The Canon EOS R1 is coming, here are a few things to expect

[dilbert]

As an aside, feel free to take your lessons in economics from The Princess Bride. I think I prefer Adam Smith.

If you've watched "A Brilliant Mind" (a movie about American mathemetician, Nobel Lauraete in Economics, John Nash), then there are apparently cases where Adam Smith's theories don't produce the best outcome. I don't know how accurate the movie is in this regard nor if thoses cases apply here.

But eventually, we will die or become too old to carry around big cameras.

Long live the Canon M-series!

 

[neuroanatomist]

I think he is talking about growing the market, not further dividing up the shrinking existing market.

<…>

But, doing so won't be easy since most people are content with cellphone cameras and cellphone cameras keep getting better.

That’s like trying to catch smoke with your hands. Smartphone genie is out of the bottle, and it’s not going back in.

The realization point for me was over a decade ago when my 2.5-year-old, who had been using an iPad mostly for educational games for a few months, didn’t like what was on TV so she toddled up to the flatscreen and proceeded to swipe her fingertips across the surface in an attempt to change the channel.

 

[chasingrealness]

I’m not going to lie, all these new cameras are making me greedy for things I never knew I wanted. I feel like Adam in the garden wondering wtf was in that Apple that made me realize I’ve been naked my whole life.

 

[entoman]

"Supertelephoto" generally includes lenses of 400mm and longer, so there are the RF 600 / 800 in the low price range, the 100-500L in the mid range, and the 400/2.8 and 600/4 at the top end.

You can get a 700mm f/10 with the 100-500 + 1.4x for US$3300. Seems like mid-range to me.

An 800/8 would have a 100mm entrance pupil, same as the 400/4 and 200/2, and an RF lens in that size range would likely be >$7000 – would you consider that a mid-range lens? Many would not.

The combination of 100-500mm and 1.4x is the closest, at 700mm/F10 that Canon has got to making 800mm/F8. But it’s 100mm short of the 800mm target, and two-thirds of a stop less light than the 800m/F8 that I’ve suggested. That zoom and extender combination is also IMO beyond what most people are able or willing to pay.

I think you fail to appreciate who Canon’s “telescopic” fixed aperture 600mm and 800mm lenses are aimed at. I’d dare to suggest that the largest user group by far are amateur birders, and I’d also suggest that in probably 95% of use cases, they would be using your suggested zoom/extender combination at maximum focal length and full aperture, which isn’t the way to get the best performance out of the glass.

As regards your observation that an 800mm/F8 would have an entry pupil of 100mm, that is obviously the case, but that is only 25% greater than the diameter of the 800mm/F11, and IMO such a lens could still be relatively lightweight, hand-holdable and affordable.

I’m puzzled that a person who repeatedly claims that Canon can and will produce a full frame body for $800, believes that Canon are incapable of producing a fixed-aperture telescopic RF800mm/F8 at under $2000. I clearly have more faith in Canon’s abilities than you do, despite your near-evangelical belief that Canon provides absolutely everything that anyone could possibly want.

 

[David - Sydney]

Three? Oh really? There are only two RF 800mm lenses and two RF 600mm lenses, at opposite extremes price-wise.
It seems perfectly reasonable to me to suggest that there might be a market for something in-between.

Personally I’d like a 800mm F8 and a 180mm F5.6 macro.
I dare say there are other lenses that you and others would like to be added.
You are free to put forward your own suggestions…

There was also the RF100-500mm + 1.4TC that was in your discussions as middle price point. I am sure that you would like another eg a 200-500m f6.1

 

[neuroanatomist]

The combination of 100-500mm and 1.4x is the closest, at 700mm/F10 that Canon has got to making 800mm/F8. But it’s 100mm short of the 800mm target, and two-thirds of a stop less light than the 800m/F8 that I’ve suggested. That zoom and extender combination is also IMO beyond what most people are able or willing to pay.

I think you fail to appreciate who Canon’s “telescopic” fixed aperture 600mm and 800mm lenses are aimed at. I’d dare to suggest that the largest user group by far are amateur birders, and I’d also suggest that in probably 95% of use cases, they would be using your suggested zoom/extender combination at maximum focal length and full aperture, which isn’t the way to get the best performance out of the glass.

As regards your observation that an 800mm/F8 would have an entry pupil of 100mm, that is obviously the case, but that is only 25% greater than the diameter of the 800mm/F11, and IMO such a lens could still be relatively lightweight, hand-holdable and affordable.

I’m puzzled that a person who repeatedly claims that Canon can and will produce a full frame body for $800, believes that Canon are incapable of producing a fixed-aperture telescopic RF800mm/F8 at under $2000. I clearly have more faith in Canon’s abilities than you do, despite your near-evangelical belief that Canon provides absolutely everything that anyone could possibly want.

I understand perfectly well that the 600/11 and 800/11 are aimed at birders. Based on AlanF's testing, the 100-500 + 1.4x is excellent at maximum focal length and full aperture. Having said that, he also found that the 800/11 outresolved the 100-500 + 1.4x.

I understand your desire for as many choices as possible. An 800/11 for $900, an 800/8 for $1999, how about they also make an 800/9 for $1500 and an 800/10 for $1123.46. Or better yet, 1/3-stop increments going up by $100 each? Of course, I'm being facetious.

But in all honesty, the 800/11 is a very good lens, albeit a slow one. In general, adding an extra stop of light adds significant cost, especially at long focal lengths where the front element diameter is a limiting factor. Even if they can make an 800/8 for <$2K, I doubt they will. If by 'fixed aperture' you mean a catadioptric lens, then certainly they can make an 800/8 mirror lens, and it could be even cheaper than the 800/11. But heck, if you want one of those and maximum reach, you should consider this:

https://www.amazon.com/Opteka-650-1300mm-1300-2600mm-Telephoto-Digital/dp/B001VDLZIG

Please don't put words in my mouth, it's insulting. I have never suggested that, "Canon provides absolutely everything that anyone could possibly want." Canon is a business. Their goal is to make profit.

 

[Mikehit]

You act like profit is a bad thing. Of course their goal is profit. I never said it wasn't. In fact, just the opposite. I said that the best path to profit is to provide enough customers with products they want to buy at a price that maximises the profit:cost ratio. It's a simple symbiotic relationship. Capitalism works. It has worked for thousands of years. That's because it is based on human nature. (And, just to short circuit more irrelevant rants, I'm not suggesting that unregulated, laissez-faire capitalism is a good thing.)

As an aside, feel free to take your lessons in economics from The Princess Bride. I think I prefer Adam Smith.

I would modify that as shown in red. If you deifne 'keeping customers happy' as making a gazillion different models to match each and every need, then that would be stupid. The profit:cost ratio is not only how much it costs to make a model but about how many production lines can you have running at any one time, each with its own costs for R&D, supply chains and manufacturing. IMO one reason Sony has so far been able to keep so many different models, some of them technically obsolete, is because most of their bodies are almost templates which until recently mean less-than maximal ergonomics simply to reduce manufacturing costs.

I think Neuro's issue is that when entoman (among others) take their own personal preferences and then cherry pick (with confirmation bias) comments from random people on the internet to state that their preferences are those that the market want, and that Canon therefore have to make these products or risk losing massive profits, or even (shock, horror!) tumble down in market share because they are ignorant of a potentially massively profitable product. Do they really believe Canon is ignorant of the varying desires?
Personally, I would be surprised if Canon do not have on the drawing board an APS-C successor to the 7Dii, but the fact it has been so long since the 7Dii was released without update would suggest they know what is going on. And the fact that Nikon have not updated the very highly regarded D500 would support this decision. They need to look at if they put resources to 7Diii those are resources they are not putting to their main models. Sure, they could make profits on a R7 (o 7Diii) but will it mean making less profits on developing/selling FF mirrorless models? That is where Canon is interested in its profits, not on 'what [some] customers want'.

 

[entoman]

I understand perfectly well that the 600/11 and 800/11 are aimed at birders. Based on AlanF's testing, the 100-500 + 1.4x is excellent at maximum focal length and full aperture. Having said that, he also found that the 800/11 outresolved the 100-500 + 1.4x.

I understand your desire for as many choices as possible. An 800/11 for $900, an 800/8 for $1999, how about they also make an 800/9 for $1500 and an 800/10 for $1123.46. Or better yet, 1/3-stop increments going up by $100 each? Of course, I'm being facetious.

But in all honesty, the 800/11 is a very good lens, albeit a slow one. In general, adding an extra stop of light adds significant cost, especially at long focal lengths where the front element diameter is a limiting factor. Even if they can make an 800/8 for <$2K, I doubt they will. If by 'fixed aperture' you mean a catadioptric lens, then certainly they can make an 800/8 mirror lens, and it could be even cheaper than the 800/11. But heck, if you want one of those and maximum reach, you should consider this:

https://www.amazon.com/Opteka-650-1300mm-1300-2600mm-Telephoto-Digital/dp/B001VDLZIG

Please don't put words in my mouth, it's insulting. I have never suggested that, "Canon provides absolutely everything that anyone could possibly want." Canon is a business. Their goal is to make profit.

Note that I’m at all times referring to a “telescopic” lens, and not a catadioptric - the latter are entirely unsuitable for bird photography due to the ugly do-nut bokeh which occurs on defocused backgrounds such as highlights on water.

The 800mm F11 is a very good lens, but it is extremely limited in application. When I use it in midday sunlight in Africa I’ll be able to shoot at 1/2000, F11, ISO 500 - a very usable combination. On a bright sunny day in late winter or early spring in the UK (prime bird photography season), that drops at least 2 stops so I’d be shooting at 1/1000, F11, ISO 1000-2000. On an overcast day that drops another 3-4 stops so I’d be shooting at 1/500 or 1/250, F11, ISO 4000.

Canon lenses and bodies have excellent stabilisation, so I can just about get away with 1/250 with the 800mm on a beanbag in a hide. But even apparently static birds are often rapidly bobbing their heads or turning from side to side, necessitating a shutter speed of 1/1000 or thereabouts.

Even one extra stop of light makes a huge difference, enabling a faster shutter speed and/or lower ISO.

People on a modest budget, buying lenses for birding will be looking at the 600mm and 800mm. Most will probably choose the 600mm as they don’t see a significant benefit in getting an 800mm with the same limiting F11 aperture.

I don’t for a moment think that Canon will add an 800mm F8 to their range now, but IMO the gap in terms of aperture and cost between it and the 800mm F11 is too close, and an 800mm F8 at around $2000 would have been a better proposition for Canon and its customers, and might possibly have even been a bigger seller than the 800mm F11.

Anyway I think our debate on this subject has probably gone on long enough, so I’ll end here and wish you a good night.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I think Neuro's issue is that when entoman (among others) take their own personal preferences and then cherry pick (with confirmation bias) comments from random people on the internet to state that their preferences are those that the market want, and that Canon therefore have to make these products or risk losing massive profits, or even (shock, horror!) tumble down in market share because they are ignorant of a potentially massively profitable product. Do they really believe Canon is ignorant of the varying desires?

^^This.

It’s lamentably common for people to believe their personal desires are representative of a significant number / majority of others, with no actual evidence to support that belief. Comments on a forum populated by those who are essentially like-minded (self-identified members of a site dedicated to the latest photo gear) is an effective form of confirmation bias…but it’s still bias.

Canon, as a for-profit manufacturer, must be objective. There will be a business case and an ROI projection on every product. They will look more at what customers have bought than what customers say they want.

It’s hard for people to accept reality.

 

[entoman]

IMO one reason Sony has so far been able to keep so many different models, some of them technically obsolete, is because most of their bodies are almost templates which until recently mean less-than maximal ergonomics simply to reduce manufacturing costs.

That is a VERY good point.

Canon tend IMO to produce too many body configurations (e.g. R6 and R5 could have had identical bodies with top plate display), although I understand their logic of offering a choice of body styles, as in the case of 90D and M6 Mkii.

Nikon and Panasonic chose instead to use identical bodies for their Z6/Z7 and S1/S1R bodies respectively, which must have reduced their manufacturing costs.

Sony and Canon have wildly different philosophies regarding design continuity, model retention and marketing, and it’s difficult to know how these impact their sales, as there are so many other factors involved.

 

[kaihp]

That is a VERY good point.

Canon tend IMO to produce too many body configurations (e.g. R6 and R5 could have had identical bodies with top plate display), although I understand their logic of offering a choice of body styles, as in the case of 90D and M6 Mkii.

Nikon and Panasonic chose instead to use identical bodies for their Z6/Z7 and S1/S1R bodies respectively, which must have reduced their manufacturing costs.

If I am not mistaken, Canon did exactly this with the 5D3 and 5Ds/5DsR.

The 5D4 is fairly close to the 5D3, but not the same.

 

[entoman]

If I am not mistaken, Canon did exactly this with the 5D3 and 5Ds/5DsR.

The 5D4 is fairly close to the 5D3, but not the same.

As far as I can recall, the 5DMkiii and 5DS were very similar apart from a few minor button swaps.

The 5DS and 5DSR were essentially the same camera with just the AA filtering absent in the latter.

The 5DS and 5DMkiv have the same basic design but use different body shells and some of the buttons etc were swapped about.

I had no issues switching back and forth between my 5DS and 5DMkiv - the differences were very slight and often I wasn’t sure which one I had in my hand.

The differences between the R5 and R6 are more substantial due to the different methods of switching modes. Most people probably use the same mode for everything (Av seems to be the most popular), but people who habitually switch between different custom modes according to subject, might find the differences between the 2 bodies annoying, if they happen to use both.

 

[scyrene]

I;m a canon user for 10 years, I love Canon DSLR , it offer a good user menu, many choices of lens both Canon and 3-rd party lens.
I believe what canon really need is to increase it's user market.
Like Sony , it has a more choice on the low end market, they are important for market growth in future.
Canon low end market , EOS RP is actually a mirrorless version of a 5-year old 6D mark II .
Beside than the over-priced lens and body, Canon EOS R lack 3-rd party lens from Tamron and Sigma lens.
All of these push me away from Canon, .... /....\

Arguably no full frame camera is low end. But also, low end implies reusing parts from older bodies, because it saves money. You can't have low end and cutting edge. Also it's not Canon's fault third parties haven't released RF lenses.

 

[John Wilde]

The M line is very popular, particularly domestically (for Canon). I do not believe Canon will simply kill it off, or roll it into the R series. I would not read too much into the fact that there have not been updates to the line recently. The same is true for their DSLRs, and there are some on this forum who seem to believe those are dead for that same reason. But APS-C cameras comprise nearly 90% of the ILC market, and DSLR comprise about 43% of the ILC market. Canon would be foolish to abandon such a large chunk of the market, and they are anything but foolish. The Rebel/Kiss lines (with and without mirrors) will be with us for quite some time.

"Amid challenging conditions surrounding parts procurement, we focused on the production and supply of high-end products and lenses,..."
- Canon financial document.

When parts become more widely available they can work in new lower-end products, like M.

 

[Bob Howland]

Also it's not Canon's fault third parties haven't released RF lenses.

Really? I believe that Canon is forcing third parties to reverse engineer the protocols, which the CEO of Sigma has said is time consuming and expensive.

 

[garrev]

Camera advances these days have removed the requirement for talent. Got enough cash and you too can claim to be a world class photographer.

My daughter is traveling around the world with a film camera and is enjoying the learning experience. And in that way I envy her.

I'm not sure where you're coming from Steven, but you have just discounted and written off the years and years of practice, training, experimenting, visionary talents and skills, climbing on your belly through thorns to get the shot, determination, and plain hard work many have dedicated to perfecting their craft and creating images no one - I mean NO ONE - else could replicate. Just ask your daughter and she'll make you eat your words.

 

[Bob Howland]

When parts become more widely available they can work in new lower-end products, like M.

What maybe can be used in lower-end products is the firmware, the sensor and the image processing chip(s).

As far as I can recall, the 5DMkiii and 5DS were very similar apart from a few minor button swaps.

I own both a 5D3 and a 5Ds. The only button change was the order of the functions controlled by two of the buttons in front of the top panel display. The functions are the same but the order is reversed. Other than that, the buttons are the same. The menus are very similar, differences mostly dealing with cropping and reduced resolution jpg modes in the 5Ds. However, one big difference to me is that the algorithm for setting shutter speed in AV and P with Auto ISO is better in the 5Ds. I'd pay money to put that in my 5D3 and 7D.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Note that I’m at all times referring to a “telescopic” lens, and not a catadioptric - the latter are entirely unsuitable for bird photography due to the ugly do-nut bokeh which occurs on defocused backgrounds such as highlights on water.

Understood and agreed.

On an overcast day that drops another 3-4 stops so I’d be shooting at 1/500 or 1/250, F11, ISO 4000.

With good RAW conversion software, I find that excellent results are possible at ISO 4000. But everyone has their personal threshold.

Even one extra stop of light makes a huge difference, enabling a faster shutter speed and/or lower ISO.

Often makes a huge difference in cost, too.

People on a modest budget, buying lenses for birding will be looking at the 600mm and 800mm. Most will probably choose the 600mm as they don’t see a significant benefit in getting an 800mm with the same limiting F11 aperture.

I would think people would more likely choose the longer focal length since it doesn’t mean sacrificing f/number. Birders often state that you can’t have too long a lens, why would they choose a shorter one, unless the extra $200 prices it out of reach, or they are compromising between birds and larger subjects? Or maybe a just a typo on your part?”, and you meant they’d choose the 800/11?

…an 800mm F8 at around $2000 would have been a better proposition for Canon and its customers, and might possibly have even been a bigger seller than the 800mm F11.

This is exactly the issue @Mikehit echoed. You personally want an RF 800/8, or a top-spec APS-C RF mount camera, or whatever. So, of course it would have been (or, would be) a better choice for Canon to have made (make), and would sell way more than the product Canon actually did (will) make. The implication is obviously that you believe you understand the market better than Canon.

My requests for evidence or data to support claims that forum members know more about the ILC market than Canon are rhetorical – we both know that none of us have any real market research data. We both know that Canon does have such data. Knowing that, you and others still play woulda shoulda coulda. It puzzles me why otherwise intelligent people seem completely able to ignore facts and reality when they want something. I suppose that’s just human nature.

Anyway I think our debate on this subject has probably gone on long enough, so I’ll end here and wish you a good night.

Sleep well.

 

[unfocused]

Really? I believe that Canon is forcing third parties to reverse engineer the protocols, which the CEO of Sigma has said is time consuming and expensive.

I don’t get this complaint. As far as I know, Canon has always required third party lens makers to reverse engineer their lenses. It never stopped competitors before, why is it now some insurmountable obstacle?

If other companies are sharing their proprietary information it’s not because they are generous. It’s because they have determined it will increase their profits. If Canon is not doing so, then they have decided it doesn’t benefit them. That shouldn't be such a difficult concept for people to grasp.

 

[David - Sydney]

If I am not mistaken, Canon did exactly this with the 5D3 and 5Ds/5DsR.

The 5D4 is fairly close to the 5D3, but not the same.

The 5Diii/iv/S/SR were physically close enough that Ikelite could produce one underwater housing to fit all four. There is a small difference with the video switch which was painful though.