Canon registered two new ILC bodies

[koenkooi]

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

My expectation is that if there's a crop R series, it will be Rxx, and all the single digit models will be FF.

 

[Ian K]

My expectation is that if there's a crop R series, it will be Rxx, and all the single digit models will be FF.

Which is fine but you can’t then have an R7 as the best crop body.

 

[koenkooi]

Which is fine but you can’t then have an R7 as the best crop body.

I expect much online outrage if that happens

 

[entoman]

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

My designations were a suggestion, not a prediction.

R7 would be the logical designation for a crop replacement for the 7DMkii.

There’s no number in between R6 and R7 for a RP replacement. Canon have stated that there will be no “RP Mkii”, and FF cameras never have a double-digit name. So IMO the most likely remaining possibility is R9, which would leave place for a future R8 to be slotted in.

Of course, it’s entirely possible that they might continue with a double-letter designation, and call the RP replacement e.g. “RX”. Either way, I’m sure Canon will have thought seriously about the nomenclature of the new generation RF cameras, and that it will follow a logical pattern.

 

[BurningPlatform]

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.

My reply was meant to be a joke, sorry about that. I do agree with you. (Showing 24p footage speeded up to 25 fps is not a conversion). Some people want 24p, that seems to be a fact.

 

[DBounce]

I think with the rising popularity of RF Mount anamorphic lenses it would be great if canon enabled open gate mode on these cameras as well as the full frame R3, R5C. The 4:3 aspect ratio would be well suited to anamorphic that have more aggressive squeeze factors.

 

[st jack photography]

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 Model	EF New	RF New	EF Used	RF Weight Advantage
100-400 / 100-500	$2,399	$2,799	$1,400	225 grams / 7.94oz
16-35 / 14-35	$1,099	$1,699	$600	75 grams / 2.65oz
24-105	$1,099	$1,099	$675	95 grams / 3.35oz

I am glad that EF work well on R bodies, but I do not like the adapters, and many EF lenses are not sweet 9-bladed lenses, they have 8 blades, ugly bokeh and sunstars, and really soft edges. The EFs also, when used on a R body, do not have focus peaking kick in the second you override the one-shot AF. THAT FEATURE alone (for some or even many shooters) is worth getting or waiting on an RF lens and not fooling with EF. Plus I also think the distance displayed in the VF is not present in EF using an R body.
I have a friend that still uses a 5D Classic and strict manual focus. She dislikes all newer Canon stuff, and is convinced things have changed so little that it isn't worth the money to switch. I think she is mad, but nonetheless she make great compositions and blows them up large with her 24-105 mark 1 and her 5d classic.
I acknowledge her art, that the tools can give an edge but not much of one, and if people still like EF, then great. I, on the other hand, am 110% done with EF regardless of the "deal", because to me the differences are very noticeable and worth it.

 

[TravelerNick]

I think with the rising popularity of RF Mount anamorphic lenses it would be great if canon enabled open gate mode on these cameras as well as the full frame R3, R5C. The 4:3 aspect ratio would be well suited to anamorphic that have more aggressive squeeze factors.

The R3 has open gate. Doesn't it? How else is it shooting 6k?

 

[LogicExtremist]

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?



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.

I actually do understand that being dodgy in dealing with customers through questionable marketing releases and misinformation is acting in bad faith.

Seriously, how can people ignore the blatantly obvious mismatch between actual engineering specs and stated marketing specs! We've been through this before on every forum, with the R5 overheating denialist fanboys who don't want to see and acknowledge a reality that doesn't sit comfortably with their brand-loyalty consumerist tribalism...

As an example, with the R5, we have a hybrid camera that is marketed in the initial hype phase before release with all the focus on 8K video recording, with very little mention on its capabilities as a stills camera. Turns out the R5 is a mighty fine stills camera, with decent 4K video, 8K is not really usable, and they might release an R5 more focused on video:

• Rumored Canon EOS R5c could fix the Canon EOS R5's video weaknesses - https://www.techradar.com/news/rumored-canon-eos-r5c-could-fix-the-canon-eos-r5s-video-weaknesses
• The Canon EOS R5c is coming in Q1 2022 [CR3] - https://www.canonrumors.com/the-canon-eos-r5c-is-coming-in-q1-2022-cr3/

We get promises of high frame rates in the advertising, R5 can do 20fps, but if we dig through the fine print we get a long list of obscure qualifiers that aren't even hinted at anywhere!

Here are the specs from the Canon web site currently:

• Continuous Shooting - Max. ApMax. Approx. 12fps. with Mechanical shutter or 20fps with electronic shutter speed maintained for 350 JPEG or 180 RAW images 6 7

The little superscript numbers at the end of the statement tell us there's more to it, information which wasn't available pre-release or post release, people had to dig through their manuals in the fine print to find, it, and it's now in the fine print at the bottom of the Canon page:

6. Max Frames per second will vary depending on the battery type, if Wi-Fi is turned on, operating temperature lens used and file size. The number of possible shots and maximum burst vary depending on shooting conditions (including [1.6x (crop)], aspect ratio, subject, memory card brand, ISO speed, Picture Style, and Custom Function). The speeds quoted are based on testing with the following settings: Shutter speed 1/1000 sec. or faster, Aperture Maximum aperture, Flash Not used, Flicker reduction Not used, Battery pack Fully charged LP-6NH, Temperature Room temperature (23°C / 73°F). Battery grip or WFT-R10 Not used, Wi-Fi settings OFF.

7. Max Frame rates for stills can vary between lenses and aperture setting used


Realistically. and what Canon is telling us here, is that those maximum frame rates are only possible using RF lenses of particular focal lengths, and only at certain apertures, with fully charged batteries, with certain memory cards, with specific ISO settings, with WiFi switched off, and only when shooting outdoors, because flicker reduction needs to be switched off also, and only when the weather is not too warm!

To use your photocopier example, if Canon's marketing segmentation used for camera products was used with photocopiers, was used, it would more like this:

1. Entry level cameras photocopiers would have lots of useful; features and offer great value for money.
2. Midrange photocopiers would offer faster printing rates, higher resolutions, and better build quality, but would be missing network connectivity, you need to buy the next tier for that.
3. Top tier models would offer faster printing, higher resolution, and a longer duty cycle for continuous operation, and all have network connectivity. All top tier models will come with a collator, high capacity paper tray, and automatic stapler, but some of these would be disabled in firmware depending on which top-tier model is selected below the flagship model.
4. With the flagship model, there would be a single extra versatile function limited in firmware, like artificially locking out the highest level of high colour and high resolutions output that the hardware is capable of, to push you to buy their dye sublimation printer range which costs many times more

That would be more accurate comparison, which would be just as bad, and hopefully illustrates more clearly what I was saying!

 

[koenkooi]

I actually do understand that being dodgy in dealing with customers through questionable marketing releases and misinformation is acting in bad faith.

Seriously, how can people ignore the blatantly obvious mismatch between actual engineering specs and stated marketing specs! We've been through this before on every forum, with the R5 overheating denialist fanboys who don't want to see and acknowledge a reality that doesn't sit comfortably with their brand-loyalty consumerist tribalism...

As an example, with the R5, we have a hybrid camera that is marketed in the initial hype phase before release with all the focus on 8K video recording, with very little mention on its capabilities as a stills camera. Turns out the R5 is a mighty fine stills camera, with decent 4K video, 8K is not really usable, and they might release an R5 more focused on video:

• Rumored Canon EOS R5c could fix the Canon EOS R5's video weaknesses - https://www.techradar.com/news/rumored-canon-eos-r5c-could-fix-the-canon-eos-r5s-video-weaknesses
• The Canon EOS R5c is coming in Q1 2022 [CR3] - https://www.canonrumors.com/the-canon-eos-r5c-is-coming-in-q1-2022-cr3/

We get promises of high frame rates in the advertising, R5 can do 20fps, but if we dig through the fine print we get a long list of obscure qualifiers that aren't even hinted at anywhere!

Here are the specs from the Canon web site currently:

• Continuous Shooting - Max. ApMax. Approx. 12fps. with Mechanical shutter or 20fps with electronic shutter speed maintained for 350 JPEG or 180 RAW images 6 7

The little superscript numbers at the end of the statement tell us there's more to it, information which wasn't available pre-release or post release, people had to dig through their manuals in the fine print to find, it, and it's now in the fine print at the bottom of the Canon page:

6. Max Frames per second will vary depending on the battery type, if Wi-Fi is turned on, operating temperature lens used and file size. The number of possible shots and maximum burst vary depending on shooting conditions (including [1.6x (crop)], aspect ratio, subject, memory card brand, ISO speed, Picture Style, and Custom Function). The speeds quoted are based on testing with the following settings: Shutter speed 1/1000 sec. or faster, Aperture Maximum aperture, Flash Not used, Flicker reduction Not used, Battery pack Fully charged LP-6NH, Temperature Room temperature (23°C / 73°F). Battery grip or WFT-R10 Not used, Wi-Fi settings OFF.

7. Max Frame rates for stills can vary between lenses and aperture setting used


Realistically. and what Canon is telling us here, is that those maximum frame rates are only possible using RF lenses of particular focal lengths, and only at certain apertures, with fully charged batteries, with certain memory cards, with specific ISO settings, with WiFi switched off, and only when shooting outdoors, because flicker reduction needs to be switched off also, and only when the weather is not too warm!

To use your photocopier example, if Canon's marketing segmentation used for camera products was used with photocopiers, was used, it would more like this:

1. Entry level cameras photocopiers would have lots of useful; features and offer great value for money.
2. Midrange photocopiers would offer faster printing rates, higher resolutions, and better build quality, but would be missing network connectivity, you need to buy the next tier for that.
3. Top tier models would offer faster printing, higher resolution, and a longer duty cycle for continuous operation, and all have network connectivity. All top tier models will come with a collator, high capacity paper tray, and automatic stapler, but some of these would be disabled in firmware depending on which top-tier model is selected below the flagship model.
4. With the flagship model, there would be a single extra versatile function limited in firmware, like artificially locking out the highest level of high colour and high resolutions output that the hardware is capable of, to push you to buy their dye sublimation printer range which costs many times more

That would be more accurate comparison, which would be just as bad, and hopefully illustrates more clearly what I was saying!

Have you ever had to deal with leasing photocopiers? The reality is quite close to what you describe already.

 

[LogicExtremist]

How many R6 users are shooting for hollywood and NEED 24? 25 is TV/video in Europe. 30 in North America.

Did they take out 23.97? That's important for some users.

At some point you're limited by the amount of memory inside the box. Even just a software feature can mean deleting something else.

Some people prefer to shoot 24fps for various reasons, if it wasn't necessary, it would stand to reason that none of Canon's hybrid digital cameras would include it. It's there because there is a market demand for it. Individuals have different preferences, and the options of including the here come at no extra cost.

The argument of hardware limitations (insufficient memeory) being the reason fro excluding 24fps video is just an assumption, and doesn't stand up to scrutiny, considering that some of Canon's highest and lowest spec cameras support it:

Canon R5 video modes that support 24 fps

8K DCI (17:9) 8192 x 4320 (29.97, 25, 24, 23.98 fps) RAW, intra or inter frame
4K DCI (17:9) 4096 x 2160 (119.9, 100, 59.94, 50, 29.97, 25, 24, 23.98 fps) intra or inter frame


Canon M50 ideo modes that support 24 fps
4K video, at 24 fps, or 25.00 fps (when video recording is set to “PAL”)
Full HD video (1920 x 1080), at 60 fps, 30 fps, or 24 fps

The above was copied from Canon's website.

It's not just Hollywood that needs 24fps video.

 

[LogicExtremist]

Have you ever had to deal with leasing photocopiers? The reality is quite close to what you describe already.

If they're using the same marketing strategies, I wouldn't be surprised!

Canon does have a laser copier product line. I wonder if the Canon cripple hammer works across other product divisions!!!

 

[TravelerNick]

Some people prefer to shoot 24fps for various reasons, if it wasn't necessary, it would stand to reason that none of Canon's hybrid digital cameras would include it. It's there because there is a market demand for it. Individuals have different preferences, and the options of including the here come at no extra cost.

The argument of hardware limitations (insufficient memeory) being the reason fro excluding 24fps video is just an assumption, and doesn't stand up to scrutiny, considering that some of Canon's highest and lowest spec cameras support it:

Canon R5 video modes that support 24 fps

8K DCI (17:9) 8192 x 4320 (29.97, 25, 24, 23.98 fps) RAW, intra or inter frame
4K DCI (17:9) 4096 x 2160 (119.9, 100, 59.94, 50, 29.97, 25, 24, 23.98 fps) intra or inter frame


Canon M50 ideo modes that support 24 fps
4K video, at 24 fps, or 25.00 fps (when video recording is set to “PAL”)
Full HD video (1920 x 1080), at 60 fps, 30 fps, or 24 fps

The above was copied from Canon's website.

It's not just Hollywood that needs 24fps video.

Arguing you need 24 FPS and that 25 is a hardship is the video equivalent of complaining your car lacks five point racing harness while ignoring the lack of seats.

And I challenge anybody to drop a 25 FPS clip into a 24 FPS and find people who notice.

And no audio isn't an issue. You just unlink the audio. Of course if you REALLY cared about 24 FPS you'd almost certainly be using an external recorder.

 

[LogicExtremist]

Arguing you need 24 FPS and that 25 is a hardship is the video equivalent of complaining your car lacks five point racing harness while ignoring the lack of seats.

And I challenge anybody to drop a 25 FPS clip into a 24 FPS and find people who notice.

And no audio isn't an issue. You just unlink the audio. Of course if you REALLY cared about 24 FPS you'd almost certainly be using an external recorder.

Hi TravelerNick, that's the logical fallacy known as the strawman argument, to equate what I said to "24 FPS and that 25 is a hardship", without addressing either of my arguments that I proposed - Canon including 24fps because of its utility and usefulness to parts of its customer base, and its inclusion being hardware independent.

Would you ague the opposite of what I've stated, and claim that Canon is including outdated standards in its cutting edge tech, or that the Canon M50 hardware is more capable than that of the R6? I would think not, so you have no argument with me.

If you're asking about me personally, I don't own an R6, I don't care about 24fps. and shoot video at 25fps!
Like I said, just because you or I don't use something, it doesn't logically follow that it's useless and that nobody else wants or needs it. To assume that what applies to one part of something will apply to the whole is the logical fallacy of composition and division.

Thanks though for providing a practical solution for those who can't shoot 24fps, but need to drop their 25fps video footage into a 24 fps timeline.

 

[DBounce]

The R3 has open gate. Doesn't it? How else is it shooting 6k?

It crops the top and the bottom for a DCI format video. The resolution for the 6K video is (6000 x 3164) or 18.98MPs. The stills resolution is 24MPs. The full sensor height is only used for still image capture. Conversely, the Panasonic cameras are able to use the full sensor height for both stills and video.

 

[Michael Clark]

I’d like to see a eos R mark II. Smaller body than R6 (just like the original R) and top LCD. Doesn’t have to be 4K 60fps or 12/20fps shooting.

I'd be very surprised if Canon introduces another R body cheaper than the R6 which has a top LCD. I think that ship has sailed for all but the upper tier bodies.

 

[Michael Clark]

That would be great, because then I could buy a reduced price iv

Canon was discounting the 5D Mark IV to around $1,999 in the U.S. a while back. You missed the boat on that one.

With supply shortages everywhere I doubt you'll see a camera that capable at that price for a long, loooooong time, if ever again.

 

[Deleted]

I actually do understand that being dodgy in dealing with customers through questionable marketing releases and misinformation is acting in bad faith.

Seriously, how can people ignore the blatantly obvious mismatch between actual engineering specs and stated marketing specs! We've been through this before on every forum, with the R5 overheating denialist fanboys who don't want to see and acknowledge a reality that doesn't sit comfortably with their brand-loyalty consumerist tribalism...

As an example, with the R5, we have a hybrid camera that is marketed in the initial hype phase before release with all the focus on 8K video recording, with very little mention on its capabilities as a stills camera. Turns out the R5 is a mighty fine stills camera, with decent 4K video, 8K is not really usable, and they might release an R5 more focused on video:

• Rumored Canon EOS R5c could fix the Canon EOS R5's video weaknesses - https://www.techradar.com/news/rumored-canon-eos-r5c-could-fix-the-canon-eos-r5s-video-weaknesses
• The Canon EOS R5c is coming in Q1 2022 [CR3] - https://www.canonrumors.com/the-canon-eos-r5c-is-coming-in-q1-2022-cr3/

We get promises of high frame rates in the advertising, R5 can do 20fps, but if we dig through the fine print we get a long list of obscure qualifiers that aren't even hinted at anywhere!

Here are the specs from the Canon web site currently:

• Continuous Shooting - Max. ApMax. Approx. 12fps. with Mechanical shutter or 20fps with electronic shutter speed maintained for 350 JPEG or 180 RAW images 6 7

The little superscript numbers at the end of the statement tell us there's more to it, information which wasn't available pre-release or post release, people had to dig through their manuals in the fine print to find, it, and it's now in the fine print at the bottom of the Canon page:

6. Max Frames per second will vary depending on the battery type, if Wi-Fi is turned on, operating temperature lens used and file size. The number of possible shots and maximum burst vary depending on shooting conditions (including [1.6x (crop)], aspect ratio, subject, memory card brand, ISO speed, Picture Style, and Custom Function). The speeds quoted are based on testing with the following settings: Shutter speed 1/1000 sec. or faster, Aperture Maximum aperture, Flash Not used, Flicker reduction Not used, Battery pack Fully charged LP-6NH, Temperature Room temperature (23°C / 73°F). Battery grip or WFT-R10 Not used, Wi-Fi settings OFF.

7. Max Frame rates for stills can vary between lenses and aperture setting used


Realistically. and what Canon is telling us here, is that those maximum frame rates are only possible using RF lenses of particular focal lengths, and only at certain apertures, with fully charged batteries, with certain memory cards, with specific ISO settings, with WiFi switched off, and only when shooting outdoors, because flicker reduction needs to be switched off also, and only when the weather is not too warm!

To use your photocopier example, if Canon's marketing segmentation used for camera products was used with photocopiers, was used, it would more like this:

1. Entry level cameras photocopiers would have lots of useful; features and offer great value for money.
2. Midrange photocopiers would offer faster printing rates, higher resolutions, and better build quality, but would be missing network connectivity, you need to buy the next tier for that.
3. Top tier models would offer faster printing, higher resolution, and a longer duty cycle for continuous operation, and all have network connectivity. All top tier models will come with a collator, high capacity paper tray, and automatic stapler, but some of these would be disabled in firmware depending on which top-tier model is selected below the flagship model.
4. With the flagship model, there would be a single extra versatile function limited in firmware, like artificially locking out the highest level of high colour and high resolutions output that the hardware is capable of, to push you to buy their dye sublimation printer range which costs many times more

That would be more accurate comparison, which would be just as bad, and hopefully illustrates more clearly what I was saying!

I have tried an R5 with EF lenses and you can get the full 12/20 fps on some of them. All canon cameras have the limitations you list, always have. Take a lens wide open vs f22 and that hints at why it slows down. Moving those blades takes time, less noticeable at 5fps, go to 10+ and repeatedly stopping down takes time and effort.

All brands have similar limitations, some of which are far from forthcoming in how extreme they are. Canon seem one of the better brand at putting that info out.

 

[LogicExtremist]

I have tried an R5 with EF lenses and you can get the full 12/20 fps on some of them. All canon cameras have the limitations you list, always have. Take a lens wide open vs f22 and that hints at why it slows down. Moving those blades takes time, less noticeable at 5fps, go to 10+ and repeatedly stopping down takes time and effort.

All brands have similar limitations, some of which are far from forthcoming in how extreme they are. Canon seem one of the better brand at putting that info out.

Thanks, that's precisely my point, it does take time to move the mechanical components in lenses, so the burst rate can vary.

I think Canon's accuracy in advertising regarding camera burst rates varies from model to model. With many earlier and lower tier models, there is often a huge disparity between claimed burst rates and real world use figures.

Previous burst rates quoted were with a fixed focus, which bears no semblance to real world use, as high burst rates are used for moving subjects, not stationary ones, so the camera auto focus will need to track the subject and refocus between shots, which slows things down. This is less of an issue with the specefications of the newer and better cameras which have very fast AF systems.

 

[Deleted]

Thanks, that's precisely my point, it does take time to move the mechanical components in lenses, so the burst rate can vary.

I think Canon's accuracy in advertising regarding camera burst rates varies from model to model. With many earlier and lower tier models, there is often a huge disparity between claimed burst rates and real world use figures.

Previous burst rates quoted were with a fixed focus, which bears no semblance to real world use, as high burst rates are used for moving subjects, not stationary ones, so the camera auto focus will need to track the subject and refocus between shots, which slows things down. This is less of an issue with the specefications of the newer and better cameras which have very fast AF systems.

Fixed focus is probably the only way to sensibly measure things. For instance, on my 7D2 I could AF fully and get 10fps. I checked a few times, tracking kingfishers and swif. Why did I check? At the time a well known photographer and maker of flash diffusers was adamant the 7D2 could not achieve 10fps. My testing was wide open with the 100-400II. Had I used a really old EF lens with its Noisy motor then I am sure my frame rate would have dropped. There are so many lenses, lots of setup variables and also different environmental conditions that the spreadsheet to list it all would be huge, as would the time taken to test every combination. So fps has to be measured with as few variables as possible or the user would end up really struggling with the data.