Here's an Osprey couple with one bringing home a fish for dinner.

If this comes in at a ~2200 price point as (someone?) rumored. it's a fair bit of camera for the $$$. I'm personally more interested in the lens and I suspect that if it's a true L in quality it'll be right around the 14-35/4L. Maybe you can squeeze in a kit price of $2999.

Unfortunately, this seems like it may be the 'May event' where 'we' thought the R7II was going to be announced. Hopefully that doesn't mean it's back in limbo.

R5MkII and 200-800 @ 800

Gray Catbird

Maximilian said:

Why should it (edit: the R8m2) get IBIS and the same 32.5 mp sensor?
Of course I would welcome that. But why should people buy an R6m3 then?

Click to expand...

The R6 would still have many advantages: full mechanical shutter, larger battery and viewfinder, weather sealing, 2 card slots (CF express), better thermals for video, big wheel on the back, joystick, larger grip

Canon Rumors said:

To spend $1000 less? There are lots of things you can take away from or step down when comparing an 8 to a 6.

We'll see if IBIS remains one of the features that segments the line.

No IBIS, No Pre-Shooting, No mechanical shutter, smaller body, no CFe B, smaller battery, lower resolution EVF, less in the way of video features... it will be a completely different camera in the end. Throw in what hopefully amounts to more than a paint job with the "Retro".

Click to expand...

I do hope the R8II gets pre-shooting, it's extremely useful!

Wow so we get a vent in exchange of the evf, the rest seems to be identical with R6 III?
I got an ZR and some lense for video since R6III struggles to pass 30 min before shutdown at oversample 60p.

Michael Clark said:

The constant aperture f/2.8 obviously also gives you the option to shoot at wider apertures in brighter light if your camera can shorten exposure times enough to compensate or if you use Neutral Density filters. The minimum exposure time of the R6 Mark II is 1/8,000 with mechanical shutter and 1/16,000 with electronic shutter. "Sunny 16" gives you ISO 100, f/2.8 at 1/6,400.

Click to expand...

I thought I understood the sunny 16 rule, but apparently not. My understanding is if the ISO is 100 then the shutter speed should be 1/100, not 1/6,400. I’m new to this, so I need more help understanding this.

It’s fair to say then that the R8II is likely to also share the same 32.5mp sensor with IBIS

Struggle to see how this would fit along side the C50 especially if it's priced below the R6mk3 since the c50 costs a fair bit more and doesn't have ibis.

Do you think the size/dimensions will be same as R6mk3 or smaller like R50V?

EDIT: What a stupid question R50V is APS-c Nevermind....

It would be funny if Canon has a very different idea of retro to us. It might only be as far back as a T70, those FD lenses didn't look too different, polycarb shells, different rubber ware and of course an aperture ring.
They could go VERY retro into their film range finder territory, like the old Canon P or 7 series, but mounting a modern RF lens on these camera styles would look very odd and those old Lecia thread mount lenses are very different in size and shape to modern optics. However, having an offset EVF might be fun to use. It would be fun to have a EVF only UI...so no back LCD screen would look VERY old skool.
Canon might consider the EOS 300 / Rebel 2000 as retro small film and those were EF mount lenses, not too dissimilar to the current RF shells, easy to re-imagine a few RF lenses in that style. Something like the EOS 33 / Elan 7 were the a lot bigger and were in some respects the forerunners of the 5D range (ie not the 1 series, or the 3 series, but the next 5 series model).
I guess it depends on what Canon means by "retro". I can't imagine a EOS 650 sized camera, even a AE-1 will be bigger than the current R8 foot print.

justaCanonuser said:

Well, I carry my EF 600/4 III in a backpack (Lowepro 600 AW III) with two additional quivers for additional gear, and I shoot it mostly hand-held. But my back is well trained, but I do understand well that this isn't a solution for everybody. But you're right, if you need to carry an additional tent, sleeping bag etc., this is really too much for one person. You'd need an artificial exoskeleton and always very solid ground in rugged terrain

Click to expand...

I see people carrying broadcast-quality video gear including a massive tripod, and honestly wonder how they do it. They must be much fitter than me.

It's very possible that Canon will take the current R8 mechanicals, remove the EVF and package it in a Video focused "V" style body shell. Job done. Does it need a R6III sensor? Probably not.

A 20-70 (or even better 24-85) f2.8 VCM in the pricerange where the 35/85mm f1.4 VCM lays would be very interesting. Especially if it will have IS aswell

mb66energy said:

I too lean on the R8 V because the C-complement for the R6 is the C50.

Click to expand...

So I was wring - for me a strange idea to have R6 iii, R6 V and C50 as three flavours of one basic camera "segment".
But knowing Canon a little bit from the last 40 years: They have done it several times ...

AlanF said:

The RF 100-500mm is an order of magnitude or more better than the EF 400/5.6. It is sharper at 500 than the prime at 400, has excellent IS against its absence, faster AF, will focus close and had all the advantages of zoom for framing as well as longer with little extra weight. I’ve used both extensively and the zoom is indeed not close, it is miles ahead.

Click to expand...

I used to have the EF 400mm f/5.6 and regretted selling so much I bought another one I it was very nice but the huge MFD is a major drawback and then I bought the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 Z and it's noticeably sharper with the RF 2x for 140-400mm f/5.6 and a MFD of 68cm so I've sole my EF400 again
A new RF 500mm f/5.6 would be nice but I'd rather have a zoom

I've used this setting for volleyball matches, never thought of trying it during snowfall. I was in Yellowstone, Grand Tetons, and Rocky Mountain National Parks the entire month of February, shooting lots of wildlife through the snow. This info hit the forum a few weeks too late!

Honestly, if the 300-600 f/5.6 L is either never happening or $12,000 USD, I would be happy to have this lens instead. Does anyone have an expected price? I'd imagine at least $5-6k, but that's a lot more forgiving than $11k+

DocInfoSci said:

But all that stated, my general photography tends to capture people, large animals, and still life anyhow so I haven't been too eager to drop real money on the extra reach with other life interests at hand. Yet. The itch is growing.

Click to expand...

It's a slippery slope. This was my first DSLR bird picture, with a T1i and EF 100/2.8L Macro, after looking up while walking around shooting flowers.



Clearly not enough focal length, but then I came across a used EF 300/4L IS for sale and bought that.



I sold the 300/4L IS (for a bit more than I paid) after getting the EF 100-400L, then I upgraded the T1i to the 7D and that was my birding combo for several years.



But then I bought the 1D X and needed more reach, so I got the just-released EF 600/4L IS II and the MkIII TCs to go with it. Full circle on the red tail.

neuroanatomist said:

Many years ago, I met Lillian Stokes on top of a mountain in southern New Hampshire (well, what they call a mountain here in New England…I grew up in California so I’d call it a hill). It was during the fall hawk migration – hundreds of kettling hawks is a cool sight.

She and her husband author a popular series of birding guides, and she told me that her usual setup was the EF 300/4L IS with the 2x TC, mounted on whatever the current 1D was (IIRC, it was the 1DIV at that time). She said most on the images in the Guides were taken with that setup. Clearly, it’s capable of producing excellent images.

Click to expand...

Very cool.

I'd love a 500 5.6 and a TC for similar, although I'm more about deer, bears, and standing herons where I am:

With my 300 + 2x combo for birds, it's pretty good for casual shots of kingfishers, sparrows, junkos, etc. as those you can get close enough to when they're sitting on posts or fiddling about in the grass. All very printable. Alas, my R6 blackout in the EVF sucks for rapid bird movement tracking with this lens and tc combo. It's funny, because it felt great years ago before mirrorless.

But all that stated, my general photography tends to capture people, large animals, and still life anyhow so I haven't been too eager to drop real money on the extra reach with other life interests at hand. Yet. The itch is growing.

I'm hoping a 500 5.6 at a price competitive with the industry (e.g., Sigma's edition) would give me the excuse — I might even plan a trip around it. IQ's never an issue for me when I do things right, but I find the 300 + 1.4 is solid for animals in terms of servo drive, etc whereas the 2x on a gripped R6 lags a little more than I'd like (blackout, lack of power for the lens drive, etc.). I know I could flip to an R3 or R1 and get way better lens drive (tested with a friend) but I'd rather spend on glass as in most respects the R6 still serves me well.

In the modern sense I find little issue with the IQ of the combinations — it's more lens performance around AF, weather sealing (no mount gasket), and the like. Of course, newer lenses at the same or better tiers have that much better IQ — and I'll take better over good — but for relative prices the options don't seem so much better that IQ's the only thing needed to drive my justification. And since I like using primes more than zooms, I've held off on the EF 100-400 II and RF 100-500.

For now, I'll live vicariously through you guys while waiting.

I thought it was funny But changing a setting seems easier than changing camera

Kjsheldo said:

It has to have CFExpress B to do any of the 7K and raw codecs, but perhaps just a single slot.

If this camera doesn’t have IBIS, I think it will struggle. I use my R6 III way more than my C50 for video because it has IBIS (I like fast, manual focus primes). A big reason for the FX3, S1 II, and ZR success is that you can keep them small and handheld because of the IBIS. Plenty of ways to differentiate the R6V from the C50 (handle, XLR, timecode, cooling) and R6 III (EVF, mechanical shutter) and still have IBIS.

Not to sound dramatic, but I used the ZR and was blown away. The 4" screen should be mandatory for any video-focused camera going forward (nice work, Kinefinity Vista).

Click to expand...

I also use fast manual primes; and shoot a lot of film professionally - but grew up obviously in a different era as a camera sits on a steady support (panning film head), a slider or a gimbal if I need to move. I actively would not want IBIS. And I don’t know any filmmaker that works alongside me using a film camera with IBIS. Perhaps thats why professional cams from Canon have not up to this point included it. We don't use it…but that’s not to say things will change and peoples approach will change. Too much youtube people crying on about IBIS I reckon.

DocInfoSci said:

I own the 300mm f/4 IS and both the 1.4 II and 2.0 II extenders. … I can state plainly that the performance of both combinations is perfectly fine for detailed viewing and printing when shooting close to the subject and avoiding many atmospheric issues.

Click to expand...

Many years ago, I met Lillian Stokes on top of a mountain in southern New Hampshire (well, what they call a mountain here in New England…I grew up in California so I’d call it a hill). It was during the fall hawk migration – hundreds of kettling hawks is a cool sight.

She and her husband author a popular series of birding guides, and she told me that her usual setup was the EF 300/4L IS with the 2x TC, mounted on whatever the current 1D was (IIRC, it was the 1DIV at that time). She said most on the images in the Guides were taken with that setup. Clearly, it’s capable of producing excellent images.

Interesting patent. If this were a 600 mm f6.3 I would be more enticed to purchase (or a 500 mm f4.5 with 1.4x TC built-in). Even a 400 mm f4 DO with built in 1.4x TC would get my interests. A straight 500 mm f5.6 not so much.

scottburgess said:

The lens released in the 1990s as the other half of the choice set with the 400 f/5.6 was the 300mm f/4. Both lenses were amateur-oriented products. Both were designed without solid compatibility to 1.4x and 2x teleconverters [...]

Click to expand...

I own the 300mm f/4 IS and both the 1.4 II and 2.0 II extenders. I use them on my R6, and my kid uses them on her 80D. I can state plainly that the performance of both combinations is perfectly fine for detailed viewing and printing when shooting close to the subject and avoiding many atmospheric issues. Add in DLO and the performance is practically modern in terms of image.

I can't speak for the original 300 f/4.

For those who don't own copies, but are interested in a comparison by someone who dealt with both: