[davidmanze]

It makes sense what you say about sensor changes wim,........... but where is your information coming from?

[wim]

It makes sense what you say about sensor changes wim,........... but where is your information coming from?

Hi David,

There are some interviews with Canon engineers floating around on the internet, amongst others on the RP. I can't remember exactly where, probably DPR and IR (who often have very intersting interviews with OEM engineers and managers). I do not store links to those generally, just way too busy with work etc., otherwise I'd put those up here. There was also some other very long interview I read probably about a month ago or so, but I can;t remember at all where I saw that.

There is also another thing: people on the internet often present Canon sensors as the worst sensors available for cameras, but they are very good regardless. Maybe not classleading according to soem testers, but there is a general difference in approach to dealign with noise reducxtion vis-avis Canon and the rest. Canon does very little wrt noise reduction when it comes to RAW-files, basically meaning that if you'd want, you can still extract real detail from those files, by careful PP yourself. The others actually do use specific algorithms to get rid of a lot fo noise even in RAW, basically in such a way that they score highly in the S/N ratio department, even if that is at least a little artificial. It means, however, that you loose real detail as well, which essentially is impossible to prevent with that approach (remember Sony's loss of stars in night shots?).
Besides, unless doing HDR type shots, I reckon you do not need extreme high DR. Based on my film (analog) experience, I reckon 12 stops is already quite OTT, and if you expose correctly, you don't really need more IMO (yeah, I know, controversial opinion ).

Other than that, I really do like the way the combo of Canon sensors, lenses and their processing work. I really do like their rendering better than any other combination. Olympus, BTW, renders very similarly, which is why I like them as well. Personal preference, of course, and probably not to everybody's taste, but that's fine .

HTH, kind regards, Wim

[JJ_SO]

wim,

first of all: I fully agree to what you said about the RP three posts before. This body as an appealing way to upgrade from any Canon DSLR to Canon FF mirrorless is brilliant strategic move of it's manufacturer. Same body, Sony sensor and "Nikon" on it, I would be jumping to the order button. The body gets access to some rather cool and interesting lenses - opposite of Nikon's outmost conservative, anti-surprise lens collection ("3 50 mm's?" "Yeah, we want to cover all possible apertures. "2 different 24-70s?" "Same here, and also celebrating the dullness of this FL range"). At this price point it's a home rum. And if the sensors were all that crap, nobody would have bought them before.

Now I'd like to tell you something about your other answer, not to offend you, but if I see it that way, others might do so as well. I didn't follow the whole discussion, but your reasoning catched my eye as it was very logical.

You're busy with work, so can't save a link. But can read lengthy (more or less) interviews...
You can remember what Canon changed with the 6D sensor, but not where you read it or who said so. (I'm just the same kind of reader, terrible memory for names or web-addresses with some 100 characters in). Usually this is the first thing to question this memories, but as photographers we all need to consider: I can remember maybe the place and date (that'd be already art of memroizing) of a nice waterfall picture, but not the aperture I used or the ISO I set.

Apparently this "outdated sensor"-argument becomes a reflex of us non-Canon users. Core of it is: You like the outcome of their and Olympus sensors better and others for a tiny couple of real reasons and a huge bag of theoretical reasons which really don't matter all that much. Now I'll fall back into recovery mode fro a planned surgery. Maybe I get well just in time for Nikon and their new firmware attempt. The whole Z system is (today and in my eyes only) slowly moving to the back part of the ML train. It's alright, if I see the body and lenses, but regarding their price tag it's already only half alright. I don't know how much space is left for an ultra conservative camera-maker with a massive lack of fresh "never-seen-before"-ideas. The best I can about the Z: It's one of the most lightweight high-res FF bodies I own. After having said that, the list of features of unrivaled greatness fades out too quickly.

[toni-a]

wim
There is also another thing: people on the internet often present Canon sensors as the worst sensors available for cameras, but they are very good regardless. Maybe not classleading according to soem testers, but there is a general difference in approach to dealign with noise reducxtion vis-avis Canon and the rest. Canon does very little wrt noise reduction when it comes to RAW-files, basically meaning that if you'd want, you can still extract real detail from those files, by careful PP yourself. The others actually do use specific algorithms to get rid of a lot fo noise even in RAW, basically in such a way that they score highly in the S/N ratio department, even if that is at least a little artificial. It means, however, that you loose real detail as well, which essentially is impossible to prevent with that approach (remember Sony's loss of stars in night shots?).
Besides, unless doing HDR type shots, I reckon you do not need extreme high DR. Based on my film (analog) experience, I reckon 12 stops is already quite OTT, and if you expose correctly, you don't really need more IMO (yeah, I know, controversial opinion ).

Other than that, I really do like the way the combo of Canon sensors, lenses and their processing work. I really do like their rendering better than any other combination. Olympus, BTW, renders very similarly, which is why I like them as well. Personal preference, of course, and probably not to everybody's taste, but that's fine .

HTH, kind regards, Wim

I can't but second Wim opinion here, I own and use both Canon and Sony so I am neutral here, Sony does apply  a lot of noise reduction at high ISO Sony applying noise reduction even in RAW  is so obvious, when it comes to low light , sony pictures gave less visible noise but look very artificial.
Only advantage I found in Sony A6000 sensor is when I boost shadows in RAW converter noise increases less than it does with Canon RAWs.
I also noticed on prints almost always people prefer Canon photos, but it's rather unfair to compare output from camera with very good lenses  to the output from a poor kit lens like Sony 16-50.

---

wim,

first of all: I fully agree to what you said about the RP three posts before. This body as an appealing way to upgrade from any Canon DSLR to Canon FF mirrorless is brilliant strategic move of it's manufacturer. Same body, Sony sensor and "Nikon" on it, I would be jumping to the order button. The body gets access to some rather cool and interesting lenses - opposite of Nikon's outmost conservative, anti-surprise lens collection ("3 50 mm's?" "Yeah, we want to cover all possible apertures. "2 different 24-70s?" "Same here, and also celebrating the dullness of this FL range"). At this price point it's a home rum. And if the sensors were all that crap, nobody would have bought them before.

Now I'd like to tell you something about your other answer, not to offend you, but if I see it that way, others might do so as well. I didn't follow the whole discussion, but your reasoning catched my eye as it was very logical.

You're busy with work, so can't save a link. But can read lengthy (more or less) interviews...
You can remember what Canon changed with the 6D sensor, but not where you read it or who said so. (I'm just the same kind of reader, terrible memory for names or web-addresses with some 100 characters in). Usually this is the first thing to question this memories, but as photographers we all need to consider: I can remember maybe the place and date (that'd be already art of memroizing) of a nice waterfall picture, but not the aperture I used or the ISO I set.

Apparently this "outdated sensor"-argument becomes a reflex of us non-Canon users. Core of it is: You like the outcome of their and Olympus sensors better and others for a tiny couple of real reasons and a huge bag of theoretical reasons which really don't matter all that much. Now I'll fall back into recovery mode fro a planned surgery. Maybe I get well just in time for Nikon and their new firmware attempt. The whole Z system is (today and in my eyes only) slowly moving to the back part of the ML train. It's alright, if I see the body and lenses, but regarding their price tag it's already only half alright. I don't know how much space is left for an ultra conservative camera-maker with a massive lack of fresh "never-seen-before"-ideas. The best I can about the Z: It's one of the most lightweight high-res FF bodies I own. After having said that, the list of features of unrivaled greatness fades out too quickly.

I can't but second Wim opinion here, I own and use both Canon and Sony so I am neutral here, Sony does apply  a lot of noise reduction at high ISO Sony applying noise reduction even in RAW  is so obvious, when it comes to low light , sony pictures gave less visible noise but look very artificial.
Only advantage I found in Sony A6000 sensor is when I boost shadows in RAW converter noise increases less than it does with Canon RAWs.
I also noticed on prints almost always people prefer Canon photos, but it's rather unfair to compare output from camera with very good lenses  to the output from a poor kit lens like Sony 16-50.

[wim]

wim,

first of all: I fully agree to what you said about the RP three posts before. This body as an appealing way to upgrade from any Canon DSLR to Canon FF mirrorless is brilliant strategic move of it's manufacturer. Same body, Sony sensor and "Nikon" on it, I would be jumping to the order button. The body gets access to some rather cool and interesting lenses - opposite of Nikon's outmost conservative, anti-surprise lens collection ("3 50 mm's?" "Yeah, we want to cover all possible apertures. "2 different 24-70s?" "Same here, and also celebrating the dullness of this FL range"). At this price point it's a home rum. And if the sensors were all that crap, nobody would have bought them before.

Now I'd like to tell you something about your other answer, not to offend you, but if I see it that way, others might do so as well. I didn't follow the whole discussion, but your reasoning catched my eye as it was very logical.

You're busy with work, so can't save a link. But can read lengthy (more or less) interviews...
You can remember what Canon changed with the 6D sensor, but not where you read it or who said so. (I'm just the same kind of reader, terrible memory for names or web-addresses with some 100 characters in). Usually this is the first thing to question this memories, but as photographers we all need to consider: I can remember maybe the place and date (that'd be already art of memroizing) of a nice waterfall picture, but not the aperture I used or the ISO I set.

Apparently this "outdated sensor"-argument becomes a reflex of us non-Canon users. Core of it is: You like the outcome of their and Olympus sensors better and others for a tiny couple of real reasons and a huge bag of theoretical reasons which really don't matter all that much. Now I'll fall back into recovery mode fro a planned surgery. Maybe I get well just in time for Nikon and their new firmware attempt. The whole Z system is (today and in my eyes only) slowly moving to the back part of the ML train. It's alright, if I see the body and lenses, but regarding their price tag it's already only half alright. I don't know how much space is left for an ultra conservative camera-maker with a massive lack of fresh "never-seen-before"-ideas. The best I can about the Z: It's one of the most lightweight high-res FF bodies I own. After having said that, the list of features of unrivaled greatness fades out too quickly.

No offense taken.
As to saving links: I spend way too little time on photography the last few years, and when I forget to save a link, I normally do not go back to them, not enough time, not illing to go back - what I find interestign I'll remember. I guess i am not as much interested because of the way stuff gets repeated amd regurgitated over and over again, and neither am I very much interested in getting into arguments about this or that - life is too short, and to each their own. When it comes to visiting website, I do visit OL often enough, when I have a little time, and internet access (probably 3 days a week cxurrently), and the mu43 forum, once every fortnight or so, and once a week scan quickly through the news items on DPR and IR. Only when I see something that could be of interest to me, I'll read it, often just a quick diagonal read. Tbvh, if you want to read the interviews i mentioned in passing, it should be easy enough to find them.

I can indeed remember what Canon changed, basically because I am waiting for the right ML camera for me from Canon, now I have sold my 5D II (about 4 months ago actually). And I was pleasantly surprised by what I read about the RP, tbvh, which is why I remembered some of the stuff. BTW, had a big health scare end of November as well, which is why I tend to approach things differently as well.

Why I like the Canon and Oly combo better has nothing to do with theoretical reasons, as their cameras and lenses, at least the ones I own(ed) are plenty good enough for me, but purely based on what I like to see and experience in an image, their ergonomy, and their choice of lenses. IOW, all personal. So if that means Nikon for you, that's fine with me, nothing wrong with that at all, and I am happy for you. And unrivaled greatness I do not care about , it really is whether you (general you) can get the most out of it personally for your purposes and styles. This does not necessarily mean the techologically most advanced camera anyway, of any brand of camera . I have shot with many cameras over the years, it is just that my preference goes out to the results I personally get from Canon and Oly, that is really all there is to it in the end .

Kind regards, Wim

[miro]

Hallo Wim,
Nice to see you back here. As usual your posts brings a lot relevant inforamtion.

Even If I don’t fully agree with you ?
And that is the cases here
- Do you really expect that Canon RP will be the best seller?
I’m not. They will never reach the fraction of sells-numbers that Canon Digital Rebel has ever made.
Two Simple reasons
1. Digital rebel offered a lot for even lower price, while RP offer almost nothing for today camera standards while it costs more. – my aging huawei P20 pro can take decent pictures and video including 4k, and 960fps slow motion
2. Economical reason – Many people will buy 400..500$ camera and few will buy 1000$ +

I hope that I’m wrong. Let’s wait and see the CIPA numbers over 1 year. Canon predict 50% drop within 2 years. For me this numbers seems optimistic. Canon has also bad history -> Remember the promises with first 5D. We will make FF for masses. How big is the FF niche now?

[Brightcolours]

Miro, the M50 reaches rebel sales levels. Both are APS-C.

[miro]

Miro, the M50 reaches rebel sales levels. Both are APS-C.

Yes both have similar pirce and sales numbers
The interesting part is that cannon want to kill their main source of income – APS-C SLR and EOS-M. I don’t believe that EOS RP will ever reach the price point and sales numbers of M50 or Digital rebel.

[Brightcolours]

I have no idea why you are proposing that Canon wants to kill APS-C DSLR and EOS M lines.

[wim]

Hallo Wim,
Nice to see you back here. As usual your posts brings a lot relevant inforamtion.

Even If I don’t fully agree with you ?
And that is the cases here
- Do you really expect that Canon RP will be the best seller?
I’m not. They will never reach the fraction of sells-numbers that Canon Digital Rebel has ever made.
Two Simple reasons
1. Digital rebel offered a lot for even lower price, while RP offer almost nothing for today camera standards while it costs more. – my aging huawei P20 pro can take decent pictures and video including 4k, and 960fps slow motion
2. Economical reason – Many people will buy 400..500$ camera and few will buy 1000$ +

I hope that I’m wrong. Let’s wait and see the CIPA numbers over 1 year. Canon predict 50% drop within 2 years. For me this numbers seems optimistic. Canon has also bad history -> Remember the promises with first 5D. We will make FF for masses. How big is the FF niche now?

Hi Miro,

I never said it was going to be THE best-seller, I just said it was going to be a best-seller. I am sure it will do well, considering its price point, the fact that it is FF, and that it is a Canon.

OTOH, it might actually become an even larger best-seller, relatively speaking, if indeed everything below FF dies out due to developements with in-phone cameras. After all, slrs were best-sellers too, and the more advanced photographer didn't mind lugging them around. They were a bit smaller than dslrs however. MFT cameras are closer in size to old analog slrs by a long shot, especially for me personally, as I used to photograph with the smallest of them for many years (Pentax M-series).

The thing to keep in mind is that, certainly IMO, larger cameras will become a niche market, because in-phone cameras basically have taken over from cheaper dslr's and smaller digicams. They are good enough for general purpose use. That also means that any camera with a larger format sensor and interchangeable lenses becomes part of the aforementioned niche market, basically for advanced hobbyists / semipros, and pros of course. In such a scenario, the way it stands, an RP type camera will wrt FF be a FF beginner's camera, and as mentioned, with its current pricing, will likely become quite the best-seller in this type of market.

Of course, that is just my opinion, but I also reckon it is already happening .

Kind regards, Wim