EOS R camera between EOS R7 and EOS R10 coming [CR3]

[unfocused]

Fuji is a niche player in the ILC market. It may seem counterintuitive, but that actually suggests the ‘professional APS-C market’ is small. The forest is full of bamboo trees, but if you’re a little monkey and the 800 pound gorilla wants to eat bamboo, you’re better off going after the grubs on the forest floor.

I've never been able to determine what the market for a higher-end APS-C camera is. Nikon and Canon once offered high-end models, which indicates that at the the time they both saw a market. Then they both let the bodies slide into oblivion, which indicates that didn't see a market. Then Canon offered a 90D and now an R7 that seem to indicate they see an "almost professional" market. In the meantime, Fuji and Olympus have offered high-end crop and 2x crop bodies.

I have to admit that I don't have a clue about Canon's decisions. I am totally perplexed by where Canon seems to be going with crop-sensor R bodies, especially since they are able to sell refurbished full-frame RPs for $600, which is solidly in Rebel territory.

 

[entoman]

Or, Canon could simply leave the original R6 in the lineup, which now has a street price below the R's price at introduction. Which would be more profitable for Canon, develop a new sub-$2,000 model or reduce the price of the R6?

That would be the Sony way of doing things. Nothing wrong with that, but it just isn't the way Canon operates. I can't think of any old model that has been sold in parallel with its successor for more than a few months, until stocks dry up.

Development costs of a lower-specification version of an existing camera are small - just keep the same body shell, use an existing sensor, remove a few firmware features, change the cosmetics of a couple of buttons and give it a new name.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I have, from time to time, even considered giving up on full frame, and switching to OM Systems.

It is interesting to see OM go all in on rugged go-anywhere cameras.
They simply do not have the super-telephoto lens selection or autofocus to compete with Canon.
They do have a 2.0x crop but Canon has a 1.6x crop.
Although Canon's lightweight super-telephoto lenses are not weather sealed while OM lenses are IP certified.
Canon is clearly winning, but I would like to see more lightweight weather-sealed RF super-telephoto lenses.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

As for Fujifilm, their cameras are excellent, but I doubt if many find their way into the hands of professionals.

I get the impression that Fuji markets GFX for professionals and not really their APS-C line.
The X-H2 and X-H2S seem to buck that trend.
The X-H2S does make a lot of sense to me since it achieves speeds that would not be practical with GFX.
I have a hard time understanding why someone would choose the X-H2 over the X-T5.
I do get that it is the only 8K video on the Fuji system and a very affordable 8K at that.
It is just not a very compelling video camera but that is just my opinion.
For everything else, it is pretty much the same as the X-T5.

 

[Del Paso]

I've never been able to determine what the market for a higher-end APS-C camera is. Nikon and Canon once offered high-end models, which indicates that at the the time they both saw a market. Then they both let the bodies slide into oblivion, which indicates that didn't see a market. Then Canon offered a 90D and now an R7 that seem to indicate they see an "almost professional" market. In the meantime, Fuji and Olympus have offered high-end crop and 2x crop bodies.

I have to admit that I don't have a clue about Canon's decisions. I am totally perplexed by where Canon seems to be going with crop-sensor R bodies, especially since they are able to sell refurbished full-frame RPs for $600, which is solidly in Rebel territory.

Wasn't it rather so that, for quite a few years, digital FFs simply didn't exist?
So, it was more than logical that the high end digital cameras were also APS/C or H models.
When FF came, it quickly became the pro-standard, and, successively, higher MP FF sensors allowed heavy cropping, thus diminishing the attractivity of APS even for birders etc... ?

 

[entoman]

I get the impression that Fuji markets GFX for professionals and not really their APS-C line.
The X-H2 and X-H2S seem to buck that trend.

I agree on both counts. Fujifilm is trying very hard. In the past their APS cameras were aimed very much at the niche retro market, which makes them fun to use, but most photographers clearly prefer the now traditional Sony/Canon/Nikon type controls. I think that held Fujifilm back, and they also have/had a reputation for some of their lenses to be slow to focus.

The X-H2S seems to be a really well specified camera, lots of MP, fast burst rate, strong build quality - just what serious enthusiasts want - except that Canon and Sony now dominate the market, and are the go-to brands for most people. That's a hurdle that's a little too high for Fujifilm at the moment. Given 3 or 4 years, they might get there, but Canon and Sony are so well established it will be a difficult nut for Fujifilm to crack.

I won't comment on video because it's not my thing, so I don't have enough knowledge of what videographers want or need.

 

[entoman]

It is interesting to see OM go all in on rugged go-anywhere cameras.
They simply do not have the super-telephoto lens selection or autofocus to compete with Canon.
They do have a 2.0x crop but Canon has a 1.6x crop.
Although Canon's lightweight super-telephoto lenses are not weather sealed while OM lenses are IP certified.
Canon is clearly winning, but I would like to see more lightweight weather-sealed RF super-telephoto lenses.

Canon's R7 is their nearest (only?) competitor to the OM-1. The Canon has more "reach", and it's more affordable. The OM-1 has a vast range of lightweight lenses, truly superb build quality.

As I'm getting older and less strong (I'm 72), I'm feeling the weight of FF cameras and lenses sap my stamina a bit. If and when I decide to go for a lighter setup, I'd give OM a lot of consideration - not just because their lenses are so compact and light, but also because the cameras are very highly specified and extremely durable. Normally, I'd consider 20MP insufficient, but with OM high burst speeds and hand-held pixel shift, that is less of an obstacle. The Olympus-designed OM-1 is a great camera, and I look forward to the first genuine OM-Systems model with great interest.

But of course, having said all this, I'm heavily invested in Canon - with 2 bodies, 9 lenses and 2 flash units, so from an economic perspective it would be silly to switch to another brand...

 

[Skyscraperfan]

If "professionals" really preferred larger sensors in all situations, wouldn't they prefer medium format then, unless the weight would be to high?

I never saw full frame as a non plus ultra, but rather as a compromise of all sensor sizes. Smaller sensors catch to little light in some situations, but if a sensor is too large, some lenses become very heavy up to the point that they are not produced at all.

If I had the money, I would probably buy a Hasselblad X2D, which has a 44x33 mm sensor and an impressive image quality. That still is smaller than a 645 format camera and therefore still a kind of compromise, but a little more leaning to larger sensors. If I had a studio and make a living from shooting portraits, I would probably choose such a camera, as the difference to full frame is quite visible. However if I was shooting birds (with a camera), I might even opt for a smaller sensor than APS-C, if high quality fast glass was available. Sometimes I shoot birds in my garden when I am bored and that seems quite a waste of pixels, as my DSLR does not even have a crop mode.

 

[entoman]

If "professionals" really preferred larger sensors in all situations, wouldn't they prefer medium format then, unless the weight would be to high?

I never saw full frame as a non plus ultra, but rather as a compromise of all sensor sizes. Smaller sensors catch to little light in some situations, but if a sensor is too large, some lenses become very heavy up to the point that they are not produced at all.

Yes, of course FF is a compromise - everything in life is a compromise. Clearly, a large sensor results in a larger, heavier camera, and more significantly, much larger and heavier lenses. So while a MF Fujifilm or Hasselblad may work fine for portrait, product and landscape photographers, it would be far more of a problem (and often impossible) to use for sports, wildlife or action. For most people, pro or amateur, FF or APS will provide the best compromise when considering cost, specification, ergonomics and image quality.

 

[Czardoom]

It is interesting to see OM go all in on rugged go-anywhere cameras.
They simply do not have the super-telephoto lens selection or autofocus to compete with Canon.
They do have a 2.0x crop but Canon has a 1.6x crop.
Although Canon's lightweight super-telephoto lenses are not weather sealed while OM lenses are IP certified.
Canon is clearly winning, but I would like to see more lightweight weather-sealed RF super-telephoto lenses.

You must be unaware of the Olympus 300mm f/4 lens. Fantastically sharp and well built. And the newer 150-400mm f/4.5, even better by all accounts. One could argue the complete opposite...no FF system has super-telephoto lenses to compete with Olympus in terms of equivalent reach, size, weight and price, and the OM-1 now has subject recognition and eye detection AF that can compete.

 

[Czardoom]

Canon's R7 is their nearest (only?) competitor to the OM-1. The Canon has more "reach", and it's more affordable. The OM-1 has a vast range of lightweight lenses, truly superb build quality.

As I'm getting older and less strong (I'm 72), I'm feeling the weight of FF cameras and lenses sap my stamina a bit. If and when I decide to go for a lighter setup, I'd give OM a lot of consideration - not just because their lenses are so compact and light, but also because the cameras are very highly specified and extremely durable. Normally, I'd consider 20MP insufficient, but with OM high burst speeds and hand-held pixel shift, that is less of an obstacle. The Olympus-designed OM-1 is a great camera, and I look forward to the first genuine OM-Systems model with great interest.

But of course, having said all this, I'm heavily invested in Canon - with 2 bodies, 9 lenses and 2 flash units, so from an economic perspective it would be silly to switch to another brand...

Granted, you need to be able to do it economically, but no reason to switch. Just add an OM-1 and lens to your arsonal. I believe you've written about adding a 2nd Canon body, but maybe your second body could be an OM-1. I am shooting with both the R7 and the OM-1 for birds at the moment.

 

[-pekr-]

Canon, please, make something special for us loving retro design! I want m6 II successor, just with the viewfinder without a hump and being a full frame. Simply put - give us Sony A7C like camera. I don't care, how much it will cost ;-)

 

[EOS 4 Life]

You must be unaware of the Olympus 300mm f/4 lens. Fantastically sharp and well built. And the newer 150-400mm f/4.5, even better by all accounts. One could argue the complete opposite...no FF system has super-telephoto lenses to compete with Olympus in terms of equivalent reach, size, weight and price, and the OM-1 now has subject recognition and eye detection AF that can compete.

You are correct about full-frame but Canon has a 1.6x crop and a 1200 mm lenses.
I adapt EF lenses to MFT for that very reason.
I am completely aware of the Olympus lens lineup.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

If "professionals" really preferred larger sensors in all situations, wouldn't they prefer medium format then, unless the weight would be to high?

Yes, they would.
Although, I am not sure that anyone said they did.
Full-frame is the most practical for a lot of things but not for everything.
People will use whatever works for them.

 

[AlanF]

You must be unaware of the Olympus 300mm f/4 lens. Fantastically sharp and well built. And the newer 150-400mm f/4.5, even better by all accounts. One could argue the complete opposite...no FF system has super-telephoto lenses to compete with Olympus in terms of equivalent reach, size, weight and price, and the OM-1 now has subject recognition and eye detection AF that can compete.

The Olympus 150-400mm costs £6500/$7500, and is heavier than the RF 100-500mm. Are you shelling out for one? The field of view on the Olympus is equivalent to 800mm on an FF, or 1000mm when it has its 1.25x extender on. Whereas I could cope with that for BIF that are far away and moving relatively slowly, I find the 500mm field of view on the R5 or equivalent far better, and the OM-1 has only a 30% advantage in pixel size for reach. Maybe YMMV for BIF and you are more agile than me. As far as the 300/4 is concerned, the RF 100-500mm on the R5 gives 30% more "reach" in terms of focal length to pixel size for similar $ price, is damn sharp, focuses much closer and has all the advantages of a zoom and a wider field of view for a couple of 100g more weight. You enjoy your OM-1 and R7, I'll enjoy my R5 and R7.

 

[illadvisedhammer]

You must be unaware of the Olympus 300mm f/4 lens. Fantastically sharp and well built. And the newer 150-400mm f/4.5, even better by all accounts. One could argue the complete opposite...no FF system has super-telephoto lenses to compete with Olympus in terms of equivalent reach, size, weight and price, and the OM-1 now has subject recognition and eye detection AF that can compete.

Olympus has great options that are lighter and high quality, but also much more expensive than what you can get used/less expensively for Canon. The canon 32 mp sensors (m6II, 90D, R7) are great, and a little denser than the 20 mp 4/3 sensors, so 1.6x vs 2x is less relevant (and also a small difference), and if anything in favor of the canon. On the low end, the 55-250 STM on a 32 mp sensor gave me better results than EM-1mii with the 70-300 Olympus lens each at their longest focal lengths. On the higher end, I am quite sure that the olympus 300 Pro is better than the older canon 300Lf4 (this is a good video

) but you can get a nice copy of the Canon used for (close to) $400, the Olympus is over $2500. Moving up, a used EF 500 L IS mark l is not much over 2K. I have no doubt the 150-400 is lighter, focuses faster, more versatile, just as sharp and well made, better for fast moving subjects, but for just image quality on a small subject pretty far a way (BOB bird on branch), you can get as good or better quality for much less with Canon.

 

[Czardoom]

The Olympus 150-400mm costs £6500/$7500, and is heavier than the RF 100-500mm. Are you shelling out for one? The field of view on the Olympus is equivalent to 800mm on an FF, or 1000mm when it has its 1.25x extender on. Whereas I could cope with that for BIF that are far away and moving relatively slowly, I find the 500mm field of view on the R5 or equivalent far better, and the OM-1 has only a 30% advantage in pixel size for reach. Maybe YMMV for BIF and you are more agile than me. As far as the 300/4 is concerned, the RF 100-500mm on the R5 gives 30% more "reach" in terms of focal length to pixel size for similar $ price, is damn sharp, focuses much closer and has all the advantages of a zoom and a wider field of view for a couple of 100g more weight. You enjoy your OM-1 and R7, I'll enjoy my R5 and R7.

Alan, I agree that the RF 100-500 is a great lens and coupled with the R5 can give you great results. My comment was in response to the comment. "They simply do not have the super-telephoto lens selection or autofocus to compete with Canon." I disagreed. Perhaps a bit over the top with my comment that maybe FF doesn't have the lenses to compete with Olympus. But, of course, we can all pick and choose the lenses we want to compare. Some might say the 100-500 f/7.1 is not really a fair comparison to the Olympus 150-400 f/4.5 in terms of reach and f-stop. Your comparison of the RF 100-500 to the Olympus 300 f/4 depends on using the R5, a significantly more expensive camera than any Olympus/OMS camera. So maybe not a fair comparison either, but I get your point and I am not going to waste anyone's time picking other Canon lenses that I would consider closer comparisons. My point is that Olympus does indeed have some excellent telephoto lens choices that can compete. Don't care if they are "better" in anyone's mind, or equal or worse. Believe me, I would enjoy the RF 100-500 if I had one. I'm not here to play the silly "this brand is better than that brand" game.

 

[Kit.]

Your comparison of the RF 100-500 to the Olympus 300 f/4 depends on using the R5, a significantly more expensive camera than any Olympus/OMS camera.

Actually, OMS is in even a worse position when compared to a cheaper R7.

(and do I get it right that OM-1 cannot start tracking from a user-selected AF point?)

Believe me, I would enjoy the RF 100-500 if I had one.

You can enjoy the EF 100-400 II, which is a great lens and can be obtained relatively cheap.

 

[entoman]

Believe me, I would enjoy the RF 100-500 if I had one. I'm not here to play the silly "this brand is better than that brand" game.

I'm fortunate to own the RF 100-500mm and the RF 100-400mm. Previously I owned the EF 100-400mm Mkii. I think @Kit is right to point out that you can get the EF100-400mm at a significantly lower price than the 100-500mm, and that the EF is an excellent lens. I don't really think you gain much (other than a bit of extra reach and that you don't need an adaptor) by getting the 100-500mm.

If affordability is an issue, it comes down to a choice between the EF 100-400mm and the RF 100-400mm. The EF is much more strongly built, and has a wider max aperture, but it quite heavy and not something you want to carry all day. The RF is smaller, much lighter, and optically excellent, it also focuses closer, and can be carried all day long and used as a walkabout lens.

I'm not here to play the silly "this brand is better than that brand" game.

Yes, the "my brand is better than yours" nonsense can be *very* tedious. All the major brands produce absolutely stunning equipment. If I got robbed and had to start all over again, I'd give equal thought to cameras from Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fujifilm, Panasonic and OM Systems, and base my choice on lens availability, ergonomics, and which model had the best specification for my own particular needs. Canon is "best" at some things, Sony is "best" at others, etc etc, and all cameras have negative aspects too. You just have to choose the best compromise.

 

[neuroanatomist]

All the major brands produce absolutely stunning equipment.

Agreed.

If I got robbed and had to start all over again, I'd give equal thought to cameras from Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fujifilm, Panasonic and OM Systems, and base my choice on lens availability, ergonomics, and which model had the best specification for my own particular needs.

Honestly, if that happened to me I’d buy Canon again. I might not replace all my gear, but most of it. Partly that’s because my current system meets my current needs very well, but another big part is that I know how everything works, from menus to muscle memory it’s all seamless.