Canon registered two new ILC bodies

drhuffman87

Eos R, RF24-105 F4L, RF85 F2, EF200 F2.8L II
Nov 5, 2020
34
48
www.drhuffmanphoto.com
Doesn't that somewhat create Apple's iPad problem though? In that a used or refurbished one is a better purchase than a new "low-end" model? At retail, is the EF lens, even at lower prices, compelling compared to the RF lens?

I would imagine most people looking at the value side are considering used EF lenses. If I were looking at retail price, between the RF 100-500 or EF 100-400 II, the RF looks pretty compelling. But if I'm value conscious, why wouldn't I take a used 100-400 for $1400? Or for the 16-35 vs 14-35 question: It's $1099 vs $1699 new, or $600 used.

That "small" delta on the new RF lens means no adapter, smaller system, and perhaps better performance vis a vis the IBIS / IS cooperation. It's also newer and (usually) lighter.

And those conundrums are at full-retail for the RF lenses. Once we start seeing discounts on RF, the deltas will make new EF even less desirable.

Lens ModelEF NewRF NewEF UsedRF Weight Advantage
100-400 / 100-500$2,399$2,799$1,400225 grams / 7.94oz
16-35 / 14-35$1,099$1,699$60075 grams / 2.65oz
24-105$1,099$1,099$67595 grams / 3.35oz
I personally think this is a win-win for canon. Each of these lenses have been upgraded to some extent, and by continuing to support the old and completely viable older glass, new lens purchasers are ensured they will able to keep their top-end glass for 40 years to come.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Botts and sanj

sanj

EOS R5
Jan 22, 2012
3,942
852
I would think that sensible people will look to used EF lenses. More of them on the market now as people migrate to RF. I was using 1.4x/2x TCs with my EF70-200mm/2.8ii but that isn't possible with RF70-200mm so I needed either the EF100-400mm or RF100-500mm. I had pre-ordered the RF100-500mm but cancelled due to the high price. The used EF100-400mm are really holding their value second hand in the Australian market. I waited for a 20% sale for the RF100-500mm instead and have been very happy.

I had no reason to replace my EF24-105mm until there was a 15% off sale on the RF version and then I was planning to travel to New Zealand and get the 10% GST back as well. Unfortunately, we went into lockdown a couple of days before we were flying so that was a bummer. I was planning to use it when doing helicopter flights for aerial shots.

You have left off the 100mm macro which will be another tough choice if I need to replace. I got my EF100mm second hand as I didn't expect to use it much but have used it more than I expected. The RF version is substantially higher in price.

There are more advantages to RF besides weight eg IBIS, focus speed, size (in most cases) etc.
Wise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: David - Sydney

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,069
4,635
I would think that sensible people will look to used EF lenses. More of them on the market now as people migrate to RF.
I had no trouble selling my EF 70-300L and EF 70-200/2.8 II this past week, although both were to DSLR users not R users planning to adapt them.
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
988
829
www.flickr.com
I had no trouble selling my EF 70-300L and EF 70-200/2.8 II this past week, although both were to DSLR users not R users planning to adapt them.
Definitely different size local markets! It took a while for my EF70-200 but I was okay to wait for a higher price and went to a DLSR user. My EF24-105mm (original version) is still on the market but not much is moving with our lockdown after 4 months. 11-Oct is open up day for us.
 

sanj

EOS R5
Jan 22, 2012
3,942
852
I wasn´t asking for a successor of the R because of my "needs". To me it's just obvious that in Canons lineup there would be a huge hole if there'd be no successor of the R and no camera lined up in between the RP and the R6.

In order to entice people to join a system it is not only an entry-level camera what's needed, there have to be more options to spread out later on. At the moment, if you rule out the R, you'd have:

entry-level: RP
semi-pro/ pro level: R6

There are several people who'd rule out buying the R6 (20mp e.g./ price point too high/ "no need for 20fps...) and are looking/ and might be looking for a camera more capable the RP one day. If the R6 is ruled out it leaves you with the R5... way too expensive "to entice" people to join or get hooked...

Take a look at Sonys line-up: there are so many options that if you start out with an entry-level camera you have several paths/ directions to go from there on. Canon is missing that if the R would to be omitted. At the moment, the R sits perfectly between the RP and the R6, but it is from 2018 and some features are clearly outdated and therefore they'd need an update.

In my opinion Canon would need a line-up like this to attract customers:

R10: crop camera
R9: RP replacement - entry level
R8: R replacement - enthusiast allrounder...

R7: crop-pro camera - I hear y'all birders :)
R6: you know the deal

R5/c/s: spealised version and all-around work horse
R3: professional sports/ wedding/ wildlife pros

R1: do it all in perfection camera

This line-up would have several entry-level/ amateur options, semi-pro and pro options. I'm sure Canon will come up with a similar line-up. Entry level might have even more options if there are really three crop-cameras coming.
R1 will not be 'do it all'. No camera ever is. Sir.
 

HMC11

Travel
CR Pro
Sep 5, 2020
63
59
I wasn´t asking for a successor of the R because of my "needs". To me it's just obvious that in Canons lineup there would be a huge hole if there'd be no successor of the R and no camera lined up in between the RP and the R6.

In order to entice people to join a system it is not only an entry-level camera what's needed, there have to be more options to spread out later on. At the moment, if you rule out the R, you'd have:

entry-level: RP
semi-pro/ pro level: R6

There are several people who'd rule out buying the R6 (20mp e.g./ price point too high/ "no need for 20fps...) and are looking/ and might be looking for a camera more capable the RP one day. If the R6 is ruled out it leaves you with the R5... way too expensive "to entice" people to join or get hooked...

Take a look at Sonys line-up: there are so many options that if you start out with an entry-level camera you have several paths/ directions to go from there on. Canon is missing that if the R would to be omitted. At the moment, the R sits perfectly between the RP and the R6, but it is from 2018 and some features are clearly outdated and therefore they'd need an update.

In my opinion Canon would need a line-up like this to attract customers:

R10: crop camera
R9: RP replacement - entry level
R8: R replacement - enthusiast allrounder...

R7: crop-pro camera - I hear y'all birders :)
R6: you know the deal

R5/c/s: spealised version and all-around work horse
R3: professional sports/ wedding/ wildlife pros

R1: do it all in perfection camera

This line-up would have several entry-level/ amateur options, semi-pro and pro options. I'm sure Canon will come up with a similar line-up. Entry level might have even more options if there are really three crop-cameras coming.
Your list sounds most logical unless Canon's market research somehow has a quirk or two to mess it up. Using your list for FF cameras, the pricing could well be:
R9 ($1k), R8 ($1800?), R6 ($2500), R5 ($3900), R3 ($6000), R1 ($8500?). If so, the R8 could be an attractive option for an entry-plus camera.
 
Last edited:

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
444
482
UK
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.
My suggested nomenclature:

Full frame sports & reportage: R1, R3
Full frame wildlife/enthusiast: R5
Full frame affordable: R6, R9

Crop sports/wildlife: R7
Crop novice/affordable: R60, R600

Canon have used single digit designation previously for both FF and crop bodies (7D), so there’s nothing to stop them doing it again. And it would make a lot of sense for a crop sports camera to follow the old “7” designation.
 

kaihp

EOS R
CR Pro
Mar 19, 2012
1,015
168
The Most Ancient Kingdom of Denmark
Your list sounds most logical unless Canon's market research somehow has a quirk or two to mess it up. Using your list for FF cameras, the pricing could well be:
R9 ($1k), R8 ($1800?), R6 ($2500), R5 ($3900), R3 ($600), R1 ($8500?). If so, the R8 could well be an attractive option for an entry-plus camera.
I'll take three R3's at that price :ROFLMAO:
 

reef58

EOS RP
CR Pro
Apr 16, 2016
423
409
North Carolina
youtu.be
Can you say which higher end models omit the intervalometer? The 1D X III has it. Generally, a feature like that is introduced in a particular model then added to all subsequent models.

Like @LogicExtremist’s erroneous example of focus bracketing, which was introduced on the RP and has been included on cameras released since then including the 90D and M6II. They don’t go back and add such features to older cameras, which is why the lower-end RP has focus bracketing but the higher-end R doesn’t. That’s not the same as omitting, though.

I guess checking your facts before you post is too much trouble for some people. Here’s a tip: if you want to argue that low end cameras are ‘crippled’ stick to the AF point-linked spot metering that only 1-series cameras have (as long as you ignore film cameras); if you want to argue that high end cameras are ‘crippled’ stick to the in-camera HDR that no 1-series has (but the R3 will).
I can't find one in my 1dx3, but I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes to tech.
 

AEWest

EOS RP
Jan 30, 2020
386
484
My suggested nomenclature:

Full frame sports & reportage: R1, R3
Full frame wildlife/enthusiast: R5
Full frame affordable: R6, R9

Crop sports/wildlife: R7
Crop novice/affordable: R60, R600

Canon have used single digit designation previously for both FF and crop bodies (7D), so there’s nothing to stop them doing it again. And it would make a lot of sense for a crop sports camera to follow the old “7” designation.
I fail to understand why Canon would need two sports/PJ models to compete against each other.
 

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
444
482
UK
I fail to understand why Canon would need two sports/PJ models to compete against each other.
If you’re referring to the R3 and R1, I’m not sure either, as the specs of the R1 are anyone’s guess. Perhaps the R1 will have higher resolution, even faster burst speeds, even better AF, even more efficient eye-control, better battery performance, global shutter? Who knows?

If you’re referring to the R3 and the “R7”, the difference is the sensor size, which will allow more reach with any given lens, and enable the use of less expensive and lighter lenses of shorter focal length to obtain a given angle of view.
 

BurningPlatform

EOS 90D
Mar 4, 2014
131
80
That's an impossible conversion. If you slow down or speed up your footage, that causes issues, especially with audio, and if you just skip a frame per second, that's not great either.

Not sure what your point is though. If Canon had thought their initial action was optimal, why didn't they stick with it?
Well, the reverse is true every day here in Europe. All 24 fps movies are shown on TV in 25 fps. We are enjoying slightly condensed movies with a bit higher pitch. No problem for the average viewer. However, try to mix 24 fps clips with 25 fps clips in your video timeline and you have problems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBarn

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,736
2,144
Hamburg, Germany
Well, the reverse is true every day here in Europe. All 24 fps movies are shown on TV in 25 fps. We are enjoying slightly condensed movies with a bit higher pitch. No problem for the average viewer. However, try to mix 24 fps clips with 25 fps clips in your video timeline and you have problems.
So, what?

As I said, no point in sugar coating either side. Using 24 p isn't really a good idea for most of the market (neither is 25 in my opinion, as your average media is consumed on a 60 Hz Laptop, PC or Smartphone instead of a variable refresh rate TV or display anyway. Biased opinion obviously, as I don't even own a TV). Nonetheless, a very vocal and presumably large protion of the market values the option of using 24 p very highly. From what we can tell, Canon misjudged this value and initally left of the feature, only to correct their course to better meet their tarket markets requirements.

Values are subjective. I really don't see why it is in any way unreasonable to not support either side in this argument.
 

Ian K

EOS 90D
Jul 20, 2016
102
69
My suggested nomenclature:

Full frame sports & reportage: R1, R3
Full frame wildlife/enthusiast: R5
Full frame affordable: R6, R9

Crop sports/wildlife: R7
Crop novice/affordable: R60, R600

Canon have used single digit designation previously for both FF and crop bodies (7D), so there’s nothing to stop them doing it again. And it would make a lot of sense for a crop sports camera to follow the old “7” designation.
But there has never been a crop camera with a number lower than a full frame camera. Your numbering puts the R9 at FF and R7 at APS-C
 

Ian K

EOS 90D
Jul 20, 2016
102
69
Agree. Canon could have something like RF-C lenses, where the “C” designates Crop., Lenses designated thusly would produce cropped images when mounted on a full-frame R camera, but full-sensor images on APSC R cameras. EF-S lenses cannot mechanically fit on EF mount bodies. RF solves this for cropped lenses.
Pretty sure they’ve already said there will never be an RF-S mount lens system. I expect that goes for -C also. If you want crop just turn it on.