New Canon EOS & Cinema EOS Cameras Appear for Certification

I'm very interested in future RV bodies, I like the R50V a lot, but the slow sensor readout makes a lot of things I want to do more difficult. That's largely operator error, but the R8 does make them possible. I'd sell the R50V in a heartbeat if an R8V or R7V comes available in roughly the same formfactor (and pricepoint). And let's be honest, an R6IIV without IBIS, using an LP-E17 is an R8V :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
I'm curious to see what type of PowerShot their 1.4" sensor goes in next - a photocentric model with no fan, or perhaps a superzoom with a limited zoom range.
A juiced up G3X with that sensor would be a nice touch. Would need an EVF, though. Probably have to limit to around 400mm equivalent to keep the lens size sensible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
That would depend on the aperture.
We know that Canon is not afraid of f/11.
f/11 at FF is not the same as f/11 at 4/3. I think Canon engineers do understand the two stop difference. They might go to f/8, but even that would be pushing well into diffraction territory. 300mm (600mm equiv.) at f/8 only requires a 38mm objective, but in practice a super zoom would be larger, and from a length perspective, 300mm is 300mm. I think it would depend on marketing decisions of reach vs portability and that kind of decision is anybody's guess. Nikon went whole hog with the p1000 with a 539mm f/8 (at the long end) and a tiny sensor, and it is actually a fun camera, but huge. Notably, the p1000 has no perceivable increase in detail from 360mm (2000mm equiv.) to 539mm (3000mm equiv.), but then, the same has been said of the RF 200-800 between 600 and 800. This would be an interesting opportunity for a DO zoom. I have a copy of the EF 70-300 DO and for a first gen lens it is actually pretty decent and very short for 300mm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
...from a length perspective, 300mm is 300mm.
That was a thought I had, as well. But empirically...
  • RF 800mm, f/5.6 is 461 mm long, f/11 is 362 mm long
  • RF 600mm, f/4 is is 472 mm long, f/11 is 270 mm long
  • RF 100-300mm f/2.8 is is 323 mm long, RF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 is 223 mm long
So it seems that in practice, aperture matters quite a bit. You could certainly argue that IQ matters as well, but I have no doubt the IQ of a PowerShot V lens would be more in line with that of the latter lens in each pair above rather than a big white L lens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
That was a thought I had, as well. But empirically...
  • RF 800mm, f/5.6 is 461 mm long, f/11 is 362 mm long
  • RF 600mm, f/4 is is 472 mm long, f/11 is 270 mm long
  • RF 100-300mm f/2.8 is is 323 mm long, RF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 is 223 mm long
So it seems that in practice, aperture matters quite a bit. You could certainly argue that IQ matters as well, but I have no doubt the IQ of a PowerShot V lens would be more in line with that of the latter lens in each pair above rather than a big white L lens.
That empirical shortening was why I was thinking DO would be nice. Note that both 600 and 800 f/11 are DO lenses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Interesting to see the DS126916 pointing to a new EOS R, I hope it will be a high-end model.
As for the ID0184, I am betting on a new compact Cinema EOS camera, perhaps oriented towards solo creators.
Canon seems to be picking up the pace this year, that's a good sign.
Can't wait to see the official specs!


 
Last edited:
Upvote 0