Canon’s Retro Camera is Coming as the EOS R8 Mark II

[David - Sydney]

This again.. Tell me how removing some video features would make the camera cheaper. The sensor still need to have fast readout to support 30FPS (the current R8), dual pixel AF, the EVF, etc. If they separate the R8 line into 2, that just means extra development and R&D cost and sales split between 2 models = higher cost per model. Removing some video codecs won't make the camera cheaper. Making an R8V only makes sense because of different ergonomics and the EVF can be dropped.

There is the example of R5 and R5c where it is clear that additional video features (cinema menus, 8k60 etc) and cooling for longer recording times is specific to video at an extra cost. Even if Canon removed IBIS in the R5c. If Canon released the R5 and R5c at the same time then there would have been no reason for reviewers to find fault.

It is possible that less cooling is required if the higher end video features are not enabled so there could be a cost reduction there.
Example is the additional heatsink etc for cLog on the 5Div which was then embedded with a USD100 price increase if I recall correctly.

The Magic Lantern project showed what the 5Diii video (and stills features) was capable of if the engineers allowed it but there were caveats with over heating being one of those issues.

These are niche use cases as I agree in general that EVFs and video features ago hand-in-hand and any cost differences for codecs and firmware development/maintenance etc would be small at best.

 

[David - Sydney]

Is the RP still in production?

There is certainly still stock in the pipeline and Canon hasn't officially retired it yet.

I would like to think that Canon would continue to sell it as long as it is still profitable.
It hits a unique price point for new full frame bodies and could easily be a stepping stone to higher end bodies once a buyer gets some RF lenses.

Sony still sells the A7iii for ~USD1700 so why not keep 3 generations of Canon bodies.

I still have mine as a backup. Mostly for workshops when I would be using manual focus or as a second body doing timelapse/star trails.

 

[Chig]

I think just another retro camera with crap ergonomics is daft but perhaps Canon will make one with the waist level viewfinder like that prototype but with a giant EVF screen instead of the silly mirror system and R8 internals then it would be cool looking and actually a useful if niche camera ?

 

[Maximilian]

Maybe strange...for many.
But for me, the R8 is the least tempting camera in Canon's FF range.
No IBIS, no dual SD/CF, very low definition EVF and a size requiring a body prosthesis if you have normal sized hands (like the EOS R and RP).
Sure, the sensor is excellent, the size appeals to many (me excluded), the price is very reasonable. As a backup, in case (very improbable!) my EOS R fails, ok!

I can understand you!
And I wouldn't buy it as main body, too.
But you and I have enough money to spend on a R6 or R5 series camera.
Others don't. They can get an "affordable" R8 as a FF entry body.
And - without evident - I believe that most of those users are not into retro or vintage but want modern ergos.

I was thinking about getting an R8 as second and travel body, like @neuroanatomist did.
But I didn't buy it, because the overall travel package was smaller and therefore better for me with an R50 and the Sigma lenses available yet.
If Canon had put the R8 technology in an R50 body, I definitely would have bought it.

 

[Mistral75]

Rather than "either the new R8 variant or the R8 Mark II", DS126947 should be an entry-level camera: its Wi-Fi module is limited to 64-QAM (quadrature amplitude modulation), which corresponds to IEEE 802.11n, also known as Wi-Fi 4.

By contrast:

• ID0179 (EOS C400), ID0174 (EOS C80), DS126904, DS126941 (EOS R50 V), ID0184 (EOS C50), DS126916 (EOS R6 Mark III) and DS126936 have a 256-QAM module, which corresponds to IEEE 802.11ac, also known as Wi-Fi 5.
• DS126922 (EOS R5 Mark II) and DS126928 (EOS R1) have a 1024-QAM module, which corresponds to IEEE 802.11ax, also known as Wi-Fi 6.

 

[koenkooi]

My main wish would be a fast enough readout to use flash+ES.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I was thinking of much more than a passive ‘extension tube’ FD to RF lens adapter.

It would be entirely passive.
You can use any RF or FD extension tube.

 

[JensR]

It would be entirely passive.
You can use any RF or FD extension tube.

i do think Old Man FL/FD does not want a passive adapter. He would like a "translator" between the mechanic control parts of FD lenses and the electronic part of the RF mount, so that aperture could work in auto (manual works with the adapters already available), so the semi-automatic modes, lightmeter-display (over/under) and such would work on RF Bodies like they used to work on FD Bodies from the AE1 upwards (T70, T90, you get the idea), manual focusing with open aperture and the camera will close the aperture to the selected value during shooting...

While it might be technically doable, since Canon does no longer sell any FD lenses there would be no profit in making this adapter for them, the demand for such a thing might be rather low (You can choose from over 100 EF lenses from canon alone for your RF system already).

My prediction would be it is an idea, and it will stay an idea... nothing more.

 

[Uneternal]

The info came from an NDA'd person. I'll text the person, ...

Any updates on that? Is it definitely a Mark II and not something like the firmware-update M50 Mark II?

 

[HeavyPiper]

I would love to have the R8 as my second body. I'm older now and my R5 seems heavy and over kill, to be using as a walking around camera. Hopefully I'll be finding out in the next two weeks if I do as I'm renting one.

 

[Old Man FL/FD]

i do think Old Man FL/FD does not want a passive adapter. He would like a "translator" between the mechanic control parts of FD lenses and the electronic part of the RF mount, so that aperture could work in auto (manual works with the adapters already available), so the semi-automatic modes, lightmeter-display (over/under) and such would work on RF Bodies like they used to work on FD Bodies from the AE1 upwards (T70, T90, you get the idea), manual focusing with open aperture and the camera will close the aperture to the selected value during shooting...

While it might be technically doable, since Canon does no longer sell any FD lenses there would be no profit in making this adapter for them, the demand for such a thing might be rather low (You can choose from over 100 EF lenses from canon alone for your RF system already).

My prediction would be it is an idea, and it will stay an idea... nothing more.

Thanks for the clarification on my concept for a ‘smart’ FD to RF adapter.

I agree, this probably will not make it to market, albeit the R&D would be modest.

However, consider this – if this adapter came to fruition, Canon could have bragging rights by saying: “Every lens we (Canon) have sold since 1959; R, FL, FD, EF and RF can be mounted to a R-series camera with all its native capability intact.”

That would be pretty good marketing.

 

[Uneternal]

However, consider this – if this adapter came to fruition, Canon could have bragging rights by saying: “Every lens we (Canon) have sold since 1959; R, FL, FD, EF and RF can be mounted to a R-series camera with all its native capability intact.”

That would be pretty good marketing.

Not happening.
1) Adapting old lenses is a niche market.
2) Not profitable for Canon even if they sold these adapters for $99. They want to sell cameras and lenses.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

The new article doesn't state that the R8ii will come as a retro camera. Is this information dead now? Or do we simply don't know? Not being a retro camera makes it more interesting.

I always figured Canon will keep the current 24 mp for the R8ii. It gives them a little more differentiation towards the R6iii and R5ii and actually lines up quite nicely from 24mp - 33mp - 45mp. Reusing the same sensor will provide lower costs as well. Furthermore, I don't really see a need for new sensor as it renders beautifully. On a 14inch mbp screen it really is hard to tell the difference to the R5 sensor.

Personally, I'd wish for Canon to keep it at 24mp. Having a combination of 24 and 45mp is awesome. The 24mp files download amazingly fast compared to the 45mp files from the R5. Plus, for school work I usually shot jpeg and shoot hundreds (sometimes over 1000) of frames a day, so the difference in transfer time can really be felt. But, that is just me.

 

[Old Man FL/FD]

Not happening.
1) Adapting old lenses is a niche market.
2) Not profitable for Canon even if they sold these adapters for $99. They want to sell cameras and lenses.

Alas, that’s the scenario.

The many third-party EF to RF adapter manufacturers cannot do this, because unlike an ‘extension tube’ with pass-through electrical contacts, this adapter requires a full knowledge of the R/RF electrical interface specification, which is already a point of contention (AF, FF, etc.) with third party lens manufacturers.

Also, Canon needs the retro camera menu to support this smart adapter.

Let’s see how this retro camera and attendant influencers plays out.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

That's not a protective curtain, that's the real shutter, and it's a lot more delicate than the sensor itself. I disable that functionality on every camera.

Oh my, I feel so foolish :/ sry about that one

 

[JensR]

Oh my, I feel so foolish :/ sry about that one

Don't be, Nikon has that for instance on the Z9, they call it protective shield. The Z9 / Z8 have no mechanical shutter.

 

[roby17269]

There is the example of R5 and R5c where it is clear that additional video features (cinema menus, 8k60 etc) and cooling for longer recording times is specific to video at an extra cost. Even if Canon removed IBIS in the R5c. If Canon released the R5 and R5c at the same time then there would have been no reason for reviewers to find fault.

It is possible that less cooling is required if the higher end video features are not enabled so there could be a cost reduction there.
Example is the additional heatsink etc for cLog on the 5Div which was then embedded with a USD100 price increase if I recall correctly.

The Magic Lantern project showed what the 5Diii video (and stills features) was capable of if the engineers allowed it but there were caveats with over heating being one of those issues.

These are niche use cases as I agree in general that EVFs and video features ago hand-in-hand and any cost differences for codecs and firmware development/maintenance etc would be small at best.

DPReview has posted an article about this:
DPR Article

A couple of considerations:

• R5 and R5C are physically different cameras: the R5 is not a "less video" version of the R5C
• The increased cost of the R5C is mostly due to physical differences (cooling) and the fact that Canon sells less R5C cameras than R5 ones
• If they made a video-less version of a camera with only software changes, it will cost more because it will require dedicated support / fw and will sell in lower numbers. A video-less version of a camera with physical differences (e.g. remove internal cooling) would cost even more since the manufactoring will be different as well
• If you were right, how do you explain monochrome versions of existing cameras costing more? Those are the same as their color-enabled siblings, they just remove the bayer filter and remove some options from the firmware (color simulations)

 

[Any Name]

This again.. Tell me how removing some video features would make the camera cheaper. The sensor still need to have fast readout to support 30FPS (the current R8), dual pixel AF, the EVF, etc. If they separate the R8 line into 2, that just means extra development and R&D cost and sales split between 2 models = higher cost per model. Removing some video codecs won't make the camera cheaper. Making an R8V only makes sense because of different ergonomics and the EVF can be dropped.

And yet, here we are, with the article already adjusted to the (at this moment) suggested/perceived split of the current R8 into an R8V and R8 Mark II. Go figure.
Probably a split by Canon due to wildly different reasons than mine, but we'll see what we end up with eventually.

BTW: 'Photographing' at 30 FPS is just making very short films and hoping that one particular frame has the approximate image you'd want.
Not my kind of picture taking and I'd gladly take a much lower max FPS if that means slower/cheaper onboard buffer RAM, less cooling (as someone else mentioned), etc. etc.

 

[Dragon]

It would be a excellent opportunity to (sort of) split the R8-line into a 'more video oriented' branch (the 'R8 V') and a 'more photograph oriented' branch (the 'R8 Mark II'). Being at the low-end of the full-frame range, it would be a logical point to test the waters for such an approach.

Disclaimer: video is just not my thing, so I'd rather not to pay for all this unused (by me at least) functionality.

Given the current price of lenses, any small increment of cost to add video to the camera body isn't going to change the price of your photography experience by enough to matter. When you want to shoot video for long periods, there is some additional cost (and size) and Canon addresses that with the Cinema line and the V series cameras. The incremental cost of short video shooting capability is almost totally in software that already exists, so it makes perfect sense to include it.

 

[P-visie]

Given the current price of lenses, any small increment of cost to add video to the camera body isn't going to change the price of your photography experience by enough to matter. When you want to shoot video for long periods, there is some additional cost (and size) and Canon addresses that with the Cinema line and the V series cameras. The incremental cost of short video shooting capability is almost totally in software that already exists, so it makes perfect sense to include it.

Moving video to a separate camera model would make a “photo” model more expensive. Separate SKU to plan, sell, put into the supply chain, service, more testing, etc.
See: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/9...-camera-makers-are-going-to-keep-adding-video