Potential Canon EOS R Mark II specifications [CR1]

usern4cr

EOS 80D
Sep 2, 2018
184
135
Kentucky, USA
32mp is fine for me. I hope it's BSI, but it's not required.
IBIS is great to hear. It is a must for me.
12fps is great (and more than I'd hope for).
1 SD card slot & 1 CFexpress slot is great enough for me. I'll shoot raw to CFexpress and use the SD for backup somehow.
No crop 4K video with DPAF is great (it's about time).
No RAW video is OK for me (I'm not much into video).
5mp EVF is great!!! I'm so looking forward to a better EVF.

I assume it will have fully articulating back LCD (which is a *must* for me). It would be nice if that LCD was higher res or bigger.
I assume it will have good eye tracking AF, at least somewhat comparable to Sony.
I assume it will have better hand-holding ergonomics and a more intuitive menu system than Sony.
If all of this is done, I do think I will buy one and their RF 70-200mm f2.8 zoom to finally step into FF as my 2nd system.
 

geffy

EOS M50
Jun 24, 2019
47
31
perfect, like me except for my wooden leg, seriously i am waiting for it, consider it bought
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,455
1,282
I don't need to, using RF 85mm is exact equal to EF 85mm with IS turn off. (in real world usage)

...unless you are using that EF lens only on an SLR, in which case I think the EOS R output could be slightly different.

These are both the RF 85s below (taken from here), but what you don't see is any clipping of the bokeh balls. The background is all more or less circles and some corner cateyes going on.

1578796693872.png
Both of the EF 85 Ls, however, have a problem when shooting natively on an EF mount SLR. I'm going to describe it incorrectly, so I'll defer to those who understand this phenomenon better. It appears that the mirrorbox or some other internal, though wider than the sensor, actually falls within large opening created by the aperture blades at the widest apertures of the large aperture primes (85Ls, 50L as well). Whatever hardware is in that very large f/1.2 (or so) circle becomes something like a bokeh stencil some tinkerer would put in front of their (let's say) 50 f/1.8 to make street lights look like hearts or stars.

Shorter version: The SLR internals clip the bokeh balls into looking like the letter D in a rectangular region somewhere in the middle-ish periphery of the frame, and once you see it, you cannot unsee it:

(Small effect: random Flickr find from an EF 85 1.2L search on shutterdial)​
Screen Shot 2020-01-11 at 8.51.33 PM.png

(Heavy effect: from an article at PP)​
1578797414652.png

I defer to folks who have shot both the EF and RF versions, but a 5D4 with either EF 85 L may indeed look different than the EOS R + RF 85L lenses, or even different than adapted EF 85Ls on the RF mount for this reason.

- A
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,455
1,282
Sorry, late to the pile on with the specs here.

A few thoughts:
  • Might EOS R2 come out simultaneously with the 5D5?
  • Do folks really think Canon will potentially undermine 1DX3 sales with a 12 fps rig at half price (or less)? I recognize they have the stills throughput potential to move 32 x 14 from the M6 Mark II, but that's a massive bump from the original EOS R. Seems a little too good to be true to me.
  • IBIS = cool (if true). We all could use it and seemingly everyone (not shooting howitzer superwhites) has been asking for it for some time. That plus solid peaking / manual focus assist will make the 'tinkering with older / weirder lenses' camp very happy.
  • Curious how well IBIS would work with existing IS lenses, adapted EF IS lenses, etc. Folks have (to this point) paid extra for lens IS, and if there is a lower price point without IS, the folks who already committed to lens IS may want some performance assurances that the lens IS was not paid for in vain (i.e. that it combines with IBIS to a better effect than if the lens lacked IS).
- A
 
Last edited:

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,455
1,282
Now we wait for:

RF 35mm F1.2 L
RF 14-21mm F1.4 L or RF 16-28mm F2

If you think RF needs to pick off EF's staples / expectations / necessary components of a large ILC lens portfolio:
  1. Nifty fifty
  2. Something 100-400L like (perhaps 70-400 from the rumor this week)
  3. Some kind of 1:1 macro
  4. 24L and 35L
  5. Pancake(s)?
But if you think they need to sex up the RF platform to draw people to it:
  1. 135 f/quick IS prime
  2. 200 f/2 IS prime
  3. A line of 'nice but not L' very small lenses
  4. The 'inexpensive' long zoom to 600mm
  5. The great wide coma-free astro prime
  6. New/resurrected wild zoom range concepts: 16-50? 35-85?
  7. [Dreaming here] An anomorphic lens with AF
Curious to see what's next.

- A
 

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
Mar 25, 2011
15,807
940
My main gripe about my R is accidentally toughing the LCD moves the AF point off the subject. I prefer to use tough autofocus since there is no joystick. A simple option such as double tap to move the AF point would solve that for me. Obviously, less frame freezing to allow easier shooting of moving subjects would be another plus. That seems to have been improved. Eye tracking of the R now works well but I'm often doing moving subjects that twist and turn, so it loses focus on a eye frequently and picks up a different one. I might be able to tweak it, I made a couple adjustments that reduced the issue.

If the R is going to remain as a $2200 body, the replacement should be popular. I expect that the rumor of a new naming scheme portends a higher price.

The lower price for a R right now certainly makes it a bargain, I bought mine when first announced at a $200 discount.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,455
1,282
If the R is going to remain as a $2200 body, the replacement should be popular. I expect that the rumor of a new naming scheme portends a higher price.

The lower price for a R right now certainly makes it a bargain, I bought mine when first announced at a $200 discount.

Let's say the 5D5 and EOS R2 get (at a really high level) a similar loadout -- same sensor, same shutter, same max fps, same # of cards, same onboard processing power, same fancy pants video options, etc.

How does a 5D5 demand $3k-ish while a similarly spec'd EOS R2 comes back in at $2299 or so?

Is Canon incentivized to sell same-spec'd RF bodies for less than EF to foster migration to mirrorless or to drive pricier RF lens sales?

Does Canon need to keep the 5D5 price high for such a product to remain suitably profitable now that EF = eventually RIP?

- A
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drcampbellicu
Feb 8, 2019
7
4
As a photographer these specs are great.
i'd prefer less or crippled video specs and a better price though.
Its a curse for photographers to upgrade their camera and pay more just for video specs.
Like the 5D IV that came out more expensive because it shoots 4k video that i never used and videographers never were happy with it.
this is how i've felt for years. as a landscape photo guy, i dont need IBIS or any video options, and it sucks to keep paying higher prices for something i dont want or use. we've got dedicated video lines, now all our still cameras are hybrid video/stills cameras. i dont think it's too much to hope for dedicated stills cameras again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Del Paso

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,455
1,282
i dont think it's too much to hope for dedicated stills cameras again.

Yeah, how is the Nikon Df doing? :unsure:

I'm a stills only guy as well. I may not shoot video, and I sure as hell can't stand the endless 'well this other company offers 1.21 gigawatts and Canon doesn't, so I am logically and proportionately going to flex my anger in the form of a hunger strike', but even I concede that video is here to stay.

So I respectfully disagree. Canon making a stills only ILC is absolutely too much to hope for. Not happening.

- A