R1 rumored to be 100 MP's

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19431870
If Sony bodies that are still selling at retailers count for this discussion, so do the EFM models that are also currently for sale.

Again Sony was well ahead of Canon with mirrorless, so it makes sense they could release MKII and MKIII versions pretty easily with just marginal updates on some of the models.

With the current numbering conventions of R# (and a rumored R100), Canon has slots for 5 more models; R1, R4, R8, R9 and R100 if rumors hold true. Having 11 models is more than enough in today's market, but it will take a few years to even fill this lineup, provided they have enough planned models to fill these remaining slots.

I don’t recall the exact story, but there is something about the number 4 (bad omen or something) that would keep an R4 from ever being released. It was probably here that I read it I just don’t remember. I think the word for 4 means death.

jcothron wrote in post #19431882
I don’t recall the exact story, but there is something about the number 4 (bad omen or something) that would keep an R4 from ever being released. It was probably here that I read it I just don’t remember. I think the word for 4 means death.

They could just call it the RIV then, because they don't seem to have an issue with that, lol!

They did have the T4i, maybe the i fixes the issue.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19431884
They could just call it the RIV then, because they don't seem to have an issue with that, lol!

They did have the T4i, maybe the i fixes the issue.

Oh no, we have gone straight to an R mKIV. LOL

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19431866
.
I guess I don't remember any model of Rebel being originally listed under $500, even the lowest end like the T7.
.

.
I have no idea what any of those Rebels originally listed at when they were first released. . I just know they were around $300 when I saw them in WalMart, Best Buy, etc.

Just two years ago my sister-in-law, who had never owned an interchangeable lens camera before, bought a Rebel with a kit lens, and added on the 55-250mm lens, and the total was under $500. . That was relatively recent, and it was brand new from B&H. . No "deal of the day" or anything, just the regular price at the time she bought it.. Two new lenses and a new body for under $500, regular price. .

Guy in my church also bought his first ever interchangeable lens camera from Walmart 3 years ago. . It was a digital Rebel with a 70-300mm lens (not as a kit lens, he got the Rebel body-only and then added the low quality 70-300mm. . He paid under $500 total.

What is someone with that same budget for an interchangeable lens camera to do now that DSLRs are being abandoned? . I can see paying a bit more to keep up with the percentage of inflation that everything else is increasing by. . But even when inflation is accounted for, it seems like people with that particular budget for an interchangeable lens camera are being ignored and left out in the cold, with manufacturers giving them no comparable mirrorless options.

And here I thought that mirrorless equivalents were supposed to be cheaper to make, because there needs be no mirror box. . Ha ha ha to that idea! . And yes, how expensive something is to manufacture DOES have a direct effect on the retail price (no matter what anybody here says).


.

dolina wrote in post #19431881
What would have been nice would bumping up the consumer MILCs to APS-H at the same price point as APS-C bodies.

Wrecking the entire EF-S thing.

jcothron wrote in post #19431882
.
I don’t recall the exact story, but there is something about the number 4 (bad omen or something) that would keep an R4 from ever being released. It was probably here that I read it I just don’t remember. I think the word for 4 means death.
.

.
OMG now I want an R4. . Would love to have The Death Camera! . How cool would that be?!

EDIT: . The two bodies I currently use the most are a 5D Mark 4 and a 1D Mark 4. . So I guess I already have a pair of death cameras! . Cool! . That makes me happy


.

AntonLargiader wrote in post #19431896
Wrecking the entire EF-S thing.

EF mount is a dead end.

RF-H mount rather than RF-S.

IMO if APS-H makes a comeback it will be like they did with the 1D, a smaller sensor on an upscale body to achieve a specific goal, rather than enlarging the sensor on the entry-level body. As a simply parallel line, APS-H is too close to APS-C to justify two systems.

If anything, smaller sensors are the future... Canon isn't about to move their overall direction to larger ones.

As for EF being dead... the two RF-S lenses introduced were probably not really enough to get off the ground. Compatibility with EF-S was probably part of the launch plan. People who already had the 17-55 or 55-250 could move straight over.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19431872
That eye AF has proven superior in marching band over my 5D4 in most cases, with a few situations where it actually caused me grief. I love how I can train the starting eye AF point over the student I want to shoot, and it follows them as they march around the frame. Also for family oriented photography, eye AF has been a great tool. However the other advantage is the burst rates when needed that you cannot get in a DSLR other than the 1DX3.

Having a good ISO 25600/32000 out of camera is nice too, this is where the R6 starts to walk away from the 5D4 from OOC results. That really saved me time on the last shoot where I had 900+ images to deliver.

I dont see anything there that a 5D4 or 1Dx2 could not capture in servo mode. I think Eye focus just makes things easier to get and I think you wind up over shooting. Why do you need 20 similar shots ? I shoot shallow for portraits and I dont miss. I need 1-3 shots and its time to move on to something else. These were from this weekend and my trip to CA to photograph my son and his wife. Eye focus would not net me any better results. I shot about 75 shots and picked my best 20 for them to decide on....where is the advantage to Mirrorless for what I do ?

That said- im still getting the R7- I want a crop for wildlife

Teamspeed

If I am being really honest- I think the reliance on auto eye focus diminishes photography skill sets. People are over reliant on this feature and rely on it instead of working on skill sets and mastering AF systems for the cameras they use.

AntonLargiader wrote in post #19431909
IMO if APS-H makes a comeback it will be like they did with the 1D, a smaller sensor on an upscale body to achieve a specific goal, rather than enlarging the sensor on the entry-level body. As a simply parallel line, APS-H is too close to APS-C to justify two systems.

If anything, smaller sensors are the future... Canon isn't about to move their overall direction to larger ones.

As for EF being dead... the two RF-S lenses introduced were probably not really enough to get off the ground. Compatibility with EF-S was probably part of the launch plan. People who already had the 17-55 or 55-250 could move straight over.

Tech has improved to the point that a APS-H 1-Series body is not limited anymore. Hence the 1D X Series bodies being all full frame.

Sensor size was always limited by cost.

Smaller sensor cameras were victims of the rise of iPhones and Androids.

EF-S was launched after the transition from film to digital. RF-S was launched during the transition from EF to RF.

Canon, like any other company, has plant manufacturing limitations.

Odds are if anyone looks at the EF-S release timeline it isn't as plentiful as one would imagine.

Eye AF helps keeping the focus on the faces even with bright shiny instruments in front of their faces. With the 5D4 or 1D series, all you can do is put the AF point over the general area of the face and hope the face stays in focus. It is very clear how eye AF helps here over just a spot AF point sitting over the head of a bugle player, and the difference is the instrument is in focus and the eyes are not. I have shot this for nearly 11 years now with the 1D4, 5D4, 7D2, etc and the R6 makes this much easier.

The other difference with DSLR and the eye AF on the R series is that you can now compose as you want in the viewfinder while the camera maintains focus on the face as the subject moves around. You cannot do that with any DSLR, even if you try to use iTR or face detect.

You are correct, with your samples, the only AF strength that eye AF might give you is that it has nearly 100% frame coverage, and therefore you could compose exactly in camera what you want while still getting perfect focus on the eyes no matter where the face falls in the frame. With your shots, yes, eye AF would gain you nothing. There isn't anything complicated there for the DSLR focusing system.

My samples weren't to tout eye AF systems either, I simply stated that I enjoyed the out of camera high ISO results of the R6 where I don't have to run a series of filters/post processing especially with nearly 1000 shots to deliver. I am sorry you understood my 2 samples as being some sort of case study of eye AF.

umphotography wrote in post #19431912
Teamspeed

If I am being really honest- I think the reliance on auto eye focus diminishes photography skill sets. People are over reliant on this feature and rely on it instead of working on skill sets and mastering AF systems for the cameras they use.

I fail to see your argument. Just keeping some AF point on your subject as they move around is a skill I guess, but since the camera ultimately decides what really gets focus under that AF point, it is not the skill of the photographer to get keepers with the eyes in focus, it is luck, in this specific situation (and others). In the end, it is the result that matters, and that is usually a synergy between the camera doing better and the photographer knowing how to set it up and use it. Each situation comes with different challenges and eye AF can help in some, and in others there is no real difference in a DSLR and eye AF R mount.

Hopefully one day you finally get to enjoy the mirrorless offerings.

umphotography wrote in post #19431912
Teamspeed

If I am being really honest- I think the reliance on auto eye focus diminishes photography skill sets. People are over reliant on this feature and rely on it instead of working on skill sets and mastering AF systems for the cameras they use.

Skills? You mean technical skills such as getting the exposure right, and getting the focus to be just where you want it?

I actually don't care much about those skills. . They're just technical things that a computer can figure out.

I hold creativeness and artistic vision in extremely high regard. But skills are kinda just a necessary evil to me ... a necessary evil that doesn't have to be necessary if we can have more capable cameras. . If a camera can do those mundane technical things for me, then my brain and fingers are free to use on the more important parts of photography.

Below is a more detailed explanation of what I am trying to say, that I wrote up for another site. . It explains why skills are things that the camera should do for us, so that we can focus more entirely on the higher parts of the photographic process.

--------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------

Creativity comes from all of the things that are not technical, and have nothing (or very little) to do with camera settings.

Creativity comes from knowing exactly what you want to show about your subject. What attributes of your subject do you want to showcase and show to the viewer? How do you capture the essence and/or personality and/or mood of your subject? How do you want the viewer to feel about your subject, and how can you photograph that subject so that the viewer will feel that way?

How do you show your subject within the context of its environment? What things around the subject do you include in the frame, and which things do you exclude, to produce the mood and feel that you are going for?

For the things around the subject that you want to include, how do you show those things in relation to the subject? Do you show them relatively large in the frame, or small in the frame? Do you show them in a dreamy, way out of focus way, or do you show them in a more realistic kind of way?

What part of the distant background do you put directly behind your subject to get the subject to "pop" the way you want it to? Do you show the subject more subtly placed within the scene, or do you have the subject stand out of the scene, visually?

How is the ambient light interacting with your subject when it turns slightly to the left? When it turns to the right? What if you hold the camera a little higher, or get down on your belly to get the camera lower? How does the light on your subject change as you change camera positions?

These are all things that have nothing to do at all with camera functions. They are aesthetic / creative choices. And when the camera can get perfect exposure and perfect focus all by itself, then I can put all of my physical and mental energies into these aesthetic concerns.

I want a camera that dan do all of the "camera things" automatically and flawlessly, without fail, regardless of the situation or conditions. 1000 times out of 1000 times. Then my brain and eyes and hands are free to do the things I just wrote about.

.

umphotography wrote in post #19431912
Teamspeed

If I am being really honest- I think the reliance on auto eye focus diminishes photography skill sets. People are over reliant on this feature and rely on it instead of working on skill sets and mastering AF systems for the cameras they use.

The Average Joe does not possess the skill set to accomplish what you can do without eye focus...the camera is left in factory configuration where a certain bunch of AF points are used to focus, they don't know how to shift that group around the frame...ergo the no-brain eye finding accomplishes what they cannot do because they do not know how to use their cameras to better effect. Like automatic tranmissions in cars, most drivers do no have the brains to shift their tranmissions to control speed while going down a long grade, so they ride their brakes and wear them out faster...same thing, different situation...no brains make the newer cameras better for them.
Of course, the above ignores the fact that there are photographers who do not really care about the technical side of photography, and base their actions on the creativity of shooting, and the appeal of eye focus for that group...not because of no-brains, but their simply orientation to other (not0technical) aspects of making photos.