blackcoffee17 said:

Even the EF 100-400 II was better than the prime. Sharper at 400mm and much more flexible. I owned both.

Click to expand...

There was still a cult of the EF 400 f/5.6 L when the EF 100-400 II came out. I suppose the built-in lens hood and kudos of owning a prime. made up for the 3.5m close focus, lack of IS and being less sharp even on Canon's own MTF charts.

riker said:

The third time I'm happy for basically the same post.
Having IBIS might be a sign of Canon making this one more photo-focused and less vlogger crap. This will make many middle aged oldschool boomers like me happy.
And it will make it a reasonable secondary/backup camera for those who haven't seriously considered purchasing one. Until now.

Click to expand...

You do realise there is still the R6MII and the new R6MIII with IBIS and pretty photo centric, and they even have an EVF! And btw, they can do "a bit" of video too.
And the best thing: They even work as backup cameras, if needed.
Why would you even consider a "V" camera model for that?

The third time I'm happy for basically the same post.
Having IBIS might be a sign of Canon making this one more photo-focused and less vlogger crap. This will make many middle aged oldschool boomers like me happy.
And it will make it a reasonable secondary/backup camera for those who haven't seriously considered purchasing one. Until now.

If there's LP-E6NH/P, IBIS and EFCS, I'm getting one.

Any Name said:

And yet, here we are, with the article already adjusted to the (at this moment) suggested/perceived split of the current R8 into an R8V and R8 Mark II. Go figure.
Probably a split by Canon due to wildly different reasons than mine, but we'll see what we end up with eventually.

BTW: 'Photographing' at 30 FPS is just making very short films and hoping that one particular frame has the approximate image you'd want.
Not my kind of picture taking and I'd gladly take a much lower max FPS if that means slower/cheaper onboard buffer RAM, less cooling (as someone else mentioned), etc. etc.

Click to expand...

That's not the same at all. That's not a split, Canon just adding another video-first camera in the lineup. The R8V/R6V is very video specific and doesn't have an EVF. The R8 Mark II will have the same video features as the current R8, it won't be a stills-only camera.

neuroanatomist said:

I’m surprised by the L designation for the PZ lens. 20-50mm is a useful ‘walkaround’ range and the lens will probably be compact and optically excellent (at least for those who don’t mind forced distortion correction at the wide end), but I don’t see any utility of a power zoom for photography.

Click to expand...

Right, a powerzoom is not needed for photography, could even be disturbing.
Yet, provided sharp, 20-50 can be a pretty useful complement to a 70-200, especially as a compact city package.
I'll be among the first buyers if, despite those satanic, devilish and trumpish software corrections, it is as sharp as the 24-70 at comparable focals.
And, by the way, the newer Z zooms are fully usable without the add-on motor.
I have never heard or read about an optically disappointing Canon RF zoom lately...

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...

Even the EF 100-400 II was better than the prime. Sharper at 400mm and much more flexible. I owned both.

I’m surprised by the L designation for the PZ lens. 20-50mm is a useful ‘walkaround’ range and the lens will probably be compact and optically excellent (at least for those who don’t mind forced distortion correction at the wide end), but I don’t see any utility of a power zoom for photography.

What a scene, great photos!

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