Here is what Canon is announcing next, including the EOS R7, EOS R10 and RF-S lenses [CR3]

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
368
253
Not I apparently, or at least I didn't used to. The best pictures I have taken were shot before my cameras had any of those things.
Makes me wonder what the people with the insatiable and never-ending need for more and more camera tech features think of those photographers out there taking awesome photos with film cameras and manual lenses! :oops:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

mdcmdcmdc

R7 (preordered!), 7Dii, M5, 100 (film), α6400
CR Pro
Sep 4, 2020
213
318
Not I apparently, or at least I didn't used to. The best pictures I have taken were shot before my cameras had any of those things.

Makes me wonder what the people with the insatiable and never-ending need for more and more camera tech features think of those photographers out there taking awesome photos with film cameras and manual lenses! :oops:

Whoa. Settle down boys. Show me anything in my previous post that implied judgement of people who choose any level of automation, or none at all.

My intent was just the opposite, actually. While I categorically disagree with people who judge others for their choices of equipment or technique, I don't disagree with people for their choices. If my previous post implied otherwise, it was an unintended poor choice of words.

I learned photography on a Canon AV-1 in the early 1980's. It had in-camera metering, but that was it. No AF, no TTL flash metering, and none of the other technologies we take for granted today. "High ISO" in those days was 400 (and we called it ASA, not ISO). 640 was available, but those films were always balanced for tungsten light (because, who needed that much speed outdoors?). It would be years before daylight balanced 1000+ speed films were widely available.

Today, I use AF, I use TTL flash metering, I use digital post-processing, and I use optical IS with long lenses hand-held (beats carrying a monopod, which I also did for a long time). I'm still uncomfortable using ISOs above 6400, but some old biases are hard to let go of. But those are my choices. What technologies you choose to use or not use are your choices. I personally don't have a need for IBIS but that's my choice based on my photography and the fact that, yes, the longer zooms I use all have optical stabilization. If I used fast primes, which generally don't have OIS, I might feel differently about it, but I don't.

I don't use my ILC for video either. I don't need 4K60p or FHD120p or CLOG3 or any of those. Nor do I use in-camera HDR and I rarely use in-camera JPEG.

But none of that gives me, or anybody else, the right to belittle another forum user for saying they want any of those features in their next body.

What I feel I "need" for my photography, and what gives me the most gratification and enjoyment from it, isn't the same as what somebody else might feel they need. And that's OK.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 9 users

Hector1970

EOS R
CR Pro
Mar 22, 2012
1,450
943
Whoa. Settle down boys. Show me anything in my previous post that implied judgement of people who choose any level of automation, or none at all.

My intent was just the opposite, actually. While I categorically disagree with people who judge others for their choices of equipment or technique, I don't disagree with people for their choices. If my previous post implied otherwise, it was an unintended poor choice of words.

I learned photography on a Canon AV-1 in the early 1980's. It had in-camera metering, but that was it. No AF, no TTL flash metering, and none of the other technologies we take for granted today. "High ISO" in those days was 400 (and we called it ASA, not ISO). 640 was available, but those films were always balanced for tungsten light (because, who needed that much speed outdoors?). It would be years before daylight balanced 1000+ speed films were widely available.

Today, I use AF, I use TTL flash metering, I use digital post-processing, and I use optical IS with long lenses hand-held (beats carrying a monopod, which I also did for a long time). I'm still uncomfortable using ISOs above 6400, but some old biases are hard to let go of. But those are my choices. What technologies you choose to use or not use are your choices. I personally don't have a need for IBIS but that's my choice based on my photography and the fact that, yes, the longer zooms I use all have optical stabilization. If I used fast primes, which generally don't have OIS, I might feel differently about it, but I don't.

I don't use my ILC for video either. I don't need 4K60p or FHD120p or CLOG3 or any of those. Nor do I use in-camera HDR and I rarely use in-camera JPEG.

But none of that gives me, or anybody else, the right to belittle another forum user for saying they want any of those features in their next body.

What I feel I "need" for my photography, and what gives me the most gratification and enjoyment from it, isn't the same as what somebody else might feel they need. And that's OK.
A well written clarification. Nice to see
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
368
253
Whoa. Settle down boys. Show me anything in my previous post that implied judgement of people who choose any level of automation, or none at all.

My intent was just the opposite, actually. While I categorically disagree with people who judge others for their choices of equipment or technique, I don't disagree with people for their choices. If my previous post implied otherwise, it was an unintended poor choice of words.

I learned photography on a Canon AV-1 in the early 1980's. It had in-camera metering, but that was it. No AF, no TTL flash metering, and none of the other technologies we take for granted today. "High ISO" in those days was 400 (and we called it ASA, not ISO). 640 was available, but those films were always balanced for tungsten light (because, who needed that much speed outdoors?). It would be years before daylight balanced 1000+ speed films were widely available.

Today, I use AF, I use TTL flash metering, I use digital post-processing, and I use optical IS with long lenses hand-held (beats carrying a monopod, which I also did for a long time). I'm still uncomfortable using ISOs above 6400, but some old biases are hard to let go of. But those are my choices. What technologies you choose to use or not use are your choices. I personally don't have a need for IBIS but that's my choice based on my photography and the fact that, yes, the longer zooms I use all have optical stabilization. If I used fast primes, which generally don't have OIS, I might feel differently about it, but I don't.

I don't use my ILC for video either. I don't need 4K60p or FHD120p or CLOG3 or any of those. Nor do I use in-camera HDR and I rarely use in-camera JPEG.

But none of that gives me, or anybody else, the right to belittle another forum user for saying they want any of those features in their next body.

What I feel I "need" for my photography, and what gives me the most gratification and enjoyment from it, isn't the same as what somebody else might feel they need. And that's OK.
Maybe you didn't express it clearly, thanks for clarifying! I read it as a bit of an exaggerated statement conflating the need for IBIS with other technologies such as AF, so I placed some perspective around what i thought you said. My comment was a general statement about modern photography and wasn't aimed at you, but maybe my comment was not that clear either. :)

Just like you, I also don't have a need for IBIS based on the type of photography I do, nor do I use my ILC for video. I tend to set my flash to manual for the way I use it.

If people are into photography to take photos and develop their photography skills, they can appreciate photography with all manner of equipment. On the other hand, if they're into photography for the sake and love of technology, well, then they'll only be satisfied with the latest gear. :oops:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
643
662
Lack of IS is a real problem. And unfortunately canon's segmentation shenanigans has decided that this is a pro-body feature only.
IBIS will not go in cheap cameras because it is expensive to implement, not simply because Canon is trying to segment the lines. Sony has made very similar decisions and Minolta (which Sony bought) invented IBIS. If you want a cheap camera, you will get a mix of features that that will give you the best pictures you can get for that price. More money, more features. Further, IBIS is of little use with long telephoto lenses and "reach" has been the mantra of the vast majority of those hoping for such (a) camera(s). Folks with an R5 who want more reach will likely go for the R7. Folks with an RP, R, or even R6 may well settle for the R10, but we have yet to see the physical and control differences, so a little early to call accurately. The primary clue that neither of these is a Rebel or M50 replacement is the sparse lens offering. My bet is that the 18-45 is a cheap FF UW and that leaves the 18-150 (likely a ported over M lens) as the only true APS-c choice. That, and a future port of the M 11-22 makes sense if both cameras are meant to be "reach" bodies with ancillary stand-alone utility, but it makes no sense for a general-purpose entry level body. This may all change over the next year or two, but Canon will watch and listen for a while before the next move.
 

blackcoffee17

EOS RP
Sep 17, 2014
786
1,027
I think Canon could have made a little effort with the lenses and make them brighter or wider.
Only 29mm on the wide end is not especially amazing, even the tiny and very cheap M kit lens starts at 24mm equivalent.
 

Rocky

EOS R
Jul 30, 2010
1,042
118
Not I apparently, or at least I didn't used to. The best pictures I have taken were shot before my cameras had any of those things.
All those auto everything cameras make me become a very sloppy photographer
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

reefroamer

EOS 90D
CR Pro
Jun 21, 2014
133
186
I’m not expecting Canon to put a big bet on APS-C bodies or lenses. Has anyone seen good data that shows APSC-C is a growth/growing market? I haven't but may have missed it. Both an R7 and R10 could be produced with minimal investments by Canon just to test the waters.
 

Kharan

R6, RP, bunch of lenses
Nov 9, 2018
55
56
These all have useless viewangles on APS-C, you pay full-frame glass and at least the 24-105 & 70-200 are NOT small. On APS-C a 50mm = not really a portrait lens, 35mm = not really a 50mm, 24-105 missing the wide end etc. EF-M22 is a small lens, EF-M32 is small and a true 50 equivalent etc.



This is why a a unified mount is shit. If you look at at EF-mount, Z-mount or F-mount the APS-C lenses were always bigger than needed, half assed and missing important lenses, b/c you can always gEt ThE fUlLfRaMe LeNs and ApS-c Is EnTrY tO FuLlFrAmE.
You apparently don't know much about the history of photography. For decades, entry level zooms started around 35mm. Heck, Tamron now make a very expensive, very desirable 35-150mm f/2-2.8 that basically covers the essential range for portrait and event photographers. 75mm lenses are used widely in the cinema field, where they're often seen as great companions to 50mm lenses. Jun Hirokawa, a legendary lens designer for Pentax, felt that 77mm was the ideal portrait focal length over 85mm or 90mm. 55mm and 58mm kit lenses were much more common in the '60s and '70s, before everyone settled on 50mm as the standard focal length.
What you seem to perceive as the 'correct' angles of view are a relatively recent product of the last three decades. It took until the 2000's for 24mm to become a common focal length, and with it came the much more widespread rise of 70mm, a focal length that's used for more portraits than any other (thanks to it being a typical end of constant f/2.8 zooms). It's all very, very relative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users

Kharan

R6, RP, bunch of lenses
Nov 9, 2018
55
56
IBIS will not go in cheap cameras because it is expensive to implement, not simply because Canon is trying to segment the lines. Sony has made very similar decisions and Minolta (which Sony bought) invented IBIS. If you want a cheap camera, you will get a mix of features that that will give you the best pictures you can get for that price. More money, more features. Further, IBIS is of little use with long telephoto lenses and "reach" has been the mantra of the vast majority of those hoping for such (a) camera(s).
I beg to differ. Pentax have been offering Shake Reduction in all but their cheapest cameras for decades now... and Sony used to do the same, back on the A-mount. Their DSLRs (and later SLTs) all had SteadyShot. All. And they competed well on price against Canon and Nikon. Olympus have been putting IBIS on almost everything as well, and Panasonic followed suit a couple of years ago on most bodies. I don't buy the price argument - if much smaller, less profitable manufacturers can add it, even to very small cameras, then cost is not the issue. It's almost surely "differentiation" (AKA the cripple hammer, which in this case is used by the Big Three, not just Canon).
 

John Wilde

EOS RP
Jan 2, 2021
230
386
Has anyone seen good data that shows APSC-C is a growth/growing market?
For future growth, Canon needs something affordable for first-time camera buyers. The R10 will probably be somewhere in that range.

It's only one country, but (Source: BCN) the APS-C M50/KissM is the best selling mirrorless camera in Japan.

Last year, (CIPA) 4,963,682 "Lenses for smaller than 35mm format Cameras" were shipped. I assume that most of those were kit lenses, that came with non-FF cameras.
 
Last edited:

Rocky

EOS R
Jul 30, 2010
1,042
118
You apparently don't know much about the history of photography. For decades, entry level zooms started around 35mm. Heck, Tamron now make a very expensive, very desirable 35-150mm f/2-2.8 that basically covers the essential range for portrait and event photographers. 75mm lenses are used widely in the cinema field, where they're often seen as great companions to 50mm lenses. Jun Hirokawa, a legendary lens designer for Pentax, felt that 77mm was the ideal portrait focal length over 85mm or 90mm. 55mm and 58mm kit lenses were much more common in the '60s and '70s, before everyone settled on 50mm as the standard focal length.
What you seem to perceive as the 'correct' angles of view are a relatively recent product of the last three decades. It took until the 2000's for 24mm to become a common focal length, and with it came the much more widespread rise of 70mm, a focal length that's used for more portraits than any other (thanks to it being a typical end of constant f/2.8 zooms). It's all very, very relative.
45mm has been "standard focal" length for a long time even since pre WW II. Except Lieca choose the 50mm. Here comes the SLR (Exakta, Pre WW II) 58mm was used as " standard lens", due to the long fringe distance and avialble type of glass, they cannot design a good 50mm lens. Pantax, Minolta etc choose 55mm later due to more mature lens design. Later on, SLR was able to use 50mm as "standard lens" due to more mature design and more available type of glass. The "Holy Trinity" for Leica ( range finder) has been alway 35, 50 and 90. 77mm is a very unusual focal length for 135 film camera. As for zoom started at 35mm that is also due to the design problem in the old days (in the 60's). First zoom llens is called ZOOMAR made by Voigtlander, in the 60's for it SLR. It started at 35 mm due to design restriction.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Otara

EOS RP
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2012
485
292
Makes me wonder what the people with the insatiable and never-ending need for more and more camera tech features think of those photographers out there taking awesome photos with film cameras and manual lenses! :oops:

About as much as they think about sculptors or painters I suspect.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users

Rocky

EOS R
Jul 30, 2010
1,042
118
Or does it allow you to strongly emphasize composition?
Yes, But with high pixel count and photoshop I can be a little bit sloppy too. P.S. I cut my teeth on photography by doing Kodakchrome. No adjustment and no cropping after the shutter is pushed. Also Kodakchrome is not cheap. Has to be sent to Australia for processing. So I was very careful before I press the shutter release everytime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Feb 18, 2016
1
2
Is it just me - or do all the R7 and R10 mock up pics - look like they have full frame sensors in the bodies - and not crop sensors.
(CR used to get this right. What's happened?)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users