Is the new Canon full frame mirrorless called the EOS R?

[transpo1]

'R' stands for 'Ready to stuff it to Transpo1 and AvTvMFullstop and we'll show them how to make a camera'

And that was Canon's point with the 5D4 - that if you want serious video get a video camera and camera, and their research apparently showed that in general people shooting video with DSLRs shot short segments of video to supplement their stills, not the other way round. I am cynical to some extent in that the processors they had could not handle the volume of FF 4k, and it did smack a bit of post-facto justification but my guess is that it did not worry Canon too much in making that decision.

Unfortunately most people now get their reviews from places like youtube with content driven by people who are, by definition vloggers who seem to value 4k very highly (even though most of them shoot 1080p) and because of that they get disproportionate voice in what they believe the 'average market' wants. And these same vloggers are often not professoinal reviewers so they pick on topic du jour things that are easily pointed out, and 4k, 60p/120p, whatever is part of that.

Canon’s “point” with the 5D4 was twofold: 1) we don’t want to include 4K video functionality that would cannibalize our other products 2) Even if we did, we don’t think 4K sells cameras.

Both points were wrong, and they have basically now admitted this by putting 4K in more products moving forward. It remains to be see whether a FF mirrorless will supply FF 4K in a manner which will appeal to content producers.

Vloggers, by the way, influence buying decisions for many. And 4K has penetrated the market more than expected. 60p is more specialized but still necessary for many content creators. 120fps is standard on many prosumer ILCS now. (Not Canons yet, unfortunately.)

 

[transpo1]

moving the goal posts or attempting to?
and again, this is getting tiresome. the need for 120fps is a niche. period. and videographers that want to use a stills camera with consumer grade codecs and lackluster ergonomics for video instead of getting a proper video camera with video ergonomics and great codecs tailored for the medium?
it's most certainly a niche (of the buying public) of which a niche would be those that needed 120fps instead of 60fps slo motion video.
I know there's this all consuming concept of thinking that your needs are those needs of the general buying public but canon with thier massive marketshare has ALREADY demonstrated that having good video isn't necessary to sell cameras.

Admit it- you’re just pissed off because people are talking about video instead of photos. Like it or not, stills cameras have/are becoming hybrid cameras for both. Many content creators use them that way.

Just because YOU do not, just means the market is moving on from your very narrow definition of it.

Canon was the one who broke that ground in the first place with the 5DII. Then they lost their way because they wanted to sell high end Cinema EOS cameras. Nothing wrong with that. Except Sony then ate into their cinema camera line with better specs at better prices.

If Canon wants to regain that market, they better start with video on their stills cameras, because that’s where beginning filmmakers start.

 

[transpo1]

And my guess is that they are taking advantage of something in the camera they have bought, and the ability to shoot 120fps slow mo is highly (nay,
extremely) unlikely to be any part of the buying decision.
I am not denying some use it, but am questioning the importance of it to the market. I use the focus bracketing on my Panasonic camera but I would not buy a camera on that basis alone.

And yet, in an era when even our iPhones can shoot 240fps 1080p, doesn’t it make sense for camera manufacturers to compete with what many average smartphone owners can do? After all, including these features just encourages more people to see a reason to buy cameras, which is good for the industry overall. Not to mention, hybrid photographers/videographers on a budget will make purchasing decisions on value and price and are likely only buying 1-2 cameras.

Value, by the way, is commonly known in business as how much usefulness a product can deliver for its price to the consumer. If this particular niche which you dismiss needs that feature, Canon may want to include it, since it costs them next to nothing and can only increase the value and sales of their product.

Not to mention: Joe X may buy a Sony instead of a Canon because it has FF 4K and 120fps for his videography needs but you, being a photographer, are still going to buy a Canon if it includes the same features. Therefore, why not include it? It will only result in a few dollars to you of increased R&D cost passed through to the retail price but will make a world of difference to those that need it.

 

[ahsanford]

I believe the EF-X concept (shall we call it RF? - its safe to assume it won't be ER) remains an intriguing option for the follwing reasons
- Huge lens selection available form 11mm to 600mm (or if you want to count up to the 1200mm..)
- Few new "intruding" lenses needed (likely all <=35mm)

I love any concept that discourages Canon from making a boatload new lenses for the new mount. This is one of them.

So something like this naturally stops Canon from overdoing it -- a 24-70 f/2.8 shaving an inch isn't worth developing / producing / stocking / maintaining an entirely new model to go alongside the EF one. So much like you said above, with this concept only slow/wide glass would really lead to eye-popping size savings, and hopefully Canon would have the discipline to not build anything more than that (and focus on new EF glass).

I am concerned if Canon pulls a Nikon and rolls out this:

​

Canon's not typically in the roadmap business (they didn't do it with EOS M if memory serves), but even the implication the above (i.e. cloning staple F mount pro glass into the Z mount) is in the works would be troubling. I want them to subdivide the lens FL / aperture universe to 'stuff that will make a noticeably smaller rig without a mirror' and 'stuff that will not'. Leave EF to serve the latter!

- A

 

[snappy604]

Please ignore me. Please do. I'll get over it.

"
CanonFanBoy
Bipolar. When it is happening I don't realize it.

Psssst... its happening.

 

[Hesbehindyou]

As long as i get to buy Pure stills cameras. Hybrid Stills+Video should be offered as a "special version" for some cameras, with excellent video specs and consequently higher price for dual capability.

I'll try my best to answer.

Nikon had their Df but that was a video-capable camera that just had a missing record button - not what you're after.

What you're really asking for is a new, stills-dedicated sensor. It'll be insanely expensive compared to current cameras as they currently take advantage of massive economies of scale

If (and I find this unlikely) a company does this and it sells well, they'll split their market which removes some of those economies of scale from their video-capable camera. They'll be priced out of much of the market and the resulting drop in revenue will cut into r&d leading to lacklustre products and the company's eventual collapse.

If they do it and it doesn't sell well the opportunity cost of all that money they invested means the resulting drop in revenue will cut into r&d leading to lacklustre products and the company's eventual collapse.

 

[-pekr-]

I was just at the wedding of the son of a friend. This was a very high end wedding ($20,000 for the band!). They had video, and all of it was shot with - surprise... video cameras. Now, isn’t that amazing? Pros use the best equipment for the job.

The question is - are you actually doing weddings? If not, then your reply is as much informed, as a wishful thinking of @rrcphoto. And we might also differ by regions, right? 20K USD wedding? I can tell you, that here in CZK, photographers earn something like 500-600 USD usually, top ones, something like 1200 USD. Typical wedding budget might be 5K USD.

We are actually doing weddings. Typical wedding external services are DJ, videographer, photographer. It is something like 10-20% of videographers doing it using a dedicated videocamera. I don't even say "profi" camera, as some guys are using just a rather consumber video cameras. Last month, 3 weekends, we could see a 70D, 80D and Panasonic GH2. Videographers are slowly getting into stabilisers, drones. SW used mostly PowerDirector, Sony Vegas and the likes - no Premiere, no Resolve. We are not talking a Hollywood productions here. And don't let me even start on the proper scene lightning aspects of your so called "pros".

So - if ppl doing a wedding business tell you what is important to them, I find it quite ignoratnt to claim, it is a niche or that the feature is not needed. Noone wants a dedicated camera, if we are very close to just have it all in terms of one package.

 

[Megapixel]

Who really cares what's its called does it make a difference to the image it produces?

 

[goldenhusky]

2 card slots...eye AF, IBIS, DP, and high MP EVF!!

I thought we are talking about Canon. No?

 

[goldenhusky]

Give us this option please even if you price it the same as A7RIII/Z7.

You are greedy. you gotta be "Canon Realistic"

 

[goldenhusky]

EOS R = EOS Revolution

This is for the revolving adaptable mount that accepts EF-M and EF lenses.

I really Wish R stands for Revolution. I am talking about real revolution not what the Canon fan boys things as revolution

 

[goldenhusky]

Wedding photographer != Wedding videographer
Wedding videography is a niche, just like anything else. If you're a wedding videographer in 2018, and you're cinematic/artistic at all, I guarantee you they're shooting at least in 60fps for a majority of their footage, sans any parts that are spoken. So no, not niche of a niche..

Listen you got to understand Canon fans knows everything, and I mean everything in the world and Canon always knows everything better than the whole world combined you know why because they are #1. If a Canon fan says nobody should be using a DSLR or a mirroless camera to shoot videos you just have to throw away all your DSLRs and mirrorless camera that you shoot videos with and go buy the $33000 EOS C700FF. If you don't spend $33k on a body to shoot video you are not smart period . Very importantly you should not have any opinions against what Canon fans thinks is correct if you do you gotta be banned from opening your mouth. If anyone criticizes Canon's foolish decision and their products that person is put on death row immediately . Please keep in mind if Canon fans does not need a feature no one in the world should be asking for that even if all Canon's competitors offer those. You have to go buy competitors product just because Canon fans think so.

 

[archiea]

Continue reading...

I know I’m gonna get a lot of hate for this, even some death threats, probably meet a terrible painful end....but I hope the make an R Mount!

1) R mount plus adapter = full speed EF mount!
2) R mount opens use of old FD glass...
3) native R mount optimises design of flange distance for future updates, i.e. nikon’s plans for the Z mount.
4) optimize solutions to Ray Angle issues that plague digital sensors with wide angle lenses.
5)opens up third party lens fun and spfx lens

New era for canon as the EF electronic mount was, so its important canon does it right!

This bellyaching that there are no new lenses off the bat. Yes the M has been slow, but its a consumer platform. Hobbiest have the ef11-22 wide angle, 28mm macro , F2 22mm prime, and various zoom ranges. With the new ef-m prime coming, its got enough for its market. No less that what ef-s mount have.

Big things:
1) flippy screen
2) two card slots
3) 3.5 -4.2 million pixel evf
4) dual pixel focus
5) touch screen with touch drag
6) real EOS software and bits for speed
7) fast wireless with upload while you shoot.
8) traditional tethered USB3
9) hdmi out 4K
10) m5 button layout with programmable buttons
11) good battery, perhaps using the 5D battery size!!!!
12) fast fastfast! None if the M5 slowness with native flashes or button response.
13) $3400 price tag to ensure we get the above...

 

[bhf3737]

Fair point. All that I will say is this: Can I make a perfectly fine video topping out at 60fps? Sure, absolutely, I do it right now. Would I love 120fps to have more options on the editing board, hell yes! Will it decide on whether I want to upgrade to the new new canon or a different brand, for sure. I'm seriously weighing all of my options right now.
And maybe it's niche to you, but more and more people are getting into video, the niche of niche as was called is getting smaller and smaller. Personally I do photos + video. So being able to have all in one package is really important to me. I already have 2 pelicans worth of gear, not including light stands and whatnot that I have outside of my pelicans. So consolidating a video camera AND stills camera in one box is really important to me. The less stuff I have to carry the better, and thus I want the best bang for the buck in both worlds.
I don't think that's too much to ask.

If you are after quality of your final video product, more frames does not mean better quality.
(1) More resolution, (2) more sensitivity, (3) more bit rate, (4) more bit depth, and (5) better codec mean better quality, period.
More frames only contribute to special effects/looks (slow motion, jagged effect, etc.) that you may want to have and from this perspective, it is a very niche usage.
Photo-oriented cameras from any manufacturer you name it, do not offer ALL 5 in one place. If you are after better quality the only option is a dedicated video camera.

 

[RayValdez360]

And yet, in an era when even our iPhones can shoot 240fps 1080p, doesn’t it make sense for camera manufacturers to compete with what many average smartphone owners can do? After all, including these features just encourages more people to see a reason to buy cameras, which is good for the industry overall. Not to mention, hybrid photographers/videographers on a budget will make purchasing decisions on value and price and are likely only buying 1-2 cameras.

Value, by the way, is commonly known in business as how much usefulness a product can deliver for its price to the consumer. If this particular niche which you dismiss needs that feature, Canon may want to include it, since it costs them next to nothing and can only increase the value and sales of their product.

Not to mention: Joe X may buy a Sony instead of a Canon because it has FF 4K and 120fps for his videography needs but you, being a photographer, are still going to buy a Canon if it includes the same features. Therefore, why not include it? It will only result in a few dollars to you of increased R&D cost passed through to the retail price but will make a world of difference to those that need it.

there are plenty of trade offs to high framerate shooting. Professional camera companies usally make sure it is done right or pretty good before they implement such features. (sometimes they dont liek the overheating sony products) Just because a cellphone does it doesnt mean a camera with a bigger sensor with different codecs and processors can handle it properly for professional use on large screens. ALso it might increase the cost of the production of camera.

 

[Woody]

I am concerned if Canon pulls a Nikon and rolls out this:
View attachment 179987

Agreed. Nikon's mistake is not knowing what consumers want.

Owners of interchangeable lens cameras want a suitably large sensor. The Nikon 1 MILC sensors were too small (for a rather expensive set-up).

Now, owners of MILCs desire a small and lightweight package. Nikon's Z mount is too big; their simple 50 mm f/1.8 lens now weighs 400 g (and again, cost a lot more)!

Sigh... such a pity.

 

[Sharlin]

Other than they are all letters of the alphabet, it makes no sense.
Add to it that Canon claimed R as meaning Resolution.
C meaning Cinema.
Why would a <30 mp body use a R?

The letters in my post are links, you might want to take a look. It was just a silly math joke.

 

[fullstop]

If a Canon fan says nobody should be using a DSLR or a mirroless camera to shoot videos you just have to throw away all your DSLRs and mirrorless camera that you shoot videos with and go buy the $33000 EOS C700FF. If you don't spend $33k on a body to shoot video you are not smart period

that is not my position and generally also not of most other "non video" posters here.

i understand that "large-sensored" video equipment - cameras and "cine" lenses - is "prohibitively expensive" for many users and uses. of course 1500 - 3000 usd/€ FF-sensored hybrid stills/video cameras are very attractive to video users in addition to needing only 1 set of gear for video and stills images. fair enough, no problem.

what i dont like are the constant demands for *each and every* single new camera to be "filled to the gills" with "all the latest and greatest video features" even when
1. vast majority of purchasers will never capture (serious) video ever
2. some of those video features are at the expense of "best possible stills image quality" and user interface for stills shooters - especially in cameras with mirrors in lightpath, that are "not naturally-born video recording devices
3. video users not willing to pay a cent for dual use cameras, oh no they want "maximum 4k video in every camera from entry level Rebel, EOS M all the way to 5D class" ... "for free".

because of this clamoring we all are getting mostly "sub-optimal" products:
* video users get stills cameras with "less than ideal video features" and complain
* stills shooters have to pay for and get video features in hardware (eg sensor, imaging pipeline, heat management, control layout...) and software (eg codecs, menu system, ...) they dont need and are not conducive to best stills image IQ and shooting experience.

simple solution to this dilemma would be so easy: separate "video enabled" versions for some/many/all cameras. basic model is "stills, video only as needed for mirrorfree operation (EVF, liveview/main display) but no recording, no video out".

plus an enhanced "hybrid" version with max. technically possible video capabilities added - available for those who really need/want it - at a fair, higher price. a 25-33% "video surcharge" should cover additional costs for hardware, software, development needed for video and would still be a fair price for dual-use functionality.

we would then also quickly see, whether "video/hybrid" users are just demanding "free lunch all the time" or are willing to put their wallets where their mouth is.

in this context it would be very interesting to see (ratio of) unit sales numbers for Sony A7S models versus "A7 base model" and A7R versions.

my guess is, that A7s models account for less than 10% of units sold of the respective camera generation. it might be 25% if A7/R models would have "video out". don't think real market demand for "hybrid/convergence" is more than that in this category of imaging gear (consumer/prosumer level).

 

[Mikehit]

I was just thinking this. It seems to be the latest buzzword. I don't doubt it's of use - for some people, in some situations - but the fact nobody mentioned it a year ago and now it's a must-have on every wishlist is rather puzzling. Seems like once DPR and a few others latch on to something, all the forum dwellers follow suit, regardless of whether they use the feature

When someone like Jason Lanier gets hold of the Sony cameras recently he raves about the sensor and eye AF. It gets disproportionate airtime and becomes a meme.

 

[Mikehit]

Then they lost their way because they wanted to sell high end Cinema EOS cameras.

So now when a manufacturer produces a body that you do not want, it is called 'losing their way'?
The 5D2 gave them a view on which way the market was headed and they made a decision based on that feedback - and their decision was that if people were serious about video they would buy into a dedicated video system. Whether you agree with that decision is one thing, but just because you do not agree with it does not necessarily mean they are 'losing their way'.
And I know you hate looking at sales figures as a judgement as to whether they got their marketing decision right, but the Cxxx system has been successful and since the introductoin of the 5D2 theyhave increased and consolidated their market share.

So it looks to me like at the time their decision was the correct one.
The next question is whether the market place has changed and it seems it has. The success of a company is how quickly and effectively they can change with it. In the product development cycle the growth of DSLR-based video is still very young (not even one of Canon's lifecycles) so I suggest you hold fire before accusing them of 'losing their way'.