Traveler said:

Based on reactions, this topic seems to be more difficult than I thought.
I understand that Canon needs to differentiate cameras and the R8 will never get all the features from the R5-ish cameras. My point was that one of the differentiators is size: better (and more expensive) camera is always bigger. And I'd like to have something like the R8 (or eos R) with the features of a high end camera and I'm willing to pay for it (unlike other people who complain that the R8 has one slot, is not water resistant etc – I know that there must be some trade off).

I also know that the camera physically can't be too small. I'm sure that the R8 body wouldn't fit large display, joystick, all the wheels and arrows all together. I guess it needs to have certain size. But I'm sure they could come up with some solutions that would solve it (thinner bezels, more clever controls etc). I'd be even fine with polycarbonate body if it shaves off the weight. My camera doesn't need to withstand falling from a rock. Weather sealing would be important though.

I don't deny that for a lot of people, bigger size is better and I noticed that it really depends on the lens used more than on the hands. The R8 feels great in the hands when using the 1.8 primes or the RF 28-70 f/2.8. But with the f/4 zooms (24-105, 70-200) it feels uncomfortable. R6 feels well-balanced with the f/4 zooms and it's comfortable to use it all day (same as with the R). And when using the f/2.8 zooms or lenses like 135 f/1.8 or 85 f/1.2 then it needs R5 or higher. I also tried some of the long lenses (100-300 f/2.8, 600 f/4) and those really need R3 or R1.

Again – I understand why the cameras are bigger and why cheap cameras don't get all the functions. I just wish there is a camera for an enthusiast (not a pro) who wants lightweight but packed camera that would be used mainly with f/4 zooms or f/1.4 primes and budget is not that important.
I didn't mention resolution. That one is also not important to me (20-24Mpix is perfect for me) but I guess if it's a packed camera than people would want higher resolution.

Click to expand...

neuroanatomist said:

I really do wonder how much any of that matters. I remain unconvinced there is real 'competition' between brands at anything other than the entry level. Someone with a smartphone who wants to get 'a real camera' will be looking at different systems and comparing the ones they can afford. Mostly, they'll be looking to not spend more than they spent on their smartphone (the average price of a MILC shipped in 2025 is $714), which means they'll be comparing at the entry level. Once they make a choice, if they later decide to upgrade they will most likely be looking at the brand they already have so they can use the same lenses, etc.

I think the transition from DSLR to MILC is a somewhat different situation, where users with more gear were looking at switching not just bodies but lenses, too, and that led to more system switching (mainly from Nikon to Sony, based on the market data). That transition is still ongoing, meaning some higher-end MILC sales are to people replacing a DSLR.

Those of us engaged more on the gear side (e.g., the self-selected group of people who choose to follow rumors of upcoming cameras and lenses) and those who produce content for them (DPR, etc.) love to compare across brands. That drives a lot of discussion and more importantly ad views and clicks (i.e., revenue) but at the end of the day only a relatively small number of users with anything other than a body and a kit lens actually switch from one system to another.

I believe that the primary target market for cameras above the entry level are in-brand buyers, so Canon (in particular, as the dominant market leader) is looking to attract owners of older Canon cameras or 'lower' Canon cameras. For example, the R6III is spec'd to attract owners of 5- or 6-series DSLRs, owners of an R6 that's now 'getting old' and owners of an R7/R10 who are looking to go to FF. The situation is a bit different for Sony and Nikon, because they don't have something like 70% of the installed base using their brand so they have to try and poach Canon users with specs, price, or both.

Click to expand...

Canon Rumors said:

Yes, some plastics can be more durable than metal. However, a camera is the sum of its parts and you can feel it. That matters to some... I'm part of the some. Muscle memory as well, the Sony's are so cramped and not built for the natural placement and movements of the hand.

Cameras like the OM-3 and Leica MP.... the plastic on the MP iso dial annoys me and it doesn't even matter! The OM feels rock solid, it just needs a joystick where the CP button/dial is.

Click to expand...

Exploreshootshare said:

The R has/ had beautiful ergonomics which were flawed by omitting a joystick (maybe a scroll wheel, but I could do without). With that/ those item(s) it would have been perfect.

Most importantly, the weight was absolutely manageable for one-hand shooting and caring it around for an entire day.
The R5 imo has perfect ergonomics concerning button placement, joystick, scroll wheel and how the camera is being held. I did realize while shooting last year, that the R5 is a bit too heavy. I do realize that the difference between 651 gr and 738gr is only 87 gr, but it really has a huge impact on how I receive the weight. 650gr or even 600gr should a sweet spot for a reasonable sized camera and weight. If it is lower it quickly misbalances the camera when attached to certain lenses.

So, kind a like a R8 with a joystick, scroll wheel and 1/8000 shutter speed.

I for myself have now purchased the R8. It matches the needs derived from the R5 perfectly. It is small (great for hiking/ family dinners e.g.) and weighs only 481 gr although having a FF sensor. AF is faster than on the R5, which is nice as well. The controls are a little different and not as comfortable, but as long as I´m not shooting fast paced scenes (sports/ wildlife/ running kids) I´m perfectly fine with it.

If a R8ii can integrate a joystick and still keep the weight (or not go over 500gr), I'd switch the R8 for it as soon as discounts are granted.

Click to expand...

esglord said:

None is definitely not the worst hairstyle. As long as you don’t have a rat tail, man-bun, or the Lloyd Christmas, you can have a Leica

Click to expand...

Avilux said:

Since Canon hasn’t released an RF version of the 500mm as well it would make sense if they would pair the proposed RF 300mm f2 with a portable 500mm f2.8, both with built-in TCs, of course. Such fast prime lenses would provide an excellent USP in an increasing competitive market.
When Canon Inc. is addressed in this way I refer to Genesis 1,3: "Let there be light, and there was light".

Click to expand...

Traveler said:

I still hope Canon will break their rules that better camera needs to be bigger and only top cameras have certain features. I think that the original EOS R had the perfect body size and design, top LCD, bigger display than the R6.

Click to expand...

Traveler said:

I think there are quite some people who would spend the money on the R5 but it is too heavy for them. And people who just want something nice but not necessarily big and heavy. Enthusiasts, travellers, young people,...

Click to expand...

Canon Rumors said:

Here is the RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM with the RF 2.0x Teleconverter. The photo is good enough for the photo frame, not really paper worthy. If you want to fill the frame, the performance is very good.


View attachment 225879

Iberian Lynx // EOS R1 // RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM // RF 2.0x // 600mm // F5.6 // ISO 3200​

Click to expand...

mimbu said:

Due to the growth in the Asian market you are likely to see Canon and Nikon follow Sony into making smaller FF bodies going forward. Legacy markets in Europe & the US have little growth these days (or are shrinking), so makers will cater more to where new customers are.

Click to expand...

snapshot said:

45 MP global shutter? i would atleast drive to the camera store to check it out.

Click to expand...

Traveler said:

I still hope Canon will break their rules that better camera needs to be bigger and only top cameras have certain features. I think that the original EOS R had the perfect body size and design, top LCD, bigger display than the R6. They could make a camera that is comfortable to hold, not too heavy or big, has nice bright LCD with thinner bezels, high-res EVF, IBIS, enough controls (both rear wheel and arrows like the 90D or Sony's) and doesn't have limited menu options and features. It's fine if it shoots less fps or has weaker video specs due to the smaller body (less efficient cooling).
I think there are quite some people who would spend the money on the R5 but it is too heavy for them. And people who just want something nice but not necessarily big and heavy. Enthusiasts, travellers, young people,...

I know, I'm naive.

Click to expand...

Del Paso said:

I didn't know the Japanese had such a bad taste...

Click to expand...

snapshot said:

this assumes you need dark pixels for both sides of the DPAF. but, yes, Global shutter is about fast moving objects, so 100 MP usage might not need global shutter or perhaps even DPAF.

Click to expand...

Del Paso said:

No, you are not naive.
You simply forget that some of us have larger hands, and simply cannot get along with smaller cameras, while the opposite is not true.
Canon should not start developing expensive cameras for a fraction of their customers. I do still own an EOS R, but it represents the absolute limit of what I can use. The 5 D IV was perfect for me while the R5 II is ok. Size matters if you dislike cramped controls. Yet, if my carrying system allowed it, I surely would get an R 3 or R 1
Thanks God, Canon still pay lots of attention to ergonomics.

Click to expand...