Different features, different target market. It's not 2009 anymore, and APS-C isn't just the cheaper alternative anymore.The R8 costing exactly the same as the R7 would not make a lot of sense to me.
Upvote
0
Different features, different target market. It's not 2009 anymore, and APS-C isn't just the cheaper alternative anymore.The R8 costing exactly the same as the R7 would not make a lot of sense to me.
I agree that there won't be a direct equivalent to the EOS R but the R8 would be the candidate, but...It's hard to believe the R8 could be an EOS R 'successor' using the same sensor recycled in the EOS R from the 5D IV?! It's an excellent sensor (and I love my EOS R dearly) but it's getting pretty long in the tooth.
I'm not sure there will actually be a direct EOS R II, because I always saw it as a transitional body into the extended R range, which now (if you include the R8 and a possible R9) includes a pretty wide range of alternatives.
We seem to think that Sony's release speed and variety of E mount lenses from (I think) 2014 ie 9 years should have have the same breadth in RF mount in less than 5 years. If you include adapted EF/EF-S lenses then Canon is surely comparable or better than Sony and its 3rd parties.You can't really compare with the EF mount because it came out during a rapid transition from film to digital. Once the first consumer digital cameras started coming out in 2002 (Canon Digital Rebel) the lenses all came much quicker. Canon is lagging right now and leaning on the EF mount lenses when it should be innovating. Guess we'll see in a few years if it works, but Sony seems to be moving at a faster pace.
So you mean EF 100-400 didnt exist and was replaced by said lens but apart from Canon lenses(zoom lenses either at f6.3 or f7.1 or f8 at long end instead of 5.6 on SLR equivalents even for Nikon and other systems now), there are many lenses for other mounts as well which have started to get a bit too dark. Fuji 150-600mm, Olympus 100-400, are 2 other examples where lenses are on darkside.Which non-budget lens went dark? And don't mention the 100-500 because that lens had no equivalent before.
As you probably know if you use crop mode frequently, 7.8 MPs is fine for a lot more than sharing online. My best selling 8" x 12" print is from the original 6 MP Digital Canon Rebel and the 18-55 kit lens.I use the R6 in crop mode quite a lot. ~7.8MP is fine for sharing online, and oftentimes for what I'm shooting the edges are irrelevant, so I'd be cropping anyway. Crop mode saves memory card space in that situation.
You would lose your argument. For many, they need no more than 1 frame every time they press the shutter. Or maybe 3 fps, or maybe 5. And that's great. But high frame rates allows today's photographers to get shots that could not have been made before. That's all. It's not a question of what's fast enough or not. It's what can be done with 20, 30 or even 50 FPs that could not have been done before. No matter what skill level. I learned this the hard way, because for years I was in the "How many FPS do you really need?" boat. I thought if you had 15, that 20 was merely a marketing gimmick, and when it went up to 30, well, that was just another marketing gimmick. Then I got in to bird photography. And guess what, even 30 fps is not fast enough to get the sequential composite images that I have started doing, so I use 50 fps on my Olympus to do those. As a photographer of over 40 years, I know I have some reasonable skill. And enough sense to know that I can do things now I could never do before.I find it funny that 7fps is considered “slow” because when I first got into photography in the film days you had to advance each frame manually with your thumb. Then I saved up for a used power winder attachment and was able to get a whopping 3.5 frames a second, which was considered blazingly fast at the time lol. I got plenty of action shots of my friends surfing at 3.5fps. Now people complain 20fpsisnt fast enough. I would argue the modern photographer has no skills.
With the 195 fps burst on the R3, a bird’s wing movement between frames is very subtle.Then I got in to bird photography. And guess what, even 30 fps is not fast enough to get the sequential composite images that I have started doing, so I use 50 fps on my Olympus to do those.
Definitely agree on the IBS at $1500.EOS R8 for 1499, well 1500$ USD. For that price it might have some form of in body stabilisation. Or does that price come with a new sensor?
It's not impossible, but the R6 sensor was also reused (from the EOS-1D X III), and maybe they won't want to reuse it again. Depending on what FF R series bodies are eventually retired, you would then have the RP, R6, R6 II, R3 and R8 all as 'low MP' bodies. I think it makes more sense for a new low-to-mid-range ($ wise) FF body to be closer to 30MP, like the current EOS R, being the oldest body in the R range.My bet is the R8 will use the R6 sensor, have 1 card slot and no IBIS. The RP sensor has too low DR for a new camera. They could use the R sensor but I think they could keep selling the R alongside the R8 if it uses the 20MP sensor. The R6 sensor will hold up at that price point for the 3-5 year model cycle and I think the “low” MP number will sit well in the minds of consumers.
Since R7 with APS-C sensor s also $1,500, I'd think Canon would take some features away from FF $1,500 camera.. I think IBIS and dual SD slot will be missing, but we'll see.Definitely agree on the IBS at $1500.
You can't really compare with the EF mount because it came out during a rapid transition from film to digital. Once the first consumer digital cameras started coming out in 2002 (Canon Digital Rebel) the lenses all came much quicker. Canon is lagging right now and leaning on the EF mount lenses when it should be innovating. Guess we'll see in a few years if it works, but Sony seems to be moving at a faster pace.
What EF-lenses are you referring too that "everyone" kept asking for?Not my point - there was no pressure on the mount until consumer digital cameras came out in 2002, at which point every lens everyone keeps asking for came out in less than 10 years of (considering the R mount is already 5 years old, they're lagging...).
The most critical issue now is the brain burst when one has to flicker through 200.000 images shot in one day. Pretty sure shrinks will be confronted with completely new mental issues never seen beforeWith the 195 fps burst on the R3, a bird’s wing movement between frames is very subtle.
The RF-S 5x-210 does not have 50-210mm but 55-210mm. So again a rehousing with RF restrictions. This time with an extra 10mm at the long end, but with an impact on the aperture.I disagree that they're being lazy. The rehousing of the EF-M 18-150 optics in an RF-S barrel indicates that the same should have been possible for the EF-M 55-200/4.5-6.3. Rehousing that design could have been termed 'lazy', but instead they designed a 50-210/5-7.1 – slightly broader zoom range that starts closer to the 18-45 kit lens, and slower (something that few entry-level buyers care about). If the newly-designed lens is true to Canon's form, it will be cheaper than the EF-M 55-200 to produce, and have a higher MSRP (I'd guess $400, vs the $350 EF-M telezoom). So it's not being lazy, but rather maximizing profit. For Canon Inc. and their shareholders, that's the right direction...regardless of what you or I think as customers.