2022 is scheduled to ‘The Year of the Camera Body’ [CR3]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
EOS R8
I would like to share my dubious speculations about an upcoming EOS R successor that I would call EOS R8 and how it will be differentiated from the R6 and the original R.
Price: 1799 USD / 1899 EUR
So about 700-800.- less than the official R6 price, but only about 300.- less than the R6 market price by the time the R8 comes out.
Sensor: Worst case they keep the sensor from the EOS R, but I hope for a new one. (DR + ISO measured like DXO)
MP: 30-34 (R6: 20, R: 30)
DR: 14-14,5 (R6: 14.3, R: 13.5)
ISO: 3000 (R6: 3400, R: 2800)
FPS w/ Servo AF: 8 (R6: 20, R: 5)
IBIS: 5 stops (R6: 7 stops, R: none)
AF: Dual Pixel 2 (R6: DP2, R: DP1)
EVF: 2.1 MP (R6: 3.69, R: 3.69)
Card slots: 1 SD (R6: 2 SD, R: 1 SD)
Video: 4K 30 (R6: 4K 60, R: 4K 30)
Body built quality (weather sealing, materials) slightly lower than R6, ergonomics like R6.
I´m not sure about the card slots, if it will get 1 or 2 and the less capable IBIS only makes sense if it would mean a cost advantage otherwise it would get the same IBIS as the R6.
Major advantage R8 over R6: 30-34 MP instead of 20 MP
Major advantage R6 over R8: 20 FPS instead of 8 FPS, (maybe) the second card slot, more video options
Minor advantage R6 over R8: Built quality, slightly better low light performance, better EVF, (maybe) better IBIS
That should be enough differentiation to justify the price difference.
What do you think?
I would like to share my dubious speculations about an upcoming EOS R successor that I would call EOS R8 and how it will be differentiated from the R6 and the original R.
Price: 1799 USD / 1899 EUR
So about 700-800.- less than the official R6 price, but only about 300.- less than the R6 market price by the time the R8 comes out.
Sensor: Worst case they keep the sensor from the EOS R, but I hope for a new one. (DR + ISO measured like DXO)
MP: 30-34 (R6: 20, R: 30)
DR: 14-14,5 (R6: 14.3, R: 13.5)
ISO: 3000 (R6: 3400, R: 2800)
FPS w/ Servo AF: 8 (R6: 20, R: 5)
IBIS: 5 stops (R6: 7 stops, R: none)
AF: Dual Pixel 2 (R6: DP2, R: DP1)
EVF: 2.1 MP (R6: 3.69, R: 3.69)
Card slots: 1 SD (R6: 2 SD, R: 1 SD)
Video: 4K 30 (R6: 4K 60, R: 4K 30)
Body built quality (weather sealing, materials) slightly lower than R6, ergonomics like R6.
I´m not sure about the card slots, if it will get 1 or 2 and the less capable IBIS only makes sense if it would mean a cost advantage otherwise it would get the same IBIS as the R6.
Major advantage R8 over R6: 30-34 MP instead of 20 MP
Major advantage R6 over R8: 20 FPS instead of 8 FPS, (maybe) the second card slot, more video options
Minor advantage R6 over R8: Built quality, slightly better low light performance, better EVF, (maybe) better IBIS
That should be enough differentiation to justify the price difference.
What do you think?
Tony Northrup cannot be relied upon for any sort of technical evaluation.
Personally, eye control AF works very well for me. Do you find it not functioning properly on your R3? Or do you not own an R3 and are simply gullible enough to believe all the misinfotainment served up on YouTube?
Gosh I had to laugh at this post! I've seen numerous reviewers who have tried the eye-directed auto focus, most like it - some thing it will be a game changer - and yes, some think it still needs some improvement. I didn't watch the review posted, but when I saw it was the Northrups, I was not surprised that the end result was negative and the verdict was that "it didn't work." When real photographers use it - it apparently works and works pretty well.
unfocused
EOS-1D X Mark III
You must have watched a different review than the one you linked to.
Review was generally positive. My take away was that the R3's features are best for those it is aimed at: sports and action photographers. For wildlife and birds, the R5 is a better choice. I don't disagree with that sentiment. They found a slight advantage to Sony's autofocus. I don't use Sony so I can't fairly comment, but it's not like they suggested Sony was great and Canon was terrible.
As far as eye-control, they were generally positive, but pointed out that it is not perfect, which it is not. They did not say it didn't work and in fact were pretty complimentary of it under certain conditions. They are clearly not sports shooters and that was evident in the review. Their "sports" test was an entertaining but amateurish exercise that demonstrated nothing. I was embarrassed for them in the sense that they clearly have no idea about shooting sports.
Knowing that Tony is a Sony guy and taking that into account, I can't really be overly critical of the review's conclusions. Everyone has their biases and clearly he prefers Sony, but didn't pan the R3. I did have to laugh at his repeated comments about his "unbiased" review. Any reviewer who claims to be unbiased automatically loses me. If you are really unbiased, you shouldn't have to tell people who are unbiased.
well that would make you gullible too, wouldn't it? It worked for you doesn't mean it works for all.
... and a single review which is less than 100% positive probably doesn't justify Canon making "a firmware update where they remove that eye directed focusing, yikes and maybe take $1000 off the price". I'm sure there will be firmware updates, all of them improving the feature further. Until then, my impression is that the overwhelming majority of users like it, and would prefer it to stay.
Otherwise, guess what, you don't have to use it!! There are numnerous other AF functions! Revelation.
Interesting, and not entirely unexpected. I did a similar but rather less thorough experiment, comparing my R5 with EF 100-400mm against an a9ii with FE 200-600mm G and found that the Sony was much better at recognising and locking onto birds in flight. Using the RF100-500mm would have been a fairer comparison admittedly.
The truth, I think, is that Canon are still very much at the experimental stage with the current generation of RF cameras. We saw this clearly with the overheating issues of the R5 when shooting 8K, and now we are seeing it with the eye-control and subject-recognition in the R3.
The AF systems of the R5 and R3 are infinitely better than anything Canon produced previously, and they'll improve further with firmware updates, and even more when the next generation of RF cameras appears. But no-one wants to wait another 2-3 years if they can get better performance right now with another brand.
Most people on this site will be existing Canon users and many will have a lot invested in Canon glass. Most of us also probably greatly prefer Canon ergonomics. So we'll just have to be patient and in the meantime screw the best results we can out of our existing gear. I photograph wildlife for pleasure, not for profit, but if I was a pro I probably would have switched to Sony a couple of years ago, and learned to deal with the less than ideal ergonomics.
For human subjects I think I'd leave the eye-control on. For birds and wildlife I'd turn it off and use the AF controller or the joystick. Most of the time I'd just keep the AF spot in the middle of the frame, move the camera so that the AF spot is over the subject, and then leave the camera to track it around the frame.
My experience with R5 and a9ii indicate that the Sony is better at tracking subjects. I haven't used the R3 or the a1, but if finances permitted (sadly they don't) I'd switch to a Sony a1 and Sony G glass.
I love my Canon gear, but brand loyalty, for its own sake, is a fools game when there are better options available.
Merry Xmas!
That's true, the Northrups are not professional sports or wildlife photographers. But they probably come close to being representative of the typical non-pros who I imagine will represent the bulk of R3 purchasers. So while far from perfect, the review may indicate the sort of problems with calibration, subject acquisition and tracking that amateurs will encounter.
Undoubtedly the R3 is a fine camera, and for some people it will work really well. Others won't be so lucky. I think we have to put brand loyalty aside, and accept that Sony are still ahead of the game when it comes to AF acquisition and tracking.
The R5 and R3 are certainly "good enough" for most people, but I think Sony have a margin that is significant enough to warrant switching, for people who can afford it, and who are willing to accept compromises elsewhere, such as ergonomics.
I haven't used the R3 either, but the experiences of most (not all) reviewers and posters on here, are that it is game-changing. That enthusiasm changes a little based on (apparently) eye colour and spectacles use, but many/most say that with some effort to set it up properly, it becomes second nature to them.
Will it (or anything else) be perfect in its first iteration? Of course not, but it's hard to sit back when people call for it to be expunged from the firmware because the Northrop's didn't like it!
And a merry Xmas to you!
I agree that Czardoom's post was a bit over the top.
The AF systems of most recent cameras such as a9ii, a1, R5, R3 and Z9 are incredible and allow us to do things that were near-impossible in the past. Who could have imagined a few years ago that a camera could track the eyes of a bird in flight at 30fps?
I also agree that the eye-control *concept* of the R3 is game-changing, and it will probably be adopted by other brands. But some reviewers (not just the Northrups) have said that the eye-control needs a lot of calibration for different shooting conditions, and different users, and personally I think it would be unwise to leap in and buy one without first hiring one for a couple of weeks to see how well it worked for *me* and the subject matter, lenses and lighting conditions that I commonly encounter.
It's clearly silly to rely on the comments from a single user or a single reviewer, but after seeing several reviews I get the overall impression that the a1 would be a wiser choice for wildlife photography, although the R3 would probably be my choice for sports photography, as it seems to be very good at allowing the user to choose the right set of eyes when several faces are in the frame.
For now, I'm sticking with my R5. If I suddenly became rich, I'd likely switch to Sony a1. I think Canons are more *enjoyable* to use, but if I was a pro wildlife shooter and needed to maximise my keeper rate, the a1 would be my choice.
In defense of your one criticism in an otherwise defense of the Northrups, I'm pretty sure by unbiased he just means the same thing Christopher Frost means when he says, paraphrased "As always, this is an independent review." A review based on their actual thoughts and not content paid for by the manufacturer to alter the review to be more positive.
(But for as specific Tony Northrup can be about definitions, using unbiased in that way isn't the most precise.)
It seems a bit odd, in my opinion, for you to conclude the Northrups are "representative of the typical non-pros" who you imagine will represent the bulk of R3 purchasers? Since this camera is clearly a sports and action camera, I would have to guess that the bulk of purchasers will be sports and action photographers.
As for accepting that Sony is still ahead of the game when it comes to AF acquisition, I have only seen two YouTube reviewers who have tested them side-by-side (Dustin Abbott and Jared Polin) and neither one thought that Sony was ahead of the game when it came to the AF system. Both reveiwers praised both cameras AF and found little to differentiate them. Abbott preferred the look inside the Canon viewfinder, but seemed to find little difference in AF acquisition. Polin thought the Canon did a better job of keeping AF on the eyes where the Sony was only on the head, but found the results to be essentially equal. He concludes, "that Canon may have - not only met, but - surpassed Sony in some ways when it comes to their Auto Focus." I have not seen any reviewer or photographer (not saying that there aren't any) who says Sony has a "margin that is significant enough to warrant switching" as you conclude. As far as I know, neither Abbott or Polin has any brand loyalty to Canon (Polin definitely not).
I’m not the one suggesting Canon remove a feature and cut the price based on one YouTube video and most likely no personal experience. That’s you.
Oh, and please tell me where I claimed it works for everyone. I started that statement with the word, “Personally.” If you don’t know what that means, look it up.
The point I was trying to make, admittedly not very clearly
, is that I think most R3 purchasers will be amateurs - yes, they'll be sports/action enthusiasts, but mostly not professionals. It's always important to read and watch as many reviews as possible, and to seek out reviews by pros and specialists where relevant, but I do think the Northrups have picked up some valid points that will affect a lot of users.I've read and watched lots of reviews of the R3. All have generally been very positive, but most have drawn attention to the need to recalibrate the camera for different shooting scenarios and lighting conditions. Canon themselves freely admit this and accordingly they provide an option to save about half a dozen sets of calibrations. All of this indicates to me that the system works for some people, some of the time, but still needs a lot of development. It won't be truly useful until it reaches the stage where it can be fully relied upon in multiple scenarios without the need to recalibrate frequently.
As for the Sony a1, I'm no great fan of Sony cameras and I've been using Canons for 11 years, but I don't believe in letting "brand loyalty" cloud my vision. I just want the best tool for the job. For some users the R3 *will* be the best tool for the job, but for various reasons I think the Sony a1 would be a better choice for *me*, as a wildlife photographer. The Sony a9ii which I've used, is better at acquiring, locking on and tracking birds in flight than my R5. I'm a good wildlife photographer but I still want all the help I can get. I haven't used an R3 or an a1, and I wouldn't buy either without having hired them first and tested their suitability for my own usage. But my gut feeling is that the a1 would be more efficient for my usage. It's also lighter, has a significant megapixel advantage, and better battery life, all of which would be more valuable to *me* than a potentially unreliable eye-control point selection.
The high MPIX "R" seems so elusive. At least R3 tech indicates we can now have it with fast shutter speeds and a large buffer.
On the contrary, one of the things that endeared me to the RP was that very "Goddam" battery. It meant when I bought it I would NOT have to buy a bunch of spare batteries, because I already have a few LP-E17s. That made it much more appealing as an (ultimately intended) backup camera. (Note: This was before I had my R5, before I had that I owned no LP-E6NHs or whatever the new one is called, and yes I bought a spare for that...which I'm happy to do for a non-backup camera.)
Similar threads
