Hint about what to expect from Canon's step into full frame mirrorless?

[neuroanatomist]

But as you point out, the majority of M-series bodies use the LP-E12. So, the LP-E17 is not the exclusively logical choice (you implied that it is).

LP-E17 would be the sole choice since February 2015 when it first appeared. Not only implied. Real logic. Instead of marketing nerfing and "Canon aopologist's attempts at logic".

Evidently you think you are the only one capable of logical reasoning. I'm sure that's true in the AvTvM Universe. I'm damn glad I don't live there.

 

[fullstop]

The most logical battery system is the LPE6. The format has been around for a long time, and some pros have dozens of those things.

By the way, modern batteries don't have much black magic voodoo in them. They're limited by physical size; and the battery type constrains the voltage provided (not physically, but practically, because you wouldn't want to supply the wrong voltage). Other than that, manufacturers can cram more maH into them as the size permits. So unless a manufacturer needs more or wants less voltage for a new camera, or has an physical requirement due to a new camera body, they don't NEED to change the battery format, right?

not correct. There are technical reasons to move to newer, better batteries even when rated voltage stays the same. Users get various benefits from that.

The Fujifilm NP-W126S was preceded as a battery pack for digital cameras by the NP-W126. Both types operate at a similar voltage and are fully interchangeable, so that the NP-W126 can also be used with the Fujifilm X-T100. The main difference between the two packs is their internal circuit design. The newer battery pack has less internal resistance and, thus, less energy loss from internal heating. It will therefore last longer on a single charge and be less prone to overheating.

actually both types have the same voltage -> 7.2V, same as Canon.

https://www.apotelyt.com/camera-power/fujifilm-x-t100-battery
very good source of information, btw.


PS: i do agree with you re. LP-E6 and appreciate/commend Canon's approach with LP-E6 / LP-E6N. But methinks, an LP-E6 would be physically too large for most/all EOS M models. And i do like them compact. But with the juiciest batteries they can fit.

 

[fullstop]

But as you point out, the majority of M-series bodies use the LP-E12. So, the LP-E17 is not the exclusively logical choice (you implied that it is).

LP-E17 would be the sole choice since February 2015 when it first appeared. Not only implied. Real logic. Instead of marketing nerfing and "Canon aopologist's attempts at logic".

Evidently you think you are the only one capable of logical reasoning. I'm sure that's true in the AvTvM Universe. I'm damn glad I don't live there.

No, I am not the only one with logical thinking. And in the EOS M50 / LP-E17 battery case logic is on my side.

 

[neuroanatomist]

[not correct. There are technical reasons to move to newer, better batteries even when rated voltage stays the same. Users get various benefits from that.

So technical reasons are the only factors that logically matter? The only thing that benefits users? I guess that's how logic works in the AvTvM Universe. :

Canon has cut a corner here they definitely should not have cut. Nerfing power supply, a component so vital in any mirrorless camera, when a much better solution is available.

Where is your evidence that their decision has had any negative impact* on M50 sales or profits? Without facts, your criticism remains a personal opinion.

*Note: your incessant whining on the Internet does not constitute a negative impact.

 

[neuroanatomist]

...logic is on my side.

Yes, when you ignore any facts that contradict your opinion, it's easy to win arguments...at least in your own head.

 

[fullstop]

ah, and to return to thread topic, what to expect from Canon with full frame mirrorless ... the M50 battery nerfing further lowers my expectations for Canon's upcoming mirrorless FF system.

As many of you will know already ;D - my "wish-list" FF MILC would be something like a Sony RX-1R II size and form factor, with Sony sensor, Canon lens mount, Canon lenses, Canon RAWs, Canon touchscreen, Canon user interface, Canon menu system.

Now looking at that tiny Sony FF camera, it has a super tiny, light LiIon power pack, running on 3.6 V only, dates back to June 2012, but yet it packs 1240mAh. So from a pure logics point of view, in an LP-E17 sized battery there should be more charge possible in 2018 than merely 1040mAh.

Yes, i know the price Sony is charging for the RX1R II, but I don't think the power pack accounts for half of it.


---------------
Sony NP-BX1 Specifications
Battery type: Rechargeable Lithium-Ion power pack
Compatibility: Sony RX1R II & other selected Sony cameras
Voltage: 3.6V DC
Capacity: 1240mAh or 220 shots (CIPA) with the Sony RX1R II
Dimensions (W x H x D): 29 x 9 x 42mm
Weight: 25g

 

[fullstop]

[not correct. There are technical reasons to move to newer, better batteries even when rated voltage stays the same. Users get various benefits from that.

So technical reasons are the only factors that logically matter? The only thing that benefits users?

Well in my logic a battery that holds more charge and is less prone to overheat are pretty compelling benefits to digital camera users. Even more so, when that battery is not really larger or more expensive than a technically inferior one.

But, YLMV ... YOUR logic may vary. ;D

 

[rrcphoto]

Well in my logic a battery that holds more charge and is less prone to overheat are pretty compelling benefits to digital camera users.

actually the smaller charge batteries are less of an overheating problem.

there are cases to be made to move to an LP-E17 or to stick with an LP-E12. You are looking at it through your own personal bias if you think there is only one clear cut choice here.

Only canon knows what the impact of moving to the E17 in the lower scale bodies is. Since they aren't sharing, it's anyone's guess, and here's a tidbit. you may be wrong in your assumptions.

 

[rrcphoto]

...however, the M1, M2, M10, M100, M50 all use LP-E12's so it's not as if the M50 stands alone.

Indeed, the LP-E12 is a logical choice (even if some people are unable comprehend logic).

logic would be to upgrade them all to E17's.

Why?

Being able to buy a new camera and use currently-owned batteries is logical (to customers). A lower production cost is logical (to Canon). A lower shots-per-battery rating resulting in a perceived need for customers to buy extra (possibly high margin) batteries is logical (to Canon).

because the rest of canon's lineup has migrated from the E12's including the rebels. The SL1 was the only EOS camera to use the E12's and that was replaced by the SL2 that uses the E17.

But as you point out, the majority of M-series bodies use the LP-E12. So, the LP-E17 is not the exclusively logical choice (you implied that it is).

you again, quote me out of context.

Stop doing that.

 

[fullstop]

Well in my logic a battery that holds more charge and is less prone to overheat are pretty compelling benefits to digital camera users.

actually the smaller charge batteries are less of an overheating problem.

there are cases to be made to move to an LP-E17 or to stick with an LP-E12. You are looking at it through your own personal bias if you think there is only one clear cut choice here.

I have not seen any stats to that effect, but maybe you have a statistic/link showing Fujifilm's 1425mAh power packs cause more overheating problems than Canons 1040mAh only power pack (LP-E17) or the whimpy-charge LP-E12 (875mAh)? Or that Canon LP-E6 power packs with 1865mAh overheat even m ore frequently?


Just face it: there is no valid case for Canon to stick LP-E12 power packs into EOS M50. It is pure and utter marketing differentiation/nerfing. Which may well be a valid case in Canon's eyes and in Canon apologists' eyes. But only in theirs.


btw: here's a link to the CIPA battery testing standards, in case anyone is interested.
http://www.cipa.jp/std/documents/e/DC-002_e.pdf

 

[3kramd5]

power supply, a component so vital in any mirrorless camera

Why is a power supply so vital to a mirrorless camera? Doesn’t that violate the first law of MILC, i.e.:

there are no advantages to mirrorslappers.

 

[rrcphoto]

Well in my logic a battery that holds more charge and is less prone to overheat are pretty compelling benefits to digital camera users.

actually the smaller charge batteries are less of an overheating problem.

there are cases to be made to move to an LP-E17 or to stick with an LP-E12. You are looking at it through your own personal bias if you think there is only one clear cut choice here.

I have not seen any stats to that effect, but maybe you have a statistic/link showing Fujifilm's 1425mAh power packs cause more overheating problems than Canons 1040mAh only power pack (LP-E17) or the whimpy-charge LP-E12 (875mAh)? Or that Canon LP-E6 power packs with 1865mAh overheat even m ore frequently?

it stands to reason. it takes a higher charge current for higher capacity batteries.

and you conveniently missed the point, so i'll repeat "there are cases to be made to move to an LP-E17 or to stick with an LP-E12. You are looking at it through your own personal bias if you think there is only one clear cut choice here."

you have no idea what you are talking about or what canon looked at the difference in between the two batteries and made a decision on. You have zero (and I don't either) engineering knowledge, either manufacturing, cost, heat, complexity,etc to know why canon made the choice they did.

CIPA battery standard testing is meaningless for the majority of cameras as there are too many environmental variables to take into account that no one ever does and the majority of the variation is around the GN of the internal flash.

 

[neuroanatomist]

[not correct. There are technical reasons to move to newer, better batteries even when rated voltage stays the same. Users get various benefits from that.

So technical reasons are the only factors that logically matter? The only thing that benefits users?

Well in my logic a battery that holds more charge and is less prone to overheat are pretty compelling benefits to digital camera users. Even more so, when that battery is not really larger or more expensive than a technically inferior one.

But, YLMV ... YOUR logic may vary. ;D

I see. So logic from your viewpoint of what you would want defines 'compelling benefits to digital camera users'. The fact that many potential M50 buyers already own one or more LP-E12 batteries is irrelevant.

Which would give you more total shots: the one LP-E 17 that comes with a camera you buy, or one LP-E12 battery that comes with a camera you buy plus ≥1 LP-E12 that you already own?

Regardless, the facts: 1) Canon included the LP-E 12 battery with the EOS M50 for reasons that are logical to them, and 2) your expectations of and wish list for the upcoming Canon FF MILC are completely irrelevant to Canon.

 

[ahsanford]

As many of you will know already ;D - my "wish-list" FF MILC would be something like a Sony RX-1R II size and form factor, with Sony sensor, Canon lens mount, Canon lenses, Canon RAWs, Canon touchscreen, Canon user interface, Canon menu system.

Ah, you want an ILC form factor from a fixed lens design that tucks the lens into the body for minimum possible footprint. So it's a proper dreamland, then. Gotcha.

Also, the form factor of the RX1R bodies is like the original EOS-M = smallest possible, no grip to be found. Ever try putting a 24-70 f/2.8 or 70-200 2.8 on the original EOS M? Because a subset of Canon's users will 100% do that on the first day they get it. And to do that with zero grip is cruel and unusual punishment for the wrist.

Don't get me wrong, Canon may 'go super tiny' with the first of (presumably) many different FF mirrorless form factors. But I don't think they'll go full crazy thin and gripless with an ILC, because even the most ordinary lens you'd put on this thing will be taller than the grip would be.

- A

 

[neuroanatomist]

... because even the most ordinary lens you'd put on this thing will be taller than the grip would be.

Unless you live in a universe where the thin lens approximation is more than just a mathematical/conceptual model, it describes actual production lenses. You know, the world where a 'really right lens mount' allows lenses to defy the laws of physics.

 

[ahsanford]

... because even the most ordinary lens you'd put on this thing will be taller than the grip would be.

Unless you live in a universe where the thin lens approximation is more than just a mathematical/conceptual model, it describes actual production lenses. You know, the world where a 'really right lens mount' allows lenses to defy the laws of physics.

Yeah. We can do this all day.

I appreciate the desire for a small over aggregate size of body + lens. And, yes, Canon may very well offer multiple bodies with different form factors and grip sizes. But to not put at least an A7 sized grip on an FF ILC would be unconscionable.

You'd be saving no space with a lens attached, you'd limit the battery size, you'd terrorize wrists, and you'd eliminate the chance for top LCD and 'grip-adjacent' controls of any substance.

- A

 

[fullstop]

Agree, a bit of a grip should be added to RX1R II form factor. And if body were a bit bigger, like Sony A7 1st gen, fine with me as well. I will use compact f/4 zooms on my small mirrorless FF body, not f/2.8 zooms. And small, moderately fast primes. Large(r) lenses in rare occasions - and then on tripod.

My 24-70, 70-200 2.8 and 5D3 are spending most of their time at home. Too heavy, too clunky, too "conspicous".

In essence I am after something like a modern day, digital version of the Minolta CLE system, ideally with full access to Canon lens universe (EF of course via adapter, no problem here).

 

[fullstop]

I see. So logic from your viewpoint of what you would want defines 'compelling benefits to digital camera users'. The fact that many potential M50 buyers already own one or more LP-E12 batteries is irrelevant.

I thought it is general consensus here and in the real world, that EOS M50 is a Canon "ENTRY level" mirrorless camera. You may also call it a fact.

Now, who do you think is Canon primarily targetting its ENTRY level EOS M50 at?

A) New ENTRants to Canon EOS M mirrorless system, "upgraders from smartphones, point & shoots, and maybe 1" compacts" who want an APS-C sensored system camera that is small and affordable?

B) existing Canon EOS M model owners who still have LP-E12 batteries around the house?

C) existing Canon M owners with LP-E17 battery packs at hand?

What will be the proportion of EOS M50 sales to the 3 groups you reckon? Which group will likely be largest? Who would benefit most from having a battery which lasts 430+ shots = a full day of shooting for most EOS M50 users? Which new user purchasing EOS M50 + kit lens will profit from a having whimpy LP-E12 in it with 230+ shots = no way to go around with out at least 1 charged spare battery.

The most simple explanation is usually the correct one: conscious nerfing by Canon's to create "marketing differentiation" towards much higher priced EOS M5.

"Gosh, that little M50 has the same sensor, better DIGIC, better video, much better AF [face/eye-tracking is very important to smartphone upgraders!] than EOS M5? Now wait a minute, why is M50 599 and M5 over a grand? [MSRP] ... ?"

Skimping on a MILC battery is a disadvantage for Canon's customers, not helpful for Canon's competitive position [some people do look at spreadsheets and will notice the Fuji X-T100 has more than twice the shots per charge for the same money. Plus 15-45 Fuji kit lens is better than the Canon one too ...] and it is not good for Canon's brand recognition ["corner cutters"] either.

But feel free to believe in other, much less likely explanations for the whimpy "battery" in the M50. "Power pack" really would be the wrong word for it. LOL.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The most simple explanation is usually the correct one: conscious nerfing by Canon's to create "marketing differentiation" towards much higher priced EOS M5.

How is that illogical? Why would it only be logical to use the LP-E17 in the M50?

 

[Mikehit]

The most simple explanation is usually the correct one: conscious nerfing by Canon's to create "marketing differentiation" towards much higher priced EOS M5.

Problem is, the idea of nerfing based on the battery (the battery, fer Christ's sake!) is actually the more complex one.