Robert Collins

The Huawei design looks better in terms of functionality as a tablet that can also act and be the size of a phone. However, its design looks to be a bit of a nightmare in terms of durability - both the back and the front of the phone are a screen when folded!!

...and costs more....

I typically carry a phone and an ipad around with me. So I can sort of see the potential for combining the 2.

Yes well - I deliberately left it out because I dont know much about it. And clearly it dominates sports photography (although that has a lot to do with the lenses (and support)) and is likely to continue to do so. However, if you take a look at the underlying sensor of the camera it is a long way from say an A7rii (similar vintage) in terms of underlying specs. https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon--EOS-1D-X-Mark-II-versus-Sony-A7R-II-versus-Nikon-D810___1071_1035_963 And I rather guess that other Canon technology deficiencies are masked by a massive 1.5kg body and over US$6k of tech.

Somehow, I think this thread is missing the point. Personally, I think that any camera company that brings out a FF mirrorless (or DSLR) for US$1399 has a whole lot of room for excuses that its functionality is crippled relative to higher end products. (and, lets face it, the EOS-RP isnt even aimed at the typical demographic of a forum like this (or even say DPReview.)) The REAL question is whether Canon can actually come out with a 'high end camera' with specs that are competitive with its competitors - or whether there is a REAL 'Grand Canyon sized gulf' in technologies here between Canon and the others. Personally, I simply dont believe that Canon can come out with a competitive high end product because its technology is so far behind (and falling further and further back.) The reason I say this is because Canon hasnt brought out a single competitive high end ILC in the last 5 years... Take a look at their flagships EOS-M5 7D mkii 5D mkiv (5DSR) EOS-R And while some 'might' consider these cameras competitive from a 'video' perspective (due to color science and DPAF) they certainly dont come close to being competitive from a stills perspective. I suspect Canon's strategy is simply to dominate the low end of ILCs through low prices, economies of scale, fully depreciated and low R&D - then leave its major competitors to fight over the high end.

Thought this video was pretty good....

I also suspect the A9 af benefits from the extremely fast sensor readout from its 'stacked' sensor (1/160th). The A7siii is rumored to use this same sensor tech.

This looks like a decent and sensible release by Canon. The smallest, lightest and cheapest FF mirrorless on the market - will probably sell really well. Bit confused what lenses you would put on this beyond the 24-105.

What strikes me about these numbers is how unimportant the A7s series is to the A7 line. And lets face it, if Sony sticks with the smallest mirrorless FF body approach to the A7 (which is one of the attractions of the A7iii) then it is really going to struggle to be the market leader in video specs. On the other hand if it comes out with a much bigger body for the A7s series, for more effective heat dissipation, it will be directly competing with its cinema line. And to the extent it can say squeeze in 4k 60p recording why not make it a stand out feature of an A7iv?

I think it is very clear the direction that Canon is taking. They have already indicated that they are not optimistic about the overall direction of the market (expecting ti to halve over the next few years.) So they are very unlikely to invest heavily in r&d for ILCs. Their strategy seems to be to use the business as a cash cow offering very competitively priced ILCs (ie relatively cheap compared to their competitors) but which tend to fall a little short in a specs comparison. And this seems to be working out well for them - consumers seem more price sensitive than spec sensitive. A good example would be the latest data out of Japan which shows that Canon is easily the market leader in 'mirrorless' despite being late into FF and offering relatively uninspired APSC product. https://petapixel.com/2019/01/15/canon-1-in-both-dslr-and-mirrorless-sales-in-japan-in-2018/

By the by, one of the obvious observations in photography - is that the many of the most famous photographers in history came from 'independently wealthy' families - meaning they never really needed to work for a living... Off hand, I am thinking of Ansel Adams, Cartier-Bresson, Diane Arbus, Sebastiao Salgardo, Richard Avedon but there are many more. It isnt really surprising I guess because it is far easier to create a body of interesting work if you have no pressure to earn your daily bread and butter through weddings, school pics and other commercial photography. I wonder if the same rule applies in film...

From what I recall the microlens approach was something that Leica used on their sensors in order for many of their legacy lenses (especially wide angle) to work effectively on digital sensors. (From what I recall many Leica lenses didnt work well when adapted to the Sony A7 series.) My guess is that has been carried on to the L mount. This article sort of explains (but this is all well above my knowledge base.) http://gmpphoto.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-future-of-sensor-technology-at-leica.html I am not sure the lack of BSI makes a huge difference with FFsensors (BSI makes a bigger difference with smaller sensors.) As I recall the Sony A7 moving to BSI added about 1/4 of a stop to lowlight.

Tony Northrup with a dose of cold water....

Difficult to see Panasonic surviving in the FF world....

I think it is a bit more complicated than this. I get the concept that if you are a 'video only' shooter then the GH5 (or its successor) makes more sense than FF. But FF for stills trumps M43 for stills any day of the week. So a 'video/stills' shooter will probably prefer an S1 over a GH5 for the improved stills capability even if the video doesnt quite match the capabilities of the GH5.