Canon EOS R8 specifications

[scyrene]

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.


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.

Fwiw I definitely get more keepers with the original EF 24-105L (which had a lower IS rating than more modern lenses) on the R6 compared to DSLRs without IBIS.

 

[Sporgon]

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?

Canon’s mid to high end gear is still made in Japan. Nikon’s is Thailand and China. There will be a cost to this Japanese manufacture, probably significant; how much are you or others prepared to pay for this ? The answer will vary enormously I guess, depending on who you ask.
Personally I’m pleased that Canon manufactures its mid to high end gear in Japan and I’m prepared to pay a reasonable premium towards this, as long as the gear suits my needs and is competitive with what others may offer cheaper.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

3-4 years ago, I would have completely agreed and would have been on board with a new DSLR, but now it is clear where the direction of tech is headed. The way I see it, though...IQ difference between the last generation of DSLRs and today's MILCs is really not big anyway...progress here has slowed and thus I believe that those of us with 5D4s, etc. can continue to use them for years to come - they still take great images by modern standards.

Maybe if I already had the latest DSLR, but now I am in the situation that I would have to spend a lot of money for a new DSLR that is already years old. I could of course buy a used one, but that is very dangerous. Canon would not developed a whole new DSLR, which is very expensive. Just modify the old ones a little and put the latest sensors into it.

The R6 already had the same sensor as the 1D X Mark III for less than a third of the price. That is very frustrating.

I also would love to buy a modern TV, but with the 4:3 aspect ratio. 16:9 is not a nice format. Much too narrow.

 

[AlanF]

Canon’s mid to high end gear is still made in Japan. Nikon’s is Thailand and China. There will be a cost to this Japanese manufacture, probably significant; how much are you or others prepared to pay for this ? The answer will vary enormously I guess, depending on who you ask.
Personally I’m pleased that Canon manufactures its mid to high end gear in Japan and I’m prepared to pay a reasonable premium towards this, as long as the gear suits my needs and is competitive with what others may offer cheaper.

Nikon started to give up manufacture in China 5 years ago and now they and Sony are nearly out.

 

[-pekr-]

No IBIS, no buy, like - absolutly. Cameras without IBIS should not exist.

 

[Sporgon]

Nikon started to give up manufacture in China 5 years ago and now they and Sony are nearly out.

Yes, I should have stuck with just Thailand, but the principle is the same.

 

[John Wilde]

Canon’s mid to high end gear is still made in Japan. Nikon’s is Thailand and China. There will be a cost to this Japanese manufacture, probably significant; how much are you or others prepared to pay for this ?

Even the bottom-of-the-line Canon M100 was made in Japan. In Japan, Canon's version of cheap labor is automation and robotics.

 

[entoman]

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.

Yes, I think a lot of us feel the same way - in DSLR times Nikon made cameras that were usually better than Canon equivalents - in terms of specification and value at least. Their MILCs are also excellent and certainly deserve to sell in greater numbers. But the downward slide of Nikon sales began well before Sony entered the market, and was I think due to several things - firstly poor marketing (certainly inferior to Canon's marketing), secondly they took a big hit due to oil-on-sensor problems with the D600, and never really recovered from it, thirdly their cameras had a utilitarian function-over-form look about them, whereas Canons have always placed a lot more emphasis on styling.

As for Sony, yes a great deal of their success comes down to the paid influencers, a fact that is much resented by many Canon and Nikon users. But they do produce superb cameras (having finally got to grips with ergonomics), and if it hadn't been for Sony, we'd all still be using DSLRs. Sony provided Canon and Nikon with much needed competition, and led to greatly accelerated technical development in the industry. So personally, I'm very glad that Sony arrived and gave Canon and Nikon the necessary kick up the rear that they needed.

FWIW, I've owned various models from Sony, Nikon and Canon, so I have no axe to grind. I just buy whatever I think is the best tool at the time of purchase. I switched to Canon 10 years ago and have invested heavily in lenses, so I'd be reluctant to switch to another brand now. But even if I was starting from scratch, I'd most likely choose Canon again.

 

[Blue Zurich]

Maybe if I already had the latest DSLR, but now I am in the situation that I would have to spend a lot of money for a new DSLR that is already years old. I could of course buy a used one, but that is very dangerous. Canon would not developed a whole new DSLR, which is very expensive. Just modify the old ones a little and put the latest sensors into it.

The R6 already had the same sensor as the 1D X Mark III for less than a third of the price. That is very frustrating.

I also would love to buy a modern TV, but with the 4:3 aspect ratio. 16:9 is not a nice format. Much too narrow.

Dangerous? The folx at MPB are laughing heartily at that one.

 

[AlanF]

Yes, I think a lot of us feel the same way - in DSLR times Nikon made cameras that were usually better than Canon equivalents - in terms of specification and value at least. Their MILCs are also excellent and certainly deserve to sell in greater numbers. But the downward slide of Nikon sales began well before Sony entered the market, and was I think due to several things - firstly poor marketing (certainly inferior to Canon's marketing), secondly they took a big hit due to oil-on-sensor problems with the D600, and never really recovered from it, thirdly their cameras had a utilitarian function-over-form look about them, whereas Canons have always placed a lot more emphasis on styling.

As for Sony, yes a great deal of their success comes down to the paid influencers, a fact that is much resented by many Canon and Nikon users. But they do produce superb cameras (having finally got to grips with ergonomics), and if it hadn't been for Sony, we'd all still be using DSLRs. Sony provided Canon and Nikon with much needed competition, and led to greatly accelerated technical development in the industry. So personally, I'm very glad that Sony arrived and gave Canon and Nikon the necessary kick up the rear that they needed.

Nikon’s user interface on the D850 and D500 was dire in some ways. No C1-C3 equivalents on the mode dial for quick changing and the stored settings were not sticky but updated when you changed them. Otherwise, they were and are a real step up from the 5DIV and 7DII for both IQ and AF.

 

[entoman]

Maybe if I already had the latest DSLR, but now I am in the situation that I would have to spend a lot of money for a new DSLR that is already years old. I could of course buy a used one, but that is very dangerous.

Modern cameras are incredibly reliable, so it's perfectly safe to buy used gear. If anything goes wrong with a camera it's usually either dead on arrival or the fault becomes apparent within the first few hours of usage. Most of the used camera dealers provide extremely accurate descriptions, test the gear thoroughly before reselling, and offer good guarantees. Even if you buy privately on eBay you are pretty safe, due to eBays guarantees and feedback programs its almost impossible for a bad seller to get away with anything.

 

[knight427]

Doesn't seem like a very reliable rumor. Just a guess. My guesses with probabilities even 100% single card slot, 65% old sensor from R, and 25% IBIS. Canon likes re-using old sensors in less expensive gear, the R sensor is a pretty good older sensor. Also the target market for a less expensive camera likes megapixels and won't be evaluating other factors as heavily like readout speed, rolling shutter, even high ISO.

The R had terribly slow fps, much slower than the processor of that time should support (I don’t remember what it was, just that it was even slower than my 6D). I assume this meant it was limited by the sensor. I’m just guessing but I really doubt an R sensor could support 40 fps. If it can, the Canon cripple hammer was definitely a sledge hammer on the R. If your point includes doubting the 40 fps, still, the archaic fps offered in the R just can’t be taken seriously in this price range.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

The R had terribly slow fps, much slower than the processor of that time should support (I don’t remember what it was, just that it was even slower than my 6D). I assume this meant it was limited by the sensor. I’m just guessing but I really doubt an R sensor could support 40 fps. If it can, the Canon cripple hammer was definitely a sledge hammer on the R. If your point includes doubting the 40 fps, still, the archaic fps offered in the R just can’t be taken seriously in this price range.

8 FPS but with full AF adjustment just about 3fps… it’s very slow indeed

 

[entoman]

8 FPS but with full AF adjustment just about 3fps… it’s very slow indeed

It's funny how different trends emerge - first it was megapixel madness, then dynamic range diarrhoea, and now it's bonkers burst speeds

 

[KT]

If these specs are true and the R8 sells for $1500 body, then expect the grey market price of the R6 Mark II to drop to the $2000 range which will be awesome news for the rest of us.

 

[entoman]

If these specs are true and the R8 sells for $1500 body, then expect the grey market price of the R6 Mark II to drop to the $2000 range which will be awesome news for the rest of us.

You may have to wait a while to get the R6ii that cheaply. Current grey market prices from my usual supplier:

R6ii body - £2290 / $2650

 

[Exploreshootshare]

It's funny how different trends emerge - first it was megapixel madness, then dynamic range diarrhoea, and now it's bonkers burst speeds

Yes, that's true! I always thought the EOS R has a great value because most specs are good enough without being above average in any category. AF was great after firmware updates (of course, nearly 5 years after release it is kind of different), 30 MP is a sweet spot imho, DR was good (14 or something like that) and the 8 FPS would have been enough if it had full AF capabilities with it. If the successor had just that and a joystick, AF tracking, 8FPS with continuous AF and I'd snatch asap

 

[entoman]

Yes, that's true! I always thought the EOS R has a great value because most specs are good enough without being above average in any category. AF was great after firmware updates (of course, nearly 5 years after release it is kind of different), 30 MP is a sweet spot imho, DR was good (14 or something like that) and the 8 FPS would have been enough if it had full AF capabilities with it. If the successor had just that and a joystick, AF tracking, 8FPS with continuous AF and I'd snatch asap

A lot of people place too much emphasis on specification IMO - a bit like buying a 200mph car and only being able to drive at 80mph. Very few people actually *need* 50MP, for 99% of the time 30MP is more than adequate. Likewise the number of people who will really use and benefit from 16 stops of DR or 40fps burst speeds is pretty low. It's a numbers game, the higher the number the better and more desirable the camera, in some people's minds. But I guess we're all easily led down that path - my R5 has 45MP, 20fps and about 15 stops DR so I'd better shut up!

 

[Exploreshootshare]

A lot of people place too much emphasis on specification IMO - a bit like buying a 200mph car and only being able to drive at 80mph. Very few people actually *need* 50MP, for 99% of the time 30MP is more than adequate. Likewise the number of people who will really use and benefit from 16 stops of DR or 40fps burst speeds is pretty low. It's a numbers game, the higher the number the better and more desirable the camera, in some people's minds. But I guess we're all easily led down that path - my R5 has 45MP, 20fps and about 15 stops DR so I'd better shut up!

I absolutely agree! The numbers game is insane. Samsung also just released a "200MP" camera in its new phone... absolutely ridiculous imo.

I shot with the R6 and 20FPS once. For me, it is simply too much because there were simply too many to go through. Almost every pic was perfectly sharp and it made it difficult to determine which one to keep. 8-12 FPS would be enough for me, but that's a personal thing.

R5 is/ sounds great and would probably be my personal limit in regards of MP/ FPS and such, also I love the ergonomics. Since I do not make a living or money of my photography I'm really hesitant to pull the trigger on such a camera. If nothing like an improved R comes along, I might add an R7 or eventually drop the R and get a used R5 or a discounted R5 when the mk ii comes out.

 

[entoman]

I absolutely agree! The numbers game is insane. Samsung also just released a "200MP" camera in its new phone... absolutely ridiculous imo.

I shot with the R6 and 20FPS once. For me, it is simply too much because there were simply too many to go through. Almost every pic was perfectly sharp and it made it difficult to determine which one to keep. 8-12 FPS would be enough for me, but that's a personal thing.

R5 is/ sounds great and would probably be my personal limit in regards of MP/ FPS and such, also I love the ergonomics. Since I do not make a living or money of my photography I'm really hesitant to pull the trigger on such a camera. If nothing like an improved R comes along, I might add an R7 or eventually drop the R and get a used R5 or a discounted R5 when the mk ii comes out.

I justify the 45MP of the R5 because I photograph nervous animals, birds and insects that can be difficult to approach, so I need to be able to crop fairly heavily sometimes. I could get around that by using a longer lens, but that means more weight and much higher cost. Also it can be difficult to frame fast-moving subjects accurately, so I like to have some space around the subject as a safety margin, and it gives me lots of options to rotate and crop in post. But for my landscapes, fungi and other static subjects, 20MP would be enough. 30MP is a sweet spot and ideal for most subjects.

Some people shooting sports or very fast-moving birds will probably benefit from 20fps or maybe a bit more, but I only need about 8-10fps at most, and usually shoot single frames. Things will change in a few years though - if a camera could shoot half a dozen frames at 100fps there would be virtually no subject or camera movement between shots, and this is where in-camera merging will become a major feature for eliminating noise, merging focus-brackets, and hand-held pixel-shift high resolution. You won't have to review 100 shots and pick the best one yourself - the camera will automatically pick the sharpest shots and merge them into a single final image that will be ultra sharp and noise free. But that will require very fast readouts, powerful processors and smaller sensors. M43 is the future.