Canon will release four new full-frame cameras in 2020 [CR2]

Mr Majestyk

EOS RP
Feb 20, 2016
212
84
So you have no information of APS-C in RF mount, huge oversight if that's not released soon.

I agree EOS R was a path of least resistance release, stepchild of a 6DII and 5D4 that got them a product in the portfolio, but was hardly enticing except to diehards. I expect to see massive improvements in the next RF mount cameras and Sony should have something to worry about. They can't afford to screw this round up and even the advancements we've seem with DPAF performance in the M6II, and 1DXIII indicate the next round of FF mirroless will be much more capable in tracking, with good eye-AF.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

slclick

135L
Dec 17, 2013
3,874
1,675
So you have no information of APS-C in RF mount, huge oversight if that's not released soon.

I agree EOS R was a path of least resistance release, stepchild of a 6DII and 5D4 that got them a product in the portfolio, but was hardly enticing except to diehards. I expect to see massive improvements in the next RF mount cameras and Sony should have something to worry about. They can't afford to screw this round up and even the advancements we've seem with DPAF performance in the M6II, and 1DXIII indicate the next round of FF mirroless will be much more capable in tracking, with good eye-AF.
I would love to read about a crop RF body yet I have not seen one single article. Could you point us to any credible info as to Canon rumors about them making one? I was under the impression aps-c wasn't in the cards. It would be nice for the 7D2 camp.
 

Kit.

EOR R
Apr 25, 2011
1,700
1,048
Well true, but the big live view rear screen is your electronic view finder.
Ok, then it's possible to make a camera cheaper than RP by removing the second EVF.

Actually, it is possible to remove the LCD too. Just add a phone holder to the camera back and pair the phone over WiFi. Then Canon could also sell optional tilty-flippy phone holder accessories.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
8,223
1,580
119
The only solutions I see here to these first world problems is you should not have bought an R and fire your assistant. If you have enough money for an assistant and like two cards why did you not buy a second R and take the same pic on both cameras.
More importantly, why didn't he flick the lock tab on the SD card when he handed it off. Bad work practices and failed protocols will win out every time!
 
  • Love
Reactions: NorskHest

slclick

135L
Dec 17, 2013
3,874
1,675
Ok, then it's possible to make a camera cheaper than RP by removing the second EVF.

Actually, it is possible to remove the LCD too. Just add a phone holder to the camera back and pair the phone over WiFi. Then Canon could also sell optional tilty-flippy phone holder accessories.
We're not calling the LCD an EVF, right? Because it's not.
 

BillB

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
1,301
538
Four full frame cameras sounds impressive, but is it?

1) 1Dx III
2) EOS Rp (High megapixel
3) EOS R bargain
4) 5DV

That doesn't leave room for another higher end R model. So maybe no 5DV this year. Maybe the number should actually be five. Maybe there is no bargain R on the horizon. Or maybe Canon is not ready to offer another model slotted above the R. Since it's all speculation right now, go ahead and take your pick and then start drafting your outraged posts for when you don't get your way.
How about anticipatory rants based on the conviction that Canon will once again provide too little too late?
 
  • Like
Reactions: goldilocks_focus

mjg79

EOS 80D
Feb 19, 2016
156
99
I would love to read about a crop RF body yet I have not seen one single article. Could you point us to any credible info as to Canon rumors about them making one? I was under the impression aps-c wasn't in the cards. It would be nice for the 7D2 camp.
I think there is a chance that Canon is going to have two distinct lines. Ef-m for crop, RF for full frame.

Before about 2012 the tech made sense to put crop sensors with mounts that allowed people to mount full frame lenses, eg 7D with 400/5.6 made sense for birders especially those upgrading from entry rebels. But the higher resolution sensors now in full frame mean this is less and less important. The costs of full frame sensors have come down hugely. For birders there will remain an advantage perhaps but I think it's no longer such a big deal. And with lower price full frame cameras the typical upgrade path doesn't necessarily now start with a crop camera. I might be wrong, Thom Hogan, who I respect, in every single article about Canon goes on and on about how it's a huge mistake to have two distinct lines because people like him love to put full frame telephotos on crop cameras.

So what advantage is afforded by two lines? Size. If you pick up and hold one of the Ef-m cameras you might be shocked how tiny it is. For most consumers, price and size remain the two key things - especially as smartphones get better. So if Canon can produce tiny crop sensor cameras for the mass market this might be a good trade off. Canon always has an eye on the consumer market and the professional too - so we are really talking about a product line for each.

The alternative was a single mount. If they took the Sony approach of a smaller mount it makes some lens design a bit more difficult - of course they can have 0.95 lenses in Sony (and Leica M) but from what I've read the design is more complex. It also results in weird ergonomics with big bulging lenses going to small mounts. Indeed Canon actually said that with the RF 70-200 the larger mount allowed them to position the optics to allow for fewer elements and lighter weight.

There is the Nikon route of putting everything through one giant mount. That does allow easier full frame lens design but it means there is a limit to how small the cameras can be and they become quite ungainly, dominated by a big mount in the middle, eg the Z50.

The particular pattern we had from 2000 until recently where because of cost and legacy lenses many people mixed full frame glass with crop cameras was always a bit strange in some ways though it made sense.

Personally I think if Canon has split the lines permanently that is likely to be a good decision, both for ergonomics and price point but also because it means one gets the "right" size mount for a given sensor. How many people really today are choosing between an M50 and an R? I think outside some birders it won't be many and if Canon really does come with a 60/70+ mp Rs they would likely be better served by that.

Just my thoughts - and as I said plenty of experts think Canon has got it wrong but many of them, in my view, are looking at it like it will be 2005 forever.
 

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
4,440
701
Ok, then it's possible to make a camera cheaper than RP by removing the second EVF.

Actually, it is possible to remove the LCD too. Just add a phone holder to the camera back and pair the phone over WiFi. Then Canon could also sell optional tilty-flippy phone holder accessories.
You know gentlemen that with this logic all Canon DSLRs starting from 40D have EVFs? :D :D
So let them keep their mirrors (what's a mirror between friends) and there are your new beloved long awaited cameras :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 

djkraq

EOS M50
Aug 13, 2016
32
21
I don't understand why people are saying the RF glass is better. It's a different design but not necessarily better. Depending on the application, the lens design can be negligible. I actually think rd glass will still be relevant. I think RF mount benefits wide angle lens design more than telephoto. If this isn't true let me know. Even the Sony mirrorless telephoto lenses are slightly lighter than dslr lenses. For me, I just want the rf mount to use the mirrorless features on ef glass with mirrorless features.
 

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
4,440
701
I don't understand why people are saying the RF glass is better. It's a different design but not necessarily better. Depending on the application, the lens design can be negligible. I actually think rd glass will still be relevant. I think RF mount benefits wide angle lens design more than telephoto. If this isn't true let me know. Even the Sony mirrorless telephoto lenses are slightly lighter than dslr lenses. For me, I just want the rf mount to use the mirrorless features on ef glass with mirrorless features.
Only sites like LensRentals and The-Digital-Picture can tell us which glass is better. For me, I got the EOS R to enjoy 2.8L IS zooms that weren't available in EF form. They don't have to be better (although I would love that of course). Same more or less with IS would do. For big white is it EF glass and nothing else.
 

mjg79

EOS 80D
Feb 19, 2016
156
99
I don't understand why people are saying the RF glass is better. It's a different design but not necessarily better. Depending on the application, the lens design can be negligible. I actually think rd glass will still be relevant. I think RF mount benefits wide angle lens design more than telephoto. If this isn't true let me know. Even the Sony mirrorless telephoto lenses are slightly lighter than dslr lenses. For me, I just want the rf mount to use the mirrorless features on ef glass with mirrorless features.
What you wrote is broadly true. The real benefits of mirrorless are felt with wider angle designs. Looking at Sony for example their 16-35 GM and 24/1.4GM are both designs superior to any SLR wide angle lens and they are smaller and lighter. (The poor quality control of the 16-35 is down to Sony's manufacturing not the design). By contrast the Sony 50/1.4 doesn't offer any real size benefit over an SLR equivalent and nor does the 70-200 GM.

Having the ability to have more freedom to place elements is always welcome though. And Canon appears to have even found advantage in the 70-200 by putting the rear most element in a better spot to be able to reduce the number of elements.

But the 24-70s show that there isn't anything like as much advantage once you get beyond about 24mm. The EF 24-70 2.8L II remains an outstanding 24-70. The Sony, Canon and Nikon mirrorless 24-70s are not radically smaller or better than SLR equivalents.

As for telephoto lenses certainly beyond 200mm we will not see huge changes and the EF standards in those focal lengths will remain for years. Some others such as the recent TS lenses I think will be a long, long time before they get updated in RF - maybe we will get a new 17mm and 24mm but the longer stuff is rather pointless to update.

One area that does seem to be much improved by mirrorless though is the teleconverters. Sony's are outstanding and tiny - a great combination. I am excited to see what Canon does in that area.

Expect to see some great wide angle lenses in RF mount. I hope for a very small f/4 zoom as a landscape dream lens and something that is good for wide angle astrophotography like a 14mm f2 would be nice. Also smaller aperture, f/1.8 and f/2 primes seem to get more benefit from the mirrorless design and I hope Canon pushes on with more lenses like the RF 35/1.8 IS - a 20/2.8, 28/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8 and 100/2 would be the foundation for a really good set up with the cheaper and smaller Rf cameras.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
4,440
701
Actually Canon's wide angle EF zooms are already very good in EF mount. But the addition of IS is a plus. Also the 50 1.2 and 85 1.2 are better than the EF counterparts (however the very good EF85 1.4 is available and it has IS).
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

CanonFanBoy

Really O.K. Boomer
Jan 28, 2015
4,702
2,622
Irving, Texas
I don't understand why people are saying the RF glass is better. It's a different design but not necessarily better. Depending on the application, the lens design can be negligible. I actually think rd glass will still be relevant. I think RF mount benefits wide angle lens design more than telephoto. If this isn't true let me know. Even the Sony mirrorless telephoto lenses are slightly lighter than dslr lenses. For me, I just want the rf mount to use the mirrorless features on ef glass with mirrorless features.
The RF glass I have is better than any EF glass I had in the focal lengths I have experience with. I had the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II. It is a great lens. On the other hand, there is just something special about the RF 28-70mm f/2L other than it being faster. I owned the EF 35mm f/1.4L II and it was a fantastic lens. I'll be interested to see whether the RF version of the future can match or top it. It was a special lens in my opinion. The only EF 50mm I ever owned was the EF 50mm f/1.4. It sucked compared to the RF 50mm f/1.2L... and it is not wide angle. Then again, one would expect the L to beat the regular EF non-L. I never owned an EF 85mm so can't speak to that, however, the RF 85mm (a telephoto) is stellar in my opinion.

What I don't understand is why people say that the RF mount may not necessarily be as much benefit to telephoto or super telephoto as to wide angle. Just because that might be the case for Sony (I wouldn't know), doesn't mean that will be the case for Canon which has a larger diameter mount.

"Benefit" can mean a lot of things. It can mean IQ. It can mean size. It can mean other things I am not aware of. Are there EF lenses I miss? Yes, but probably because they are not yet available to me in RF yet. I miss the EF 35mm f/1.4L II. I miss my old 135mm f/2L. I really liked the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II, but I don't miss it at all. I am happy I never bought an EF 85mm. I still don't miss my EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, but it was a great lens.

Since there are no super telephoto lenses available in RF yet we'll just have to wait and see what Canon can do EF vs RF in that dept. I think it is premature to make that call at this time.

I came to the R from the 5D Mark III. The focus accuracy of the R over the 5D Mark III is indisputable. I assume (maybe wrongly) that the R also beats the focus accuracy of the 5D Mark IV (I am talking about static subjects. Portraits, not BIF). AFMA? Never again for me. So it isn't just about the mount. As the Canon mirrorless line matures I think we will see more benefit. Right now, both DSLR and mirrorless have their own advantages and disadvantages depending upon use case.
 
Last edited:

navastronia

EOS RP + 5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
421
483
I just want to chime in unhelpfully that for my current uses (portrait, event, wedding), I don't need anything higher spec'd than the RP, and also, that I don't anticipate upgrading beyond the R (if/when I get one) until 2021 at the earliest, and only if that body has IBIS and a fast-readout sensor w/ a great electronic shutter mode.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974
Jan 14, 2020
3
0
Canada
And that's the problem - EOS R basically uses a 5DIV sensor, which we've already got with the 5DIV itself, naturally. We (as in our studio) don't need/want another 5DIV, what we need after thoser 4 years is a completly new upgraded camera, moving our used 5DIV to the backup.

It seems no such upgrade is coming in 2020, while 5DV possibility is mentioned in the article. That's interesting, because we've already decided 5DIV was probably our last pro DSLR ever. So Canon releasing a 5DV has no buy in our book. I have a gut feeling our aproach is going to be followed by many others.

Well, for the time being, if there is a need, we could reverse the situation by buying some cheaper R variant (R, Rp, Rm) to be the secondary body, while waiting for the 5DV in an R form. There is also one possibility - if the high mpx body has still better sensor characteristics than 5DIV, we might consider it as well.
Yes, I agree! Look what they did with 1DX iii, the almost same resolution with minor design tweaks (after 4 years). unless canon bumps up the resolution and include IBIS, EOS R mark ii is useless !!
 

mppix

EOS T7i
Feb 13, 2018
98
64
How about anticipatory rants based on the conviction that Canon will once again provide too little too late?
No BSI sensor with global shutter and anti-rolling gyro? Canon is doomed.

Jokes apart, it would be good to see some of the 1DXiii tech trickle down to the high res body.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia