera shake is mitigated by the fast shutter. 



scyrene said:


> You're being dogmatic whilst pretending to be openminded. People aren't just disagreeing because they're stubborn or blinkered, but because in some situations, one way is categorically ergonomically better.


If the camera has a viewfinder and an eyecup, holding it to your brow ridge is natural and adds stability. I’ve seen plenty of people shooting with the eyecup pressed to their brow ridge and their elbows out like they’re flapping them in a chicken dance. I’d suggest that a viewfinderless body (none of which are heavy) held properly with elbows tucked is more stable than an eyecup with elbows flapping. 

If you want maximum stability, get that camera away from your eye and set it on a block of concrete. Everything else is a compromise. 

That’s ok, because maximum stability isn’t needed. All that’s needed is _sufficient_ stability to get the shot. There are dogmatic statements being made here that without a viewfinder, it’s impossible to achieve sufficient stability. 

Obviously technique matters, but so does individual strength relative to the mass being supported. I can stably handhold a 1-series body with a 600/4. There are people who can’t stably handhold a Rebel/xxxD with an EF-S 55-250mm, even with proper technique. I have no problem holding an M6 and EF-M lens with sufficient stability to frame and take a shake-free shot. 

I’m sure there are people who cannot, but that doesn’t mean the lack of a viewfinder is categorically bad.


----------



## lustyd (May 16, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Tell me a better or even just as good way for shooting rapid birds or dragonflies in flight as I am always open to new and different methods.


It's been discussed throughout the comments here, go back and read them. Several people have explained how easy it is with a small and light camera, in addition to those of us who use our cameras for other things like video.


scyrene said:


> You're being dogmatic whilst pretending to be openminded. People aren't just disagreeing because they're stubborn or blinkered, but because in some situations, one way is categorically ergonomically better.


It's not categorically better though, it's just the way they're used to. When I use my 90D for photography I don't even touch the viewfinder, let alone put enough pressure on it to brace the camera. I imagine for some people that is necessary, but it's not universal. Perhaps with heavier camera gear it might help, but we're not discussing heavy camera gear here, we're discussing EF-M and whether a viewfinder has any inherent benefit over other options. As has been shown by the many posters not set in their ways, there is no inherent benefit, just tradition and training.
Also, being dogmatic would be to insist all cameras must have an EVF. I'm not saying all cameras should not have one, I'm saying there absolutely is a place for a compact camera without one. An M6ii would not be made better by adding an EVF, it would be made bigger, which is against the design criteria of that device.


----------



## AlanF (May 16, 2022)

lustyd said:


> It's been discussed throughout the comments here, go back and read them. Several people have explained how easy it is with a small and light camera, in addition to those of us who use our cameras for other things like video.


No it jolly well hasn't. The reason why you haven't answered my simple question is because you can't.


----------



## scyrene (May 16, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> With the shutter speeds generally used for flying birds and insects, do you find stability a challenge? Certainly camera shake is mitigated by the fast shutter.
> 
> 
> If the camera has a viewfinder and an eyecup, holding it to your brow ridge is natural and adds stability. I’ve seen plenty of people shooting with the eyecup pressed to their brow ridge and their elbows out like they’re flapping them in a chicken dance. I’d suggest that a viewfinderless body (none of which are heavy) held properly with elbows tucked is more stable than an eyecup with elbows flapping.
> ...


Maybe I'm misunderstanding what was being said; I hand held the 500 f/4, usually with an extender mounted, for almost a decade, but I was not shooting at arm's length using the rear screen, but with the viewfinder pressed against my face. Was the person I replied to not claiming viewfinder shooting was no different to LCD, even at 600mm? That it's just what we've been taught, and we need to broaden our horizons? Because without a tripod, the latter seems far less ergonomic. If I've got the wrong end of the stick, I apologise.


----------



## AlanF (May 16, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> With the shutter speeds generally used for flying birds and insects, do you find stability a challenge? Certainly camera shake is mitigated by the fast shutter.


It's nothing to do with shake for BIF or DIF, it's moving camera and telephoto lens with your face as one unit when you are trying to catch a bird and moving as fast as possible in often an erratic manner to keep it in frame. I shoot at a speed of 1/3200s in any case for BIF. How do you hold your R3 with the 600/4 for BIF?


----------



## scyrene (May 16, 2022)

lustyd said:


> There's no inherent benefit to a viewfinder, it's just there because that's how many people learned to take pictures. The stability of holding it close can still be achieved with a screen





lustyd said:


> It's been discussed throughout the comments here, go back and read them. Several people have explained how easy it is with a small and light camera, in addition to those of us who use our cameras for other things like video.
> 
> It's not categorically better though, it's just the way they're used to. When I use my 90D for photography I don't even touch the viewfinder, let alone put enough pressure on it to brace the camera. I imagine for some people that is necessary, but it's not universal. Perhaps with heavier camera gear it might help, but we're not discussing heavy camera gear here, we're discussing EF-M and whether a viewfinder has any inherent benefit over other options. As has been shown by the many posters not set in their ways, there is no inherent benefit, just tradition and training.
> Also, being dogmatic would be to insist all cameras must have an EVF. I'm not saying all cameras should not have one, I'm saying there absolutely is a place for a compact camera without one. An M6ii would not be made better by adding an EVF, it would be made bigger, which is against the design criteria of that device.


Maybe I've conflated your replies with other people's; or read more into them than I ought. Sorry if so. But your quote at the top here seems an overreach. I'm saying (and I think Alan is too) that there are setups where viewfinder shooting is objectively more stable. I certainly don't dispute that for some other situations a viewfinder is superfluous or even a detriment. There's certainly room in the lineup for a camera without one; but I stand by my assertion that for eg handheld supertele use the rear screen is objectively less stable. It is not merely "what we've been taught" (especially as nobody taught me how to use my gear, I learnt as I went along). Each approach has its drawbacks, naturally.


----------



## lustyd (May 16, 2022)

scyrene said:


> Maybe I've conflated your replies with other people's; or read more into them than I ought. Sorry if so. But your quote at the top here seems an overreach. I'm saying (and I think Alan is too) that there are setups where viewfinder shooting is objectively more stable. I certainly don't dispute that for some other situations a viewfinder is superfluous or even a detriment. There's certainly room in the lineup for a camera without one; but I stand by my assertion that for eg handheld supertele use the rear screen is objectively less stable. It is not merely "what we've been taught" (especially as nobody taught me how to use my gear, I learnt as I went along). Each approach has its drawbacks, naturally.


Subjectively more stable to people who have been trained to work in that way. Objectively, there are a great many people who can work in other ways to achieve the same results. Random Orbits even confirmed that after implying people taking pics at arms length were doing it wrong the pictures were fine.
For large supertele use yes, maybe you will do better with a viewfinder, but then I'd still assert there's nothing inherently better about stabilising that way when compared to just holding the camera close. It's all just practice at whatever method suits your camera use, your preferences, and your abilities.


----------



## lustyd (May 16, 2022)

AlanF said:


> No it jolly well hasn't. The reason why you haven't answered my simple question is because you can't.


If you're not prepared to read the thread then there really isn't any point going further on this one.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 16, 2022)

scyrene said:


> Maybe I'm misunderstanding what was being said; I hand held the 500 f/4, usually with an extender mounted, for almost a decade, but I was not shooting at arm's length using the rear screen, but with the viewfinder pressed against my face. Was the person I replied to not claiming viewfinder shooting was no different to LCD, even at 600mm? That it's just what we've been taught, and we need to broaden our horizons? Because without a tripod, the latter seems far less ergonomic. If I've got the wrong end of the stick, I apologise.


I believe the context of the discussion was EF-M bodies and lenses. Perhaps I missed a claim than using a 600mm lens was no different with or without a VF, but I’m certainly not suggesting that. 

My point is that it’s quite possible to hold an M body with an EF-M lens mounted sufficiently steady, i.e., with a rig that small/light, a viewfinder pressed to the eye is not needed for stability.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 16, 2022)

AlanF said:


> It's nothing to do with shake for BIF or DIF, it's moving camera and telephoto lens with your face as one unit when you are trying to catch a bird and moving as fast as possible in often an erratic manner to keep it in frame. I shoot at a speed of 1/3200s in any case for BIF. How do you hold your R3 with the 600/4 for BIF?


With the VF up to my eye, of course. But I don't have any issues tracking birds and other fast-moving subjects with my M6 and EF-M 55-200mm, and keeping them in the frame. Granted, that frame is larger at 320mm FFeq framing than at 600mm (or more commonly, 840mm). 

Either way, my elbows are tucked in against my body, and I'm holding the camera fairly close to my face and moving my head, body, arms and camera as a unit to track a subject. The only difference is that the M6 is ~20cm from my face while the R3 is right against my eye.


----------



## AlanF (May 16, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> With the VF up to my eye, of course. But I don't have any issues tracking birds and other fast-moving subjects with my M6 and EF-M 55-200mm, and keeping them in the frame. Granted, that frame is larger at 320mm FFeq framing than at 600mm (or more commonly, 840mm).
> 
> Either way, my elbows are tucked in against my body, and I'm holding the camera fairly close to my face and moving my head, body, arms and camera as a unit to track a subject. The only difference is that the M6 is ~20cm from my face while the R3 is right against my eye.


The difference is when you have it 20cm from your eye you have, as you say, to move your body as you track sideways but there is much less body movement required, if any at all, when you are looking through the evf and have basically only to twist your neck and swivel your wrists. And, a 55-200mm is hardly a supertelephoto, which is why you have your 600mm and now your 100-500mm. I agree for many purposes you don't need an evf, which I stated clearly, but for some purposes they are far superior. And, I don't think you disagree with that.


----------



## scyrene (May 16, 2022)

lustyd said:


> For large supertele use yes, maybe you will do better with a viewfinder, but then I'd still assert there's nothing inherently better about stabilising that way when compared to just holding the camera close. It's all just practice at whatever method suits your camera use, your preferences, and your abilities.


So I did understand you. And I repeat: you are dressing up dogma as openmindedness (or to put it another way, you've overreached with what was originally a fine point - but that viewfinders aren't necessary in some situations does not mean they are not superior in others). You can walk on your hands, doesn't mean it's not objectively less ergonomic than using your feet


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 16, 2022)

lustyd said:


> For large supertele use yes, maybe you will do better with a viewfinder, but then I'd still assert there's nothing inherently better about stabilising that way when compared to just holding the camera close. It's all just practice at whatever method suits your camera use, your preferences, and your abilities.


Well, there's the claim. I certainly disagree. I've tried using the rear LCD of my R3 when handholding the 600/4, and it's definitely not as stable as when the eyecup is against my brow ridge. On a tripod/gimbal, the rear LCD is fine.


----------



## lustyd (May 16, 2022)

scyrene said:


> So I did understand you. And I repeat: you are dressing up dogma as openmindedness (or to put it another way, you've overreached with what was originally a fine point - but that viewfinders aren't necessary in some situations does not mean they are not superior in others). You can walk on your hands, doesn't mean it's not objectively less ergonomic than using your feet


No, I'm saying you can wear trainers to walk up a mountain while you're insisting that mountain walking requires leather walking boots because that's what people wear when climbing mountains. People can do what works for them, and smart people try different approaches and pick the one that works best for them. For you that might be a viewfinder.


----------



## lustyd (May 16, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Well, there's the claim. I certainly disagree. I've tried using the rear LCD of my R3 when handholding the 600/4, and it's definitely not as stable as when the eyecup is against my brow ridge. On a tripod/gimbal, the rear LCD is fine.


Not as stable _for you_. I wasn't saying it didn't work _for you_ I was saying other people are happy working in other ways. It's entirely possible that with practice you'd learn another technique, but if you don't want to that's OK too, just buy cameras with built in viewfinders and you're all set. I'm happy with my technique and prefer a camera without, and that's OK too whether you agree or not.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 16, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Not as stable _for you_. I wasn't saying it didn't work _for you_ I was saying other people are happy working in other ways. It's entirely possible that with practice you'd learn another technique, but if you don't want to that's OK too, just buy cameras with built in viewfinders and you're all set. I'm happy with my technique and prefer a camera without, and that's OK too whether you agree or not.


Your assertion regarding using a viewfinder eyecup that there is, "...nothing inherently better about stabilising that way when compared to just holding the camera close," is patently false – three points of contact are more stable than two points of contact. That's just physics. At issue is whether the additional stabilization is needed. I suggest that for a light rig it is not, whereas for a heavy rig (the 1D X + 600/4L IS II combo that I used for years weighs 5.5. kg / 12 lbs) it offers substantial benefit.

Do you routinely use the rear LCD while handholding a camera with a supertele lens like a 600/4 mounted? Or are you making an assertion based on theory with no actual experience?


----------



## Czardoom (May 16, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Your assertion regarding using a viewfinder eyecup that there is, "...there's nothing inherently better about stabilising that way when compared to just holding the camera close," is patently false – three points of contact are more stable than two points of contact. That's just physics. At issue is whether the additional stabilization is needed. I suggest that for a light rig it is not, whereas for a heavy rig (the 1D X + 600/4L IS II combo that I used for years weighs 5.5. kg / 12 lbs) it offers substantial benefit.
> 
> Do you routinely use the rear LCD while handholding a camera with a supertele lens like a 600/4 mounted? Or are you making an assertion based on theory with no actual experience?


Sorry that I'm going to repeat your first sentence...and add bold...

Your assertion regarding using a viewfinder eyecup that there is, "...there's nothing inherently better about stabilising that way when compared to just holding the camera close," is patently false –* three points of contact are more stable than two points of contact. That's just physics.*

Of course, facts and physics mean nothing to some people so they will continue to annoy us all with their unstoppable need to be right and show others just how right they are.

Please continue this absolutely useless and totally unnecessary debate.


----------



## AlanF (May 16, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> Sorry that I'm going to repeat your first sentence...and add bold...
> 
> Your assertion regarding using a viewfinder eyecup that there is, "...there's nothing inherently better about stabilising that way when compared to just holding the camera close," is patently false –* three points of contact are more stable than two points of contact. That's just physics.*
> 
> ...


The problem is that some people will never give up and just double down. Maybe it's just best to ignore them, which I do after a while. But, it's annoying to see BS unanswered.


----------



## Del Paso (May 17, 2022)

Final verdict:
OVF and EVF are for the old mentally rigid f...ts, rear screen for the young dynamic progress-driven photographers.


----------



## lustyd (May 17, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Final verdict:
> OVF and EVF are for the old mentally rigid f...ts, rear screen for the young dynamic progress-driven photographers.


Not at all, anyone can use what they like. The mentally rigid folk will insist their way is the only way though.


----------



## scyrene (May 17, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Not at all, anyone can use what they like. The mentally rigid folk will insist their way is the only way though.


I mean, literally nobody was doing that. Nobody has said you shouldn't do it however you want. You made a silly exaggerated claim, and people with greater knowledge and experience rebutted it. You can go ahead and use your gear however you like, and keep feeling superior for being contrary.


----------



## scyrene (May 17, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The problem is that some people will never give up and just double down. Maybe it's just best to ignore them, which I do after a while. But, it's annoying to see BS unanswered.


Amen!


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 17, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Not at all, anyone can use what they like. The mentally rigid folk will insist their way is the only way though.


Of course they can. People do stupid things every day.

What would you call it when people make assertions about things with which they have no experience and insist they are right? 

But maybe I'm wrong, and you have direct experience. How about this...I'll show you a shot tracking something moving swiftly that I took with a ≥500mm supertele lens on a camera where I used the viewfinder held to my eye to track the subject, and you show me a shot tracking something moving swiftly with that you took with a ≥500mm supertele lens on a camera where you used the rear LCD to track the subject. 

Here's mine, a snowy owl in flight taken with the R3 and 600/4L IS II:




I tracked the snowy from takeoff to landing, firing several 30 fps bursts over the few seconds of flight.



Now it's your turn.....


----------



## lustyd (May 17, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Now it's your turn.....


You're clearly unable to accept that there are other ways so why would I bother? Yes, I do have experience. No, it's not worth persuing the conversation with you as you're clearly decided on the subject. We're both happy with our worlds, or at least I am.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 17, 2022)

lustyd said:


> You're clearly unable to accept that there are other ways so why would I bother? Yes, I do have experience. No, it's not worth persuing the conversation with you as you're clearly decided on the subject. We're both happy with our worlds, or at least I am.


----------



## lustyd (May 17, 2022)

yes, that about sums it up.


----------



## Del Paso (May 17, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Of course they can. People do stupid things every day.
> 
> What would you call it when people make assertions about things with which they have no experience and insist they are right?
> 
> ...


Beautiful bird, beautiful pictures!


----------



## scyrene (May 17, 2022)

lustyd said:


> You're clearly unable to accept that there are other ways so why would I bother? Yes, I do have experience. No, it's not worth persuing the conversation with you as you're clearly decided on the subject. We're both happy with our worlds, or at least I am.


Source: trust me, bro.


----------



## Quirkz (May 17, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> three points of contact are more stable than two points of contact. That's just physics.






One point of contact, and I win the internet! 

Sorry, I'm really just joking, I do happen to agree with you given the context of what you're discussing, but I couldn't resist taking this out of context.


----------



## AlanF (May 17, 2022)

Quirkz said:


> View attachment 203631
> 
> 
> One point of contact, and I win the internet!
> ...


That is not a point of contact, it is a plane.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 17, 2022)

AlanF said:


> That is not a point of contact, it is a plane.


Yes, when I took geometry a point had fewer than two dimensions. But I figured that was a long time ago so maybe things had changed. After all, we’re supposed to be open to new ways of doing things, right? Even if those new ways don’t work, apparently.

I’m only partly joking. Example:

My 2nd grader: “Dad, can you help me with this math problem?”

Problem: “Using a tape diagram…”

Me: “Hey Siri, what’s a tape diagram in elementary school math?”


----------



## Quirkz (May 18, 2022)

AlanF said:


> That is not a point of contact, it is a plane.


Well, since I'm in for a penny, lets go for the pound, and I'll try win on internet points, misdirection, and the best kind of correct: *Technically*, your hands holding a camera aren't points either - they're surfaces too 

So it really comes down to vectors, motion, centre of mass, and all that, and none of that invalidates neuro's core assertion, that, in the context of holding a camera, 3 points is better than 2. I just couldn't resist the troll


----------



## Quirkz (May 18, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> My 2nd grader: “Dad, can you help me with this math problem?”
> 
> Problem: “Using a tape diagram…”
> 
> Me: “Hey Siri, what’s a tape diagram in elementary school math?”


So I had to go google what a tape diagram is.
And I am left thinking "Does this actually help?" I can see how the trivial first grade examples are great at visualising (though we just used beads and small stones for that, which, I feel, was even better )

The later examples though, look just like a simple math equation, written down, with no context between the operations, and I'm not sure how they help with understanding. Almost curious enough to go an see if there's any actual research around their use in teaching. Almost.


----------



## unfocused (May 18, 2022)

What was this thread about? I forgot. Something related to a new camera I thought.


----------



## vjlex (May 18, 2022)

unfocused said:


> What was this thread about? I forgot. Something related to a new camera I thought.


Yeah, usually by page 3 the arguments start, then by page 10 it's a completely different topic. We're ahead of schedule!


----------



## Del Paso (May 18, 2022)

unfocused said:


> What was this thread about? I forgot. Something related to a new camera I thought.


What?
Is there a new camera?
And, what is a camera?


----------



## Aussie shooter (May 18, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Subjectively more stable to people who have been trained to work in that way. Objectively, there are a great many people who can work in other ways to achieve the same results. Random Orbits even confirmed that after implying people taking pics at arms length were doing it wrong the pictures were fine.
> For large supertele use yes, maybe you will do better with a viewfinder, but then I'd still assert there's nothing inherently better about stabilising that way when compared to just holding the camera close. It's all just practice at whatever method suits your camera use, your preferences, and your abilities.


No. Objectively, holding the viewfinder to your eye is more stable. There are no ifs or buts about it. No one will be more stable holding a camera away from their face in a situation with a large telephoto lens and trying to track a fast moving animal. Holding the viewfinder against the face gives an inherently stable third point of contact. My guess is you don't shoot wildlife or any serious action photography so you may not understand the realities of the genre. But you should probably pay attention to those who know what they are talking about


----------



## AlanF (May 18, 2022)

Quirkz said:


> Well, since I'm in for a penny, lets go for the pound, and I'll try win on internet points, misdirection, and the best kind of correct: *Technically*, your hands holding a camera aren't points either - they're surfaces too
> 
> So it really comes down to vectors, motion, centre of mass, and all that, and none of that invalidates neuro's core assertion, that, in the context of holding a camera, 3 points is better than 2. I just couldn't resist the troll


It's a pointless post.


----------



## lustyd (May 18, 2022)

Such an openminded group. OK I'll concede that you know best because you've been doing the same thing in the same way for a very long time and ignoring new thoughts and ideas.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 18, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Such an openminded group. OK I'll concede that you know best because you've been doing the same thing in the same way for a very long time and ignoring new thoughts and ideas.


As I said, I use the rear LCD, and for shooting with a light setup like an M body+lens, it works well but for tracking with a long, heavy lens it’s not as stable as using the VF. That experience aligns with the physics of the situation.

Testing an hypothesis and disproving it is not the same as ignoring a new idea.

I’ve provided evidence to support my assertions, and invited you to do the same. You refuse, but still insist you’re right in spite of experience and physics showing you’re wrong. I suspect that’s because you have no relevant experience to back up your assertions.

While I don’t ignore new ideas and methods that are relevant to my interests, I do ignore assertions by those unwilling or unable to back them up with evidence. Your ‘trust me, bro’ claims are worthless.

This is me, and I can say with certainty based on experience that holding that rig 20-25 cm from my face is not as stable as holding it with the eyecup pressed to my brow ridge.


----------



## AlanF (May 18, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Such an openminded group. OK I'll concede that you know best because you've been doing the same thing in the same way for a very long time and ignoring new thoughts and ideas.


I've shot in chronological order in over than 6 decades, a Brownie box camera with a weenie 90 degree view finder, a twin lens reflex at my waist/chest level, SLR film cameras, the first consumer digitals with rear screens (Casio and Agfa!), a large variety of DSLRs and compacts with and without viewfinders, scuba diving with a TG5 without a viewfinder, M series and mirrorless with supertelephotos, and an iPhone. That is not atypical of this "openminded group", which in you in your ignorance assume has "been doing the same thing in the same way for a very long time and ignoring new thoughts and ideas."


----------



## Maximilian (May 18, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Such an openminded group. OK I'll concede that you know best because you've been doing the same thing in the same way for a very long time and ignoring new thoughts and ideas.


I've started photography at the age of 12 years. I used my fathers FTb and AE-1, learned from my brothers T-90, bought a Nikon F-601 as my first own camera.
I did did technicolor, filmstrip, and b&w. I did film developing with b&w, expecially Illford FP, and prints in a photo lab.
I started late with digital photography with a Fuji E900 and got my first Canon DSLR in 2009.
I've tried OVF and EVF cameras from different brands, I've tried P&S with screen and VF, I've tried cell phones. 
I've counseled relatives, friends and colleagues about equipment and technique. I don't care about brands and fanboyism here. 
And mostly my advice was taken and the reply was, that they could improve their photography and the quality of their photos. 

So yes, I am open minded. 
I am not "doing the same thing in the same way for a very long time and ignoring new thoughts and ideas."

So what's your point and problem, @lustyd?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 18, 2022)

AlanF said:


> a twin lens reflex at my waist/chest level


My first camera was an Argus 75 TLR (which predates me), then a Kodak Instamatic, then a couple of different SLRs (pre-autofocus).






My first camera with AF was a 35mm Olympus P&S with a 38-170mm zoom, then I went to digital, first with the 1.3 MP Olympus D-460 then the 4 MP C765UZ.





I used the 4 MP 'ultra zoom' (38-380mm equivalent) until I bought my first DSLR, a Rebel T1i/500D because the P&S AF system couldn't keep up with my toddler.


----------



## Del Paso (May 18, 2022)

Are we still trying to convince somebody who obviously doesn't want to listen to logical and reasonable arguments?
Let's just tell him he's right and we wrong...and make him happy.


----------



## Maximilian (May 18, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Are we still trying to convince somebody who obviously doesn't want to listen to logical and reasonable arguments?
> Let's just tell him he's right and we wrong...and make him happy.


... and simply give up and shut up and let the witless and selfish rule?
Just "NO!" Even if this means "feeding the trolls".
As long as I live in a free democracy I will defend it.


----------



## Del Paso (May 18, 2022)

Maximilian said:


> ... and simply give up and shut up and let the witless and selfish rule?
> Just "NO!" Even if this means "feeding the trolls".
> As long as I live in a free democracy I will defend it.


Even if it means talking to a wall (of ignorance)?
German proverb: "Der klügere gibt nach". (the smarter give in).


----------



## Maximilian (May 18, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Even if it means talking to a wall (of ignorance)?
> German proverb: "Der klügere gibt nach". (the smarter give in).


And in German (sorry for not translating):
"Und wenn der/die Klügere/n nachgeben, werden wir von Dummen und Egoisten bestimmt/regiert!"
Macht es da Sinn, als Klügerer nachzugeben? Vielleicht vor 30 Jahren. Heute definitv nicht mehr!
Ich hoffe, ich muss keine Beispiele aus Ost- und Südeuropa nennen.
Das ist meine Erkenntnis aus den letzten 20 Jahren.


----------



## Del Paso (May 18, 2022)

I still think it's a waste of time and energy talking to a wall.
And it wasn't about letting the dumb rule, it was only about using EVF or LCD. So, democracy isn't under jeopardy.


----------



## unfocused (May 18, 2022)

Maximilian said:


> And in German (sorry for not translating):
> "Und wenn der/die Klügere/n nachgeben, werden wir von Dummen und Egoisten bestimmt/regiert!"
> Macht es da Sinn, als Klügerer nachzugeben? Vielleicht vor 30 Jahren. Heute definitv nicht mehr!
> Ich hoffe, ich muss keine Beispiele aus Ost- und Südeuropa nennen.
> Das ist meine Erkenntnis aus den letzten 20 Jahren.


If the topic were important, you would be right. But in this case people are fighting over trivia. Actually it doesn't even rise to the level of trivia.


----------



## Del Paso (May 18, 2022)

unfocused said:


> If the topic were important, you would be right. But in this case people are fighting over trivia. Actually it doesn't even rise to the level of trivia.


Exactly what I added in my edit


----------



## Maximilian (May 18, 2022)

unfocused said:


> … it doesn't even rise to the level of trivia.


If this is „_trivia_“ to you I‘ll have to swallow it


----------



## stevelee (May 18, 2022)

As opposed to quadrivia.


----------



## Quirkz (May 18, 2022)

AlanF said:


> It's a pointless post.


Well played, sir. Well played.


----------



## AlanF (May 18, 2022)

Quirkz said:


> Well played, sir. Well played.


A sense of humour does help in life.


----------



## John Wilde (May 20, 2022)

lote82 said:


> I'm so excited about this camera ... but even more about the excuses M-lovers will find!


What's your excuse for your childish gloating?


----------



## lote82 (May 20, 2022)

John Wilde said:


> What's your excuse for your childish gloating?


I don't have and don't need excuses. Maybe you were fooled by a childish child. Or maybe you feel the same frustration I felt while waiting for the R7 to come (while M-lovers claimed there will never be one!). I don't know and I don't care...
But please tell me more about your anger and fear!


----------



## Skux (May 20, 2022)

With a 24mp sensor it might even be a replacement for the M50. Those burst rates are pretty nice though.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 20, 2022)

John Wilde said:


> What's your excuse for your childish gloating?


Petulance is its own excuse.


----------



## lote82 (May 20, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Petulance is its own excuse.


Why should I be petulant when I finally get the camera I want? 
Counter question: 
Are you already bored by the same old bodies and lenses of a dead system or why are you still talking?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 20, 2022)

Skux said:


> With a 24mp sensor it might even be a replacement for the M50. Those burst rates are pretty nice though.


Replacement of what is a best-selling camera domestically for Canon with something that would be larger and heavier and require larger and heavier lenses seems very unlikely.


----------



## GoldWing (May 21, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Is it safe to say it takes better pictures than a 1DXMKIII?


----------



## Iain L (May 21, 2022)

Will be interesting to see the price on this. I’m still running a 7D II partly because even if I sum up the courage to by an R5 the moment I start buying RF mount lenses they won’t be compatible with the 100D and 750D the rest of the family run. But I fear that current form suggests even “entry level” RF will be four figures, at which point it’s just not happening.


----------



## mb66energy (May 21, 2022)

Iain L said:


> Will be interesting to see the price on this. I’m still running a 7D II partly because even if I sum up the courage to by an R5 the moment I start buying RF mount lenses they won’t be compatible with the 100D and 750D the rest of the family run. But I fear that current form suggests even “entry level” RF will be four figures, at which point it’s just not happening.


I decided to stay with EF and EF-S lenses for a while.
I bought an EOS RP with adapter and the RF 35 Macro for an insanely low price in a special offer so I own one RF lens. EF lenses run flawlessly on this body so the EF-EOS R adapter is mostly welded on this camera ... and I am compatible with both EOS M50 ii bodies with their EF-EOS M adapters.
I found that the EF-S 15-85 is a very good lens and bought two of them (2nd hand). My first AF lens was the EF-S 60 Macro and I bought a 2nd one 2nd hand as "spare lens" after learning that this incredibly sharp and useful lens is no longer produced.
EF(-S) glass is surprisingly good and lets us stay compatible with older systems or across the EOS R and EOS M range.


----------



## SaP34US (May 21, 2022)

Is the R10 going to more like the 10 D series or the M 50 or a combo of the 90 D & the M 50? What are the current rumored specs of the R10? It going have 24mp 15fps/23fps in silent and have 4K video. Any other specs been leaked?


----------



## mustafa (May 21, 2022)

M lens adapter?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 21, 2022)

mustafa said:


> M lens adapter?


No. Because physics. An adapter would need optics.


----------



## brianwallace21 (May 21, 2022)

What are the chances that this has clean HDMI out? My heart says yes, but my head says no. I felt like the clean HDMI on the 90D was a compromise since there wasn’t a 7D III, but with the R7 coming I suspect this will be more like the 80D which didn’t have clean HDMI. 

I’ve got the R5 and will be ordering an R7 to replace one of my M6 Mark II’s and would love to replace my second M6 II with an R10, but clean HDMI is a must for me.


----------



## Jethro (May 23, 2022)

So the 'flurry of information' expected over the last couple of weeks ... hasn't been? 

One day to go.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 23, 2022)

My guess is the announcement won't happen on the 24th. Otherwise we would have leaks by now.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 23, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> My guess is the announcement won't happen on the 24th. Otherwise we would have leaks by now.


Usually images of a new product leak a few days before the announcement.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 23, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Usually images of a new product leak a few days before the announcement.



Exactly. I expected images of cameras and lenses last week already.


----------



## unfocused (May 23, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Exactly. I expected images of cameras and lenses last week already.


Wouldn’t be the first time Canon Rumors got the date wrong.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 23, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Wouldn’t be the first time Canon Rumors got the date wrong.


Sometimes more than a little…









There may be a higher-end APS-C mirrorless announced in late 2020, early 2021 [CR2]


I have been told that Canon has plans to announce a "high-end" APS-C camera in late 2020 or early 2021. Product launches are obviously affected by the current



www.canonrumors.com


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 23, 2022)

Images are leaked on other websites already...


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 23, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Images are leaked on other websites already...


Link, please?


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 23, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Link, please?



I didnt wanted to link the other site but its CanonWatch.


----------



## lote82 (May 23, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Usually images of a new product leak a few days before the announcement.


That didn't aged well ...








These Are The Canon EOS R7 and Canon EOS R10 (images leaked, and


Ahead of tomorrow's announcement, here are some leaked images of the Canon EOS R7 and Canon EOS R10. The announcement




www.canonwatch.com


----------



## unfocused (May 23, 2022)

lote82 said:


> That didn't aged well ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks.


----------



## unfocused (May 23, 2022)

Judging by those pictures and the specs, it looks like we should be good for another dozen pages or so. Canon has been moving the cheese again.


----------



## vjlex (May 23, 2022)

wow, is it just me, or is the R10 kind of ugly? maybe it's the awkward looking kit lens (the barrel seems to have a narrower diameter than the camera mount). also LP-E17 is not great.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 24, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Putting them on an APS-C crop narrows the field of view by a factor of 1.6, but it doesn’t increase the reach 1.6x. The maximum extra resolution you could get on a 24 Mpx sensor vs a FF 45 Mpx is 1.17x, and that’s with a very wide aperture lens at very low iso. With a narrow f/11 lens at higher isos there would be very little extra resolution or reach because of diffraction and noise. What the R10 would give you would be a much cheaper way of getting similar resolution to an R5.



Wouldn't that be 1.37x? A 24MP APS-C sensor would have the same density as a 61.44MP FF sensor.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 24, 2022)

gruhl28 said:


> So, 25% fewer megapixels than the M6 Mk ii? I don't get it.
> 
> I guess most people don't need more than 24, but most people don't need 15-23fps either. With this and the R7, and the R6 and R5, we're getting very high fps with either lower or higher resolution, but I'd rather have higher resolution without having to pay for crazy-high fps. It seems Canon are focused more towards sports and journalism. I guess that's where the money is on the professional side, but for this amateur I would rather have the higher resolution at a lower price (especially in FF, could crop to APS-C for distant wildlife and still have good resolution) than have 15+ fps.



With video also included, readout speeds needed for high res video make high fps stills mode vs. low fps stills mode practically free.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 24, 2022)

GoldWing said:


> Is it safe to say it takes better pictures than a 1DXMKIII?



That might depend upon how one defines "better". Not everyone has the same definition.


----------



## Maximilian (May 24, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Wouldn’t be the first time Canon Rumors got the date wrong.





neuroanatomist said:


> Sometimes more than a little…
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think, adding the pandemic, Chinese / Shanghai lockdown and 2022 Putin's war against Ukraine the delay is acceptable, isn't it?


----------



## AlanF (May 30, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Wouldn't that be 1.37x? A 24MP APS-C sensor would have the same density as a 61.44MP FF sensor.


Resolution varies as the square root of number of pixels. The square root of 1.37 is 1.17. (There are 37% more pixels on target in terms of area, but resolution is measured in lp/mm, a length measurement, and so there is an increase in 17% in resolution.)


----------



## gruhl28 (May 30, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> With video also included, readout speeds needed for high res video make high fps stills mode vs. low fps stills mode practically free.


Good point for electronic shutter, but 15 frames per second mechanical shutter must cost something. I guess with no mirror it’s easier to make high fps, but the RP does only 4 fps and the R does only 5 with servo AF and 8 without.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 30, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Resolution varies as the square root of number of pixels. The square root of 1.37 is 1.17. (There are 37% more pixels on target in terms of area, but resolution is measured in lp/mm, a length measurement, and so there is an increase in 17% in resolution.)



Resolution can be measured in a variety of ways. But when we refer to resolution as 50MPs or 20MPs, we're talking about areal resolution, not linear.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 30, 2022)

gruhl28 said:


> Good point for electronic shutter, but 15 frames per second mechanical shutter must cost something. I guess with no mirror it’s easier to make high fps, but the RP does only 4 fps and the R does only 5 with servo AF and 8 without.



That's probably due more to either a) the lower amount of processing power Canon was willing to put in those bodies or b) Canon's desire to maintain product segmentation by limiting some products to less than the hardware they use is capable of achieving. (See EOS 7D running firmware ver. 1.x compared to the same EOS 7D running firmware ver. 2.x - The buffer somehow miraculously became twice as deep with only a firmware update.)

The cost of flipping the mirror has always, it seems to me, been more significant than the cost of cycling the shutter curtain. Ensuring consistent alignment of the primary mirror, secondary mirror, and the PDAF array for shot after shot after shot is critical to proper AF operation.


----------



## gruhl28 (May 30, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> That's probably due more to either a) the lower amount of processing power Canon was willing to put in those bodies or b) Canon's desire to maintain product segmentation by limiting some products to less than the hardware they use is capable of achieving. (See EOS 7D running firmware ver. 1.x compared to the same EOS 7D running firmware ver. 2.x - The buffer somehow miraculously became twice as deep with only a firmware update.)
> 
> The cost of flipping the mirror has always, it seems to me, been more significant than the cost of cycling the shutter curtain. Ensuring consistent alignment of the primary mirror, secondary mirror, and the PDAF array for shot after shot after shot is critical to proper AF operation.


Yeah, you may be right. I thought of some of those points after posting. I was thinking initially that since the RP uses almost the same sensor as the 6D Mk2 and the R uses almost the same senser as the 5D Mk4, and those two DSLRs can shoot faster than the mirrorless ones, that it wouldn't be the sensor or processing power that was slowing down the mirrorless ones, but maybe Canon did purposely slow them down. Wow, the buffer doubled with just a firmware update?


----------



## AlanF (May 30, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Resolution can be measured in a variety of ways. But when we refer to resolution as 50MPs or 20MPs, we're talking about areal resolution, not linear.


You can have your very own measure of resolution but in optics it is linear, the ability to separate two images next to each other. That is what all the published MTF charts do.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 30, 2022)

AlanF said:


> You can have your very own measure of resolution but in optics it is linear, the ability to separate two images next to each other. That is what all the published MTF charts do.



Yes, and all of those published resolution measurements use 'line-per-image-height' or 'lines-per-millimeter' at a specific percentage of contrast, not megapixels, to express linear resolution.

Lines/ih and lines/mm are linear measurements. MP is an areal measurement.


----------



## Czardoom (May 30, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Resolution can be measured in a variety of ways. But when we refer to resolution as 50MPs or 20MPs, we're talking about areal resolution, not linear.


50 MPs or 20 MPs is the number of pixels not the resolution. If people refer to the resolution of a sensor in MPs, they are making a mistake. Nice try, but AlanF is correct. Maybe you should stop trying to be smarter than everone else. It can be embarrassing.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 30, 2022)

gruhl28 said:


> Yeah, you may be right. I thought of some of those points after posting. I was thinking initially that since the RP uses almost the same sensor as the 6D Mk2 and the R uses almost the same senser as the 5D Mk4, and those two DSLRs can shoot faster than the mirrorless ones, that it wouldn't be the sensor or processing power that was slowing down the mirrorless ones, but maybe Canon did purposely slow them down. Wow, the buffer doubled with just a firmware update?



Yes. Around three years after the camera was first released. 

At the time 7D users and, more importantly, potential 7D buyers were getting anxious about when a 7D Mark II might be released. Replacement rumors had been flying for a while. Then rumors began to swirl that Canon was having serious development issues with the sensor. The usual grumbling began about "jumping to _brand x_" if Canon didn't come forth with a 7D replacement ASAP. At the same time, others were holding off on buying a 7D in fear that a 7D II announcement was imminent. 

Canon claimed it increased from 14 to 25 raw images with UDMA-7 CF cards, but most independent testers said it increased to around 31-32 frames before the buffer bogged down with the fastest CF cards.

It also added:

Supports a new accessory, of the GPS Receiver GP-E2.
Adds a maximum ISO Auto setting function.
Adds an in-camera RAW processing function.
Adds a Quick Control function during playback.
Adds a rating function.
Adds a JPEG image resizing function.
Adds a sound recording level manual adjustment function.
Adds a file name setting function.
Adds a time zone setting function.
Faster scrolling of magnified images.
Fixes a phenomenon where a slow shutter speed may result when an external flash is used to fire intermittent, consecutive flashes.
Corrects the color space information in the Exif file for movies.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 30, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Lines/ih and lines/mm are linear measurements. MP is an areal measurement.


The 7D and 1D X have the same MP count, but not the same resolution. MP is a count, not a measurement. If you believe it is an areal measurement, please specify the SI unit it includes, directly or indirectly. Image height is in millimeters, as is lp/mm. 

An areal measurement including pixels would be something like density in pixels per square millimeter. 



Czardoom said:


> 50 MPs or 20 MPs is the number of pixels not the resolution. If people refer to the resolution of a sensor in MPs, they are making a mistake. Nice try, but AlanF is correct. Maybe you should stop trying to be smarter than everone else. It can be embarrassing.


Yes, @Michael Clark does like to sound smart. He’s often correct, but not always and not in this case. Many people do refer to ‘resolution’ as a pixel count, but then many people write ‘alot’ and think they’re using proper spelling.


----------



## koenkooi (May 30, 2022)

gruhl28 said:


> Good point for electronic shutter, but 15 frames per second mechanical shutter must cost something. I guess with no mirror it’s easier to make high fps, but the RP does only 4 fps and the R does only 5 with servo AF and 8 without.


The shutter is smaller and has to travel less distance on a crop sensor compared to a FF sensor. That makes it easier to increase the FPS and flash sync speed.


----------



## gruhl28 (May 31, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Yes. Around three years after the camera was first released.
> 
> At the time 7D users and, more importantly, potential 7D buyers were getting anxious about when a 7D Mark II might be released. Replacement rumors had been flying for a while. Then rumors began to swirl that Canon was having serious development issues with the sensor. The usual grumbling began about "jumping to _brand x_" if Canon didn't come forth with a 7D replacement ASAP. At the same time, others were holding off on buying a 7D in fear that a 7D II announcement was imminent.
> 
> ...


Wow, I had not realized that Canon had ever added so much in a firmware release. I wish they would do that more.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 5, 2022)

gruhl28 said:


> Wow, I had not realized that Canon had ever added so much in a firmware release. I wish they would do that more.



It genuinely surprised a lot of folks when they announced it a few months before they actually released it.

Of course the Canon is D.O.O.M.E.D. crowd said that was just proof Canon was desperate because there were major problems with the development of the 7D Mark II sensor that would never be solved.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> An areal measurement including pixels would be something like density in pixels per square millimeter.



Yeah, which is what this conversation was originally about: pixel density in two dimensions instead of one.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 5, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Yeah, which is what this conversation was originally about: pixel density in two dimensions instead of one.


Yes, it started here when you showed us that you don’t know how image resolution is defined. And it continued here when you showed us that you don’t know how areal resolution is measured (reminder: not in MP). If you’d like to continue this conversation, it should be with you admitting that you were wrong.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 6, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, it started here when you showed us that you don’t know how image resolution is defined. And it continued here when you showed us that you don’t know how areal resolution is measured (reminder: not in MP). If you’d like to continue this conversation, it should be with you admitting that you were wrong.



Well, yeah. Notice the comment at the first link:

"Wouldn't that be 1.37x? A 24MP APS-C sensor would have the same *density* as a 61.44MP FF sensor."

Admittedly I could have worded the second linked comment better by making it clearer I was still talking about resolution per unit area in two directions on 50Mp and 20MP sensors of the same physical size.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 6, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Well, yeah. Notice the comment at the first link:
> 
> "Wouldn't that be 1.37x? A 24MP APS-C sensor would have the same *density* as a 61.44MP FF sensor."
> 
> Admittedly I could have worded the second linked comment better by making it clearer I was still talking about resolution per unit area in two directions on 50Mp and 20MP sensors of the same physical size.


Well, no. Notice the comment to which you were replying at the first link:

“The maximum extra resolution you could get on a 24 Mpx sensor vs a FF 45 Mpx is 1.17x…”

No, it wouldn’t be 1.37x extra resolution as you stated. It would be 1.17x extra resolution. You were mistaken in your understanding of the meaning of resolution as it pertains to images. You were wrong. Period.

Sure, you tried to reframe the question as a 2D measurement to wiggle out of being wrong. And did that badly, which is all you’ve really admitted.

It’s like someone said 3 + 3 = 6, and you replied wouldn’t that be 9? Then when called on it, your response was that you were right because you were talking about multiplication, not addition. Wiggling like a worm doesn’t change the fact that you were wrong.

I don’t get why you can’t just admit to being wrong. Everyone is, sometimes. Maybe it’s insecurity, as you brought up in the other thread. Or maybe it’s just that worms gonna wiggle.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 10, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Well, no. Notice the comment to which you were replying at the first link:
> 
> “The maximum extra resolution you could get on a 24 Mpx sensor vs a FF 45 Mpx is 1.17x…”
> 
> ...


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 10, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Well, no. Notice the comment to which you were replying at the first link:
> 
> “The maximum extra resolution you could get on a 24 Mpx sensor vs a FF 45 Mpx is 1.17x…”
> 
> ...



For someone who purports to be an expert in the medical field....

Areal density resolution in hard X-ray digital imaging system

The concept has been around a while in more visible light related optical disciplines as well...







See page 6 for this reference:

"Thus it is clear that the _areal size of a resolution unit_ must be..."


----------



## AlanF (Jun 10, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> For someone who purports to be an expert in the medical field....
> 
> Areal density resolution in hard X-ray digital imaging system
> 
> ...


Read here what resolution in optical systems means: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_resolution
"The resolution of a system is based on the minimum distance _r_ at which the points can be distinguished as individuals." It is based on distance, not areas. It is 1-dimensional separation.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 10, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Read here what resolution in optical systems means: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_resolution
> "The resolution of a system is based on the minimum distance _r_ at which the points can be distinguished as individuals." It is based on distance, not areas. It is 1-dimensional separation.



Yeah, because Wikipedia is so much more peer reviewed and edited by experts in a particular field than those sources are?

Yes, optical resolution has been and is normally expressed in linear units, especially in optics labs. 

Optics labs and college physics professors also insist that the focal plane is nowhere near the film/sensor of a camera, either. Even though camera manufacturers call them exactly that and call the mark they place on the top of their products the "focal plane" symbol. Different communities often have different nomenclature that often assign slightly or even radically different meanings to the same words. 

But the concept of areal resolution/density is not a novel one by any means. It's been around for a long time.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 10, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> For someone who purports to be an expert in the medical field....
> 
> Areal density resolution in hard X-ray digital imaging system


What does this "areal density(AD) resolution" actually mean?

Looks like some mistranslated Chinese term.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 10, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> For someone who purports to be an expert in the medical field....
> 
> Areal density resolution in hard X-ray digital imaging system
> 
> ...


LOL.  Really, the best you can come up with is an obscure Chinese-language literature reference on X-rays and a _simulation_ study likely pertaining to the the original Landsat (which launched the following year)? Keep on wiggling...




The resolution of X-ray imaging systems for medical use is specified in lp/mm, just as in photography. For example, this Philips portable unit that has a specified resolution of up to 3.125 lp/mm. Both the American College of Radiology and US FDA specify a minimum resolution threshold of 2.5 lp/mm (the latter applies specifically to mammography).

Each single pixel of Landsat 1 sampled a rectangular area of the earth's surface that was ~4400 m² (slightly larger than an acre). Even so, the spatial resolution of the MSS imaging system on the Landsats (and other orbital imaging platforms in general) is specified in meters, a linear measure of resolution.






Michael Clark said:


> Yes, optical resolution has been and is normally expressed in linear units, especially in optics labs.
> 
> Optics labs and college physics professors also insist that the focal plane is nowhere near the film/sensor of a camera, either. Even though camera manufacturers call them exactly that and call the mark they place on the top of their products the "focal plane" symbol. Different communities often have different nomenclature that often assign slightly or even radically different meanings to the same words.
> 
> But the concept of areal resolution/density is not a novel one by any means. It's been around for a long time.


More wiggling, the definition of the focal plane isn't relevant to this discussion.

Yes, areal resolution can be measured (although megapixels absent array dimensions are not a valid unit, despite your post that you later grudgingly and incompletely walked back). But this is a photography forum, and optical image resolution is measured with a linear measure.

So, let's go back to the original point of this discussion: @AlanF stated, “The maximum extra resolution you could get on a 24 Mpx sensor vs a FF 45 Mpx is 1.17x…” You replied, "Wouldn't that be 1.37x?" The answer is no, it would not. It would be 1.17x as Alan stated, not 1.37x as you stated. You were wrong. Period.

At this point, it's just pathetic that you can't simply admit that you were wrong to begin with. Nevertheless, I will accept that you are mentally and/or emotionally incapable of admitting you were wrong, and leave it at that.


----------

