Canon again mentions a Pro EOS R body, with IBIS and dual card slots

[Aussie shooter]

If the specs for the 1dx3 are on point then there is little doubt canon now has the ability to make whatever mirrorless it wants. It's just a matter of when they choose to do it. I guess from.a business perspective that is a tricky issue. It will be a balancing act to stop them wasting too much in development costs and frustrating impatient customers. But I think Sony is probably looking over their shoulders. It is abundantly clear that canon has the best video capabilities if they want to use them and they are not lagging in other areas either(especially if they have managed a slight improvement in their AF algorithms).

 

[Michael Clark]

EF lenses will work great; possibly even better results than on a dslr.
The high end RF glass is not cheap, but it is in line with what Sony/Nikon is asking for their 2.8 zooms. More 1.8 prime options would be very welcome.
I tried the RF 15-35 and 24-70 and shot a bunch of raw files. In the center the sharpness is essentially the same but it does have better corner performance. Plus, the focus is even faster due to nano usm and probably more accurate than adapted glass. Plus IS is a very good addition too.
In my case I’d like to get that 24-70 and 70-200; I do use them to make a living so a purchase is easier justified

In terms of AF protocols, there is no "adaptation" of EF lenses on RF cameras. The adapter is mostly just a spacer. The RF camera has the capability of communicating directly with the EF lens the same way an UHS-II card reader can read an old SD card using only some of its contact pins. They're all EOS. There's no need to "translate" instructions from a Sony E-mount protocol to a Canon EOS protocol between the body and lens. The RF protocol expands on the capabilities of the EF protocol and enables faster communication between an RF body and RF lens, but the RF protocol is an extension of the EF protocol and EF lenses lose absolutely none of their capability when used on an RF camera as compared to when they are used on an EF body. If an RF lens is more accurate than a comparable EF lens when used on an RF body it's because that lens is simply more accurate, just as some EF lenses are more accurate than other EF lenses when used on the same EF body.

 

[edoorn]

Interesting, thanks for explaining! So it's just the nano USM that makes a difference. I do can tell that works very fast and silent, and in general the RF lens had a better focus experience than the EF version. But newer EF lenses like my 35mm and 85 also focus better; the 24-70 II is already 7 yrs old so that explains a bit

 

[Skyscraperfan]

If Nikon comes with a pro DSLR with IBIS, and Canon still will not offer IBIS in the 1D X Series, I am seriously considering switching to Nikon when the time to replace my already quite ancient 1D X arrives. IBIS makes such a big difference, if you combine it with all the wonderful Sigma Art lenses for example. Just imagine having the Sigma 20mm f/1.4 Art in combinantion with an IBIS that is worth five stops. That would mean 32 times cleaner images at least for not moving subjects when shooting handheld at night. If would rather get rid of all video capabilities instead of having another camera without IBIS. Nikon already is far ahead of Canon at dark noise, because Nikon uses Sony sensors.

Can anybody explain why they should include IBIS in the EOS R, but not in the EOS system? For me it seems they just want to push people away from EOS towards EOS R. Instead they might push many people towards Sony. If you already have Sigmy Art lenses for Canon, you can send them to Sigma and let them be converted to the Nikon mount for $100 or so per lens. In the past lenses were the major advantage of Canon compared to Sony or Nikon, but those times are long over.

I still do not really see the need to buy an EOS R and those extremely overpriced new RF lenses. Nothing can replace seeing your subject with your own eyes through an optical viewfinder.

 

[Kit.]

Can anybody explain why they should include IBIS in the EOS R, but not in the EOS system?

It's a really bad idea to include the first generation of IBIS implementation into a pro sports body.

If you remember, Canon's first image stabilized lens wasn't a pro lens either.

 

[Travel_Photographer]

EF lenses will work great; possibly even better results than on a dslr.
The high end RF glass is not cheap, but it is in line with what Sony/Nikon is asking for their 2.8 zooms. More 1.8 prime options would be very welcome.
I tried the RF 15-35 and 24-70 and shot a bunch of raw files. In the center the sharpness is essentially the same but it does have better corner performance. Plus, the focus is even faster due to nano usm and probably more accurate than adapted glass. Plus IS is a very good addition too.
In my case I’d like to get that 24-70 and 70-200; I do use them to make a living so a purchase is easier justified

I'm sure I'd migrate to RF glass over time for the reasons you suggest, but for me personally, a big draw was thinking that all the glass might be 10 - 20% smaller. I can't blame anyone for thinking that, the below screenshot is straight from the Canon website specifically marketing the smaller footprint (including lens), so one could easily believe that type of size reduction was universal across all RF glass.

Don't get me wrong, I'll likely still go there, the lenses look awesome, but at least my expectation is set as far as size / weight. I shoot primarily travel so weight is a big factor for me. I have an M6, 22mm, 32mm, 55-200, and kit 15-45mm and that camera has been awesome for me compared to previous APS-C bodies. I can bring my M6 out for scouting or casual non-client work and for that purpose the results are outstanding. It's my current all-around "favorite" camera to use and carry because of its tiny size and light weight.

Anyway, thanks everyone for the insight.

 

[marioslrzn]

I think we’ll see a pro R after the 1DX iii, I rather wait cause it’ll be better for the camera cause would prefer to have the new digic9 and new sensor technology, hopefully around 40mp 10fps continous, ibis and dual card slot $3500, video add 120fps 1080p, 4k full frame, and I think all the sony fanboys would finally stfu about video specs. I enjoy my R and collecting the RF lens

 

[marioslrzn]

I'm sure I'd migrate to RF glass over time for the reasons you suggest, but for me personally, a big draw was thinking that all the glass might be 10 - 20% smaller. I can't blame anyone for thinking that, the below screenshot is straight from the Canon website specifically marketing the smaller footprint (including lens), so one could easily believe that type of size reduction was universal across all RF glass.

Don't get me wrong, I'll likely still go there, the lenses look awesome, but at least my expectation is set as far as size / weight. I shoot primarily travel so weight is a big factor for me. I have an M6, 22mm, 32mm, 55-200, and kit 15-45mm and that camera has been awesome for me compared to previous APS-C bodies. I can bring my M6 out for scouting or casual non-client work and for that purpose the results are outstanding. It's my current all-around "favorite" camera to use and carry because of its tiny size and light weight.

Anyway, thanks everyone for the insight.View attachment 187225

The zooms are lighter and have IS with better performance and the primes well if you want the best image quality it’s going to take a lot of glass for f1.2, just look at the 35mm f1.8 it’s smaller and faster than the canon ef35 f2 so yes It’s definitely smaller and lighter but with higher image quality required now the lenses are going to get bigger because the quality is also going up, if the quality was the same then the lenses would definitely be smaller, just look how much sharper the RF50 is , it’s not even close, that’s why there’s 2 options f1.2 for best quality and f1.8 for the convenience

 

[edoorn]

I would like to see high end (as in: high quaility build) light primes. If not from Canon, I’m sure other brands like Tamron could produce these

 

[DBounce]

The Canon ecosystem feels fragmented to atm. If you choose RF lenses, you cannot use them on any of the Cinema (C) series bodies. This makes it not as attractive to go full in on RF. I find myself using adapted EF glass. This also give me the ability to use the ND pop-in filter. Which cannot be used when I use native RF glass. It's a strange place that Canon has left us.

 

[Travel_Photographer]

The zooms are lighter and have IS with better performance and the primes well if you want the best image quality it’s going to take a lot of glass for f1.2, just look at the 35mm f1.8 it’s smaller and faster than the canon ef35 f2 so yes It’s definitely smaller and lighter but with higher image quality required now the lenses are going to get bigger because the quality is also going up, if the quality was the same then the lenses would definitely be smaller, just look how much sharper the RF50 is , it’s not even close, that’s why there’s 2 options f1.2 for best quality and f1.8 for the convenience

I thought the zooms were smaller and lighter too, that's why I was glad to see one of the previous posters point out that wasn't correct. The RF 24-70 is both heavier and larger than the EF version. The RF 15-35mm is heavier than the EF 16-35 and about the same size. I only took a look at one prime (85mm F1.2) and the RF version was heavier than the EF. Again, not a problem, just something I wasn't aware of and glad that I'm aware of it now.

This also give me the ability to use the ND pop-in filter. Which cannot be used when I use native RF glass. It's a strange place that Canon has left us.

I was just looking at that! It looks great, and for me is an incentive to use adapted glass as I use ND filters all the time. Was just reading though that you need to buy the "clear" filter separately to put in the adapter when not using the ND filter. Seems a little silly they didn't include that with the adapter.

 

[edoorn]

the 24-70 is heavier, although it is only 95gr. Did have the lens in my hand to shoot a bit this week amd it felt allright. The 70-200 is a surprise though, 400 grams lighter

 

[Travel_Photographer]

the 24-70 is heavier, although it is only 95gr. Did have the lens in my hand to shoot a bit this week amd it felt allright. The 70-200 is a surprise though, 400 grams lighter

Yeah the 70-200 is a bit of a game changer. That's awesome.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

When Canon is considering something, it usually means they have prototypes being tested and want to get feedback from select pro's. Then, marketing looks at the cost versus projected sales. That's going to be a tough one to justify with sales dropping.

 

[richperson]

I thought the zooms were smaller and lighter too, that's why I was glad to see one of the previous posters point out that wasn't correct. The RF 24-70 is both heavier and larger than the EF version. The RF 15-35mm is heavier than the EF 16-35 and about the same size. I only took a look at one prime (85mm F1.2) and the RF version was heavier than the EF. Again, not a problem, just something I wasn't aware of and glad that I'm aware of it now.

Didn't the RF versions both add IS, which must weight something?

 

[mpmark]

This is really stupid, they really have to tell us they will be considering a "high end" R body? They are making high end lenses for the R mount!!! Who do they expect to use those lenses? I would buy the lenses today if a high end R camera was available. The EOS R does nothing for me, I'm sure others feel the same.

My take on this is that they use this wording because, if they tell us now that they are going to be making a high end R mount camera then they may hurt the 1DX III sales before it even leaves the ground. But we all know at some point you will make a R camera equvalant to the 1D line, the R mount lenses coming out prove that.

 

[HikeBike]

I'll be interested to see what happens with the R down the line, once a clearer body hierarchy is established. If the pro-level R is to be a mirrorless 5D/5Ds (dual slots, IBIS, new sensor, more MP, faster processor(s), more FPS, etc.), then I'm guessing the R Mk II gets IBIS, a new processor, and some other relatively minor tweaks. In short, I'm curious about the differentiation strategy.

In terms of the hierarchy itself...Rebel R-RP-R-Ra-R7-R5-R1? I'm assuming Canon will eventually kill off the M line.

 

[StoicalEtcher]

This is really stupid, they really have to tell us they will be considering a "high end" R body? They are making high end lenses for the R mount!!! Who do they expect to use those lenses? I would buy the lenses today if a high end R camera was available. The EOS R does nothing for me, I'm sure others feel the same.

My take on this is that they use this wording because, if they tell us now that they are going to be making a high end R mount camera then they may hurt the 1DX III sales before it even leaves the ground. But we all know at some point you will make a R camera equvalant to the 1D line, the R mount lenses coming out prove that.

On the other hand, does anyone really doubt there will eventually be one (or more) coming, given the quality glass being produced? And I'd reckon most of those contemplating a 1DxIII would be savvy enough to realise with all the quality RF glass being announced, there will be a Hi-End/Pro-R too, if that's where they were minded to go.

I think the only real doubt is 'when' rather than 'if'.

 

[FTb-n]

What is this Pro EOS R body? A 1DX3 or 5D4 Equivalent? ..or even a 5DS R equivalent??

Good question. My guess is that a Pro EOS R must:

-- appeal to wedding and portrait photographers
-- compete with Sony A9 II
-- not compete with the 1Dx3

I think that its feature set will live somewhere between a 5D4/1Dx2 and the 1Dx3.

 

[-pekr-]

Good question. My guess is that a Pro EOS R must:

-- appeal to wedding and portrait photographers
-- compete with Sony A9 II
-- not compete with the 1Dx3

I think that its feature set will live somewhere between a 5D4/1Dx2 and the 1Dx3.

Or Canon will "suprise" us and produce just some high-mpx body, single card slot again ....