Updated list of unreleased Canon gear

Feb 20, 2016
77
7
#22
Gosh how much more entry level can you get than the EOS R? What can we expect, 1fps with tracking, 2x crop mode for 4K, lower res EVF and LCD, no eye-AF!
 
Jul 31, 2018
297
110
#23
For some inexplicable reason, some people are just totally hostile to the idea of a mirror and optical viewfinder, and wish that all camera manufacturers would stop making DSLRs so that people would stop buying DSLRs.

You don't really see DSLR users stamping their feet and screaming for camera manufacturers to stop making mirrorless products, though.

*Eyeroll*
quite the opposite. people wanting cameras without antiquated slapping mirrors inside were actively denied that choice for many years by the 2 inexpicably super-conservative companies that control 80% of the (stills) imaging market.

done rightt, cameras free of moving mechanical parts such as mirror/submirrorcassembly and mechanical shutters have clear and significant advantages. in all dimensions: IQ (eg no vibration-induced blur), operation and performance (fps, AF, silent, ...) and user interface (wysiwig EVF, less bulk).

mirrorfree cameras are the next evolutionary step for photographic equipment to overcome limitations imposed by its 18/19/20th century origins: digital imaging freed us of film/chemical complexities and the need to buy expensive materials from oligopolistic companies like Kodak. now - finally! - we are freed from limitations caused by moving mechanical parts. next stage will be computational imaging to free us from limitations of large, polished glass optics (lenses).

tiny solid state devices
are used to capture and create the vast majority of all images today. of course we can, should and will get such devices also with larger might- sensitive surface for higher technical image quality.

only Canon and Nikon have tried as best as they can to hinder, cripple and stifle that develoment by only offering marginally improved versions of their eversame mirrorslappers to be bought every other year by customers they considered locked into their "exo-system" with their proprietary lens mounts. they still try to repeat that business model today. but it does not work very well any longer. that's really why "the market is shrinking". lugging around big, expensive, conspicuous, clunky mirrorslappers has become "a nerdy aging male niche pastime". :)
 
Likes: Isaacheus
#24
quite the opposite. people wanting cameras without antiquated slapping mirrors inside were actively denied that choice for many years by the 2 inexpicably super-conservative companies that control 80% of the (stills) imaging market.

done rightt, cameras free of moving mechanical parts such as mirror/submirrorcassembly and mechanical shutters have clear and significant advantages. in all dimensions: IQ (eg no vibration-induced blur), operation and performance (fps, AF, silent, ...) and user interface (wysiwig EVF, less bulk).

mirrorfree cameras are the next evolutionary step for photographic equipment to overcome limitations imposed by its 18/19/20th century origins: digital imaging freed us of film/chemical complexities and the need to buy expensive materials from oligopolistic companies like Kodak. now - finally! - we are freed from limitations caused by moving mechanical parts. next stage will be computational imaging to free us from limitations of large, polished glass optics (lenses).

tiny solid state devices
are used to capture and create the vast majority of all images today. of course we can, should and will get such devices also with larger might- sensitive surface for higher technical image quality.

only Canon and Nikon have tried as best as they can to hinder, cripple and stifle that develoment by only offering marginally improved versions of their eversame mirrorslappers to be bought every other year by customers they considered locked into their "exo-system" with their proprietary lens mounts. they still try to repeat that business model today. but it does not work very well any longer. that's really why "the market is shrinking". lugging around big, expensive, conspicuous, clunky mirrorslappers has become "a nerdy aging male niche pastime". :)
I did not know there was some grand conspiracy theory by Nikon and Canon to deny people products that they want to buy. Silly me, I just assumed that manufacturers were researching the market and waiting until they saw sufficient evidence of profitability before jumping in. But then again, I didn't know the market was shrinking because of a lack of mirrorless cameras. I always thought the market was shrinking because most consumers find that having a camera in their cell phone is more convenient and sufficient for their needs. I guess now that mirrorless cameras have been launched by Canon and Nikon we will see a reversal of the trends of the past few years and dedicated cameras will soon replace cell phones.
 
Dec 25, 2012
396
27
#25
If Canon keeps adding R lenses, what happens to the L line? The new R lenses aren’t designated as such.
The 50 1.2 R is a premium lens so I suspect the R line will be premium and a "RC" line will come out as the Cheap line.
Or maybe they will have only "R" lenses but I doubt the marketers can resist segmenting the market.
As for EF lenses, remember the FD line.
 

delta0

I'm New Here
Nov 1, 2018
16
13
London
#26
I'm expecting 26MP, Digic7 slight improvement in video and a new badge. Meaning I will be shooting my 80D till it dies. But I am more than willing to be pleasantly surprised.
K437 // Canon EOS 90D (80D replacement)

  • Single lens reflex camera
  • 32mp
  • Wi-Fi · Bluetooth
  • Battery level indication is displayed in 6 increments
  • 2019 announcement
Aps-c and Digic 8 I expect so.
 

danfaz

I'm New Here
Jul 14, 2015
23
1
danielfazzari.zenfolio.com
#27
The 50 1.2 R is a premium lens so I suspect the R line will be premium and a "RC" line will come out as the Cheap line.
Or maybe they will have only "R" lenses but I doubt the marketers can resist segmenting the market.
As for EF lenses, remember the FD line.
If Canon keeps adding R lenses, what happens to the L line? The new R lenses aren’t designated as such.
Guys, no. The RF mount lenses, just like EF mount lenses, have non-L and L designations:
RF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM
RF 28-70mm F2 L USM
RF 50mm F1.2 L USM
RF 35mm F1.8 Macro IS STM
 
Likes: scyrene
Oct 17, 2018
15
5
48
Moscow
smorovoz.com
#33
For some inexplicable reason, some people are just totally hostile to the idea of a mirror and optical viewfinder, and wish that all camera manufacturers would stop making DSLRs so that people would stop buying DSLRs.
People watch ads and trust marketers. Mirrorless and small matrices are beneficial to manufacturers, they are cheaper to manufacture.

Not me. ML is nice for many applications, but for wildlife I will use DSLRs as long as there are still good ones available. I do not want to carry loads of batteries with me because every look through an EVF drains the battery.
I fully support. Very accurate expression!
 
May 11, 2017
856
95
#35
The mention of an entry level full frame RF worries me. The EOS R is entry level, it’s just it’s price says otherwise. They need to bring the EOS R down to $1600 and release one with full frame 4K, IBIS and dual card slots for $2350.
And why do they need to do that? Because that's what you want and that's what you are willing to pay? Why do you care whether the R is selling for $1600 if you aren't going to buy one?
 
Likes: scyrene
Sep 4, 2018
4
2
#36
And why do they need to do that? Because that's what you want and that's what you are willing to pay? Why do you care whether the R is selling for $1600 if you aren't going to buy one?
They need to do that because it would be fair. Like is said, the current EOS R is already entry level, when you look at the specifications. The Sony a7 III is cheaper and has much better specifications, even IBIS.
 
Likes: The Fat Fish
Jul 31, 2018
297
110
#38
Very simple. Because at 1600 they would sell a whole lot more EOS R cameras. Prices will come down. All it takes is a bit more market contraction and balance sheet suffering. Until they see that "premium priced sh*t" is an extremely limited market niche only and will not sustain or save them. Market can bear 1 Leica. It will not carry 2. And certainly not consumer goods corporations of Canon or Nikon size. They need to offer "consumer priced" wares.
 
Last edited:

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
1,959
214
Vancouver, BC
#39
quite the opposite. people wanting cameras without antiquated slapping mirrors inside were actively denied that choice for many years by the 2 inexpicably super-conservative companies that control 80% of the (stills) imaging market.

done rightt, cameras free of moving mechanical parts such as mirror/submirrorcassembly and mechanical shutters have clear and significant advantages. in all dimensions: IQ (eg no vibration-induced blur), operation and performance (fps, AF, silent, ...) and user interface (wysiwig EVF, less bulk).

mirrorfree cameras are the next evolutionary step for photographic equipment to overcome limitations imposed by its 18/19/20th century origins: digital imaging freed us of film/chemical complexities and the need to buy expensive materials from oligopolistic companies like Kodak. now - finally! - we are freed from limitations caused by moving mechanical parts. next stage will be computational imaging to free us from limitations of large, polished glass optics (lenses).

tiny solid state devices
are used to capture and create the vast majority of all images today. of course we can, should and will get such devices also with larger might- sensitive surface for higher technical image quality.

only Canon and Nikon have tried as best as they can to hinder, cripple and stifle that develoment by only offering marginally improved versions of their eversame mirrorslappers to be bought every other year by customers they considered locked into their "exo-system" with their proprietary lens mounts. they still try to repeat that business model today. but it does not work very well any longer. that's really why "the market is shrinking". lugging around big, expensive, conspicuous, clunky mirrorslappers has become "a nerdy aging male niche pastime". :)
I disagree. People who have wanted mirrorless cameras haven't been denied anything.

First, mirrorless cameras even up to A7R2 were pretty horrible. Those viewfinders, for my purposes, were just not usable, and there were too many other sacrifices that had to be made just to... well I'm not sure what.

And that's what it all comes down to. At the end of the day, I don't really care about whether my camera has a mirror or not. I want a photograph. Which tool is better to give me that photograph? The novelty of a EVF or all the other nifty gizmos wear out pretty quickly -- in the context of hundreds of photos of day -- and what I really want is something in my hands that gives me more pictures I'm happy with.

5, 10, or 25 years from now, will my camera have a mirror? I really don't care. Whatever solution is better overall as a system is the one that I'll choose. I'm not attached to a mirror, but I do like fast autofocus under conditions where less light hits the sensor; I do like an AF system where an illuminator will let me focus at good distances without consideration to ambient light; I do like a camera system that has a battery that will last through a day. And for the time being, even with the great EVFs today, I do prefer the actual optical image through the lens.

Certainly, 5 or 10 years ago, mirrorless cameras were not a great option for most types of photography; hence my comment that nothing has been denied from you. Technology in something you like just hadn't gotten there yet.

I am happy for you and other mirrorless shooters that you feel that you have more choice today. I think that's great that the choice is there fore you. I was simply commenting that there are far more mirrorless shooters that say "Death to mirrors!" than DSLR shooters who say, "death to mirrorless!".

Right now, for me, mirrorless is mostly a novelty with relatively few real benefits. But they are a fun novelty, and I've spent money on lots of stuff that I ultimately don't use much, so I will buy more mirrorless cameras. Until they "get there", however, I'll probably still reach for my DSLR for a lot of stuff.

I don't resist change -- I just don't embrace it without immediate, tangible benefits to me, and I'm not willing to buy several iterations of beta products to support an idea, hoping it will get to where I want it to be.
 
Likes: stevelee

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
1,959
214
Vancouver, BC
#40
People watch ads and trust marketers. Mirrorless and small matrices are beneficial to manufacturers, they are cheaper to manufacture.
Indeed, but personally, I don't care about what is beneficial to manufacturers, unless it also becomes beneficial to me :D

When the camera system is cheaper and better for me, I'll get really excited. When it's an opportunity for camera manufacturers to make more stuff and sell it at a higher price... it's a little less exciting for me :p