Canon EOS R50 V Specifications

[scyrene]

I expect the aperture not to get darker over the years for the same focal length.

Fair enough. I don't have any preconceptions about it tbh. I imagine they have looked at what drives actual sales. And as others have noted, they aren't as constrained at the narrow end as before.

But given current high ISO performance, noise reduction, and stabilisation, I wouldn't necessarily use the word "darker". I started with a 300D and the 18-55 kit lens. The aperture was wider (something like f/3.5-5.6?), but it certainly didn't produce bright images in dim light, indeed it was all but unusable without a flash in regular indoor lighting because the usable ISO topped out at like 1600 and it was unstabilised.

 

[koenkooi]

Fair enough. I don't have any preconceptions about it tbh. I imagine they have looked at what drives actual sales. And as others have noted, they aren't as constrained at the narrow end as before.

But given current high ISO performance, noise reduction, and stabilisation, I wouldn't necessarily use the word "darker". I started with a 300D and the 18-55 kit lens. The aperture was wider (something like f/3.5-5.6?), but it certainly didn't produce bright images in dim light, indeed it was all but unusable without a flash in regular indoor lighting because the usable ISO topped out at like 1600 and it was unstabilised.

And above ISO400 you’d get a lot of purple/green noise blotches, so 1600 was already a lot higher than practical. Unless you’d convert it to B&W

 

[Blorp]

Was maximum aperture constrained by the mount?

The EF 85mm 1.2 had to have it's contacts in the field of view.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The specs on the Canon R50V page specifically list it as 21-pins, it doesn't list the number of pins on the R5II page. So I am still unclear if this MF shoe is different from the others or not.

View attachment 223042

It’s interesting that the ST-E10, EL-5 and DM-E1D seem to only have 15 pins on them. Definitely seems like some future proofing going on.

 

[John Wilde]

Seems it's not really a worthy M6 II successor.

It's not supposed to be. It's designed to compete with the vlogging cameras Nikon Z30 and Sony ZV-E10.

 

[koenkooi]

It's not supposed to be. It's designed to compete with the vlogging cameras Nikon Z30 and Sony ZV-E10.

The body shape and size would make people, including myself, think it could replace their M6II. I think it still can, The R50V retains all Av/Tv/M stills modes, so I don't expect surprises on that front. The big differences are a slower, lower res sensor and fewer dials. The added video modes don't seem to detract from stills capabilities either by the looks of it. I wonder if things like focus stacking will be left out, we'll need to await the manual for that.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It's not supposed to be. It's designed to compete with the vlogging cameras Nikon Z30 and Sony ZV-E10.

Agreed, it's a different type of product with a different target market.

Personally, my M6II remains quite successful at what it does and I don't feel it needs a successor.

 

[Nazuxela]

From my side, this is exactly the camera I was waiting for as a secondary setup, mainly to film small shows, events, or performances. Its video-focused design suits me perfectly. I’d say it’s a bit of a shame it doesn’t have in-body stabilization, but most Canon lenses come with it anyway. And in any case, the competition doesn’t really do any better on that front.

What made me hesitate a bit was the price point, not that far off from the R8, which often goes on sale for under 1000 euros and obviously offers better dynamic range and far superior ISO performance. But at the same time, for the kind of use I have in mind, I often need to stop down to f/4 or even f/5.6 to get the maximum focus area. And in those cases, full frame isn’t actually an advantage.

I’m still convinced Canon is working on a new lineup and that an R8V probably isn’t far off, but it’ll likely be twice the price of the R50V, so the decision was an easy one.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

A bit surprised the R50V is larger than a Sony A7CII (higher and thicker).

That is the case in some dimensions, but for the most part, the R50 V is smaller.

Compare camera dimensions side by side

camerasize.com

The a7C II is very small, so that is not much to be embarrassed about.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

smh. Even EF-M 15-45 has aperture of F3.5-5.6. Some will say, difference in aperture doesn't matter at this FL range.. but still! LOL!

I got the EF-M 15-45, feels like a step down.
Same feel i got with RF 28/2.8 from EF 28/1.8.

True, but these cameras are a step up in low light performance.

 

[justaCanonuser]

Btw the return of a Powershot compact would have surprised me - had I not learned recently from the late teens/ early twens in our family that it's super cool again to shoot with a digital P&S camera. They all have quite good smartphones, its cameras would be sufficient for their purposes, but obviously they are bored of the shooting experience with a smartphone. Plus, a digital compact is already totally retro. Canon seems to have their market scouts in the right place...

 

[justaCanonuser]

That is the case in some dimensions, but for the most part, the R50 V is smaller.

Compare camera dimensions side by side

camerasize.com

The a7C II is very small, so that is not much to be embarrassed about.

A bit of a beefier body could be an advantage. For my taste, even the R7 could have been made a tad bigger (preferably with Canon's standard prosumer camera interface) - and my hands have average male size, they are no big blacksmith paws...

 

[justaCanonuser]

But given current high ISO performance, noise reduction, and stabilisation, I wouldn't necessarily use the word "darker". I started with a 300D and the 18-55 kit lens. The aperture was wider (something like f/3.5-5.6?), but it certainly didn't produce bright images in dim light, indeed it was all but unusable without a flash in regular indoor lighting because the usable ISO topped out at like 1600 and it was unstabilised.

My first digital SLR was a 450D (Rebel XSi), and I never found ISO 1600 really useable, ISO 800 was limit (and already quite noisy).

 

[justaCanonuser]

The EF 85mm 1.2 had to have it's contacts in the field of view.

Hm, interesting, never thought about that. I have the MK II version of that lens, and it is true that its contacts protrude about 2 mm into the circle of the back lens. But this part is located at the bottom of the camera mount, so it is outside of the rectangular field of view of the camera's sensor & viewfinder.

 

[justaCanonuser]

Jesus who designed this? It looks like an iPhone and a Sony FX30 had an ugly baby. This vertically embossed mini grip *eww*.
Luigi Colani is spinning in his grave.

Amazing, somebody who still remembers Luigi Colani! He and "Kraftwerk": they represented once the spirit of future here in Germany, in another era now sunken deeply into the sediments of past generations, gen Y, gen Z, now gen Alpha ...

 

[Blorp]

rectangular field of view of the camera's sensor & viewfinder.

It's visible in the bokeh (at least that's what I remember), so not that much outside of the view (the RF 85mm 1.2 keeps the contacts out of the optics, they are also smaller though). And the good old 50mm 1.0 was also hitting that EF mount limits in the same way.

 

[justaCanonuser]

It's visible in the bokeh, so not that much outside of the view (the RF 85mm 1.2 keeps the contacts out of the optics, they are also smaller though). And the good old 50mm 1.0 was also hitting that EF mount limits in the same way.

View attachment 223064

Agree, that could well be. Could you specify the particular effect of the contacts that can be seen in the bokeh? I try generally to avoid strong highlights and strong contrasts in the background with that lens, because then the bokeh can get quite busy.

 

[Blorp]

Agree, that could well be. Could you specify the particular effect of the contacts that can be seen in the bokeh? I try generally to avoid strong highlights and strong contrasts in the background with that lens, because then the bokeh can get quite busy.

I think the dent of the contacts was visible in the highlight bokeh balls.

 

[scyrene]

And above ISO400 you’d get a lot of purple/green noise blotches, so 1600 was already a lot higher than practical. Unless you’d convert it to B&W

I couldn't remember tbh, was generously hedging my bets!

 

[scyrene]

The EF 85mm 1.2 had to have it's contacts in the field of view.

Fair enough. I'm not sure that has an impact on the maximum aperture of kit lenses though. Nor would I have presumed it implied we could expect an RF 85 f/1.0 for instance. At the other extreme, we know that mirrorless definitely has allowed for narrower aperture lenses to retain AF etc. So maybe the OP's presupposition was based on wishful thinking somewhat?