Canon registered two new ILC bodies

[Jethro]

I strongly suspect any crop sensor R body will (initially at least) be a 7DII equivalent / upgrade, with the intention of enticing 7D users into the RF mount. My impression is that typical 7D-series users would spend most of their time on FF (EF) mounted lenses anyway, and so there would be little immediate need for an RF-s mount. If (and a big if) Canon eventually wanted to move out of the lower level APS-C bodies (and what an 'if' it would be to give up the Rebels?!), then there might need to be some native RF-mount lenses to at least go into kits. But even that is assuming there was a desire for smaller / lighter lenses, and the clear intention seems to be that the M series represents the 'small and light' ML series.

 

[unfocused]

Of course. I don't think that I suggested otherwise. The question is whether there will be RF-s native lenses when (if?) a crop sensor R body comes along.
I think that if a high end 7D replacement arrives then no RF-s lenses will be introduced with it to provide wide angle coverage as adapated EF-s will fulfil that requirement today. The forecasted RF18-45mm will automatically crop to 30-72mm equivalent and the RF16mm prime converts to ~25mm equivalent so not very wide.
Different story if Canon decides to replace xxxxD/xxxD/xxD models with a crop sensor R mount over the long term.

In terms of mindset - especially for reviewers online - they seem to be only concerned with lens coverage with native lenses. This is clearly not the case and there are many great reasons to continue to buy new EF lenses and adapt them to R bodies. RF lenses (in general) are great but expensive. EF provide a middle ground and round out the speciality uses.
The use of the ND/CPL adapter plus TS-e lenses, EF 11-24mm and EF8-15mm is a great example of improved features compared to EF lenses on EF mount.

If my EF16-35mm/4 dies then it will be a tough decision whether to replace it with another EF16-35mm or pay more for the RF14-35mm.

Yes, as I said, I wasn't trying to pick on you. But people keep referring to EF-S lenses and talking as though a separate or additional mount would be needed. Of course, Canon would likely issue lenses geared toward an APS-C body (I've suggested that they would need a 15-85 and 11-22 to cover most needs of enthusiasts. ) But, it's important for people to understand (obviously you do) that unlike the old EF system, where EF-S lenses could not mount on full frame bodies and thus Canon had to modify the mount, any RF lenses geared toward crop sensor bodies would fit and work seamlessly (in crop mode) on any R body made, thus making things much simpler for both Canon and consumers.

 

[i_SH]

Not in the subject, but ... Tom Hogan's most interesting look at the focal lengths of lenses! And changing the views of young people on the problem. Perhaps that is why Canon among the first lenses released 14-35 (and I would like 14-50!) And 16 mm?

Did Lens Makers Miss a Turn? | Cameras and Photography Explained | Thom Hogan

Why is the iPhone 13-77mm but ILCs still living in the 24-85mm world?

bythom.com

 

[degos]

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?)

I'd assume that like most events the client wouldn't be handling 80MP files. For push-to-web publishing they'll be reviewing medium-sized OOC JPEGs of whatever dimensions they specify. To them it doesn't matter what was the original resolution.

What high-res gives is the flexibility to (1) re-frame a scene (2) crop for detail (3) re-use a shot for other markets that demand high-resolution (4) use that camera for all shooting jobs.

With a low-res sensor you're throwing away photo information for no particular reason and limiting your future options.

 

[TravelerNick]

Same with removing 24fps video, but having 25fps and 30fps in some cameras,

How many R6 users are shooting for hollywood and NEED 24? 25 is TV/video in Europe. 30 in North America.

Did they take out 23.97? That's important for some users.

At some point you're limited by the amount of memory inside the box. Even just a software feature can mean deleting something else.

 

[Joules]

How many R6 users are shooting for hollywood and NEED 24? 25 is TV/video in Europe. 30 in North America.

Did they take out 23.97? That's important for some users.

At some point you're limited by the amount of memory inside the box. Even just a software feature can mean deleting something else.

There is no apparent justification for Canon having launched a few cameras without 24 p video. The fact that they later updated them to add that feature shows that it was no technical issue.

Canon simply tried to apply their mantra of knowing better than the market what they want to 24 p (which, as you say, few people truly need) and disliked the response they got. So they caved in and added it back in. No point in sugar coating it for either side.

 

[TravelerNick]

Canon simply tried to apply their mantra of knowing better than the market what they want to 24 p (which, as you say, few people truly need) and disliked the response they got. So they caved in and added it back in. No point in sugar coating it for either side.

How much effort does it take you to convert a 25FPS to 24? A fraction of a second?

Let's compare that with the A1

No DCI in any resolution. At best you can shoot in 8K and crop to 4K DCI. But then
No 4.2.2 in the highest resolution
No internal raw.

That's in a camera costing 6K. You can't work around any of those.

The sort of people who need and care about 24 FPS also want internal ND filters, better audio ports, better battery choices, better codecs etc. Leaving 24 off doesn't push you into the R5. It pushes you into the C300.

The fact they added it to make some people happy proves they'll even give you things that don't matter.

 

[Joules]

How much effort does it take you to convert a 25FPS to 24? A fraction of a second?

That's an impossible conversion. If you slow down or speed up your footage, that causes issues, especially with audio, and if you just skip a frame per second, that's not great either.

Not sure what your point is though. If Canon had thought their initial action was optimal, why didn't they stick with it?

 

[neuroanatomist]

That's an impossible conversion. If you slow down or speed up your footage, that causes issues, especially with audio, and if you just skip a frame per second, that's not great either.

Not sure what your point is though. If Canon had thought their initial action was optimal, why didn't they stick with it?

It’s clear that by omitting 24p, Canon pulled a Nikon and screwed D f up.

Ba dum bum.

 

[Mikehit]

Canon simply tried to apply their mantra of knowing better than the market what they want to 24 p (which, as you say, few people truly need) and disliked the response they got. So they caved in and added it back in. No point in sugar coating it for either side.

My personal take on this is that Canon did (and do) know what the market as a whole needs and wants. What has happened is that a relatively small bunch of self-proclaimed videography spokespeople have a platform to create way more noise than they can really justify. And the manufacturers then have a choice of sticking by what they know to be true, or suffer trial-by-facebook where so-called 'influencers' claim to know more than they do.
Some people 'need' a 600mm lens in the same way some people 'need' a choice between 24p/25p/30p.

/rant over

 

[st jack photography]

That idea would be a reasonable strategy for Canon. Maybe a RP and R replacement in 2022 along with a high MP FF body and a APS-C body? Four cameras would be a lot in a single year, but two would be replacements and two would be new offerings.

I would guess that the high MP camera (to replace 5DSr) will be DEAD LAST, because any mp gain they have, which will be next-level, will also come with a huge list of cons that novices and enthusiasts will poo-poo about. I owned a 5DSr, I know how bad the ISO was and how 1/250 was like shooting 1/40, and how slow the buffer and RAW burst and FPS was. That fancy BSI will only help a marginal bit. So yes, it will come last, because it is the one that comes with a huge set of negatives with the positives, AND ALSO they need to have this MP monster be king for a while as well....so yeah, dead last. Expect a December 2022 to Jan 2023 announcement on the R5SR high-mp beast.
Also, the high-mp body better have an R3-type body. Any studio/landscape/high mp camera should be more like a 1D or a medium format than a Rebel or even a 5D/R5.

 

[st jack photography]

The R was obviously a tech demo of sorts showing fans what is to come. Because of that, the R is a strange beast, with an odd mix of features. There will likely be no R mark 2. It would be weird, if so: it would be basically an R6 Lite with a top dot matrix screen added, which makes no sense if you look at R5 and R6 compared.
I just do not see any room at all for an R mark two.
I would maybe expect a RP mark 2, or a renamed but similar entry-level FF to match competition.

 

[slclick]

- R5C
Ideally R5 in R3 body.
Price between R3 and R5.

- R7
30mp aps-c,...
Price as R6 on release.
(R6 will be discontinued.)

Ricockulous

 

[slclick]

Would that just be an R6 with a firmware update then?

No, keep your long arse moving pictures off my R6, it's just fine as is.

 

[Czardoom]

My personal take on this is that Canon did (and do) know what the market as a whole needs and wants. What has happened is that a relatively small bunch of self-proclaimed videography spokespeople have a platform to create way more noise than they can really justify. And the manufacturers then have a choice of sticking by what they know to be true, or suffer trial-by-facebook where so-called 'influencers' claim to know more than they do.
Some people 'need' a 600mm lens in the same way some people 'need' a choice between 24p/25p/30p.

/rant over

I agree completely. Canon has a reputation of designing cameras to be more specific for a certain target market, and when that target market is entry level, many people on forums, and the YouTube influencers are unable or unwilling to understand that the specs and features are not going to be what they are looking for. The RP is entry level, and as someone who does a little video (a few how-to art videos and a few more dog videos for YouTube), I don't want anything video oriented that will make my video shooting more complicated, I would be one of those consumers very glad with my choices simplified. I would guess the target market for the RP when it comes to video, is folks making videos of their kids at sporting events, plays, family gatherings etc. All they want is to have the default settings and no confusion, in my opinion. When I first shot video (with a different brand) they had so many choices, I could not shoot video without looking in the manual. For some odd reason, the default was a video mode that took a photo every few seconds. It was one of many 30p choices - with a little icon that denoted photos. At the time, I would have had no idea whether to set the video to 30p or 24p. It just led to more time wasted and further delays - something that someone shooting their kid playing soccer would not want to have happen. The RP - I am quite sure - was not designed or intended for those looking to shoot "film" type video. It just adds a complication - and I have been very glad in the past that Canon usually has the philosophy of making the experience with your camera simpler and easier than most other brands.

 

[Botts]

This is clearly not the case and there are many great reasons to continue to buy new EF lenses and adapt them to R bodies. RF lenses (in general) are great but expensive. EF provide a middle ground and round out the speciality uses.
The use of the ND/CPL adapter plus TS-e lenses, EF 11-24mm and EF8-15mm is a great example of improved features compared to EF lenses on EF mount.

If my EF16-35mm/4 dies then it will be a tough decision whether to replace it with another EF16-35mm or pay more for the RF14-35mm.

Doesn't that somewhat create Apple's iPad problem though? In that a used or refurbished one is a better purchase than a new "low-end" model? At retail, is the EF lens, even at lower prices, compelling compared to the RF lens?

I would imagine most people looking at the value side are considering used EF lenses. If I were looking at retail price, between the RF 100-500 or EF 100-400 II, the RF looks pretty compelling. But if I'm value conscious, why wouldn't I take a used 100-400 for $1400? Or for the 16-35 vs 14-35 question: It's $1099 vs $1699 new, or $600 used.

That "small" delta on the new RF lens means no adapter, smaller system, and perhaps better performance vis a vis the IBIS / IS cooperation. It's also newer and (usually) lighter.

And those conundrums are at full-retail for the RF lenses. Once we start seeing discounts on RF, the deltas will make new EF even less desirable.

Lens Model	EF New	RF New	EF Used	RF Weight Advantage
100-400 / 100-500	$2,399	$2,799	$1,400	225 grams / 7.94oz
16-35 / 14-35	$1,099	$1,699	$600	75 grams / 2.65oz
24-105	$1,099	$1,099	$675	95 grams / 3.35oz

 

[reefroamer]

Yes, as I said, I wasn't trying to pick on you. But people keep referring to EF-S lenses and talking as though a separate or additional mount would be needed. Of course, Canon would likely issue lenses geared toward an APS-C body (I've suggested that they would need a 15-85 and 11-22 to cover most needs of enthusiasts. ) But, it's important for people to understand (obviously you do) that unlike the old EF system, where EF-S lenses could not mount on full frame bodies and thus Canon had to modify the mount, any RF lenses geared toward crop sensor bodies would fit and work seamlessly (in crop mode) on any R body made, thus making things much simpler for both Canon and consumers.

Agree. Canon could have something like RF-C lenses, where the “C” designates Crop., Lenses designated thusly would produce cropped images when mounted on a full-frame R camera, but full-sensor images on APSC R cameras. EF-S lenses cannot mechanically fit on EF mount bodies. RF solves this for cropped lenses.

 

[David - Sydney]

Doesn't that somewhat create Apple's iPad problem though? In that a used or refurbished one is a better purchase than a new "low-end" model? At retail, is the EF lens, even at lower prices, compelling compared to the RF lens?

I would imagine most people looking at the value side are considering used EF lenses. If I were looking at retail price, between the RF 100-500 or EF 100-400 II, the RF looks pretty compelling. But if I'm value conscious, why wouldn't I take a used 100-400 for $1400? Or for the 16-35 vs 14-35 question: It's $1099 vs $1699 new, or $600 used.

That "small" delta on the new RF lens means no adapter, smaller system, and perhaps better performance vis a vis the IBIS / IS cooperation. It's also newer and (usually) lighter.

And those conundrums are at full-retail for the RF lenses. Once we start seeing discounts on RF, the deltas will make new EF even less desirable.

Lens Model	EF New	RF New	EF Used	RF Weight Advantage
100-400 / 100-500	$2,399	$2,799	$1,400	225 grams / 7.94oz
16-35 / 14-35	$1,099	$1,699	$600	75 grams / 2.65oz
24-105	$1,099	$1,099	$675	95 grams / 3.35oz

I would think that sensible people will look to used EF lenses. More of them on the market now as people migrate to RF. I was using 1.4x/2x TCs with my EF70-200mm/2.8ii but that isn't possible with RF70-200mm so I needed either the EF100-400mm or RF100-500mm. I had pre-ordered the RF100-500mm but cancelled due to the high price. The used EF100-400mm are really holding their value second hand in the Australian market. I waited for a 20% sale for the RF100-500mm instead and have been very happy.

I had no reason to replace my EF24-105mm until there was a 15% off sale on the RF version and then I was planning to travel to New Zealand and get the 10% GST back as well. Unfortunately, we went into lockdown a couple of days before we were flying so that was a bummer. I was planning to use it when doing helicopter flights for aerial shots.

You have left off the 100mm macro which will be another tough choice if I need to replace. I got my EF100mm second hand as I didn't expect to use it much but have used it more than I expected. The RF version is substantially higher in price.

There are more advantages to RF besides weight eg IBIS, focus speed, size (in most cases) etc.

 

[John Wilde]

There is no apparent justification for Canon having launched a few cameras without 24 p video. The fact that they later updated them to add that feature shows that it was no technical issue.

Canon simply tried to apply their mantra of knowing better than the market what they want to 24 p (which, as you say, few people truly need) and disliked the response they got. So they caved in and added it back in. No point in sugar coating it for either side.

The sugar coating is that Canon listened to feedback, and resolved the issue.

 

[drhuffman87]

Since a lot of posters are just writing about what their ideal camera would be, I'll throw in my two cents. The eos R is nearly perfect for me. I would love a new version with a 30mp sensor and an upgraded processor that would allow for the newer autofocus system, consistent 8fps mechanical shutter across all autofocus modes, and uncropped 4k video with dual pixel af. They could just replace the touchbar with a dial that i would use to control iso, as i use the control ring for aperture.