Another announcement cycle is out of the way, so what’s next from Canon for the EOS R system?

4 extra mp. LOL. No BSI sensor. Given that the Sony A7 IV has a BSI sensor and is considerably cheaper here in Australia, Canon is already lagging behind. I'll probably sell all my Canon gear and switch to a Sony A1 with the 200-600. Better AF than anything Canon produces currently (just over the R5 by all accounts) and matches or outperforms the R5 and R3. Oh, and tonnes of lenses to use unlike the RF system where Canon is doing everything in their power to use their monopoly to kill any RF competitors. Here's hoping the US DOJ investigates Canon (the ACCC is investigating them for this - you're welcome).


Oh, I love you too. Typiical Canon fanboy. Canon could release a turd and you'd be saying it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. The R6 II has an extra 4mp (whoopie doo - the A7 IV has 33mp and is $1400 AUD cheaper). I don't care for video whatsoever and I don't spray and pray, so have no need for 40fps. Prey do tell what other "upgrades" the R6 II has? Same body. Same weather sealing. Same LCD screen and EVF. No word on high ISO performance yet, cos Canon is hiding that from consumers and hoping people will fork out money for pre-orders that are non-refundable. Rolling shutter marginally better by all accounts, and the same for AF performance. A slightly redesigned UI button layout change, that doesn't really bother me in either the original R6 or R6 II - I can take it or leave it in either design layout personally.

Perhaps the only troll here is you, since you resorted to name calling.
You definitely sound reasonable, balanced, and trustworthy. Bye!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
D

Deleted member 393411

Guest
Yeah, nah.

That is patently false
Not according to people that I know and trust.
Well if I'm a "Canon Fanboy" then I must also be a Sony fanboy and a Nikon fanboy and a Fujifilm fanboy and an Olympus fanboy, as I've used all of those brands...

You clearly haven't followed my posting history, in which it's pretty obvious to anyone that I give criticism where it is due, and praise where it is due, regardless of the brand under discussion.



As it happens, I agree that a jump to 24MP makes little difference, and I don't shoot video or "spray and pray" either. The R6ii is a modest upgrade but a welcome one, as it improves on the R6 by adding features that some people (not you, but you're not the only dude on the planet) will appreciate.

For me, the value of being able to shoot at 40fps is that it makes possible hand held HDR and even handheld focus-bracketing, with the necessary sequences shot in a split second, reducing movement between frames to a minimum. That feature alone is a valuable upgrade over the R6.


You were correctly referred to as a troll because you gave away your prejudices by using the expression "Canon Cripple Hammer"...
A modest upgrade? A very small upgrade would be a better description imho. The hand held focus bracketing is a nice addition, and something that I might use with macrophotography, although as a nature photographer, it's not really "nature", but a manipulation of nature.

Canon cripple hammer is real, and an accurate description of what Canon does to their products. Calling them out for ot doesn't make me a troll, it makes me a realist who's not afraid to criticise Canon where it's due.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,174
13,013
Canon cripple hammer is real, and an accurate description of what Canon does to their products.
Silly you for buying their products, ‘eh? It’s ok, though…the majority of the camera market buys Canon products so you’re in good company. Good thing you’re smarter than everyone else, to know you’re buying gimped gear but buying it anyway.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
D

Deleted member 393411

Guest
Silly you for buying their products, ‘eh? It’s ok, though…the majority of the camera market buys Canon products so you’re in good company. Good thing you’re smarter than everyone else, to know you’re buying gimped gear but buying it anyway.
The only new Canon gear I've bought was a very long time ago - 300mm f4, 70-200 f2.8, 1.4 and 2x TCs, 1n and 630 in the late 90s (I did buy a 60D in 2011). Oh, and a 430EZ flash in the late 90s too, folowed by a 430ex flash in the early 00s, but only cos the EZ didn't work with the used 1D that I'd bought at the time.

So, I've given little money directly to Canon. Canon has around 40% of the market btw, not a majority. But, you keep telling yourself that Canon has a majority. Canon's losing users Left, Right and centre as they move to (mostly) Sony - a company that listens to their consumers and gives them what they want, and doesn't treat them like traash by blocking 3fd party competitors.

I may use the recently announced R6 II to grab a used R6 at a better price. And continue buying used EF lenses ;-)
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,174
13,013
So, I've given little money directly to Canon.
Out of principle, or because you can’t afford the new gear? I suspect the latter. Personally, if a company’s goods and/or behavior no longer align with my needs, I switch to a brand that does. Yet here you are, bashing Canon while buying their second-hand gear (which most likely merely enables other users to buy new gear from Canon).

Canon has around 40% of the market btw, not a majority. But, you keep telling yourself that Canon has a majority. Canon's losing users Left, Right and centre as they move to (mostly) Sony - a company that listens to their consumers and gives them what they want, and doesn't treat them like traash by blocking 3fd party competitors.
In 2021, Canon’s market share was 48%, while Sony’s was 22%. YoY from 2020, Sony gained 1.9% while Canon gained 2.5%. As far as installed base, that’s somewhere around 75-80% Canon. Canon dominates the ILC market currently and has led it for two decades.

Canon leads the MILC market and dominates the DSLR market. The only place Sony leads is the full frame MILC market (which Canon entered 6 years after Sony), and Canon has been eroding their lead there, to within 5% last year.

The data show that Canon is gaining users relative to Sony. You keep telling yourself that your opinion trumps the actual data. It doesn’t, and it never will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,998
2,438
UK
The only new Canon gear I've bought was a very long time ago - 300mm f4, 70-200 f2.8, 1.4 and 2x TCs, 1n and 630 in the late 90s (I did buy a 60D in 2011). Oh, and a 430EZ flash in the late 90s too, folowed by a 430ex flash in the early 00s, but only cos the EZ didn't work with the used 1D that I'd bought at the time.

So, I've given little money directly to Canon. Canon has around 40% of the market btw, not a majority. But, you keep telling yourself that Canon has a majority. Canon's losing users Left, Right and centre as they move to (mostly) Sony - a company that listens to their consumers and gives them what they want, and doesn't treat them like traash by blocking 3fd party competitors.

I may use the recently announced R6 II to grab a used R6 at a better price. And continue buying used EF lenses ;-)
If you loathe Canon so much, why don't you just carry out your "threat" and switch to Sony? They make fine cameras, as do Fujifilm, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic, Leica etc. Then you can stop whinging and be happy.

But I suspect that you'd end up on a Sony forum, slagging off their ergonomics etc.

If you're going to stay with Canon (if you indeed actually own any Canon gear), and you intend to continue here, please at least come up with some constructive criticisms and/or suggestions for improvements, rather than piling on the "cripple hammer" hype that was invented by Sony trolls.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,998
2,438
UK
The hand held focus bracketing is a nice addition, and something that I might use with macrophotography, although as a nature photographer, it's not really "nature", but a manipulation of nature.
Why do you regard focus-bracketing as a "manipulation" of nature?

It's merely a tool to enable you to ensure that the subject is in sharp focus while at the same time ensuring that distracting elements of the background remain out of focus. In effect it's no different from using a wide aperture in portrait photography to isolate the subject.

If you think about it, *everything* in photography is "manipulation" - we live in a 3-dimensional world and we use our cameras to produce a 2-dimensional images of very carefully selected and composed elements of the world. Isn't that "manipulation"?
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,174
13,013
Why do you regard focus-bracketing as a "manipulation" of nature?

It's merely a tool to enable you to ensure that the subject is in sharp focus while at the same time ensuring that distracting elements of the background remain out of focus. In effect it's no different from using a wide aperture in portrait photography to isolate the subject.

If you think about it, *everything* in photography is "manipulation" - we live in a 3-dimensional world and we use our cameras to produce a 2-dimensional images of very carefully selected and composed elements of the world. Isn't that "manipulation"?
Agree. I don't consider it manipulation in any way, it's simply capturing more DoF.

The Photographic Society of America, who's rules are followed by most if not all photography competitions in the US at least, considers focus stacking to be acceptable for both Nature and the sub-category of Wildlife.

 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
D

Deleted member 393411

Guest
please at least come up with some constructive criticisms and/or suggestions for improvements, rather than piling on the "cripple hammer" hype that was invented by Sony trolls.
What, 20 to 24mp with the R6 II isn't constructive criticism? As stated, I don't care for 40fps or video capability, so the R6 II is well, rather lacklustre, no? ymmv, but your view doesn't make my view incorrect. It's all a matter of perspective, no? So, from my personal requirements/wants for a camera, the R6 II is indeed, well, lacklustre and wanting. Several oinline reviewers have come to the same conclusion (when looking to upgrade from the R6 to the R6 II). Going from a DSLR to the R6 II, it's a fine upgrade. But, I am very disappointed at only 24mp, especially when it's nearest competitor the A7 IV is near 25% cheaper (and that's not on sale as some would try to argue) and has 33mp.

BTW, can you post proof that "cripplehammer" was invented by Sony trolls? I thought not.

Blind allegiance to a brand is a very dangerous thing.
Why do you regard focus-bracketing as a "manipulation" of nature?
See below reply to neuronatomist.
The Photographic Society of America, who's rules are followed by most if not all photography competitions in the US at least, considers focus stacking to be acceptable for both Nature and the sub-category of Wildlife.
Interesting - considering cloning etc is generally not accepted in competition, I'm surprised that they are allowing focus stacking. Macrophotography, at 1:1 will *always* limit your DOF (~6mm for 1:1). Using focus stacking is what I'd consider image manipulation and I know my local club would consider it that too.
Tony Northrup?
LOL no. Local birding photographers who have used the R5/R3 and A1 and been able to compare them.
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,409
22,779
LOL no. Local birding photographers who have used the R5/R3 and A1 and been able to compare them.
The Sony A1 is marginally better than the R5, but only noticeable, if at all, to those who are indulging in the equivalent of Olympic games competitions of birds in flight. At my level, and I am an enthusiast for BIF and DIF, my skills wouldn't warrant the A1 and the R5's AF has never let me down. Further, those Sony guys cough up £6500 on the A1 and £12000 on the 600mm f/4. Even if I could or wished to spend that money I am no longer strong enough to hand hold lenses like those. The Sony 200-600mm is an excellent lens but is quite heavy for a walk around lens whereas the RF 100-500mm is relatively light and the RF 100-400mm is like a helium balloon in comparison. This paper competition between cameras is usually as relevant as fantasy football.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
D

Deleted member 393411

Guest
The Sony A1 is marginally better than the R5, but only noticeable, if at all, to those who are indulging in the equivalent of Olympic games competitions of birds in flight. At my level, and I am an enthusiast for BIF and DIF, my skills wouldn't warrant the A1 and the R5's AF has never let me down. Further, those Sony guys cough up £6500 on the A1 and £12000 on the 600mm f/4. Even if I could or wished to spend that money I am no longer strong enough to hand hold lenses like those. The Sony 200-600mm is an excellent lens but is quite heavy for a walk around lens whereas the RF 100-500mm is relatively light and the RF 100-400mm is like a helium balloon in comparison. This paper competition between cameras is usually as relevant as fantasy football.
Do you want a camera that can grow as you acquire more skills, or limit them? With that said, the R5 is a fantastic camera and would more than suit my needs. My concern is rewarding Canon for its poor upgrades (from my point of view, ymmv), CrippleHammer™ tactics and anti competitive moves vs 3rd party lens manufacturers. Dare I mention that RF lenses are over priced?

Most birders don't use a 600mm f4 btw. Most settle on a 500mm f4 - length and lighter weight. Most birders will use a gimbal setup too with this type of combination, especially for BIFs. I have a mark 1 500mm f4 IS L (couldn't afford a used Mark II sadly) and it is heavy. I can hand hold it for a bit, but it isn't comfortable (it is just under 4kg, ~1kg heavier than the mark II version). With that said, I have extensive lower back health problems (OEA, muscle problems and umbiliical hernia). A reasonably strong and healthy male will fare better with the mark 1 lens, and even better with the lighter mark II version. The Sony 200-600, by comparison, is ~2.1kg - much more manageable. Yes, the RF100-500 and RF100-400 are both lighter, there is no denying that. The RF 100-500 is ~AUD $1900 more expensive than the Sony lens though. That's a lot of extra money for a lens that is well, at best, on par with the Sony.

The Canon R6 II is going for some great prices at the moment - AUD $3899 at CameraPro (Australian stock too) on pre-order. I am tempted, but suspect the R5 is a better option for me (and I can use it in crop mode, ~18mp, so same as my 60D and almost the same as my 7D II). I am tempted to wait for a R5 II, but that could be 6-12 months away. Canon typically has replaced its prosumer/consumer lines of cameras every 18 months, and pro cameras every 3 years. It's been just over 2 years since the R5 and R6 releases, so the R6 was lagging and the R5, depending upon an individuals point of view, may either be lagging, or around another 12 months before an update is released. The R6 II at 24mp is tempting, especially at AUD $3899 but it could be 6 months before I'd get the camera based on pre-order demand. Frustrating as hell.
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,409
22,779
Do you want a camera that can grow as you acquire more skills, or limit them? With that said, the R5 is a fantastic camera and would more than suit my needs. My concern is rewarding Canon for its poor upgrades (from my point of view, ymmv), CrippleHammer™ tactics and anti competitive moves vs 3rd party lens manufacturers. Dare I mention that RF lenses are over priced?

Most birders don't use a 600mm f4 btw. Most settle on a 500mm f4 - length and lighter weight. Most birders will use a gimbal setup too with this type of combination, especially for BIFs. I have a mark 1 500mm f4 IS L (couldn't afford a used Mark II sadly) and it is heavy. I can hand hold it for a bit, but it isn't comfortable (it is just under 4kg, ~1kg heavier than the mark II version). With that said, I have extensive lower back health problems (OEA, muscle problems and umbiliical hernia). A reasonably strong and healthy male will fare better with the mark 1 lens, and even better with the lighter mark II version. The Sony 200-600, by comparison, is ~2.1kg - much more manageable. Yes, the RF100-500 and RF100-400 are both lighter, there is no denying that. The RF 100-500 is ~AUD $1900 more expensive than the Sony lens though. That's a lot of extra money for a lens that is well, at best, on par with the Sony.

The Canon R6 II is going for some great prices at the moment - AUD $3899 at CameraPro (Australian stock too) on pre-order. I am tempted, but suspect the R5 is a better option for me (and I can use it in crop mode, ~18mp, so same as my 60D and almost the same as my 7D II). I am tempted to wait for a R5 II, but that could be 6-12 months away. Canon typically has replaced its prosumer/consumer lines of cameras every 18 months, and pro cameras every 3 years. It's been just over 2 years since the R5 and R6 releases, so the R6 was lagging and the R5, depending upon an individuals point of view, may either be lagging, or around another 12 months before an update is released. The R6 II at 24mp is tempting, especially at AUD $3899 but it could be 6 months before I'd get the camera based on pre-order demand. Frustrating as hell.
Most birders do not settle on a 500mm f/4 - only a minority of keen enthusiasts do and the majority of regular birders that I see are content with superzooms. Of the super enthusiasts whose work I follow and admire, the top ones use 600/4 or 400/2.8. The in-use weight of the Sony 200-600mm is 2.4 kg with the hood attached, not 2.1 kg. They feel heavy because of their construction with more weight towards the front end, and felt too heavy for me when I tried one, more so than the 400mm DO II which is shorter. I hardly ever see Sonys in the UK; Canon and Nikon are the most common and I regularly see Canons with EF 100-400mm, Sigma and Tamron 150-600mm, and now RFs with the RF 100-500mm or 100-400, and Nikons with the 200-500 and 500/5.6.

Birds in flight specialists do not in general use tripods and gimbals but hand hold.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,174
13,013
What, 20 to 24mp with the R6 II isn't constructive criticism? As stated, I don't care for 40fps or video capability, so the R6 II is well, rather lacklustre, no? ymmv, but your view doesn't make my view incorrect. It's all a matter of perspective, no? So, from my personal requirements/wants for a camera, the R6 II is indeed, well, lacklustre and wanting. Several oinline reviewers have come to the same conclusion (when looking to upgrade from the R6 to the R6 II). Going from a DSLR to the R6 II, it's a fine upgrade. But, I am very disappointed at only 24mp, especially when it's nearest competitor the A7 IV is near 25% cheaper (and that's not on sale as some would try to argue) and has 33mp.
What makes you think the primary target market for the R6II comprises R6 owners? If you look at most in-line upgrades, the improvements are modest. Given the typical time window between upgrades vs. the typical useful life of a camera, it's reasonable to conclude that relatively few users are going to buy the very next iteration of their current camera.

Logically, the R6II is aimed at 6- and 5-series DSLR users, APS-C DSLR users, and probably to a lesser extent EOS R/RP users. For all of those, it's a significant upgrade. As I stated, the vast majority of ILCs in use today are made by Canon. Given the relatively recent shift (MILCs have outsold DSLRs for only the last few years), there are still more DSLRs in use than MILCs. Given their market dominance, most of those DSLRs are Canon. As those users switch to MILCs, most will stay with Canon.

Canon doesn't care if you're disappointed. They care how many units they sell and at what margin, and I have no doubt they'll sell many units at the margin they've chosen. History has shown that they are the best in the industry at that, and have been for many years.

Interesting - considering cloning etc is generally not accepted in competition, I'm surprised that they are allowing focus stacking. Macrophotography, at 1:1 will *always* limit your DOF (~6mm for 1:1). Using focus stacking is what I'd consider image manipulation and I know my local club would consider it that too.
Given your spelling and your posting times, I suspect you're from Australia (apologies if I'm wrong on that). The Australian Photographic Society's competition rules recapitulate those of the Photographic Society of America stating, "Techniques that enhance the presentation of the photograph without changing the nature story or the pictorial content, or without altering the content of the original scene, are permitted including HDR, focus stacking and dodging/burning." If you are in Australia, I'd be surprised if your local club would choose to be more restrictive than the APS rules, as that would presumably disadvantage its members in inter-club and national-level competitions. Perhaps you should reconsider.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,998
2,438
UK
Blind allegiance to a brand is a very dangerous thing.
As already stated, I've used Canon, Nikon, Sony and Olympus, and I criticise/praise each of them for their (in my perception) merits, AND their failures, so "blind allegiance" is most certainly one thing that I can't be accused of. I have in fact criticised several aspects of various Canon cameras here...

Blind ignorance of the value of a camera, and of the sector at which it is aimed, while not being "dangerous" is what you are guilty of in your posts. I suggest you carefully consider the points made by @neuroanatomist above, who has pointed out the true target market for the R6ii.

Owners of Canon DSLRs, or owners of older RF models such as R and RP are who the R6ii is aimed at, NOT R6 upgraders - the latter are far more likely to be lusting after an R5 or R3.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,998
2,438
UK
The Canon R6 II is going for some great prices at the moment - AUD $3899 at CameraPro (Australian stock too) on pre-order. I am tempted, but suspect the R5 is a better option for me (and I can use it in crop mode, ~18mp, so same as my 60D and almost the same as my 7D II). I am tempted to wait for a R5 II, but that could be 6-12 months away. Canon typically has replaced its prosumer/consumer lines of cameras every 18 months, and pro cameras every 3 years. It's been just over 2 years since the R5 and R6 releases, so the R6 was lagging and the R5, depending upon an individuals point of view, may either be lagging, or around another 12 months before an update is released. The R6 II at 24mp is tempting, especially at AUD $3899 but it could be 6 months before I'd get the camera based on pre-order demand. Frustrating as hell.
Seems a bit odd that one one hand you are criticising the R6ii, but that you now consider it "tempting".

IMO the "R5ii" is 12-18 months away. Next model in the R5 series is more likely to be the hi-res "R5s" - although they could turn out to be the same thing.

If you have long primes and don't need to crop heavily, the original R6 is probably your best bet. On the other hand if you need more reach and less weight, the R7 would probably be even better as the high pixel density will give more reach than a cropped R5 image. I have the R5, but if my *primary* interest was bird photography I'd go for the R7, and pair it with a RF 100-400mm, 600mm F11 and/or 800mm F11.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,998
2,438
UK
I am very disappointed at only 24mp, especially when it's nearest competitor the A7 IV is near 25% cheaper (and that's not on sale as some would try to argue) and has 33mp.
Regarding price, I think most of us would agree that Canon do overprice their products, especially when compared to Nikon and Sony. But that doesn't stop people buying them, so it's rather unlikely that Canon would change it's pricing policy. It's a pill we have to swallow.

You could of course switch brands, and if you genuinely believe that doing so would improve your photography, go ahead. But very often, when people switch brands, although their new camera may be better specified, there is no discernible improvement in the technical quality of their images, and it's exceedingly unlikely that a new camera will improve the aesthetic value of their images!

It's often just new gear for the sake of new gear (not that there's anything wrong with that - we all like a new toy to play with!).

As for pixels, do you honestly believe that you could tell the difference between a 24MP shot and a 33MP shot? A 24MP sensor has a resolution of 6000x4000. A 33MP sensor has a resolution of 7008x4672. If you want to see a difference, you really need to *double* the MP, which will increase the linear resolution by 50%.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0