Canon EOS R8 specifications

[Maximilian]

Oh Canon, how you manage to separate me from my money...

Question: How long does Canon manage to do so?

WOW, I am amazed at all the comments that argue that lack of IBIS is somehow a FEATURE!

Question: How long is Canon doing some kind of "market separation" with "no-FEATUREs" like that?

I wouldn't call it "FEATURE". I call it R&D decission.
The complaints are always the same, still Nikon and Sony are not gaining market share.
No one is forced to give their money to Canon.
Still Canon seems to do something right, as a lot of people do, see here.
So complaints are only useful if actions substantiate these complaints.
Feel free to buy a Sony A7C or to not spend any money at all.
My money is still in my wallet.

 

[Loswr]

I'm curious, how many folks complaining about the possibility of no IBIS actually have lenses with no IS?

If your lenses have IS, you do understand that IBIS is not necessary...or don't you?

I'm not among those complaining about the lack of IBIS in the R8, if I get one my use will mainly be on a tripod or with IS lenses. Having said that, there are 5-6 RF lenses that don't have IS, ranging from the inexpensive 16/2.8 and 50/1.8 to the very expensive 85/1.2 (±DS, thus the count of 5-6) and 28-70/2. I have the 28-70/2, and I do find the 8-stops of stabilization with IBIS to be very beneficial.

But also, to be clear, you do realize even with lens IS, IBIS helps...or don't you? Especially at shorter focal lengths.

Yes, 5 stops of stabilization with a lens like the 70-200/2.8 or 24-105 (L or non-L) is good, but 8 stops of stabilization with IBIS is better. Also, lens IS can only correct for angular motion (with the exception of the small number of Hybrid IS lenses that also correct translation/XY), whereas IBIS can correct for translation/XY with any lens and is the only form of stabilization that can correct for roll.

 

[mikhail]

True, I didn't know the A7C is even smaller. This part of my argument is flawed. But the main statement still stands: Canon does not to put IBIS in every camera because a lot of lenses have IS.

It is smaller, but it has terrible grip. And RP being larger is still lighter by 24g. The rumoured R8 is even lighter. I would take a slightly more bulkier (dimension wise) camera with nice handle and yet lighter Canon comparing to slimmer heavier Sony with very limited handle.

 

[osakawayne]

i don’t like that it has no IBIS. I have a 5DIV. have shot with Canon for over 20 years. I wanted to go mirrorless with an affordable mirrorless with IBIS. Nikon did it with the Z5. Canon could have put IBIS in the R8 but crippled it.
Unfortunately, I will now end my mirrorless search with Canon.

I will probably rent a Sony who puts IBIS in all FF cameras. i can use my EF lenses with Sony.
Nikon is a third choice but then I would need Nikon glass.

Dude... get a used R6. There is no way renting or switching all your lenses to Nikon would be cheaper.

I think the mess with the naming is because different teams were involved in this process at different stages. First they wanted some letter abbreviations (R, RP). Then they decided to revive 'classic' SLR names: R3, R5, R6 and then R7. And now they realize that they are somewhat stuck with the naming shceme and they need space to maneuver introducing more specialized bodies. So now they would seamingly have R6ff, R7apsc and R8 again ff. Like what makes R7 more advanced camera comparing to R8? Dual card slots and IBIS? I would personaly make Rx - all FF cameras and Rx0 - crop sensor. So, R7 should be better named as R50 (apsc version of R5), R10 -> R60 (apsc version of R6) etc.
But what is done cannot be undone. So better be prepared for even more bizzare namings from Canon to come

R8= ff but no dual card slots, no weather seal, no IBIS, no viewfinder
R7 = aps-c but all those other things

Seems like a fair trade off

 

[yankiefrankie]

The RF 100-500mm has IS, as do the 600mm and 800mm lenses. So it's definitely not only in short focal length lenses...

True, I didn't know the A7C is even smaller. This part of my argument is flawed. But the main statement still stands: Canon does not to put IBIS in every camera because a lot of lenses have IS.

I mention short focal length lenses as they are the ones that really benefit from IBIS. Longer lenses need lens stabilization regardless of IBIS.
I agree with you that Canon feels they don't NEED to put IBIS in every lens because of IS in many lenses. I just think it is not a consumer first strategy. They used to make this argument with DSLRs: Lens IS is better than IBIS. IMHO it was a crappy augment then, and it is even crappier today.

IBIS allows me to use the RF28-70 at ridiculously slow shutter speeds. I can adapt fast EF primes and benefit from IBIS. I use the A7C with the Tamron 20-40 and can shoot easily at 3/4sec (all focal lengths). Personally, I will never purchase another body from ANY manufacture if it lacks IBIS.

 

[mikhail]

R8= ff but no dual card slots, no weather seal, no IBIS, no viewfinder
R7 = aps-c but all those other things

Seems like a fair trade off

I see your point, but all in all, there would still be many complaints about that naming. And if Canon would like to make even more advanced APSC camera (a true decendent of the 7D series)? Or an M6 markii into RF body with all the bells and whistles?
But, let them have their naming department have fun developing new names

 

[HikeBike]

I think the mess with the naming is because different teams were involved in this process at different stages. First they wanted some letter abbreviations (R, RP). Then they decided to revive 'classic' SLR names: R3, R5, R6 and then R7. And now they realize that they are somewhat stuck with the naming shceme and they need space to maneuver introducing more specialized bodies. So now they would seamingly have R6ff, R7apsc and R8 again ff. Like what makes R7 more advanced camera comparing to R8? Dual card slots and IBIS? I would personaly make Rx - all FF cameras and Rx0 - crop sensor. So, R7 should be better named as R50 (apsc version of R5), R10 -> R60 (apsc version of R6) etc.
But what is done cannot be undone. So better be prepared for even more bizzare namings from Canon to come

I like your general idea here, but I wouldn't try to tie the APS-C cameras to a similar full-frame camera. Just make the best "full-size body" APS-C camera the R10 and go from there. Also apply this to the M series replacements, making the best M body equivalent the R100. I think that would be nice and clean - not that it matters now anyway.

 

[yankiefrankie]

Question: How long does Canon manage to do so?

Question: How long is Canon some kind of "market separation" with "no-FEATUREs" like that?

I wouldn't call it "FEATURE". I call it R&D decission.
The complaints are always the same, still Nikon and Sony are not gaining market share.
No one is forced to give their money to Canon.
Still Canon seems to do something right, as a lot of people do, see here.
So complaints are only useful if actions substantiate these complaints.
Feel free to buy a Sony A7C or to not spend any money at all.
My money is still in my wallet.

Agreed Canon is not forcing anyone to do anything. It does not mean that people do not have a right to complain about things they don't agree with. I have given Canon a ridiculous amount of money over the years, so they must be doing something I like.

However, I think Canon's decision to shut down 3rd party lenses is unwise. Yes, they stand to make more money in the short term with 1st party lens sales. But I think in the long term more people (who would otherwise have chosen Canon) are going to look elsewhere when deciding which mirrorless system to start out with. Time will tell if they made the correct call with this.

 

[Maximilian]

However, I think Canon's decision to shut down 3rd party lenses is unwise.

I don't see even a fraction of people complaining about Apple closing its ecosystem to the outside world, when many more would benefit than a few people using the RF mount.
Why so?

OTOH, the Apple ecosystem works so well that even I got sucked into it, although I tried to withstand.

... Time will tell if they made the correct call with this.

Again, it's you and me and all other voting with our wallet.

Disclaimer: that doesn't mean that I agree with Canon decisions.

 

[HikeBike]

However, I think Canon's decision to shut down 3rd party lenses is unwise. Yes, they stand to make more money in the short term with 1st party lens sales. But I think in the long term more people (who would otherwise have chosen Canon) are going to look elsewhere when deciding which mirrorless system to start out with. Time will tell if they made the correct call with this.

I agree. Some arguments have been made that Canon doesn't want customers to have an inferior experience due to the use of low-quality third-party lenses, as it could reflect poorly on the R system. However, this argument makes no sense to me. If someone buys a cheap lens, they should know what they're in for. Give people options.

 

[hobbodanno]

I'm curious, how many folks complaining about the possibility of no IBIS actually have lenses with no IS?

If your lenses have IS, you do understand that IBIS is not necessary...or don't you?

I have the 50 f1.8 and was looking at the 16 f2.8. I like to travel light, and I find that even my R with my RF24-105 f4L is bulkier than I would like. Id like to get a wide angle lens too, and while the 14-35 is something I’m considering, I’d rather have a wide prime due to the generally more compact size. The 16 fits the bill, although I wish it were an L lens with better build quality, optics, and weather sealing. A Canon version of the a7C with the 16 f2.8 or similar L lens would be very attractive to me.

 

[SHAMwow]

I can see that - for me, I've been waiting to replace my 5DIV for ages and will likely replace with an R5 or higher resolution option (if and when obviously). Most of my shooting is while camping, and it's 95% on a tripod. I've wanted a secondary body for a while, as long as it could be as light and cross compatible with the main camera as possible.

What has prevented you from replacing it at this point? We have an R5, R6, and R6 II.

 

[entoman]

I agree. Some arguments have been made that Canon doesn't want customers to have an inferior experience due to the use of low-quality third-party lenses, as it could reflect poorly on the R system. However, this argument makes no sense to me. If someone buys a cheap lens, they should know what they're in for. Give people options.

Yeah, of course almost all of us would like to have the option of Sigma and Tamron AF glass in RF mount, as it would enable people to buy high specification lenses at more affordable prices, and would give us access to some unusual or specialised lenses that aren't in Canon's stable. But complaining about it won't work - Canon have clearly done their sums and decided that they believe it's not in their interests to make life easy for third parties. We may or may not agree with their logic, or their decision, but flogging a dead horse get's us nowhere.

 

[HikeBike]

Yeah, of course almost all of us would like to have the option of Sigma and Tamron AF glass in RF mount, as it would enable people to buy high specification lenses at more affordable prices, and would give us access to some unusual or specialised lenses that aren't in Canon's stable. But complaining about it won't work - Canon have clearly done their sums and decided that they believe it's not in their interests to make life easy for third parties. We may or may not agree with their logic, or their decision, but flogging a dead horse get's us nowhere.

Agreed. Worst-case, we can always use their EF glass.

 

[entoman]

Some aspects of the list seem very precise e.g. the weight is given as *exactly* 461g and the price as exactly $1499. This precision could of course be a hoax intended to make it appear more authentic, so let's delve into some of the details:

New form factor, but no mention of an EVF sounds suspiciously like a camera aimed primarily at vloggers, and the lack of IBIS could point to the camera having very efficient digital stabilisation?

The fact that a precise weight is given, makes it rather odd that there is no precision or even a mention of the battery type,

The inclusion on the list of "variance monitor" appears to indicate a new style of flippy screen, which has been rumoured previously, but then why repeat it later in the list as "new vari-angle monitor"?

Subject detection is already in R3, R5, R5C, R6, R6ii, R7 and R10, making it a foregone conclusion that it will be in all future models, so why even mention it in the list?

All of this makes me think that this is nothing more than a wish-list disguised as a leak.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Some aspects of the list seem very precise e.g. the weight is given as *exactly* 461g and the price as exactly $1499. This precision could of course be a hoax intended to make it appear more authentic, so let's delve into some of the details:

New form factor, but no mention of an EVF sounds suspiciously like a camera aimed primarily at vloggers, and the lack of IBIS could point to the camera having very efficient digital stabilisation?

The inclusion on the list of "variance monitor" appears to indicate a new style of flippy screen, which has been rumoured previously, but then why repeat it later in the list as "new vari-angle monitor"?

Subject detection is already in R3, R5, R5C, R6, R6ii, R7 and R10, making it a foregone conclusion that it will be in all future models, so why even mention it in the list?

All of this makes me think that this is nothing more than a wish-list disguised as a leak.

"variance monitor" could just mean vari-angle screen in a bad machine translation. Just like on every other Canon camera.

 

[koenkooi]

I agree. Some arguments have been made that Canon doesn't want customers to have an inferior experience due to the use of low-quality third-party lenses, as it could reflect poorly on the R system. However, this argument makes no sense to me. If someone buys a cheap lens, they should know what they're in for. Give people options.

I came across a video someone made of their mom reacting to a large print she received from the printing service. Instead of the actual picture, she had sent a screenshot of the photo app, including the carousel of thumbnails at the bottom. Her reaction wasn’t “Drat, I sent the wrong thing”, but it was “THEY RUINED IT”. And worse, half of the comments were “The printer operater should have guessed the intent and fixed it!!’”

So I can understand that Canon doesn’t want to get blamed for issues with 3rd party lenses. Even 3rd party companies like Iris blame the non-working state of their lenses on Canon.

But I very much wish that certain Sigma and Laowa lenses would be available for RF, with proper electronics and lens-provided correction info.

 

[entoman]

"variance monitor" could just mean vari-angle screen in a bad machine translation. Just like on every other Canon camera.

But if so, why would a genuine spec list include the same item twice?

"variance monitor"
"new vari-angle screen"

One possibility is that "variance monitor" might mean that there are different menu systems and "Q" screens for stills and video.

 

[mpb001]

Maybe Ill just go backed to a Canon cropped sensor like R10. I do not like how Canon cripples the mirrorless bodies. The only one I really like is the R5 but out of my price range. Don’t want a video centric body like R6 or R6 II. i have a 5DIV. 30MP from 7 years ago and Canon cannot move beyond a 24mp sensor in lower bodies when others do. Its just too bad plus their pricing is higher than the other two highest brands.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

I would say the most important advantage of mirrorless is the advancement in autofocus.

Unless you shoot sports or other fast moving subjects, the autofocus was already pretty great 15 years ago. It annoys me very much that a feature I do not really need is the reason for ALL Canon cameras to switch to mirrorless. Video is another one of those features. Videos are more a TikTok thing for me but for that I would rather buy an Insta360. I know that Canon will not make a camera especially for me, but I wish they would at least make a camera for the people who do not need video, autofocus and all that stuff and would rather have a new DSLR, but with the sensor of the R3. I know that Canon does market research, but I wonder if the number of DSLR lovers is really that small. My theory is that Canon will not build a new DSLR just because they know that DSLR fans will then have to buy a mirrorless camera anyway.