Again, I must say to Canon company as a Canon user. Before thinking of the APS-C line upgrade, please upgrade your Kit lens. The RF-S 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 is not a vlog lens or good for night. The new users will stay with Canon and will trust Canon when it give them an affordable and good kit lens that can do everything - like Vlog or photography -workable footage or photo. If he/she grows, he will pick their second and third lens by choice. At least, give them RF-S 15-55mm F3.5-5.6
Honestly, I'm a bit skeptical that Canon will release a new line of cameras with smaller sensors, because I can't help but think of what happened with the M mount, which was clearly abandoned due to a lack of optics and development. I think that the M mount is the perfect balance between the quality of an APSC sensor and reduced optics. Inferior sensors are already so challenged by adverse conditions.
You might be correct. Perhaps we will just get one or two cameras, but if they are designing a new sensor, putting it in just one camera seems like a waste... The rumour could be wrong too.
Plenty of people don’t find compact cameras boring - hence the reason the G7Xiii is always on backorder, the Fuji cameras are winning the day and Ricoh GR3’s are revered. And why Canon are going “back to the future” with a near 4/3 sensor - G1X redux perhaps?
i’m there with you about smaller sensors. Growing up with 35mm film, the D30, D60, 10D and 20D all had a kind of narrow “tunnel” vision that disappeared once I switched to the 5D. From there, I did not look back and never looked again at those smaller sensor cameras. I have to admit though, that I purchased an R7 for the sole purpose of having a high-pixel-density camera for the eclipse last year. I did it’s intended job and I tried using it for birding, but found it too limiting (smaller buffer and slow write speeds to SD card, no CFex, the button layout not quite the same as the 5D / R5 series cameras, …) it went away in December to pay (in part) for the 200-800
With this news popping up, now it makes sense why they started opening up the RF mount(& Canon STM releases) with APS-C because that will go along with this release. Maybe they're trying to nail both APSC lineup upgrade path and compact camera demands. Now I'm curious if they are releasing a Sony FX30 competitor using this MFT-like tech. One has to remember that technically, non-oversampled 4K only needs a small sensor footprint.
Hmm, their current APS-C is 1.6x crop, so it’s not far fetched to see them go to ~1.8x which would be much closer to 2x MFT. I don’t see the appeal personally, but I’m sure they’ve done the research and are confident in their decision. It will all come down to the price point and specs I suppose.
I would totally be game (pun intended) for a canon RF compatible m4/3 camera .. imagine the 200-800 on an mft sensor for wildlife O_O (with enough megapixels to crop ..)
I’m wondering whether there’s some technical sweet spot around that size for Canon, between resolution, frame rate, global shutter, low-light sensitivity, light weight, compactness and robustness that makes a multipurpose 4/3ish sensor viable for stills and video, whether pocket cameras or drones or vlogging.
I'm finding that the tools provided have a huge impact on the quality we can deliver. Tools like zebras, waveforms, AI autofocus. After all, it's about getting that image in our mind out of the camera. Any tools that hew with that are what I am looking for :)
How can you be bored with Micro Four Thirds when Voigtlander makes one of world’s fastest lenses of any format and it happens to be Micro Four Thirds? Look at the Voigtlander 29mm F0.8 Super Nokton. If it were possible to combine this with future micro four thirds sensors it would be amazing and this is coming from someone who uses Fujifilm’s Medium Format GFX system too! Micro four Thirds has never been boring to me; it has a wider ecosystem of lens choices than any other system!
I hope Canon's doesn't stop DSLR styled MILC camera like R7/R50/R100. Sony has lot of APS-C but ergonomics of Rangefinder isn't for everyone esp with heavier & longer lens
A sensor would be 'Four Thirds' (as in 1.33" size) not 'micro Four Thirds, which is a lens-mount system, not a sensor size. Likewise, if it were put in a compact camera, without an interchangeable lens, that would not be a 'micro Four Thirds' camera, because it wouldn't have the lens mount.
At this point, you only put out a small sensor camera to compete with other small, walk-around cameras. Probably the biggest complaint about GoPro is low light performance. People say the X100V has decent low light performance "for such a small camera". So Canon's new camera better have good low light capability, including a sharp, fast lens. (You have to assume it will be fixed lens.) And the AF needs to at least be competent in low light. Fail in any of those things, and it's probably an also-ran from the start. My gut tells me that especially in these consumer targeted new offerings, Canon is going to be pretty AI-heavy. And even though it's not my cup of tea, it would probably be a good thing for that market. But I would still like to see them lead out with a truly pro-level APS-C camera with a slightly smaller, lighter body than their full frame offerings, reasonably weather sealed, along with at least a few higher end lenses specifically designed for APS-C.
When I moved to full frame, I welcome better low light performance, but suffered in bright light with over exposure Scott - a video issue. These small cameras used in daylight are great, but dawn and dusk they are a challenge. I'm curious to see if your prediction comes true - seems to make sense.
I would pay 4.000 for a MFT video exclusive camera with a sweet zoom lens for documentary cinema. Recently I bought a new GH5S and speedbosted with my Nikon lenses is a chef's kiss, but changing glasses slows the shooting experience a lot
Hi Simon, making the sensor for their refreshed powershot V line themselves means Canon sees a big enough market, but also avoids sharing a part of the profits with Sony and it may help showcasing their new chipmaking machines. Such sensor size close to MFT helps to set the IQ apart from smartphones, and likely the same sensor will be used in a SX70 HS successor. Maybe Canon would even make it better than the Sony RX10iv .. My wife loved it for years because she could go from 24mm landscapes to 600mm birds without swapping lenses. But because Sony didn't update it after 2017 and it didn't yet have bird eye-AF, she switched to the R7ii and already 4 lenses. She likes her Canon gear .. but still misses the agility of having such huge zoom range. For APS-C and certainly FF, a 24-600 would have too many compromises.
I think you're right. With the full-frame market finally in place, it looks like they might be turning their attention to the APS-C and compact markets. I'm looking forward to the R7 refresh. :) A compact would be good for travel.
I don't know why you think Sony APS-C cameras have better autofocus than Canon APS-C cameras? It's not true. I watch a bird photographer who has both and the R7 has better AF for birds in flight. The A6700 has better AF for birds on the ground in busy environments. I have an R7 and have posted bursts of 70+ images with birds flying in all types of backgrounds (plain sky, cloudy, busy trees and obstacles etc.) with every shot correctly in focus.
If you recall, I didn't say I think Sony has a better autofocus. I said there is a perception that Sony has a better autofocus. With the R52 and R1, I'd say it is Canon who now has a better AF. But its important to realize that perception is reality and it is hard to change person's perception ;)
whats for? make matrix even smaller or may be slightly bigger so current (third party) rf-s lenses will not cover the matrix field? what ever they plan to do one thing is more likeley to make make wore quality of life of ther customers for sure.
MFT sensors have one physical advantage. The smaller size and weight are good, but not the jaw dropper. It is the size, cost and weight of a long lens for birding. Because MFT has a 2x crop, a 300mm lens magnifies like a 600mm full frame lens. Now, this three hundred mm lens, at f4, can be a tiny fraction of the size and cost of a 600mm full frame f4 lens, Now, there is not free lunch. This f4 MFT light gathering has a cost. The bokeh will not be like the full frame lens. But birding does not need a super thin focal plane and huge bokeh balls. For some reason, no MFT vendor has taken advantage of this opportunity, Maybe Canon will.
I have a Sony A7IV and an OM-1. I use my OM-1 much more than my Sony. IMO there are two reason m 4/3's do not sell. 1- The name. Seeing as m 4/3 was the first mirrorless cameras made. They should have just called it, mirrorless 4/3's. Micro sounds substandard when you hear FULL FRAME. 2- there are just way too many talking heads who push FF. I'm willing to bet more photographers would benefit and use a m 4/3 body if they gave them a chance. The ONLY way I see a difference in my files is if I pixel pee side by side. Oh and the ridiculous exaggerated bokeh. Other than that, I think in a lot of ways ( for me) the OM-1 is superior to the A7IV. It is not cripples if I don't spend an extra $1000+ on a lens. Auto white balance is superior. Weather sealing is superior. The size and weight is better. Cost is more affordable. I can get a used 1.2 prime that does not cost $3000 and weigh 3 1/2 lbs. Menu is better and the features built in make it a lot more fun to shoot. Sorry FF users. I just feel for many genres of photography FF is a scam.
At the end of the day the only thing holding back the compact camera market is price. The issue being quality compact cameras typically hover around the $1,000 mark, the same price as an APSC camera. Most people don't care all that much about image quality (as proven by social media) which is where the 20mp sensor works fine, most people prefer a compact form factor to bulky (as proven by smartphones), most people prefer simplicity over options (as proven by Apple) and most people don't care that much about battery life (as proven by most gamers). Compact cameras fit all these criteria and fill this niche almost perfectly. If Canon, Nikon, Sony, Ricoh or whoever could deliver a solid, reliable, compact camera under $1,000 there will be a surge in popularity for that particular market, mark my words.
sony isnt doing well though with their apsc, their a6700 release is so weak compares to powerful r7 and fuji apsc XH line...the a6700 is no where to be heard
Canon could get a big market increase if they'd stop messing around & open up the RF mount fully to 3rd party lens manufacturers, everybody knows this except it seems Canon!
Again, I must say to Canon company as a Canon user. Before thinking of the APS-C line upgrade, please upgrade your Kit lens. The RF-S 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 is not a vlog lens or good for night. The new users will stay with Canon and will trust Canon when it give them an affordable and good kit lens that can do everything - like Vlog or photography -workable footage or photo. If he/she grows, he will pick their second and third lens by choice. At least, give them RF-S 15-55mm F3.5-5.6
Canon needs to launch 15-65 f/4 or f/2.8
@amitkrupal1234 also they need to upgrade their RFS18-45MM F4.5-6.3. At least they could follow M50'S kit lens. And long end must end at 5.6.
Honestly, I'm a bit skeptical that Canon will release a new line of cameras with smaller sensors, because I can't help but think of what happened with the M mount, which was clearly abandoned due to a lack of optics and development. I think that the M mount is the perfect balance between the quality of an APSC sensor and reduced optics. Inferior sensors are already so challenged by adverse conditions.
You might be correct. Perhaps we will just get one or two cameras, but if they are designing a new sensor, putting it in just one camera seems like a waste... The rumour could be wrong too.
Plenty of people don’t find compact cameras boring - hence the reason the G7Xiii is always on backorder, the Fuji cameras are winning the day and Ricoh GR3’s are revered. And why Canon are going “back to the future” with a near 4/3 sensor - G1X redux perhaps?
Thanks Simon. I like compact cameras, always have. I am waiting for the R7 MK II.
I would love another micro four thirds camera.
Would love to see a Canon XF professional camcorder with a MFT sensor
i’m there with you about smaller sensors. Growing up with 35mm film, the D30, D60, 10D and 20D all had a kind of narrow “tunnel” vision that disappeared once I switched to the 5D. From there, I did not look back and never looked again at those smaller sensor cameras. I have to admit though, that I purchased an R7 for the sole purpose of having a high-pixel-density camera for the eclipse last year. I did it’s intended job and I tried using it for birding, but found it too limiting (smaller buffer and slow write speeds to SD card, no CFex, the button layout not quite the same as the 5D / R5 series cameras, …) it went away in December to pay (in part) for the 200-800
1.5" sensor like G1X
Perhaps.
I had the G1xII. I liked it a lot, but the AF was BAD, that's why I sold it.
With this news popping up, now it makes sense why they started opening up the RF mount(& Canon STM releases) with APS-C because that will go along with this release. Maybe they're trying to nail both APSC lineup upgrade path and compact camera demands. Now I'm curious if they are releasing a Sony FX30 competitor using this MFT-like tech. One has to remember that technically, non-oversampled 4K only needs a small sensor footprint.
A canon ixus mft kamera ......what a Beauty......
Hmm, their current APS-C is 1.6x crop, so it’s not far fetched to see them go to ~1.8x which would be much closer to 2x MFT. I don’t see the appeal personally, but I’m sure they’ve done the research and are confident in their decision. It will all come down to the price point and specs I suppose.
I wonder if canon is going to compete with the Sony a6700 and come out with a similar camera to the M6 Mark II in an RF mount? 🤔
Perhaps James. We should know soon enough. If CR is correct, it sounds like a compact camera refresh for the first half, and APS-C for the second half
I would totally be game (pun intended) for a canon RF compatible m4/3 camera .. imagine the 200-800 on an mft sensor for wildlife O_O (with enough megapixels to crop ..)
The small camera's interest a lot of us. It's easier to carry around and love it for live streaming.
Same here. I love the R52, but am interested in getting something light.
your right I am not bothered about MFT lol
I’m wondering whether there’s some technical sweet spot around that size for Canon, between resolution, frame rate, global shutter, low-light sensitivity, light weight, compactness and robustness that makes a multipurpose 4/3ish sensor viable for stills and video, whether pocket cameras or drones or vlogging.
I'm finding that the tools provided have a huge impact on the quality we can deliver. Tools like zebras, waveforms, AI autofocus. After all, it's about getting that image in our mind out of the camera. Any tools that hew with that are what I am looking for :)
Hopefully OM-Solutions can copy Canon and produce an actual new model, not just a mild 3rd gen refresh.
How can you be bored with Micro Four Thirds when Voigtlander makes one of world’s fastest lenses of any format and it happens to be Micro Four Thirds? Look at the Voigtlander 29mm F0.8 Super Nokton. If it were possible to combine this with future micro four thirds sensors it would be amazing and this is coming from someone who uses Fujifilm’s Medium Format GFX system too! Micro four Thirds has never been boring to me; it has a wider ecosystem of lens choices than any other system!
I hope Canon's doesn't stop DSLR styled MILC camera like R7/R50/R100. Sony has lot of APS-C but ergonomics of Rangefinder isn't for everyone esp with heavier & longer lens
A sensor would be 'Four Thirds' (as in 1.33" size) not 'micro Four Thirds, which is a lens-mount system, not a sensor size. Likewise, if it were put in a compact camera, without an interchangeable lens, that would not be a 'micro Four Thirds' camera, because it wouldn't have the lens mount.
I like progress
Me too Scott. Good morning buddy.
At this point, you only put out a small sensor camera to compete with other small, walk-around cameras. Probably the biggest complaint about GoPro is low light performance. People say the X100V has decent low light performance "for such a small camera". So Canon's new camera better have good low light capability, including a sharp, fast lens. (You have to assume it will be fixed lens.) And the AF needs to at least be competent in low light. Fail in any of those things, and it's probably an also-ran from the start.
My gut tells me that especially in these consumer targeted new offerings, Canon is going to be pretty AI-heavy. And even though it's not my cup of tea, it would probably be a good thing for that market. But I would still like to see them lead out with a truly pro-level APS-C camera with a slightly smaller, lighter body than their full frame offerings, reasonably weather sealed, along with at least a few higher end lenses specifically designed for APS-C.
When I moved to full frame, I welcome better low light performance, but suffered in bright light with over exposure Scott - a video issue. These small cameras used in daylight are great, but dawn and dusk they are a challenge.
I'm curious to see if your prediction comes true - seems to make sense.
I would pay 4.000 for a MFT video exclusive camera with a sweet zoom lens for documentary cinema. Recently I bought a new GH5S and speedbosted with my Nikon lenses is a chef's kiss, but changing glasses slows the shooting experience a lot
I think the FX30 comes close to that ;)
Hi Simon, making the sensor for their refreshed powershot V line themselves means Canon sees a big enough market, but also avoids sharing a part of the profits with Sony and it may help showcasing their new chipmaking machines.
Such sensor size close to MFT helps to set the IQ apart from smartphones, and likely the same sensor will be used in a SX70 HS successor. Maybe Canon would even make it better than the Sony RX10iv .. My wife loved it for years because she could go from 24mm landscapes to 600mm birds without swapping lenses. But because Sony didn't update it after 2017 and it didn't yet have bird eye-AF, she switched to the R7ii and already 4 lenses. She likes her Canon gear .. but still misses the agility of having such huge zoom range. For APS-C and certainly FF, a 24-600 would have too many compromises.
I think you're right. With the full-frame market finally in place, it looks like they might be turning their attention to the APS-C and compact markets. I'm looking forward to the R7 refresh. :) A compact would be good for travel.
I don't know why you think Sony APS-C cameras have better autofocus than Canon APS-C cameras? It's not true. I watch a bird photographer who has both and the R7 has better AF for birds in flight. The A6700 has better AF for birds on the ground in busy environments. I have an R7 and have posted bursts of 70+ images with birds flying in all types of backgrounds (plain sky, cloudy, busy trees and obstacles etc.) with every shot correctly in focus.
If you recall, I didn't say I think Sony has a better autofocus. I said there is a perception that Sony has a better autofocus. With the R52 and R1, I'd say it is Canon who now has a better AF. But its important to realize that perception is reality and it is hard to change person's perception ;)
@@OrdinaryFilmmaker
Damn, just realised true meaning of your words❤
BSI generally outperform FSI in lower light conditions, since birding is done in good light most of the time, the performance should be the same
See Drbeardo... perception ;)
whats for? make matrix even smaller or may be slightly bigger so current (third party) rf-s lenses will not cover the matrix field? what ever they plan to do one thing is more likeley to make make wore quality of life of ther customers for sure.
can't even develop a modern APS-C camera worth using and already moving on to the next mount size.
Canon is lost.
MFT sensors have one physical advantage. The smaller size and weight are good, but not the jaw dropper. It is the size, cost and weight of a long lens for birding. Because MFT has a 2x crop, a 300mm lens magnifies like a 600mm full frame lens. Now, this three hundred mm lens, at f4, can be a tiny fraction of the size and cost of a 600mm full frame f4 lens, Now, there is not free lunch. This f4 MFT light gathering has a cost. The bokeh will not be like the full frame lens. But birding does not need a super thin focal plane and huge bokeh balls. For some reason, no MFT vendor has taken advantage of this opportunity, Maybe Canon will.
I wouldn't say no vendor has taken advantage of this opportunity. MFT format is valid for the reasons you listed.
I have a Sony A7IV and an OM-1. I use my OM-1 much more than my Sony. IMO there are two reason m 4/3's do not sell. 1- The name. Seeing as m 4/3 was the first mirrorless cameras made. They should have just called it, mirrorless 4/3's. Micro sounds substandard when you hear FULL FRAME. 2- there are just way too many talking heads who push FF. I'm willing to bet more photographers would benefit and use a m 4/3 body if they gave them a chance. The ONLY way I see a difference in my files is if I pixel pee side by side. Oh and the ridiculous exaggerated bokeh. Other than that, I think in a lot of ways ( for me) the OM-1 is superior to the A7IV. It is not cripples if I don't spend an extra $1000+ on a lens. Auto white balance is superior. Weather sealing is superior. The size and weight is better. Cost is more affordable. I can get a used 1.2 prime that does not cost $3000 and weigh 3 1/2 lbs. Menu is better and the features built in make it a lot more fun to shoot. Sorry FF users. I just feel for many genres of photography FF is a scam.
At the end of the day the only thing holding back the compact camera market is price. The issue being quality compact cameras typically hover around the $1,000 mark, the same price as an APSC camera. Most people don't care all that much about image quality (as proven by social media) which is where the 20mp sensor works fine, most people prefer a compact form factor to bulky (as proven by smartphones), most people prefer simplicity over options (as proven by Apple) and most people don't care that much about battery life (as proven by most gamers). Compact cameras fit all these criteria and fill this niche almost perfectly. If Canon, Nikon, Sony, Ricoh or whoever could deliver a solid, reliable, compact camera under $1,000 there will be a surge in popularity for that particular market, mark my words.
Considering the advancements in smartphone cameras from Apple and Samsung, what is market need for a new compact camera?
sony isnt doing well though with their apsc, their a6700 release is so weak compares to powerful r7 and fuji apsc XH line...the a6700 is no where to be heard
Canon is not so smart to produce MFT cameras for may reasons.
Canon could get a big market increase if they'd stop messing around & open up the RF mount fully to 3rd party lens manufacturers, everybody knows this except it seems Canon!
It seemed like they opened it up, but that opening is very slow...
@@OrdinaryFilmmaker I know, that's why I said it, they're prevaricating, probably trying to to gaslight us
Blah Blah Blah