I don't think a top LCD excludes the existence of a mode dial. Older high-end DSLR's all had a top LCD and also a mode dial.
Upvote
0
Canon registered two new ILC bodies
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
I don't think a top LCD excludes the existence of a mode dial. Older high-end DSLR's all had a top LCD and also a mode dial.
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Just taking a few minutes to list the possible Canon cameras that have been rumored, confirmed or broadly speculated about
R6
R5
R3
RP Replacement
R Replacement
High Megapixel R5
Cinema R
Fanboys go crazy R
Bargain R
R1
R7
Rebel/M Replacement R
That's a whole lot of cameras for a shrinking market. Does anyone believe all or most of these will appear?
At some point Canon (I think) will want to finalize their R lineup. Will they follow car manufacturers patterns and keep developing new low-end models, while upscaling existing models? For example, a non-viewfinder entry level body with a bolt-on accessory viewfinder becomes the low-end sub $1,000 body. Would this also be the "fanboys go crazy" body?
Do they merge the RP and R into a single body that is slotted between the R6 and new entry-level body? I do agree with those who say the gap between sub-$1,000 and the R6 is too large to not have an option.
There is some precedent for this if you consider the 90D to be a merger of the 80D and 7D (Not saying the new body would be APS-C, but rather it would have significantly better features than the RP but still missing some of the features of the R and be priced below the R but above the RP).
Is there really a market for a high mp R5 body? I don't know. The 5D s certainly had a market and I suspect that adding a high megapixel sensor to an existing body saves them money. But would the market be there is you add $1,000 to the price of an R5? Canon left the 5D s in the lineup long after they dropped the 5DIII (which is the body they used). Was that because it took them that long to recover the costs and make a profit? If so, that might have cooled their jets for a high megapixel R body. And, in an era of 45mp as a standard, is a 90mp body as appealing?
Similarly, just how successful was the 1Dc? It started out at a high premium but eventually, it got so you could buy one at about the same price as the 1Dx. Was that a mistake and does Canon want to try again or not? Would an R3c make sense?
Then we come to the big questions, the R1 and R7 and what happens to the M line. I'm of the opinion that Canon will not drop the M line in favor of a compact R system. But, that's my opinion. Based on Craig's comments, it sounds like both the R1 and R7 will emerge, but when?
All of this doesn't even take into consideration the need for lenses that align with some of these bodies. A sub-$1,000 body requires at least a few lenses to match. Going all-in on Rebel-style R bodies would require reproducing most of the EF-M line.
If there is a point to this rambling post, it's that the list of possible R bodies keeps expanding and I seriously doubt that Canon is willing or able to produce all of these. Because we don't know what we don't know, arguments can be made for each of these bodies, but I don't think arguments can be make for all of them.
R6
R5
R3
RP Replacement
R Replacement
High Megapixel R5
Cinema R
Fanboys go crazy R
Bargain R
R1
R7
Rebel/M Replacement R
That's a whole lot of cameras for a shrinking market. Does anyone believe all or most of these will appear?
At some point Canon (I think) will want to finalize their R lineup. Will they follow car manufacturers patterns and keep developing new low-end models, while upscaling existing models? For example, a non-viewfinder entry level body with a bolt-on accessory viewfinder becomes the low-end sub $1,000 body. Would this also be the "fanboys go crazy" body?
Do they merge the RP and R into a single body that is slotted between the R6 and new entry-level body? I do agree with those who say the gap between sub-$1,000 and the R6 is too large to not have an option.
There is some precedent for this if you consider the 90D to be a merger of the 80D and 7D (Not saying the new body would be APS-C, but rather it would have significantly better features than the RP but still missing some of the features of the R and be priced below the R but above the RP).
Is there really a market for a high mp R5 body? I don't know. The 5D s certainly had a market and I suspect that adding a high megapixel sensor to an existing body saves them money. But would the market be there is you add $1,000 to the price of an R5? Canon left the 5D s in the lineup long after they dropped the 5DIII (which is the body they used). Was that because it took them that long to recover the costs and make a profit? If so, that might have cooled their jets for a high megapixel R body. And, in an era of 45mp as a standard, is a 90mp body as appealing?
Similarly, just how successful was the 1Dc? It started out at a high premium but eventually, it got so you could buy one at about the same price as the 1Dx. Was that a mistake and does Canon want to try again or not? Would an R3c make sense?
Then we come to the big questions, the R1 and R7 and what happens to the M line. I'm of the opinion that Canon will not drop the M line in favor of a compact R system. But, that's my opinion. Based on Craig's comments, it sounds like both the R1 and R7 will emerge, but when?
All of this doesn't even take into consideration the need for lenses that align with some of these bodies. A sub-$1,000 body requires at least a few lenses to match. Going all-in on Rebel-style R bodies would require reproducing most of the EF-M line.
If there is a point to this rambling post, it's that the list of possible R bodies keeps expanding and I seriously doubt that Canon is willing or able to produce all of these. Because we don't know what we don't know, arguments can be made for each of these bodies, but I don't think arguments can be make for all of them.
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Since you A) shoot sports professionally and B) have been very vocal about wanting a high megapixel R1, I'm curious about the following:
1) What would your clients do with 80mp files? (Not just end use, but do they have sufficient processing power to review, edit and store a couple thousand 80mp files on deadline?)
2) How would you transfer 80mp files to them? (LAN?)
3) Do you think it's realistic that an 80mp camera would have enough processing power and a large enough buffer to handle a 20-30 second 30 fps burst and clear quickly enough for the next play?
4) Do you think an 80mp camera can deliver acceptable results at ISO 25,600 and above, bearing in mind that if you have to downsize the files to reduce noise there isn't much point in shooting at 80mp?
5) What shutter speeds would you anticipate shooting at in order to take advantage of the sharpness offered by an 80mp sensor?
I'm just curious if you have thought about any of these things. I understand that we inhabit vastly different worlds, since I can't rely on someone else to select, edit and process my photos, but have to do everything myself after I've shot a game. The small buffer size and large file sizes of the R5 have made it much less appealing for sports than the 1Dx III. I see the R3 as a reasonable compromise and am looking forward to finding out if I've guessed correctly. I understand the R3 is not acceptable to you, but I am curious what you are looking for and why.
Upvote
0
Hard to tell what Canon would or would not do in practice without knowing what they're doing with the rest of the lines they're currently operating. Your list includes 12 (some of which hypothetical) bodies, but Canon is maintaining more bodies than that right now, even if we remove cameras which could be considered having mostly direct replacements already (i.e. 5DIV to R5 and 6DII to R6, SL2, 80D, etc.). Consider their website (Canadian for me) is still promoting the 1DXIII, R3, R5, R6, Ra, R, RP, 90D, 77D, SL3, T8i (and several older variants), T100i, M6II, M5, M50II, M3, M10, M200. 18 bodies across 4 mounts is a heck of a lot, though I do think a number of those bodies are likely low on their priority list.
If Canon were to step away from M and APS-C DSLRs, I don't think it would be unexpected to produce a very wide range of bodies under the R mount, and potentially reduce the number of lens mounts they need to maintain. I have no idea if they'd do that, and no doubt M has a following which is shouldn't be ignored, but I'm not sure a big list of bodies is worrisome for Canon based on where they currently are. I'd bet lower cost options on R mount are pretty close to a sure thing, and I wouldn't be shocked if they produced some of the more niche bodies that we always wonder if there is room for - i.e. high resolution or cinema cameras in a stills form factor. Time will tell!
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
I am talking basics functions and standards set by predecessors not just for niche or specialties. Not having custom video modes in a $2500 camera in 2020 but having it in a cheaper 2018 camera is dumb. I looked it up to see if I was doing something wrong but I seen numerous posts and videos about the omission.
Upvote
0
Between the R3, R5, and C70. The R5C seems a bit redundant for Canon. The R3 takes care of like 80% of the R5 issues and the C70 takes care of the issues of both not being cinema cameras but with worse AF, not fullframe( if that matters), and lower res. I still don't believe it exists unless Canon took a page from Sony FX3.
Upvote
0
If there are only ever going to be full frame R cameras then using Canon traditional numbering scheme the R would logically be an R10 and the RP would be either an R100 or R1000, depending on it being the bottom option or not.
If you start adding APS-C bodies into the mix then making the top of that line the R7 really screws the system up.
if the R7 is APS-C then there are no numbers left for R or RP replacements.
They could go with with An alternative naming like Rc7 etc but I think that would be bad.
Having crop camera numbers lower than a FF camera seems bad also.
What could work is all single/ double digit cameras being FF and APS-C being 3/4 digit. The 7D could become the R107.
The moment the original R was released I knew the name was a mistake. It was obvious that others would come and a simple R would not work.
If you start adding APS-C bodies into the mix then making the top of that line the R7 really screws the system up.
if the R7 is APS-C then there are no numbers left for R or RP replacements.
They could go with with An alternative naming like Rc7 etc but I think that would be bad.
Having crop camera numbers lower than a FF camera seems bad also.
What could work is all single/ double digit cameras being FF and APS-C being 3/4 digit. The 7D could become the R107.
The moment the original R was released I knew the name was a mistake. It was obvious that others would come and a simple R would not work.
Upvote
0
Canon said there won't be a Mark ll. Why isn't that enough for people?
Upvote
0
I want to avoid everyone here who disregards the Canon Exec who stated there will not be Mark ll versions of the R and RP. Paying attention is free.
Upvote
0
Ray, I'm breaking up with you for just not 'getting me'. No hard feelings? Oh and delete all those horrible videos you made of us with the R6.
Upvote
0
That's 10 models just in R mount vs 5 today with R1 guaranteed to come. R and RP are likely to be replaced nextR10: crop camera
R9: RP replacement - entry level
R8: R replacement - enthusiast allrounder...
R7: crop-pro camera - I hear y'all birders
R6: you know the deal
R5/c/s: spealised version and all-around work horse
R3: professional sports/ wedding/ wildlife pros
R1: do it all in perfection camera
This line-up would have several entry-level/ amateur options, semi-pro and pro options. I'm sure Canon will come up with a similar line-up. Entry level might have even more options if there are really three crop-cameras coming.
As @amorse pointed out, Canon have 18 models (excluding colours) across 4 mounts and are comfortable market leaders and profitable. Consolidation makes some sense but there are still compelling market niches that the EF-M and xxD/xxxD models hit at price points and size that R mount may never hit but will get close. Current specialist models like Ra and 5DS/SR may not be replaced.
With R mount able to use adapted EF/EF-S lenses and RF lenses, Canon is betting on its long term future.
Upvote
0
I'd say that the R6 is no sleeper when it comes to video. For many people it has the upper hand over the R5, as not a lot of people need 45 megapixels, 20 is perfect for me. Now back to video, the R6 shoots oversampled 5.5K video up to 60 frames per second in 4K, with 10 bit color and the Canon Cinema Gamut if you're using CLOG-3, which is just so awesome, as it can match with higher end canon cinema cameras. (Yes, I'm aware the R5 can do it too, but for much more money!) It's quite underrated for video. While yes, there are better cameras out there, and if you want 8K, go ahead and get the R5, but I really think people should reconsider the R6, it's a fantastic value, a great all-around camera!
Upvote
0
A. We've spoken to Canon after the Olympics. The camera will not preclude you from changing your file size.
B. Our firm provides media for game day and after. Everything from billboards, bus wraps, building wraps, in-store displays, high-gloss magazines, stills for broadcast, digital signage, digital publishers,
C. During game day we have multiple photographers, shooting from multiple locations all with IP Based Intercom's so the truck/NOC/director/client/producers can direct. When tethered, (an) editor(s) is going through everything on each feed.
It would depend on the venue. Tethered to the truck we have gigabit - Right now we're maxed out at 700Mbps - Which will be upgraded in the R1
Verizon has new 5G towers in many venues and that's 20 gigabits, Well beyond what the R1 will need.
80MP will be used when needed or requested. No one will be shooting at 80MP / 30fps. 15fps is really the sweet spot and having the latitude to choose file size for the appropriate condition precludes 10,000 80MP/30fps even being a consideration. The key is having the latitude.
We're very rarely shooting at ISO ranges like that. Our venues are very well lit. I've seen entire games at 5000ISO even at the highest shutter speeds. In some instances, we're concerned with blowouts vs. shadows
Based on the amount of stabilization offered in the R1, hand held vs. mono/tri pod we'll have to see. Again, we won't be spraying and praying, The majority of shots now capturing what we like can be from 1/1250 to 4000. If a client is requesting a specific athlete which is very common, based on what the shots are used for, will determine what we do. When we do "Athlete Profiles" having the latitude to use the same camera in the studio will be very helpful too. The continuity to workflow will be welcomed.
The luxury of having an editor or multiple editors is expensive but the return for the firm is very profitable. Right now a single photographer with just two 500GB cards can shoot an entire game with plenty of space left over. At times we share a 32TB bank with broadcast and we've never even got close. Not too many years ago we were shooting and a PA would dump each card to an SSD as they were sent by a laptop. Things are so much after now. 5G at 20gigabit speeds will make internal/external 5G transmission a very realistic part of workflow.
You're doing what most of us did for years before we worked for larger firms.
We really want to be able to determine from a creative perspective the resolution we want. If you look at a Blackmagic 12K you can pull 80MP stills.
The Nikon Z9 is a 45MP Sports Camera. The technology is here already. Doubling the resolution of the 1DXMKIII is simplifying things but that's the simple objective and that is 80MP. No one here wants to shoot stills at 30fps. It seems good for marketing but if you're a pro and know your sport 15 or 16fps is optimal.
Upvote
0
You're right! The EOS R was a stop gap measure by Canon to get a feel for the market and give their customer base a full frame mirrorless, because they sat on their hands for too long and let Sony get too much of a head start in the full-frame MILC market.
The R6 features are intentionally reduced to create market segmentation, and make it 'less' than the R5. It's one thing to not have features because of technical limitations, but Canon have the nasty habit of removing simple functionality on purpose (focus stacking on the R6 when it's even on the RP!) and this bad faith practice has popularly become known as the work of the 'Canon cripple hammer'!
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
