Canon registered two new ILC bodies

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
1,316
1,442
You really won't miss it if it is not there. I don't. Its just as fast and easy to use the rear screen, and even the EVF can display all the settings you normally change via the top LCD. The bonus there is that you don't even have to look away from your subject to change them.

Brian
Different photographers, different needs or preferences.
The lack of a top-LCD is one of the reasons why I wouldn't even consider buying an R6. I use my top LCD very often, for a quick glance, camera hanging down on a neck-strap.
On the other hand, even the total absence of video features wouldn't disturb me at all...
 
Last edited:

bbasiaga

Canon Shooter
Nov 15, 2011
461
537
USA
I really really miss it on my R6.
Certainly everyone can have their own preference.

With a dial for shutter, aperture, and ISO, the back buttons configured to change autofoucs modes, and the m.fn button that can bring up drive, white balance, and several other settings on the rear screen or in the EVF, I just don't feel like I have to hunt for anything that was on the top screen of the 5DIII or 5D I used before the R6. I don't miss it. But just because it works for me, doesn't mean anyone else has to like it.



-Brian
 
  • Like
Reactions: Del Paso

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,055
4,618
Does the 1dx3 have both kinds of
intervalometer? One where you get a bunch of images and one where you get only a movie?
It could very well be that I mixed up introduction dates and the lower end model was introduced after the 5 series I was looking at.
My turn for a mea culpa. I read a review that indicated the 1D X III has an intervalometer, but searching the cameras instruction manual that does not seem to be the case. Apologies, you nailed a good example of nerfing the higher end model.
 

Mikehit

EOS R6
Jul 28, 2015
3,350
552
That;s just as bad! It's that kind of bad faith towards its customers that gets people to jump platforms for a different set of compromises and problems.

Canon has an interesting marketing strategy, they offer great value for money on entry-level budget cameras such as the M50, and Rebel series. Quite a few people remain happy with that gear and stick with it, case closed. Some photographers grow in proficiency (or don't and get addicted to collecting gear), get hooked by the Canon brand, and decide to upgrade. It's then that the cracks begin to appear in Canon's veneer of benevolence...

It appears that Canon's strategy is to design intentionally incomplete camera systems below the highest tier, to remove really convenient features that the hardware in the camera can do, reducing the versatility of the tool for the purposes of market segmentation.

When certain functions are missing that they need, buyers are forced to upgrade to the next tier. Sometimes Canon's actions are miserly, restricting features that other brands offer across their range only to higher tiers. Other times its just downright malicious, removing certain video modes, such as 24fps from vlogging cameras, or the overall number of video modes and custom memory recall modes from EOS R to R6. For the life of me, I can't imagine why they would do something like omit the metal lens mount from the old 55-250mm STM, how much more would it have cost to put a metal one on like every other lens? How about a sh*tty rubber gasket under the lens mount of non L-series lenses. Yes, I know that a few cents saved here and there, and over millions of products that increases profits, but that's exactly what I meant by mean-spirited bad faith towards their customer base.
To put this into perspective, most cameras these days can take decent images, especially when coupled with a decent lens, and cameras above $1,000 are probably sufficient for most people's needs. If you're happy with a tool for a certain task, and it works, and stick with it, and don't upgrade until you need more. Why reward bad corporate behaviour?

If you have specialist needs, or are into collecting camera gear, then it becomes a game of diminishing returns, the more you pay, the less you get for the extra money. That's a typical marketing strategy to create exclusivity, products that few have are highly desirable products, and they can be priced accordingly to create this impression, beyond the actual increased cost of parts within the product.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the phrase 'bad faith'. How is it 'bad faith' when the specs are clearly stated when the product is announced and released?
Canon did, once, many years ago produce two cameras that had near-identical funtionality and some functions were 'turned off' in the cheaper model. Then someone found a hack to access them. The flack they got was severe and I don't believe they have ever done this again - so AFAIK if the functionality is not in listed it is not programmed in (or built in) at any level. Unless, of course you can prove differently.
But please tell me which manufacturer does not differentiate models on functionality? In any technological field?

When certain functions are missing that they need, buyers are forced to upgrade to the next tier.

Have you ever tried to upgrade a photocopier from 6pages per minute to 15 pages per minute, only to find you are forced to pay an additional $1,000 because you have to buy a whole load of other functions you don't need to go with it? Or a car that goes faster? Or a new washing machine with programmes you don't need? Or are you just whining because you want an improvement in one function without paying for a load of others to keep cost down?
Why is that 'bad corporate behaviour'? It makes marketing sense. Look at it this way: you buy the RP - you want better video and because Canon has this technology in the bag, you want them to make an RP with better video and you don't need blitzing AF. But someone else wants an RP with 30 pfs. And someone else wants and RP with focus stacking. And before long Canon have 10 different variants of every model with prices escalating: now that would be stupid. Canon lose money and go bust - followed by every other manufacturer when each one becomes less sustainable all to satisfy your own individual need.
 

Tremotino

EOS 90D
Jan 23, 2018
130
84
Munich
Waiting here for the high MP camera, the R5c ans the R apsc. Not so much interested in RP exept it is a mini FF camera like the sigma pocket FFf camera
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,470
2,336
But doesn’t the rebel range only cover the 100 series? Don’t you still have a 70D in the USA. So it’s not APS-C that has a different name, just that one segment.
Your point is good, Rebel doesn't cover the two digit numbers.

However it does cover the four digit numbers as well as the 3 digit numbers. Generally a non -i or -s model (e.g. T3 = 1100D) is a four digit model, and something like the T6i (750D) or T6s (760D) is a three digit model.
 

RayValdez360

Soon to be the greatest.
Jun 6, 2012
746
510
39
Philadelphia
I'd say that the R6 is no sleeper when it comes to video. For many people it has the upper hand over the R5, as not a lot of people need 45 megapixels, 20 is perfect for me. Now back to video, the R6 shoots oversampled 5.5K video up to 60 frames per second in 4K, with 10 bit color and the Canon Cinema Gamut if you're using CLOG-3, which is just so awesome, as it can match with higher end canon cinema cameras. (Yes, I'm aware the R5 can do it too, but for much more money!) It's quite underrated for video. While yes, there are better cameras out there, and if you want 8K, go ahead and get the R5, but I really think people should reconsider the R6, it's a fantastic value, a great all-around camera!
i am not doubting what it can do, but the reduced convenience features for no reason doesn't make sense. It's like a dude is at Canon saying "let's take this out just to piss people off"
 

RayValdez360

Soon to be the greatest.
Jun 6, 2012
746
510
39
Philadelphia
How is it bad faith to sell a camera for less money that is less capable? How would the world be a better place if the R6 didn't exist at all?
Because a lesser cameras will have something the middle camera doesnt. These are weird omissions. It's like when the RP didnt have 24p in the beginning and people had to wait for an update after complaints. Even the 5d Mark II had 24p. 24P is the standard for film making. It's like making a video game system that doesnt support 1080p.
 

Talys

Canon R5
CR Pro
Feb 16, 2017
2,109
407
Vancouver, BC
Because a lesser cameras will have something the middle camera doesnt. These are weird omissions. It's like when the RP didnt have 24p in the beginning and people had to wait for an update after complaints. Even the 5d Mark II had 24p. 24P is the standard for film making. It's like making a video game system that doesnt support 1080p.
Well, I think the analogy you're actually trying to make is that it would be weird if you had 3 video game consoles from the same vendor, and the video support was:

Gold: 4k 2k 1080p
Silver: 4k, 1080p
Bronze 2k 1080p

Making it so that if you wanted 2k, you'd have to buy either Bronze or Gold.

Now, I agree that would be a strange omission, and that I sure, Canon has some odd feature mixes whereby a low end model has a feature a mid-range one is missing. However, I don't see how that would possibly be "bad faith" - bad faith requires some intent to deceive.
 

RayValdez360

Soon to be the greatest.
Jun 6, 2012
746
510
39
Philadelphia
Well, I think the analogy you're actually trying to make is that it would be weird if you had 3 video game consoles from the same vendor, and the video support was:

Gold: 4k 2k 1080p
Silver: 4k, 1080p
Bronze 2k 1080p

Making it so that if you wanted 2k, you'd have to buy either Bronze or Gold.

Now, I agree that would be a strange omission, and that I sure, Canon has some odd feature mixes whereby a low end model has a feature a mid-range one is missing. However, I don't see how that would possibly be "bad faith" - bad faith requires some intent to deceive.
2K isnt as widely used. It would be more like the bronze has 1080 the silver has the 2K. so in a way it is better but not a standard res for tv. SO every video you do in hd either has black bars or you have to crop in so it makes it inconvenient. Also if you crop every video for 1080 you would have to keep the framing in mind during filming that there will be a crop. There was the dilemma with the c200 it had raw but no 10bit. so you get something better but also some that was extremely data hungry and needed very expensive cards. That is Canon (il)logic. The intent may be to buy a collection of cameras instead of one liek cameras arent already expensive enough.
 

Ian K

EOS 90D
Jul 20, 2016
102
69
Yup.

With the RP they added another letter. Maybe the R-mount APSC camera will be called RC?
Unlikely given there would likely be more than one of them. I did suggest that the crops could be Rc7 etc so they could have an Rc7 at the top end, Rc10, Rc100 if they wanted too. Then the R10 would be the logical successor to the R and the R100 for the RP.

As I say if the have the R7 as a crop there are no numbers between the R6 and R7 for the R and RP models, unless they are going to mix the two sensor sizes across the numbering.
 

Traveler

EOS R6
Oct 6, 2019
119
153
Certainly everyone can have their own preference.
I’m a travel photographer. I wear my R6 on a holster at my hip to have it always ready. However I prefer having the main LCD closed to prevent from scratches etc. It also makes it faster to set the LCD (when needed) from closed position than from the normal position. And when I use the main LCD then I prefer it clean without anything blocking my composition. With the R, I could check or change the settings on the top LCD even before I put it up to my eyes. It may sound strange but these milliseconds often make a difference between the shot being taken or not.
I have to say that the R6 let’s me take more photos in general because it’s way faster and the AF is another level. However the top LCD would make it much much better. As I said, I really miss it and I always will. However I’m not willing to drop that much for the R5 just because of the LCD.
Another thing is that I could have set one of the buttons to toggle between the C modes which was also way faster than checking the mode dial.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Del Paso

Botts

EOS RP
Sep 24, 2012
216
4
It will have a different model name, but Canon can't afford to abandon the lower end FF mirrorless market.

I don't know about elsewhere in the world, but in Japan last month (BCN) the RP was Canon's best selling RF camera.
That surprises me. I'm going to move to RF, and tried an R, R6, and RP this week. I didn't see a happy me after going from 6D2 and 80D to an RP. The RP almost seemed like the first 6D. It existed for the purpose of making FF affordable, but is too slow for it's own good, and just didn't feel "complete".

Canon mostly fixed this with the 6D2. Going from a 7D or 7D2 to a 6D felt like a big step down, but a 7D or 7D2 to 6D2 felt like a good upgrade.

For the price difference, the R seemed like a far better purchase than the RP. I am heavily leaning towards buying the R's replacement when it's released.
In my opinion Canon would need a line-up like this to attract customers:

R10: crop camera
R7: crop-pro camera - I hear y'all birders :)
If we see cropped RF cameras, market wise it'd require "RF-S" lenses wouldn't it? I mean, the birders will happily shoot RF long lenses, but the general market is going to want an 17-55ish lens and cheaper glass right?
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
988
829
www.flickr.com
If we see cropped RF cameras, market wise it'd require "RF-S" lenses wouldn't it? I mean, the birders will happily shoot RF long lenses, but the general market is going to want an 17-55ish lens and cheaper glass right?
All depends if the crop sensor R body will be at the high end or low end of the market.

The existing EF-s wide angle lenses can be adapted successfully eg 10-22mm to the R mount and would make sense for a high end model as they are not as likely to use it for wide angle shooting.

If you mean native glass then that is a big question. The RF18-45mm lens should be a low cost/size etc lens but that only goes down to 30mm full frame equivalent.
If a low end crop sensor R body, then yes, RF-s lenses would be needed to fill out that market which would potentially remove the xxxxD/xxxD/xxD products over the long term. It means supporting a 5th mount though.

I would suggest that Canon updating/creating RF-s glass is likely to be expensive and not a good use of R&D resources as it duplicates existing glass which is of good quality. Even modification like changing the mount, adding RF connections for IBIS etc would mean diverting resources.

Of course Canon won't publicly say to use adapted EF-s on any crop sensor R mount!
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,403
4,032
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
...I don't know about elsewhere in the world, but in Japan last month (BCN) the RP was Canon's best selling RF camera.

That surprises me. I'm going to move to RF, and tried an R, R6, and RP this week. I didn't see a happy me after going from 6D2 and 80D to an RP...
For most buyers, spending $1,000 on a camera ($1,300 with a lens) represents the most they have ever spent or ever will spend on a camera. My guess is they aren't choosing between R models, but between an M and the RP and have decided to splurge on the RP.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,403
4,032
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
...If a low end crop sensor R body, then yes, RF-s lenses would be needed to fill out that market which would potentially remove the xxxxD/xxxD/xxD products over the long term. It means supporting a 5th mount though....
Not picking on you David, and I know I sound like a broken record, but people really have to get out of the EF mindset. Any lens designed for a crop sensor R body will mount seamlessly on any full frame R body. No additional mount or adapter needed. The camera will just crop the image when you mount the lens on your full frame body.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Botts and mdcmdcmdc

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
988
829
www.flickr.com
Not picking on you David, and I know I sound like a broken record, but people really have to get out of the EF mindset. Any lens designed for a crop sensor R body will mount seamlessly on any full frame R body. No additional mount or adapter needed. The camera will just crop the image when you mount the lens on your full frame body.
Of course. I don't think that I suggested otherwise. The question is whether there will be RF-s native lenses when (if?) a crop sensor R body comes along.
I think that if a high end 7D replacement arrives then no RF-s lenses will be introduced with it to provide wide angle coverage as adapated EF-s will fulfil that requirement today. The forecasted RF18-45mm will automatically crop to 30-72mm equivalent and the RF16mm prime converts to ~25mm equivalent so not very wide.
Different story if Canon decides to replace xxxxD/xxxD/xxD models with a crop sensor R mount over the long term.

In terms of mindset - especially for reviewers online - they seem to be only concerned with lens coverage with native lenses. This is clearly not the case and there are many great reasons to continue to buy new EF lenses and adapt them to R bodies. RF lenses (in general) are great but expensive. EF provide a middle ground and round out the speciality uses.
The use of the ND/CPL adapter plus TS-e lenses, EF 11-24mm and EF8-15mm is a great example of improved features compared to EF lenses on EF mount.

If my EF16-35mm/4 dies then it will be a tough decision whether to replace it with another EF16-35mm or pay more for the RF14-35mm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Botts