Canon EOS R8 specifications

[Deepboy]

Maybe Ill just go backed to a Canon cropped sensor like R10. I do not like how Canon cripples the mirrorless bodies. The only one I really like is the R5 but out of my price range. Don’t want a video centric body like R6 or R6 II. i have a 5DIV. 30MP from 7 years ago and Canon cannot move beyond a 24mp sensor in lower bodies when others do. Its just too bad plus their pricing is higher than the other two highest brands.

I would not call R6 video-centric at all, she's a very stills oriented body, that can also take great videos, but I don't feel it's her primary scope; R6 II maybe I can see a little more "video-conscious", primarily due to the direct photo/video switch they put in place of the on/off switch, which is actually something that makes me really happy to have purchased the first R6, because being 90% a still shooter, a direct photo/video switch would be too video-centric for me, I prefer the button/switch layout of the original R6, with on/off switch on the left and the lock control on the right as a button instead of a switch, because I use it a lot and I find it much better to press the button then moving a switch which also controls the on/off status.

 

[Loswr]

Canon is a huge company, right? can snyone tell me how Nikon can put IBIS in a alloy body (canon a composite) and also give in a 3.69 EVF and sell it like $1299? but Canon apparently doesn’t want to do that. they rather just marginalize the entry level stuff. if one wants more upgraded spec you need to spend like $2400 for R6II ot $3600 for an R5. I think it’s greed. one can get a Nikon Z7II for under 3K. whats wrong with this picture ? I have really enjoyed Canon gear for 20 years. Their mirrorless range of cameras do not appeal to me because of the pricing structure and cripple hammer.

Since the industry-wide movement to mirrorless, Nikon has hemorrhaged market share. They were a close second to Canon, now they’re a very distant third and still falling. Nikon may be choosing to take less profit in hopes of gaining back market share. However, they’ve been launching some excellent gear at good prices…and so far it doesn’t seem to have helped.

 

[Czardoom]

I'm not among those complaining about the lack of IBIS in the R8, if I get one my use will mainly be on a tripod or with IS lenses. Having said that, there are 5-6 RF lenses that don't have IS, ranging from the inexpensive 16/2.8 and 50/1.8 to the very expensive 85/1.2 (±DS, thus the count of 5-6) and 28-70/2. I have the 28-70/2, and I do find the 8-stops of stabilization with IBIS to be very beneficial.

But also, to be clear, you do realize even with lens IS, IBIS helps...or don't you? Especially at shorter focal lengths.

Yes, 5 stops of stabilization with a lens like the 70-200/2.8 or 24-105 (L or non-L) is good, but 8 stops of stabilization with IBIS is better. Also, lens IS can only correct for angular motion (with the exception of the small number of Hybrid IS lenses that also correct translation/XY), whereas IBIS can correct for translation/XY with any lens and is the only form of stabilization that can correct for roll.

My question was asked because the impression I get from this and other forums is that many of the complainers do so becuase they are only interested in the specs - so that they don't feel cheated or don't feel embarrased because their camera lack specs that Sony users have. Not because they will actually need IBIS.

And yes, I do realize that even with lens IS, IBIS helps. I never said it didn't. I said I did not think IBIS was necessary if you have lenses with IS. I believe their is a substantial difference between helpful and necessary - but am willing to admit that is only my opinion.

Curious if you actually get those extra 3 stops of stabilization with both camera and body stabilization. I've seen lots of reviewers that praise Canon's IBIS as being class leading, but say they are only getting about 5-6 stops of stabilization at the most. I use another brand that has some lenses with IS along with body IBIS and they claim 1/2 to 1 stop additional stabilization when using both. Personally, I think this is more accurate, but will definitely welcome evidence to the contrary.

 

[Czardoom]

i don’t like that it has no IBIS. I have a 5DIV. have shot with Canon for over 20 years. I wanted to go mirrorless with an affordable mirrorless with IBIS. Nikon did it with the Z5. Canon could have put IBIS in the R8 but crippled it.
Unfortunately, I will now end my mirrorless search with Canon.

I will probably rent a Sony who puts IBIS in all FF cameras. i can use my EF lenses with Sony.
Nikon is a third choice but then I would need Nikon glass.

You don't need Nikon glass if you switch to Nikon. There is at least one adapter (Fringer EF-EZ) that adapts EF lenses to Nikon Z cameras - and based on my experience anyway, works great. There may be other adapters as well. The Z5 is, in my opinion, the best value FF camera out there, unless you need lots of fps for birds or action.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

As for DSLRs, I still own and love a 5DMkiv, but since getting my R5 a couple of years ago, which offers massive advantages over the 5DMkiv, the latter has been largely confined to a cupboard. It just feels archaic compared to the R5. It took me a few weeks to get used to the EVF experience, but no way would I revert to a DSLR now. I really never thought I'd hear myself utter those words. But in terms of image quality, dependability and ergonomics, the 5DMkiv remains a great camera...

I guess it depends on your use case. For me, the R works fine for casual shooting but I'd still pick up the 5D4 for anything serious (or fast). In the meantime, the M200 fills the "small size" niche. I have no issues switching between the two formats (outside of ergonomics), they each have their pros and cons. Agreed about the 5D, DSLR remains a mature technology and to me that gives it a reliability edge at least for a couple more years...

 

[Czardoom]

But how did they become a huge company? Because they make great products and sell them at a price that people are (just) willing to pay. I don't think anyone would debate that Canons are on the expensive side, but enough people are willing to pay that price to make Canon the best selling brand for more years than I'd care to count.

Meanwhile Nikon continues to produce excellent competitive cameras and lenses, but relies on minimised profit margins to survive. Both companies exist for the same reason - to pay the salaries of their employees, and to fill the pockets of their directors and shareholders. I'm not predicting the demise of Nikon, I'm sure they'll continue for many years, but which is the healthier company? Which is the company that makes its shareholders happiest? Which is the company that keeps the largest number of people employed and feeding their families?

Nikon does make excellent cameras and especially their new Z lenses. I think it is one of the most unfortunate things about today's photography landscape that Sony has essentially replaced Nikon has the 2nd leading camera brand. I believe this is mainly due to the internet influencers and social media - influencers who ripped Nikon for years and many who seem to be in Sony's employ due to their incredible devotion to Sony specs. Any visit to various Facebook groups where many photo newbies ask what brand is recommended - it is always Canon or Sony. Sony is the "thing" with the younger generation especially - or so it seems. Not surprising as the younger generation has grown up getting all their product information and reviews from the internet and social media. Sony was smart - they concentrated on industry leading specs, knowing that when a new camera gets announced, dozens of reviewers put out their reviews as quickly as possible. So, how do you compare a new camera with the competitors when you have no time to actually use it? You compare specs. Sony has a higher resolution EVF - influencers declare it must be better than the competition right? Not necessarily when you actually use them and compare. Saw numerous photographers (not immediate reviewers) who have used the Nikon Z9 and compared it with Sony. They all complained that the Nikon's EVF should have had the same resolution at least that the Sony has. And yet, they all thought the Nikon's EVF was better! One of them surmised it was because Nikon was using better glass in their EVF - that Sony was using cheaper glass. Having owned Sony in the past, I would concur that this is quite possible and one reason I dislike Sony. I believe they favor specs above quality. People often complain that Canon's cameras are more expensive than Sony's with similar specs. I would say the reason might be - Sony's are made cheaper. Cheaper EVF, cheaper shutter mechanisms, cheaper dust removal, certainly cheaper ergonomics. Yet, they have great marketing. Nikon, on the other hand, make excellent cameras as far as I can tell, but get no social media attention. Pretty sad, in my opinion. Sorry for the rant. I hope people start giving Nikon some love. If marketing wins over quality, we are all screwed.

 

[mpb001]

You don't need Nikon glass if you switch to Nikon. There is at least one adapter (Fringer EF-EZ) that adapts EF lenses to Nikon Z cameras - and based on my experience anyway, works great. There may be other adapters as well. The Z5 is, in my opinion, the best value FF camera out there, unless you need lots of fps for birds or action.

I didn’t know that. Thanks, I will look into it. I am a travel and landscape photographer. i don’t need fast FPS. I’ll look at the Nikon Z5 or Z5II when that comes out!

 

[John Wilde]

Since the industry-wide movement to mirrorless, Nikon has hemorrhaged market share. They were a close second to Canon, now they’re a very distant third and still falling. Nikon may be choosing to take less profit in hopes of gaining back market share. However, they’ve been launching some excellent gear at good prices…and so far it doesn’t seem to have helped.

According to Nikon's most recent financial documents, their forecast interchangeable lens camera market share will be (700/5400) 13% for the fiscal year.

Their next financials will be released on the 9th of this month.

 

[Loswr]

And yes, I do realize that even with lens IS, IBIS helps. I never said it didn't. I said I did not think IBIS was necessary if you have lenses with IS. I believe their is a substantial difference between helpful and necessary - but am willing to admit that is only my opinion.

Is image stabilization really necessary at all? Yes, it’s helpful. But by analogy, old lenses had 2-3 stops of IS, new ones have 4-5. Is that improvement necessary? 5 stops is more helpful than 3 stops, 8 stops is more helpful than 5.

Curious if you actually get those extra 3 stops of stabilization with both camera and body stabilization. I've seen lots of reviewers that praise Canon's IBIS as being class leading, but say they are only getting about 5-6 stops of stabilization at the most. I use another brand that has some lenses with IS along with body IBIS and they claim 1/2 to 1 stop additional stabilization when using both. Personally, I think this is more accurate, but will definitely welcome evidence to the contrary.

I haven’t tested additional stabilization with IBIS. I have tested my 28-70/2 on my R3, for which Canon claims 8 stops. I get about that 8 stops at 28mm, and about 7 stops at 70mm. So, I think it’s reasonable to claim +3 stops from IBIS.

 

[bf]

I do like a range finder style FF. Something like M6 m2 with a FF sensor.

 

[navastronia]

Intriguing specs, but I'm gonna keep shooting events/portraits/theatre with my x2 EOS RP until my clients decide the image quality isn't up to snuff.

Or I get an R1 or R3 and 28-70/2 and call it a day. Either way!

 

[SnowMiku]

I'm looking forward to next weeks announcement to see what the real specs are. I would be happy with a cheaper lower spec full-frame, as long as it has an EVF.

 

[sanj]

People who want a camera with this weight will know that there will be compromises. I am looking forward to this camera.

 

[sanj]

"In-body image stabilization is not installed"
So, why you want video on it? It's useless.

A lot of us are aware of tripods.

 

[sanj]

I'm curious, how many folks complaining about the possibility of no IBIS actually have lenses with no IS?

If your lenses have IS, you do understand that IBIS is not necessary...or don't you?

Good point. Most lenses for this camera will have IBIS. Non-IBIS lenses are expensive ones with wide apertures and perhaps not for the buyers of this camera. This camera is for lighter lenses.

 

[sanj]

WOW, I am amazed at all the comments that argue that lack of IBIS is somehow a FEATURE!

IBIS is fantastic. Many Canon cameras have it. For people who want IBIS can easily get it.

 

[SnowMiku]

Personally I would prefer if the entry levels don't include IBIS as having IBIS will only increase the cost.

 

[UlfricStormcloak]

Yeah, of course almost all of us would like to have the option of Sigma and Tamron AF glass in RF mount, as it would enable people to buy high specification lenses at more affordable prices, and would give us access to some unusual or specialised lenses that aren't in Canon's stable. But complaining about it won't work - Canon have clearly done their sums and decided that they believe it's not in their interests to make life easy for third parties. We may or may not agree with their logic, or their decision, but flogging a dead horse get's us nowhere.

This is why a rumor about a7cii is outweighs this announcement. Rp+50 f1.8 is the most compact and quality pair that you can have with canon. But with sony you can have samyang 75, 24, 45 f1.8, sigma f2... or even f1.4 primes. Sigma 85 f1.4 is the same size as canon f2.

 

[Maximilian]

I do like a range finder style FF. Something like M6 m2 with a FF sensor.

As long as it has a (good) EVF range finder or attachable EVF, count me in.
If it has screen only, I'd be out.

 

[mxwphoto]

Iphone 14 still does not have fast charging, uses old LCD screen tech, only 2 cameras on back, last generation processor, legacy design with that giant ugly notch, costs more than certain other brands' flagships, and is not jailbroken so I can't use any unauthorized 3rd party apps!!!

I have waited for nearly a decade to upgrade from my iphone 7 (which still suits me still just fine, btw) and I have had it!!! I will switch to Android (who knows when, if ever) and Apple is D00MED!!!