Canon will soon announce the Canon EOS R8 and Canon EOS R50 along with two new kit lenses

[JustUs7]

I am aware of the focusing limitations, but that lens was already small and had a faster aperture. Hell, even the EF-M one was still faster at f/6.3 despite being tiny. Canon is going the wrong direction and being lazy, and it's showing.

If I had to guess, they stretched that M another 10 mm which made it f/7.1. Wouldn’t be surprised at all if it’s f/6.3 right up to 200mm’s.

 

[ashmadux]

If the R8 is comparable with the R6 (I can renounce the double slot, which surely wont be there, and drive speed could be even 1fps I don't care, but not much else), my R6 will be on the market asap.

No chance in heck it will the equiv or an R6.

Not even a chance of a chance.

 

[ashmadux]

I don't think anyone should get their hopes up about the R8 having IBIS. It's being placed in the lineup below the APS-C R7. For that to happen, it needs to be "less professional" than the R7, despite being full-frame. In my mind, that means no IBIS and a single SD card slot.

I cant wait to see the response when this thing doesn't have ibis. Honestly, It's such a bizarre thing for it not to have it...but ill be damned, this is canon, it is certainly possible.

It would be AMAZING to have a less speced but has the basics / lower end FF cam. MY r62 will only be used on full shoots/special occasion. ITs the smaller/lighter bodies that will be in use the majority of the time.

PS- good luck to the sensor as well. Too bad there's so much trash non-L glass available for it.

 

[ashmadux]

So it looks like the R50 might finally be a practical RF-mount replacement for the M50. I wonder what effect this will have on the R10, though, especially if the R50 is even slightly more capable than the M50, as there is much more of a gap between the M50 and the R10 in terms of price than there is in terms of capability. I think such an R50 would possibly siphon off a number of R10 sales. (Just for the record, I got my M50 just eight months ago and don't ever see myself regretting that decision.)

We still have to see that body size. The lenses certainly wont be small.

There is potential for a great new body design. it would have to be with the size of that mount.

One the same note- the nikon d50 is a a large-ish brick.

 

[blackcoffee17]

If the R8 is comparable with the R6 (I can renounce the double slot, which surely wont be there, and drive speed could be even 1fps I don't care, but not much else), my R6 will be on the market asap.

Expect cropped 4K or no dual pixel AF in 4K.

 

[blackcoffee17]

If I had to guess, they stretched that M another 10 mm which made it f/7.1. Wouldn’t be surprised at all if it’s f/6.3 right up to 200mm’s.

Plus that ugly narrow body / wide mount design. Of course don't forget the essential plastic mount.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

I think IBIS is a differentiator, especially when you consider what IBIS can achieve while working in tandem with lens stabilization. It gives a heck of an advantage in many shooting scenarios.

Hmmm, there are a ton of lenses that have IS and having both (IS and IBIS) isn't to big of difference in most cases imho.

Full-frame sensors are considerably more expensive to manufacture than APS-C, so I don't think the R8 can hit the same price point as the R7 without sacrificing IBIS.

Is it? I honestly don't know how much a full-frame or APS-C sensor cost. In the past few years I also read:
APS-C was established because FF used to be so expensive. Nowadays, the difference in cost is down to an insignificant number. Therefore, APS-C is dead...". Enter 2023, APS-c is back in a big way. So I honestly can't judge about that.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Makes sense, but Canon could save some cash using the same sensor in two bodies. The R8 without IBIS and dual card slots really wouldn't compete with the R6 Mk II.

True, but we'll probably just have to wait and see
Not having IBIS would not be a dealbreaker for me. Having a low resolution (such as 20 MP or so) sensor instead would be one. So I'm hoping for 30MP.

 

[Jethro]

The R8 Dream: The R8 takes the sensor and image processor from the R6II and drops it in an RP-like body. The 24-50mm is affordable, but delivers surprisingly good image quality in a small and lightweight lens, making it a kit lens worth buying on its own for photographers wanting full frame performance with minimal bulk.

Much more likely: The R8 adds a DigicX to the RP but changes little else, including the sensor. AF and tracking are brought up to par with the R6II, but sensor quality remains a weak point. The 24-50mm is cheap, and its IQ matches the price. Its only reason for existence is to drop a few hundred bucks off the price of the cheapest Canon FF kit.

I think it's very unlikely they would reuse the RP sensor, which was itself reused from the EOS 6D II. More likely a version of the R6 II, without most of the bells-and-whistles. Which, if so, would make it an interesting potential 2nd body for at least some of us.

 

[David - Sydney]

My view...
R8 = R successor in new body. Reuses the 30mp 5Div/R sensor but with Digic X with current AF etc. Same or slighter faster mechanical fps. Good value in that case as EOS R came out @USD2300 initially but is now USD1400. Canon may even continue to sell the EOS R at that price.
=> R8 vs R5 equivalent to the 6D (slower/cheaper/landscape) vs 5D series (all rounder)

R9 = RP successor ie <<USD1k with no EVF etc. The nomenclature gives some credence and the RP price is still much lower than R/R8.

RF24-50 for USD200 for 2x zoom in kit and USD300 separately is poor value for money. Canon is trying to maintain profit but this would be a miss.

Still no RF-S wide angle. I get the dual kit lens option with 18-45 + 55-210 but it should be relatively simple to rehouse the wide angle EF-S or EF-M wide angle lenses to complete the missing APS-C focal lengths. Would be a slam dunk to widen the RF lens range at minimum cost.

Still no pancake RF lens either... equivalent to Nikon's Z 40mm/2

 

[Juangrande]

Please give me the EOS R upgrade. Smaller body than the R6 but WITH top LCD. It can be slow (7fps is fine) but with IBIS. With enough buttons and dials – I don't mind the touch bai f

Please give me the EOS R upgrade. Smaller body than the R6 but WITH top LCD. It can be slow (7fps is fine) but with IBIS. With enough buttons and dials – I don't mind the touch bar

I find it funny that 7fps is considered “slow” because when I first got into photography in the film days you had to advance each frame manually with your thumb. Then I saved up for a used power winder attachment and was able to get a whopping 3.5 frames a second, which was considered blazingly fast at the time lol. I got plenty of action shots of my friends surfing at 3.5fps. Now people complain 20fpsisnt fast enough. I would argue the modern photographer has no skills.

 

[pzyber]

AF is one thing but 7.1 vs 5.6 is another. A lot less light. And you don't really have anything equivalent in the L range. The 100-500 is a different league in price and size and the 100-400 is still much larger and a lot more expensive.

What is disappointing is that we had better choices in the EF era, 10+ years ago. I can't wait for the 50-180 F5.6-F9 APS-C lens with plastic mount for $500.

Better is subjective in this regard, others might prefer these ones. These lenses are not my cup of tea either though.

The market has changed since 10-15 years ago and Canon has to adapt with it and produce what sells best and makes them a profit. Otherwise they wont be able to invest a lot of money into R&D.

And we should remember that the RF mount is young in comparison. Like people waiting for a bright 35L lens. It took 11 years from the launch of the EF mount before 35 1.4L was released. More lenses will come with time, we just have to be a bit patient.

 

[nunataks]

Better is subjective in this regard, others might prefer these ones. These lenses are not my cup of tea either though.

The market has changed since 10-15 years ago and Canon has to adapt with it and produce what sells best and makes them a profit. Otherwise they wont be able to invest a lot of money into R&D.

And we should remember that the RF mount is young in comparison. Like people waiting for a bright 35L lens. It took 11 years from the launch of the EF mount before 35 1.4L was released. More lenses will come with time, we just have to be a bit patient.

You can't really compare with the EF mount because it came out during a rapid transition from film to digital. Once the first consumer digital cameras started coming out in 2002 (Canon Digital Rebel) the lenses all came much quicker. Canon is lagging right now and leaning on the EF mount lenses when it should be innovating. Guess we'll see in a few years if it works, but Sony seems to be moving at a faster pace.

 

[Deepboy]

Why would you want to downgrade? You have the R6. What's the point in selling and buying? If the R6 was too much for you to start with, why didn't you get the R?

Because I wanted a camera with IBIS; there was no point in switching from DSLR to ML without a stabilized sensor. I also wanted uncropped 4K.

Also, I absolutely wanted, especially with the movable single AF point in the ML, a rear joystick, which both R6 and R10 have (or at least a 8-way-controller like I had on the 6D), and neither R or RP had it.

But I don't see why, if a new camera enters the market and satisfy all my needs, I can't sell the previous one to recover some money if has more value then the new (given that this R8 is FF, because I see someone thinking it could be a crop sensor camera).

 

[Jethro]

My view...
R8 = R successor in new body. Reuses the 30mp 5Div/R sensor but with Digic X with current AF etc. Same or slighter faster mechanical fps. Good value in that case as EOS R came out @USD2300 initially but is now USD1400. Canon may even continue to sell the EOS R at that price.
=> R8 vs R5 equivalent to the 6D (slower/cheaper/landscape) vs 5D series (all rounder)

It's hard to believe the R8 could be an EOS R 'successor' using the same sensor recycled in the EOS R from the 5D IV?! It's an excellent sensor (and I love my EOS R dearly) but it's getting pretty long in the tooth.

I'm not sure there will actually be a direct EOS R II, because I always saw it as a transitional body into the extended R range, which now (if you include the R8 and a possible R9) includes a pretty wide range of alternatives.

 

[blackcoffee17]

I find it funny that 7fps is considered “slow” because when I first got into photography in the film days you had to advance each frame manually with your thumb. Then I saved up for a used power winder attachment and was able to get a whopping 3.5 frames a second, which was considered blazingly fast at the time lol. I got plenty of action shots of my friends surfing at 3.5fps. Now people complain 20fpsisnt fast enough. I would argue the modern photographer has no skills.

I bet you couldn't take as many perfectly timed shots as a modern photographer with an R5 or R3, no matter how good your skill was.
More is better for those special occasions.

 

[jd7]

You can't really compare with the EF mount because it came out during a rapid transition from film to digital. Once the first consumer digital cameras started coming out in 2002 (Canon Digital Rebel) the lenses all came much quicker. Canon is lagging right now and leaning on the EF mount lenses when it should be innovating. Guess we'll see in a few years if it works, but Sony seems to be moving at a faster pace.

EF mount was introduced in 1987, long before anyone was thinking about a transition from film to digital!

View by period - 1987-1991 - Canon Camera Museum

This page explains Canon's history from 1987 to 1991: The dawn of the EOS series.

global.canon

And at least some EF lenses from the film era were highly regarded even in the digital era, eg EF 135 f/2L.

 

[jd7]

Interesting how the talk of the 24-50mm lens is much like that of the 24-105STM and f/11s. "horrible", "DOA", "Useless". But then somehow they sell well. Compact, reasonable IQ, fast enough for many, many situations and types of photos. I guess we will see where this one lands.

-Brian

Tamron makes a 20-40mm f/2.8 (for Sony) which is 86.5mm long and weighs only 365g. I imagine a 24-50mm f/4.5-6.3 should be very compact indeed.

 

[JustUs7]

EF mount was introduced in 1987, long before anyone was thinking about a transition from film to digital!

View by period - 1987-1991 - Canon Camera Museum

This page explains Canon's history from 1987 to 1991: The dawn of the EOS series.

global.canon

And at least some EF lenses from the film era were highly regarded even in the digital era, eg EF 135 f/2L.

People just don’t seem to realize how long EF was around when they’re thinking somehow RF should have a fully fleshed out lineup before releasing any bodies. Thanks for the added perspective.

 

[nunataks]

EF mount was introduced in 1987, long before anyone was thinking about a transition from film to digital!

View by period - 1987-1991 - Canon Camera Museum

This page explains Canon's history from 1987 to 1991: The dawn of the EOS series.

global.canon

And at least some EF lenses from the film era were highly regarded even in the digital era, eg EF 135 f/2L.

Not my point - there was no pressure on the mount until consumer digital cameras came out in 2002, at which point every lens everyone keeps asking for came out in less than 10 years of (considering the R mount is already 5 years old, they're lagging...).