Canon EOS R5 Mark II will ship in June or July
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
I suspect that Canon will play the "we have a trailer load of gear for you named (specific) pros at this year's olympics...oh and we have 10 copies of the new R1...come and play...book it out for a session" approach.
As to weather you as a consumer need or want an R1, there is always a disparity between desire and needs. For many the R6ii is already all they could ever want or need in a camera. the R5ii will probably trump that to some degree. However the R1 is a very niche machine and it's not intended as a general fits all camera. Sure, it's the flagship and will have new tech that will filter down. But it's not intended for mass consumption. I don't think Canon will make that many and it'll be priced accordingly.
Upvote
0
I got into Canon in '95 and I think from the introduction of EF they were leading from the front. They ALWAYS had a bit more zoom range or an extra 1/3 stop or whatever compared to the Nikon. I feel like the QL17's were the best camera of that era if you take price into account, too. I frankly don't know the pre-EF SLR market at all.
Upvote
0
I shot the EOS-1N, 1V, 1Ds Mk I II III. I had the EOS-3 as a second body and liked the eye-selected focus sensor which worked quite well for me. I never understood why others were always excited about the smaller cameras.
Well, the R5 is enough camera for me now. I don't need the stronger exterior or faster speed of the R3, and since I shoot some cityscape as a hobby I don't want to sacrifice MP. I'm much more interested in an R5 MkII than an R1 or R3.
That said, if the R1 has the sensor they patented 4-5 years ago, that allows global shutter, double-dynamic-range, and electronic ND, I'd really have to consider it...
Upvote
0
unforseen delay? you're really taking what rumor sites report quite factual. The simple answer is, some people just have no clue what they are talking about and want clicks on their websites.
Upvote
0
In the last few years, Canon made the camera I always wanted, and the lenses I always wanted.
For me, the R5 is a perfect body (and a much better one than I deserve). If there are small iterations that incrementally make it a little better, great. I can either get the R5 II or another R5, either is good with me!
The 24-105/2.8 is out of this world good, as is the the 70-200/2.8. And of course, the 28-70 and 100-500. It's just such a great system, with my only nostalgia being that I really miss the days of batteries lasting forever on EF!
Upvote
0
Yes, wants and needs are different things. I have shot 1 Series cameras since the 1D3. Currently I have a R5 and R3. Both great cameras, but also have some shortcomings I'd hope will be resolved in the next round. So, I want to compare cameras to see how much more the R1 will bring to the table. Do I 'need' it? Probably not. Doesn't matter. This is my only hobby and I intend to enjoy it to it's fullest. I would like to standardize on one battery system. I love my R3, but for wildlife 24mpx doesn't always cut it. My R5 is great, but it's not stacked and I get rolling shutter sometimes. If the R1 has Quad Pixel AF or something spectacular I will for sure go to that.
Upvote
0
For sure. Maybe six months on a charge? And I didn't even turn it off except when I was putting it in luggage. It was just always on. Now I swear I have to charge it even after two weeks of being OFF! To be fair I had the 8-AA grip on the EOS-1N and V.
Upvote
0
Same for me, in particular I strongly prefer the ergonomics of the 1-series and R3. 24 MP has been fine for my needs, mostly because I have long enough lenses. Very curious to see what the R1 brings, if there's an AF innovation I'd prefer it to be the ability to AF from extreme defocus over the ability to AF on a horizontal line (both would be better, of course). I'll probably buy the R1 regardless, but if the improvements over the R3 turn out to be marginal or in areas that don't matter as much to me (e.g., video), I may reconsider.
Upvote
0
All very good points. I used the R3 extensively for wildlife this past summer and the only issue I had was hitting the buffer at 30 fps a few times, but that was it. I will definitely trade in my R3 towards a R1, but once I have the R1 I don't see another camera purchase until R1 Mk 3 in eight years or so.
Upvote
0
I really don't understand your sentiment with this statement. Canon doesn't react to market fads or whims. What it does is an excruciating R&D programme that looks into the market very carefully and develops truely well thought out tools that take time to develop. The EF mount was a slow delivery to the Autofocus market, the EOS 650 was a first attempt, a bit like the EOS R was to mirrorles. A lot of the EOS 650 was so right and showed that AF motors in each lens was the way forwards. They measured twice and cut once....unlike the competition who took 2-3 attempts to get the tech right and suprise, suprise came around to a similar conclusion to Canon's (then) already trodden road map.
Canon did this also with image Stabilisation.
When The D30 was lauched, the god father to all Canon DSLR's that came before...Canon developed the CMOS sensor. The competition went CCD and Canon were alone in their opinion. The CMOS sensor won out in the market and eventually all of the competition went CMOS too. Canon again were right, but slow to launch They measured twice and cut once again. By now Canon had dominace in the market and many brands were dying.
Canon's ef 24-70mm f2.8 L is another fine example of Canon's approach to lens developement. Canon were the first to put a 28-70mm f2.8 (1993) to the market, and then they trumped this with the 24-70mm f2.8 (2002). Effectively changing all of our shooting lives. That lens stayed fresh and current while the competion built ttheir copies and versions. Sigma pushed out 3-4 variants, each with issues and deficiencies. Canon made just the one model until their sensor resolution increased to a point where many lenses needed a mk II to keep pace with the higher resolving cameras. In 2012, the ef 24-70mm f2.8 L mk II was launched and is still current. As a lens, it still stands toe to toe optically with the newer RF version which is a decade later. It is still the 24-70mm f2.8 gold standard.
There is a smilar story with Canon's 70-200/2.8 linage. Even Nikon have had twice as many variants and I think Sigma are in their 12th iteration.
Canon are not a perfect company and sometimes they launch flawed optics (..the EF 50mm f1.2 L springs to mind), however they rearly make a mistake and they take their time to get it right first time.
I passed ont he EOS R, it felt too much like a beta. It was too immature as a product. But Canon got a lot right in that camera and what came next was the EOS R5 and R6 and they are probably the most versatile and well thought out cameras that's ever been launched.
I also have been with Canon since my AV-1 days. Sure, I have a Canon bias. That's because I appreciate their methodical and intelligence led developement.
Upvote
0
Suddenly skipping the R5 seems like a good thing - now I only have to forget about that 300mm f/2.8 SONY made and Canon decided to skip. (100-300mm f/2.8 does not suit my shooting style and any 10K lens needs to be used a lot to make sense). 
Upvote
0
Is it the ergonomics? Weight, size, balance? Do you think the IQ is significantly lower than on Sony's prime?(100-300mm f/2.8 does not suit my shooting style...)
Upvote
0
Similar threads
