R50 - no hotshoe pins??

ChrisPCrunch wrote:

Every other camera with the new Multi-function accessory shoe still comes with the traditional hotshoe contacts. This is the first camera to drop this feature. I cannot imagine that they are saving that much money by removing the contacts. Maybe they shaved a couple of dollars off the price? Having to buy the adapter costs the customer more in the long run. Plus using the adapter just adds height/bulk to the camera which is designed to be a small/light entry level camera.

People argue that most buyers of an entry level camera like this are unlikely to buy an external flash unit anyway. Well, I agree they are unlikely to buy an external CANON Speedlite as they are generally expensive. BUT, they are more likely to buy a cheaper third party flash like a Godox tt350c. However, at least here in Canada where I live the Canon flash adapter is half the cost of the Godox tt350!

I'm not happy with Canon's decision to drop the hotshoe contact. But new R50 buyers buying tt350Cs? You're kidding, right? The target customer for the R50 is someone who might be talked into buying a non-kit lens. Anybody who buys a flash these days is someone already hooked on photography, and those people are likely to consider a higher-end body and higher-end flash anyway. The people who'd feel cheated by R50 are mainly migrating users who already have an older speedlite.

Perhaps it’s a weak point of the lighter R50 build quality, like the reported loosening hotshoe of the R6 mk1. Lots of leverage flex on the hotshoe with large flashgun  swinging around.

….or maybe it obfuscates 3rd party flash makers from making a compatible direct fit speed light.

Probably still cheaper to buy the adapter and a 3rd party flashgun rather than a Canon direct mount new interface flashgun.

Ali wrote:

Lisa Horton wrote:

Interesting. I will admit that my first thought was "oh but the R10 is bigger than the SLn (I have a SL2). So I checked, and wow, the R10 actually is about the same size as a SL1/2/3! So yes, that R50 is going to be tiny!

Indeed! Sadly still larger than the M6II which is my bar for a capable compact mirrorless. However I want to give it a try for sure.

Here you go:

https://camerasize.com/compact/#823.640,889.1055,904.1055,829.348,ha,t

Heritage Cameras wrote:

Ali wrote:

Lisa Horton wrote:

Interesting. I will admit that my first thought was "oh but the R10 is bigger than the SLn (I have a SL2). So I checked, and wow, the R10 actually is about the same size as a SL1/2/3! So yes, that R50 is going to be tiny!

Indeed! Sadly still larger than the M6II which is my bar for a capable compact mirrorless. However I want to give it a try for sure.

Here you go:

https://camerasize.com/compact/#823.640,889.1055,904.1055,829.348,ha,t

Thanks. I hadn't looked at these with the lenses before, but it's interesting to see how small the RF-S 18-55 is. Seems same size as the EF-M 15-45 (which sadly has not been one of my favorite lenses). The R50 does seem pretty small with that lens.

This webpage is awesome, but of course nothing like holding the camera in the hands and trying to squeeze it into your favorite camera bag!

Ali wrote:

Heritage Cameras wrote:

Here you go:

https://camerasize.com/compact/#823.640,889.1055,904.1055,829.348,ha,t

Thanks. I hadn't looked at these with the lenses before, but it's interesting to see how small the RF-S 18-55 is. Seems same size as the EF-M 15-45 (which sadly has not been one of my favorite lenses). The R50 does seem pretty small with that lens.

This webpage is awesome, but of course nothing like holding the camera in the hands and trying to squeeze it into your favorite camera bag!

Agreed. There's nothing quite like the touchy-feely approach to camera buying...

Heritage Cameras wrote:

Ali wrote:

Lisa Horton wrote:

Interesting. I will admit that my first thought was "oh but the R10 is bigger than the SLn (I have a SL2). So I checked, and wow, the R10 actually is about the same size as a SL1/2/3! So yes, that R50 is going to be tiny!

Indeed! Sadly still larger than the M6II which is my bar for a capable compact mirrorless. However I want to give it a try for sure.

Here you go:

https://camerasize.com/compact/#823.640,889.1055,904.1055,829.348,ha,t

That would be much  more useful if the cameras were lined up at the same level.  As it is, it's not much use.

Lisa Horton wrote:

Heritage Cameras wrote:

https://camerasize.com/compact/#823.640,889.1055,904.1055,829.348,ha,t

That would be much more useful if the cameras were lined up at the same level. As it is, it's not much use.

In the "Top with interchangeable lenses" view it usually lines them up by the rearmost point on each camera (eyecup, thumb grip or whatever). I just went back there and for some reason the M6 II was way out of whack (technical term). I removed the camera, added it back again and now it seems OK:

https://camerasize.com/compact/#904.1055,889.1055,823.640,829.680,ha,t

Sittatunga wrote:

Heritage Cameras wrote:

In the "Top with interchangeable lenses" view it usually lines them up by the rearmost point on each camera (eyecup, thumb grip or whatever). I just went back there and for some reason the M6 II was way out of whack (technical term). I removed the camera, added it back again and now it seems OK:

https://camerasize.com/compact/#904.1055,889.1055,823.640,829.680,ha,t

That's because it now has the 15-45mm on it instead of the 18-55mm. It's a toss-up which of the two is a more relevant comparison to the 18-45mm.

No, I think it's because the site seems to be broken... I've never seen it doing that before!

Update: Refreshing the page (not [Ctrl-Refresh]) seems to fix it.

Heritage Cameras wrote:

Sittatunga wrote:

Heritage Cameras wrote:

In the "Top with interchangeable lenses" view it usually lines them up by the rearmost point on each camera (eyecup, thumb grip or whatever). I just went back there and for some reason the M6 II was way out of whack (technical term). I removed the camera, added it back again and now it seems OK:

https://camerasize.com/compact/#904.1055,889.1055,823.640,829.680,ha,t

That's because it now has the 15-45mm on it instead of the 18-55mm. It's a toss-up which of the two is a more relevant comparison to the 18-45mm.

No, I think it's because the site seems to be broken... I've never seen it doing that before!

Update: Refreshing the page (not [Ctrl-Refresh]) seems to fix it.

Also on the R50 the rear part of the lens is cut off.

MyM6II wrote:

Heritage Cameras wrote:

Heritage Cameras wrote:

In the "Top with interchangeable lenses" view it usually lines them up by the rearmost point on each camera (eyecup, thumb grip or whatever). I just went back there and for some reason the M6 II was way out of whack (technical term). I removed the camera, added it back again and now it seems OK:

https://camerasize.com/compact/#904.1055,889.1055,823.640,829.680,ha,t

No, I think it's because the site seems to be broken... I've never seen it doing that before!

Update: Refreshing the page (not [Ctrl-Refresh]) seems to fix it.

Also on the R50 the rear part of the lens is cut off.

That site's not having a good day, is it?

kli wrote:

ChrisPCrunch wrote:

Every other camera with the new Multi-function accessory shoe still comes with the traditional hotshoe contacts. This is the first camera to drop this feature.

But this is also the first entry-level body (e.g., dRebel in the EOS R system).

... To me, this is simply a dig at third party flash manufacturers by Canon.

Possibly. It is Canon thumbing its nose at the ISO standard for camera flash hotshoes which even Sony nominally tries to maintain with their multi-interface hotshoe by retaining the sync contact.

Entry level camera buyers are more likely to be looking at cheaper 3rd party flash units. I know I am. It was the same thing Canon tried to do when they dropped the center pin from the hotshoe on other entry level Canon Cameras like the SL3. This meant that 3rd party flashes wouldn't work on these cameras. However, eventually, Godox provided a firmware update that allowed their flashes to work on these cameras too.

But the thing is they can't be under any illusions that Godox won't be able to create compatible units with this new multi-interface hotshoe (not to mention video mics, lights, and monitors all of which Godox makes, too).

Godox has done a decent (though needing revision more than once job reverse-engineering and decoding the Sony multi-interface hotshoe and building compatible hardware. They can do the same for Canon's multifunction hotshoe.

I think the decision to go this way is more to cater to the video market where camera sales are still growing, vs. the stills market where they're flat or declining.

I imagine that moving forward, Canon will start making their new flash units without the regular hotshoe pins so that everything (cameras and flashes) will only work with the new Multi-function accessory shoe.

They already did. See my other post with the EL-5 foot image.

But that will take time. In the meantime, why not allow for backward compatibilty?

They do. On the higher-end models and with the AD-E1 adapter.

Entry-level they're probably assuming the purchaser is coming in without any legacy flash gear to worry about. Any one with that gear is more likely to get a higher-end body where that won't be an issue.

The important question is does Canon have a patent on the novel aspects of this flash shoe design?   They do have and are enforcing a patent on RF bus autofocus signal communications to the lens from a RF camera host.  Without a patent the attempted enforcement may have little standing in the courts.

One of my oldest accessories that I still use is a Metz flash.

I don't like Canon going down this route, closing its ECO system.

They are trying hard to become Apple.

jwilliams wrote:

For all practical purposes the R50 has to be used with its built in flash. I only found one flash, the EL-5 for $399, that uses the new connector. It's bog and it's expensive. Nobody's going to put that on a R50 and pretty much any flash adapted via the adapter is going to be too big also. ...

I dunno. A Godox TT350-C,  270EX or 320EX probably wouldn't be too bulky/heavy to use on the AD-E1.

quiquae wrote:

ChrisPCrunch wrote:

Every other camera with the new Multi-function accessory shoe still comes with the traditional hotshoe contacts. This is the first camera to drop this feature. I cannot imagine that they are saving that much money by removing the contacts. Maybe they shaved a couple of dollars off the price? Having to buy the adapter costs the customer more in the long run. Plus using the adapter just adds height/bulk to the camera which is designed to be a small/light entry level camera.

People argue that most buyers of an entry level camera like this are unlikely to buy an external flash unit anyway. Well, I agree they are unlikely to buy an external CANON Speedlite as they are generally expensive. BUT, they are more likely to buy a cheaper third party flash like a Godox tt350c. However, at least here in Canada where I live the Canon flash adapter is half the cost of the Godox tt350!

I'm not happy with Canon's decision to drop the hotshoe contact. But new R50 buyers buying tt350Cs? You're kidding, right? The target customer for the R50 is someone who might be talked into buying a non-kit lens. Anybody who buys a flash these days is someone already hooked on photography, and those people are likely to consider a higher-end body and higher-end flash anyway. The people who'd feel cheated by R50 are mainly migrating users who already have an older speedlite.

Um, no. I know plenty of shooters in my third world country who only can afford entry-level cameras, but who then go on to purchase a Speedlite. Usually a Yongnuo or Godox. "Available light" is much less popular in the developing world, where people often can only afford one lens, and for whom artificial light is a must if they want to improve their results.