Canon aiming for a $799 full-frame camera? [CR2]

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
915
767
www.flickr.com
I love the R5, but on a test run last week I realized that it has some real downsides for shooting sports, most notably the small buffer, which means losing access to the camera during critical plays while the buffer clears.
Small buffer?
Test with and without the SD card. Make sure that SD card is USH-ii and fast ie >250MB/s measured sequential write speed
https://www.cameramemoryspeed.com/reviews/sd-cards/
Have you tried shooting cRAW instead? The buffer holds 260 shots and will clear in half the time.
If you are not shooting high contrast scenes then HEIF is another option if buffer clearance time is critical.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,566
3,892
Maybe because you reply to and reference my posts about why I would find an R7 useful with comments about why it might not make business sense to Canon? They imply that my comments here are an argument for Canon to make an R7 when I'm not arguing any such thing. I'm only arguing why the suggested alternatives do not work and why desiring an R7 is a legitimate position for my use case.
So you are expressing a desire that you don’t want to be satisfied? Then why express it at all…merely to occupy your time?

If you don’t want Canon to make a high-end APS-C MILC, why express your rationale for your use case? If you do want Canon to make one, then the business case against it is a logical and reasonable response.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,821
2,180
So you are expressing a desire that you don’t want to be satisfied? Then why express it at all…merely to occupy your time?

If you don’t want Canon to make a high-end APS-C MILC, why express your rationale for your use case? If you do want Canon to make one, then the business case against it is a logical and reasonable response.
There's a qualitative difference between saying one doesn't expect a desire to be satisfied and saying one doesn't want a desire to be satisfied.

There's also a difference between pointing out use cases that would benefit from a potential product to those here who see no one who could possibly have a need for such a product and saying such a product makes sense for a manufacturer to pursue.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,566
3,892
There's a qualitative difference between saying one doesn't expect a desire to be satisfied and saying one doesn't want a desire to be satisfied.

There's also a difference between pointing out use cases that would benefit from a potential product to those here who see no one who could possibly have a need for such a product and saying such a product makes sense for a manufacturer to pursue.
The distinction is functionally irrelevant in this case. It’s obvious you and others have a valid use case. In fact, there are as many valid use cases for various potential products as there are photographers. None of them matter to Canon, individually. Repeating yours across many posts in many threads is your prerogative, but exercising that prerogative is futile.
 

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,804
1,722
Small buffer?
Test with and without the SD card. Make sure that SD card is USH-ii and fast ie >250MB/s measured sequential write speed
https://www.cameramemoryspeed.com/reviews/sd-cards/
Have you tried shooting cRAW instead? The buffer holds 260 shots and will clear in half the time.
If you are not shooting high contrast scenes then HEIF is another option if buffer clearance time is critical.
HEIF requires HDR mode, which disables things like fast EVF refresh and IIRC it also prevents flicker reduction from working. And it locks out electronic shutter mode, which is what I'm using most of the time during dragonfly season.

I would love to enable RAW+HEIF, but the limitations Canon enforces for it make it a bad fit for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

adrian_bacon

EOS M6 Mark II
Aug 12, 2020
86
84
Small buffer?
Test with and without the SD card. Make sure that SD card is USH-ii and fast ie >250MB/s measured sequential write speed
https://www.cameramemoryspeed.com/reviews/sd-cards/
Have you tried shooting cRAW instead? The buffer holds 260 shots and will clear in half the time.
If you are not shooting high contrast scenes then HEIF is another option if buffer clearance time is critical.
This is why a lot of pro sports shooters shoot jpeg. Sure, it's nice to shoot raw, but in reality, even at 12 frames a second, after a game, that's a lot of images and data to go through, especially if you need to get images off to publications ASAP.

All that being said, if you really wanna shoot raw, make sure you're using the biggest fastest cards you can get because your data sizes are going to be at least 2-3 larger than if shooting jpeg, especially the SD card. This is just reality.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,821
2,180
if you look at canon's lineup today, a consumer has a range of kit options from $5-600 to $5000 with multiple stops in between. The rebel lineup must account for some significant portion of Canon's revenue stream, but an $800 body with a $150+ lens or a $100 ef adapter plus an EF lens just isn't going to cut it. The M range is not a good substitite for me nor are any of the fixed lens alternatives.

There, I fixed it for you. As the best selling mirrorless system on the planet, the EOS M system is obviously considered good enough for many people's purposes.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,821
2,180
Fascinating thread from my perspective. I have two major needs: bird photography and I write and take pics for an online music/festival magazine. After selling my Nikon F's thirty years ago, I only got back into photography when I retired 8 years ago. Although I could afford a lot more, my camera/lens combos have been....shall I say....thrifty. Birding: 7DII and usually a Sigma 150-600 lens, which has worked very well for me. Concerts: even more thrifty, I've shot most concert pics with an M50 with adapted 24-74 2.8, a 70-200 f4 and the occasional slow wide angle M series zoom and the the 18-150, which works great for daytime use but useless at nightime concerts, etc. So now I am considering continuing my thriftiness. My major need right now is a 70-200 2.8 for concert photos, so instead of loading a giant lens on my M50, I'm thinking about an RP with the RF 70-200 2.8. It's small, fast, and exactly what I need for concert photography. I've managed do quite well with the relatively inexpensive gear I've been using, and for my uses, I don't think I'd be willing to get anything larger than the RP (I'll still be using my M50 with 24-70 2.8; I usually carry both cameras at night). I realize the RP has an older sensor, but as I said, I've done just fine with a much older 7Dii sensor. Wonder if anyone has any insight into my plan? I actually am renting an RP/70-200 2.8 next week to try out before I purchase one for three festivals I'm covering in September. Any comments would be helpful.

I've gotten into the habit of shooting night/indoor shows with a 24-70/2.8 and a 135/2, each with it's own FF body, particularly if I know I'll have more freedom to roam that the typical 2-3 songs and done from the pit that a media pass will get you. Sometimes even a 35/2 or 50/1.4 and the 135/2. A lot depends on how much confidence I have in the lighting contractor. If I have shot shows produced by them before and they're usually lit bright enough (and with more or less full spectrum lights) sometimes I'll use a 70-200/2.8, maybe even with my 7D Mark II. But lately I've tended to stay with FF bodies unless it's a daylight show. (As an aside, I've not seen a decently lit small to medium size show when the lighting contractor is based out of Nashville in forever. That market seems to be so oversaturated with new folks willing to slash prices that the best techs have moved to other regions and markets.)

This show was shot in a large hotel ballroom/convention hall but lit by a top-notch local company in the Muscle Shoals, AL area. It was a small enough show (2,000-2,500 seated at banquet tables) that I had total freedom of movement, including back areas, thanks to my working relationships with a couple of the performers. I used a 5D Mark IV (Same sensor as the EOS R) and an EF 135mm f/2L (1990s design with no IS) plus a 5D Mark III with an original EF 24-70mm f/2.8L (2002 design with no IS). There was enough light to use a 70-200/2.8 with the 7D Mark II but when I can get away with the 135/2 I like the look of the images so much better that I left the 7DII + 70-200mm in my car's trunk.

Had I taken this shot with the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II at 135mm the background and foreground would be more than a bit 'harsher' or 'busier' than the result I got with the EF 135mm f/2L at f/2.5. Even at f/2.8, the 135/2 is considerably smoother with details in out-of-focus backgrounds than the 70-200/2.8 IS II zoom. The 135mm totally melted the fan's smartphone in the lower part of the frame to the right of center.

2107261004MC548618LR.JPG

Howell Sledge sings with his father Percy's handkerchief in his breast pocket.


2107261016MC530017LR.JPG

Muscle Shoals studio veteran Noble Thurman and Rock & Roll Hall of Fame Member Dewey "Spooner" Oldham still rocking "Mustang Sally" 55 years after Spooner played the piano at Wilson Pickett's session not far across the river from the venue.

2107261027MC539997LR.JPG

This frame of "everyone" during one of the closers was an over-the-head "blind" shot at 24mm from behind the many guests who were dancing in front of the stage. The tilt screens on the Canon R-series bodies would certainly come in handy for shots like this if you haven't developed enough muscle memory to pull it off shooting blind.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

Ruined

EOS R
Aug 22, 2013
930
59
Knowing Canon this will be ridiculously crippled in some way, like being 10MP or the shutter button being the only physical button on the camera