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

[Deleted member 387121]

The R8 costing exactly the same as the R7 would not make a lot of sense to me.

Different features, different target market. It's not 2009 anymore, and APS-C isn't just the cheaper alternative anymore.

 

[davidespinosa]

IMO, Canon makes too many R-series bodies and not enough lenses:

1. R3
2. R5 C
3. R5
4. R6 Mk II
5. R6
6. R8
7. R
8. R7
9. RP
10. R10
11. R50

 

[David - Sydney]

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.

I agree that there won't be a direct equivalent to the EOS R but the R8 would be the candidate, but...

Canon is renowned for reusing tech...so why not if the price is right and the image quality is sufficient - and - if the difference is the tech around it which is getting reused from R3/5/6ii/7 etc. I would love a new sensor but this pricepoint (if to be believed) is in the same segment as the discounted EOS R.
I don't think that anyone could really complain if the fps/AF etc is good and the image quality is good.
Rolling shutter would be the main concern though.

Still crazy to think that the 5Div is selling for USD2300 with current discounts!

 

[David - Sydney]

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.

We seem to think that Sony's release speed and variety of E mount lenses from (I think) 2014 ie 9 years should have have the same breadth in RF mount in less than 5 years. If you include adapted EF/EF-S lenses then Canon is surely comparable or better than Sony and its 3rd parties.
Yes, there will be gaps to fill but there are still some unique Canon niche lenses that Sony doesn't.

 

[Chaitanya]

Which non-budget lens went dark? And don't mention the 100-500 because that lens had no equivalent before.

So you mean EF 100-400 didnt exist and was replaced by said lens but apart from Canon lenses(zoom lenses either at f6.3 or f7.1 or f8 at long end instead of 5.6 on SLR equivalents even for Nikon and other systems now), there are many lenses for other mounts as well which have started to get a bit too dark. Fuji 150-600mm, Olympus 100-400, are 2 other examples where lenses are on darkside.

 

[Skux]

Why release worse, more expensive lenses though.

I'm keeping my EF-S 10-18mm in anticipation of eventually getting an R7, because it's a bargain, and will likely outperform whatever crippled wide angle lens Canon eventually releases for RF-S, in both zoom range and aperture speed.

The same goes for the zoom. Save hundreds of dollars and get the 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM with the longer range and the faster aperture.

The best options for RF-S cameras should be RF-S lenses but Canon seems to hate that idea.

 

[Czardoom]

I use the R6 in crop mode quite a lot. ~7.8MP is fine for sharing online, and oftentimes for what I'm shooting the edges are irrelevant, so I'd be cropping anyway. Crop mode saves memory card space in that situation.

As you probably know if you use crop mode frequently, 7.8 MPs is fine for a lot more than sharing online. My best selling 8" x 12" print is from the original 6 MP Digital Canon Rebel and the 18-55 kit lens.

 

[Czardoom]

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.

You would lose your argument. For many, they need no more than 1 frame every time they press the shutter. Or maybe 3 fps, or maybe 5. And that's great. But high frame rates allows today's photographers to get shots that could not have been made before. That's all. It's not a question of what's fast enough or not. It's what can be done with 20, 30 or even 50 FPs that could not have been done before. No matter what skill level. I learned this the hard way, because for years I was in the "How many FPS do you really need?" boat. I thought if you had 15, that 20 was merely a marketing gimmick, and when it went up to 30, well, that was just another marketing gimmick. Then I got in to bird photography. And guess what, even 30 fps is not fast enough to get the sequential composite images that I have started doing, so I use 50 fps on my Olympus to do those. As a photographer of over 40 years, I know I have some reasonable skill. And enough sense to know that I can do things now I could never do before.

 

[HMC11]

Here’s some speculations just for the fun of it.

Question: What are likely specs for the R8? To answer this, we need to figure out what is in the R6 mark II that would make it worth $1k more than the R8.

First, sensor. There are two approaches – either develop a new sensor that is at best as good as the R6, or to re-use, probably with some tweaking, existing sensors. Given that the R8 is priced between the RP and R, and that the strategy for them was to use sensors from previously advanced sensors in their respective price class, it seems more likely that the R8 would use an existing sensor. Also, again given the R8’s pricing, it is likely positioned as a replacement for both the RP and R, with possibly a sub-$1k FF body in the future. This way, the gap to the next level of body, ie. the R6 mark II, becomes clearer, rather than confusing the marker with another R mark II that is close to the specs of the R6 mark II.

To reuse an existing sensor, the 26mp RP sensor would have a perception issue for a higher priced body to use a lower priced body sensor, so it is unlikely. That leaves the 30mp R (itself reused from the 5DIV) and the 24mp (from the R6 II). Both are possible, and I am leaning more towards the 24mp for the reason that this would somewhat future-proof the R8. The counter argument is that the R6 II just came out for its sensor to be reuse so quickly.

If the R8 is to be a ‘mini’ R6II, then where are the potential cost savings? My guess would be in the following – single card slot, RP-like body with the smaller LP-E17 batter, one fewer dial, no LCD top panel, lower resolution back panel and EVF, lower mechanical and electronic FFS (8 and 20 respectively?). On the software side, I assume that the video specs would be lower than the R6II, probably 4k cropped.

As for AF, I expect it to be at the R5/R6 level, not quite the R3/R6II level (but hope springs eternal). The reason is that for a new modern camera that is priced not that cheaply, using anything less would likely be a turn-off, affecting sales. Canon has already shown in the R7 that they are prepared to use advanced AF system even for a moderately priced body.

Whether there is IBIS could be interesting. If the R8 carries the R’s 30mp sensor, then it is more likely to have IBIS than if the 24mp R6II sensor is used. Or perhaps Canon decides to make the R8 more attractive by throwing this in as well. Also note that if IBIS is included, then it would likely be a larger body (closer to the R, R6) with the LP-6N battery.

With a sub $1k body to come, the positioning of R8 to replace RP and R makes sense. It is also a useful ‘dumping’ ground for advance tech from R5/R3 etc so that these techs can extend their shelf-live to make them more profitable to develop. For someone upgrading from an entry-level FF body, the R8 would be attractive.

 

[Docofthewild]

My bet is the R8 will use the R6 sensor, have 1 card slot and no IBIS. The RP sensor has too low DR for a new camera. They could use the R sensor but I think they could keep selling the R alongside the R8 if it uses the 20MP sensor. The R6 sensor will hold up at that price point for the 3-5 year model cycle and I think the “low” MP number will sit well in the minds of consumers.

 

[Loswr]

Then I got in to bird photography. And guess what, even 30 fps is not fast enough to get the sequential composite images that I have started doing, so I use 50 fps on my Olympus to do those.

With the 195 fps burst on the R3, a bird’s wing movement between frames is very subtle.

 

[Jsjamesok]

EOS R8 for 1499, well 1500$ USD. For that price it might have some form of in body stabilisation. Or does that price come with a new sensor?

Definitely agree on the IBS at $1500.

 

[Jethro]

My bet is the R8 will use the R6 sensor, have 1 card slot and no IBIS. The RP sensor has too low DR for a new camera. They could use the R sensor but I think they could keep selling the R alongside the R8 if it uses the 20MP sensor. The R6 sensor will hold up at that price point for the 3-5 year model cycle and I think the “low” MP number will sit well in the minds of consumers.

It's not impossible, but the R6 sensor was also reused (from the EOS-1D X III), and maybe they won't want to reuse it again. Depending on what FF R series bodies are eventually retired, you would then have the RP, R6, R6 II, R3 and R8 all as 'low MP' bodies. I think it makes more sense for a new low-to-mid-range ($ wise) FF body to be closer to 30MP, like the current EOS R, being the oldest body in the R range.

 

[Jayk0607]

Definitely agree on the IBS at $1500.

Since R7 with APS-C sensor s also $1,500, I'd think Canon would take some features away from FF $1,500 camera.. I think IBIS and dual SD slot will be missing, but we'll see.

 

[pzyber]

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.

No the EF mount was launched during the transition from manual to af in 1987, not during the analogue to digital transition. By 2002 Canon already had a good lens coverage. The only real difference they made to their lens linup during the analogue to digital transition was to add a few EF-S lenses.

If you don't count the Zeiss lenses, Sony took as long and in some instances even longer than Canon to get lenses out there. Developing lenses and producing them takes a lot of time and resources. Hence most likely why Sony licenced their mount to third party and let Zeiss build lenses for them to speed this up. Canon has a big range of EF lenses that can be adapted meanwhile they work on RF mount lenses. The E-mount is also 8 years ahead of the RF mount and will always be. It takes some time for Canon to catch up but they will.

 

[pzyber]

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...).

What EF-lenses are you referring too that "everyone" kept asking for?

These are the only EF-lenses I can think of that was added to the lineup after the digital transition that didn't exist in any variant before. With reservation that I forgot any, my memory isn't the best. And at this point the EF-lineup was fleshed out already and very mature.
8–15/4L (fisheye) replaced the 1987 15/2,8 (fisheye)
11–24/4L
200-400/4L

Most other lens releases were just updates to 8-15+ year old lenses, and some lenses never got an update at all.

Edit:
Forgot my beloved TS-E 17/4L.
TS-E 135L should also be mentioned.

 

[justaCanonuser]

After the announcement of the R8 I got the impression that Canon shares the same marketing with Audi

 

[justaCanonuser]

With the 195 fps burst on the R3, a bird’s wing movement between frames is very subtle.

The most critical issue now is the brain burst when one has to flicker through 200.000 images shot in one day. Pretty sure shrinks will be confronted with completely new mental issues never seen before

 

[Abbuzze]

I disagree that they're being lazy. The rehousing of the EF-M 18-150 optics in an RF-S barrel indicates that the same should have been possible for the EF-M 55-200/4.5-6.3. Rehousing that design could have been termed 'lazy', but instead they designed a 50-210/5-7.1 – slightly broader zoom range that starts closer to the 18-45 kit lens, and slower (something that few entry-level buyers care about). If the newly-designed lens is true to Canon's form, it will be cheaper than the EF-M 55-200 to produce, and have a higher MSRP (I'd guess $400, vs the $350 EF-M telezoom). So it's not being lazy, but rather maximizing profit. For Canon Inc. and their shareholders, that's the right direction...regardless of what you or I think as customers.

The RF-S 5x-210 does not have 50-210mm but 55-210mm. So again a rehousing with RF restrictions. This time with an extra 10mm at the long end, but with an impact on the aperture.

If you're a full-frame user, Canon's new APS-C cameras are a good addition or backup. But as an APS-C user alone, it makes no sense to enter the Canon world. You're more of a victim for the shareholders than a customer.

 

[andrey_a]

maybe it will be like this
R8 - full frame without a viewfinder with a large buffer and stabilization (not sure). At speed 10, not higher. Maybe a new form of a rotary screen (if they dare to duplicate it with R50). Considering the price, we can see the upper LCD.
The R50 is just a direct replacement for the M50 (which sounds obvious) but with a new swivel screen shape.