I wonder when Canon will launch a great mirrorless body for expert / advanced non-professional photographers, at a fair (of course...) price ?

Oct 2, 2020
8
1
Hi, guys!
My question means R5 is intended for professionals /videographers and with an excessive price (and some issues to be solved). R6 is too short in terms of resolution and stills is paid for video. All the other mirrorless cameras have no IBIS and are older/weaker!
What so many of us would expect? I'd say a camera almost like R5 with no video at all, with a 'reasonable' price, or like R6 but with about 42 MP, with no video and a great price!!! Am I the only one to hope for such a camera? No! At least I know in my circle a dozen of friends. A small circle. I wonder how about all around the world!

I started with Canon in 1978 and did it with the great F1! All along all these years I bought the A1, the unique RT, the T90, and then EOS 5, EOS 3, then the 20D and the 7D! And stopped when something started missing. Then the age claimed for something lighter on my back. I needed Canon would also go mirrorless at a level of about the 'old' EOS 3. No video needed. There are many and many photographers! No videographers at the same time. Fair price. Waited and waited and finally, after 41 years of using Canon, I just bought a mirrorless Fujifilm X-H1 body, with IBIS, brand new, with Power Booster Grip and 2 more batteries for just 1050 €!!! Then, still waiting for a miracle, I bought the great priced fujinon 16-80mm f:4. And finally now, for my over 20 Canon lenses (FD and EF), I bought 2 great adapters to use them on my Fuji camera! What a great decision and save of money!
Ok, I must confess I still hope for such a camera from my first love, though each time more I start doubting Canon will do it! It looks like video overcomes photography as well as only (very) expensive or cheap cameras sell! In-between, towards the high end but for advanced amateurs (photographers, only), with a reasonable price... Canon put apart! And so, I guess so many canonists will change for more realistic brands in gear key specs (Fuji, Sony, Pentax,...). Pity, Canon!!!
Anyone thinking or hoping like me?
 
  • Like
Reactions: PhotonShark

Rzrsharp

I'm New Here
Sep 8, 2020
17
5
Video is important.
You want to see how you did talk and walk while you're a kid.
It's video, not photo.
 

PCM-madison

EOS 90D
CR Pro
Dec 9, 2013
128
81
The EOS RP has worked really well for me. I've never had a body with IBIS, and I am not sure it is needed in most cases. In-lens IS allows hand held shots a slow enough shutter speeds to blur motion like this photo I took of Copper Falls using my RP.
Copper Falls 01 L sm.jpg
 
Oct 2, 2020
8
1
Video is important.
You want to see how you did talk and walk while you're a kid.
It's video, not photo.
Of course video is important, as it's painting, sculpture, etc. But I am a photographer (only), as so many out there. And Canon has all its cameras now with video. Was it that strange if they may look at all those that don't want to pay a price for something they don't use? Ok, or just a kind of a entry level for video for keeping price reasonable, anyway. Those who do both video and photography may use the present cameras or even video only!
 

Joules

EOS R
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,239
1,404
Hamburg, Germany
Was it that strange if they may look at all those that don't want to pay a price for something they don't use?
You won't save anything by buying a camera that doesn't have video. Such a camera will be in far less demand than a general purpose one. And especially in mirrorless, literally the only component you pay for is the encoding of the video. With the R5 for example, the line between stills and video is already becoming pretty blury at 20 FPS 45 MP. Or the 120 Hz Live Video pipeline used in the EVF. Those are stills features, but they use the same aspects of a camera that is required for video. Just the step of compressing and writing the data to the card is a video exclusive, and it won't save you enough to offset the dimminished sales numbers.

Or why else do you think even the most entry level cameras have video features? If even such price sensitive products don't ditch it in order to lower costs, I don't see how you can reasonably expect to save anything by 'crippling' the video on a high end model.
 

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Mar 25, 2011
16,463
1,435
R has no IBIS and now that I use its benefits with the Fuji I want it in my next Canon (?) camera.
There will be a low end Canon Mirrorless probably around 30MP but no one knows about IBIS. If is sells cameras its just like video, they will add it. Realistically, I see no difference using EF lenses which have IS (I know that there is little or none). I never had a issue with my EF 24-70 on my R and have yet to use it on my R5, I don't see IBIS as a big benefit since it is only of value for a stationary subject. If the subject is moving, a fast shutter speed is needed to get a sharp photo.

I will say that R5 images are notably better than my R images. I did not expect that much improvement.
 
Oct 2, 2020
8
1
You won't save anything by buying a camera that doesn't have video. Such a camera will be in far less demand than a general purpose one. And especially in mirrorless, literally the only component you pay for is the encoding of the video. With the R5 for example, the line between stills and video is already becoming pretty blury at 20 FPS 45 MP. Or the 120 Hz Live Video pipeline used in the EVF. Those are stills features, but they use the same aspects of a camera that is required for video. Just the step of compressing and writing the data to the card is a video exclusive, and it won't save you enough to offset the dimminished sales numbers.

Or why else do you think even the most entry level cameras have video features? If even such price sensitive products don't ditch it in order to lower costs, I don't see how you can reasonably expect to save anything by 'crippling' the video on a high end model.
OK, maybe you're right about what you say. Maybe I may put things in other way: I (and so may long run Canonists, not professional but advanced amateurs with a lot of money spent along the years in Canon gear) expect a Canon mirrorless camera to come (with video or not, doesn't matter for me, but I then say: the best for Canon and their clients) with IBIS, above R6 in resolution (42 MP it's my goal), much cheaper than R5! That's it! Thank you for participating in this thread!
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
1,879
1,737
OK, maybe you're right about what you say. Maybe I may put things in other way: I (and so may long run Canonists, not professional but advanced amateurs with a lot of money spent along the years in Canon gear) expect a Canon mirrorless camera to come (with video or not, doesn't matter for me, but I then say: the best for Canon and their clients) with IBIS, above R6 in resolution (42 MP it's my goal), much cheaper than R5! That's it! Thank you for participating in this thread!
OK, so basically you want an R5 without the R5 price, since there's little difference between 42 MP and 45MP.

What would you expect them to remove from the features list to get a cheaper camera? You've already said you don't want them to get rid of IBIS.

If you had requested 30-35 MP instead of 42, I could see them putting something out there someday. Perhaps the R mark II will have the feature set of the R5/6 (minus things like 8K that require 45MP) with a 30MP sensor.
 

ColorBlindBat

I'm New Here
CR Pro
Aug 30, 2018
17
6
My choice would be an Rii / R5.5.

An R (retain the magnesium body and a 30-36MP sensor) with the following additions:
IBIS
Second SD card slot (less heat than a CFx card would produce)
Joystick instead of the touchbar
Improved AF similar to the R5 and R6.
Higher frame rate
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
1,879
1,737
My choice would be an Rii / R5.5.

An R (retain the magnesium body and a 30-36MP sensor) with the following additions:
IBIS
Second SD card slot (less heat than a CFx card would produce)
Joystick instead of the touchbar
Improved AF similar to the R5 and R6.
Higher frame rate
That's basically an R6 with a bigger sensor, and I'd have gone for that, too. I've got zero interest in CF Express, or the top LCD. But I was interested in a sensor with substantially more than 20MP, so I went with the R5.
 

Bdbtoys

EOS 90D
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2020
184
128
I went from a 70D to the R then to the R5. I sold all my EF/EF-S lenses with the 70D and went full RF L Lenses when I moved to the R.

The R is a great camera for the price point. However it was a bit slow for my tastes. The R5 was a step up for me in all regards. That being said... I would wholeheartedly recommend the R for someone who wants to get advanced gear w/o going over 2k. If the IBIS is that important w/o breaking the bank, your left with a R6... however IBIS is a moot point if buying IS lenses (I love it w/ my primes though).

As others mentioned... video is more of a software based thing now. Removing video would probably not saved much... if anything.

Personally, I would love the R5 being a 2k (or less camera)... but that won't happen. However I've come to terms w/ how much I can justify for a camera. When you look at a L lens collection, the cost of an R5/R6 doesn't seem so bad anymore to run it.
 

ColorBlindBat

I'm New Here
CR Pro
Aug 30, 2018
17
6
That's basically an R6 with a bigger sensor, and I'd have gone for that, too. I've got zero interest in CF Express, or the top LCD. But I was interested in a sensor with substantially more than 20MP, so I went with the R5.
Except the R6 has a polycarbonate body and no top LCD display versus a magnesium body and top LCD display on both the R and R5.
Basically an R5 with a lower pixel count sensor and dual SD card slots.
Oh, and the ability to select IBIS or IS when using EF glass. It should be a relative easy firmware change to allow the user to select which stabilization they wish to use.
 
Oct 2, 2020
8
1
There will be a low end Canon Mirrorless probably around 30MP but no one knows about IBIS. If is sells cameras its just like video, they will add it. Realistically, I see no difference using EF lenses which have IS (I know that there is little or none). I never had a issue with my EF 24-70 on my R and have yet to use it on my R5, I don't see IBIS as a big benefit since it is only of value for a stationary subject. If the subject is moving, a fast shutter speed is needed to get a sharp photo.

I will say that R5 images are notably better than my R images. I did not expect that much improvement.
As I said before, it's not the point the low end new cameras (at least for me). I'd expect something near R5 (IBIS obliged, video... I don't miss it in a camera for photography) above R6 in resolution, and at a fair price! That's what's missing in Canon mirrorless R system, i.m.h.o..
 
Oct 2, 2020
8
1
That's basically an R6 with a bigger sensor, and I'd have gone for that, too. I've got zero interest in CF Express, or the top LCD. But I was interested in a sensor with substantially more than 20MP, so I went with the R5.
Here I'd say I agree (ok, let's say a 36 MP sensor) ;) .
 

bernie_king

EOS M50
Jun 30, 2014
43
34
I just have to chuckle when people want an R5 at a "Fair Price." What exactly is a fair price? The 5D Mark IV launched in 2016 for $3499 which equates to $3794.00 in today's money. Are we really complaining about an extra $105.00 for all the advancements they packed in this camera? In many ways the R5 outperforms the $6500 1DX Mark III. The amount of R&D alone that goes into these advanced cameras more than enough to justify their price. I was almost expecting it to launch at $4999 with the specs they list. Add to that the shrinking demand and you have a more than fair price. For those of you who think removing video would make it cheaper, you're crazy. The market for a camera without the "fancy" video features would be so small that the price would be much higher for Canon to make a profit. Probably too high to justify making the camera in the first place. Remember, Canon is in business to make a profit and I'm willing to bet it will be a year or two before they clear a dime on the R5. A smaller sensor could save some money, but not much. You might see such a camera launch for $2999, but I doubt it. I was more than happy to pay the current price for the R5. It's the best camera I've ever had and I've been shooting 1 Series cameras from the 1D3 through the 1DX Mark II.
 
Oct 2, 2020
8
1
I just have to chuckle when people want an R5 at a "Fair Price." What exactly is a fair price? The 5D Mark IV launched in 2016 for $3499 which equates to $3794.00 in today's money. Are we really complaining about an extra $105.00 for all the advancements they packed in this camera? In many ways the R5 outperforms the $6500 1DX Mark III. The amount of R&D alone that goes into these advanced cameras more than enough to justify their price. I was almost expecting it to launch at $4999 with the specs they list. Add to that the shrinking demand and you have a more than fair price. For those of you who think removing video would make it cheaper, you're crazy. The market for a camera without the "fancy" video features would be so small that the price would be much higher for Canon to make a profit. Probably too high to justify making the camera in the first place. Remember, Canon is in business to make a profit and I'm willing to bet it will be a year or two before they clear a dime on the R5. A smaller sensor could save some money, but not much. You might see such a camera launch for $2999, but I doubt it. I was more than happy to pay the current price for the R5. It's the best camera I've ever had and I've been shooting 1 Series cameras from the 1D3 through the 1DX Mark II.
The USA isn't the only country in the world. And if you can get there the R5 for $3900, in Europe it costs 4600€ (=$5400)! I called a fair price for the camera if it would be around 3300€ (= $3900)! That's it!