Is the new Canon full frame mirrorless called the EOS R?

[melgross]

Yeah tell that to the wedding videographers... Not exactly niche of a niche.

I was just at the wedding of the son of a friend. This was a very high end wedding ($20,000 for the band!). They had video, and all of it was shot with - surprise... video cameras. Now, isn’t that amazing? Pros use the best equipment for the job.

 

[melgross]

I dont know man, but the amount of video footage that is being uploadede every day to youtube alone, is staggering. Moste of it might be shot on phones, but I will bet you that a huge amount is shot on still-cameras. Video is a growing market. It bewilders me that canon isn't pushing there video features more. 120 frames is wicket useful to anybody trying to make video, with a high production value on a budget. It could be that I have blinders on because of the kind of work that I do, but I dont think it is without reason that people keep bringing up 4k and 1080p,120 farms/s.

Just look at these stats: https://expandedramblings.com/index.php/youtube-statistics/

400 hours of video uploaded every minut

Of course, there’s a lot of video on You Tube. That’s what it’s for, after all. But I’d guess that most is shot with a smartphone, a video camera, or a small fixed lens still/video camera. I’d be willing to bet that very little is shot with a DSLR, or an ILC mirrorless.

 

[scyrene]

Then why are you on a thread about a new camera if you're already happy with what you have?

Maybe he's tired of people jumping in with "if it doesn't have feature X I'm swapping to Sony!" (or even "Canon is doomed!"). You know, balancing out the crazy.

 

[melgross]

Agree with you -- I never use my SLR to shoot video. I use my iPhone.

But have you been to this site called [checks glasses] ...Youtube?

Vloggers, product reviewers, social media folks, budding internet personalities, etc. by the truckoads are carving out their niche online, and they (largely) aren't doing it with GoPros or phones. A solid ILC with strong video (and we can define that a thousand ways) is in demand. Whether they need a FF product to do that, however, is something we could surely debate. Perhaps an M50, 80D, etc. would be an easier move for them, but I'm guessing if they shoot enough it would spur interest in FF.

- A

As I replied to another post, I believe, from what I see there, and I know a lot of guys on YouTube, that most of it is shot with phones, video cameras, and small still/video cameras with fixed lenses. go Pros are also used. I’ve seen very few shot with an ILC of any kind, but it’s not zero either.

 

[crashpc]

I have read very strong opinions adressing photo purists, that video functions help to put prices down, and that economies of scale are in action, making the camera "unnecessarily" very multipurpose device. Now I hear very strong opinions that you can't have good video function in your camera.

Something is not right here. You can't have it both ways. I start to believe that Canon actually adds more nails to its coffin, by not adding functions and features to the function of their device eventually.
Hello Nokia! ;-)

 

[Quarkcharmed]

IMO, this sounds like some patents we have seen in the past where the EF mount would / could be used by two different lens types EF and a yet to be named other. Perhaps the RF mount is simply the same as an EF mount, that accepts EF lenses, and also accepts newer "RF" asynchronous protocol lenses that haven't been developed yet.

I think it's absolutely impossible. If Canon releases a new mount, even fully EF-compatible, they also release a couple of lenses for it.

 

[Kit.]

I have read very strong opinions adressing photo purists, that video functions help to put prices down, and that economies of scale are in action, making the camera "unnecessarily" very multipurpose device. Now I hear very strong opinions that you can't have good video function in your camera.

Some video specs require sensor and DSP performance not needed for photo and/or may result in non-reliable operations (overheating).

Something is not right here. You can't have it both ways. I start to believe that Canon actually adds more nails to its coffin, by not adding functions and features to the function of their device eventually.
Hello Nokia! ;-)

A week ago I replaced my old Sony with a new Nokia - and I actually like its decent size and lack of bloatware.

 

[tron]

I think it's absolutely impossible. If Canon releases a new mount, even fully EF-compatible, they also release a couple of lenses for it.

Maybe their perception of time is different so it is OK to release new lenses on a much later day

 

[ecpu]

Good photo specs and good video specs OR SONY!! lol. but seriously though.

 

[Bennymiata]

Hundreds of posts arguing about something that doesn't even exist yet and bashing people about non-existant products.

Grow up guys.

 

[ecpu]

Hundreds of posts arguing about something that doesn't even exist yet and bashing people about non-existant products.

Grow up guys.

Isn't that what the internet's for? lol

 

[ahsanford]

I think it's absolutely impossible. If Canon releases a new mount, even fully EF-compatible, they also release a couple of lenses for it.

Please clarify what 'fully EF compatible new mount' means to you:

• If you mean what everyone else is doing -- thin flange distance plus EF adaptor -- then yes. 100% they need a few new lenses a launch. Hopefully they are lenses that make the size savings pop and are not clones of higher end EF glass (which would send EF users into a panic that EF is going away, even with an adaptor in the mix).
  
  
• If you mean it's straight up identical physically to EF but it secretly has fancy/improved lens communications, I'd wonder why they did it, have a jillion questions about how this isn't fragmentation of the mount for future lenses a la Nikon. Yes, they could put out a new EF-Fancy 24-70 f/2.8 Special AF to show this off, but I'd just be scratching my head why they did.
  
  
• If you mean weird new mount that receives two different kinds of lenses, like the EF-X concept or a variable/actuated flange distance, then yes, some nestled/tucked-in lenses would be in order.

But if it's just straight EF, I would argue no new lenses need to be made: kit the damn thing with the 24-105L II or something. In fact, it might be best not to put out new glass at launch. There's no better way to hammer home that EF will be money on this new system than to kit EF with it and show how perfectly it works.

- A

 

[Isaacheus]

I have never seen stock in a very specific feature climb so high in value in such a short period of time as Eye AF.

I've never used it before, but can someone convey to me how it went from being a neat new feature to 'if Canon's next camera doesn't have it, I'm setting my house on fire'?

- A

Even having it in one of my cameras, it's a bit overblown on the internet. It's very useful yes but it's not perfect.

If Canon don't put it on their next cameras, it'd be a bummer, considering the m50 but that wouldn't be the factor that makes or breaks it for my case

 

[Ozarker]

Then why are you on a thread about a new camera if you're already happy with what you have?

Because I like to read. I don't see what reading a thread has to do with whether I am happy, or not, with what I already have. Your "logic" is very strange. You know? A little curiosity goes a long way in this world. Try it sometimes... just because.

 

[Ozarker]

Ugh. Intolerant responses like this make me wish there was a "mute" button so that I don't have to see responses from specific posters.

Please ignore me. Please do. I'll get over it.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

I dont know man, but the amount of video footage that is being uploadede every day to youtube alone, is staggering. Moste of it might be shot on phones, but I will bet you that a huge amount is shot on still-cameras. Video is a growing market. It bewilders me that canon isn't pushing there video features more. 120 frames is wicket useful to anybody trying to make video, with a high production value on a budget. It could be that I have blinders on because of the kind of work that I do, but I dont think it is without reason that people keep bringing up 4k and 1080p,120 farms/s.

Yeah they just want something they don't really need. That is, after they purchase a camera with 1080@120, they'll use it once or twice just to have fun with slow motion and that'd be it. I agree it may be a decisive feature for many people but in reality maybe 1% of customers really need the1080@120.

Just look at these stats: https://expandedramblings.com/index.php/youtube-statistics/

400 hours of video uploaded every minut

And all that video is in 1080@120?

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Please clarify what 'fully EF compatible new mount' means to you:

• If you mean what everyone else is doing -- thin flange distance plus EF adaptor -- then yes. 100% they need a few new lenses a launch. Hopefully they are lenses that make the size savings pop and are not clones of higher end EF glass (which would send EF users into a panic that EF is going away, even with an adaptor in the mix).
  
  
• If you mean it's straight up identical physically to EF but it secretly has fancy/improved lens communications, I'd wonder why they did it, have a jillion questions about how this isn't fragmentation of the mount for future lenses a la Nikon. Yes, they could put out a new EF-Fancy 24-70 f/2.8 Special AF to show this off, but I'd just be scratching my head why they did.
  
  
• If you mean weird new mount that receives two different kinds of lenses, like the EF-X concept or a variable/actuated flange distance, then yes, some nestled/tucked-in lenses would be in order.

But if it's just straight EF, I would argue no new lenses need to be made: kit the damn thing with the 24-105L II or something. In fact, it might be best not to put out new glass at launch. There's no better way to hammer home that EF will be money on this new system than to kit EF with it and show how perfectly it works.

- A

I was responding to an implied statement somewhere above in the thread that the new mount would be backward-compatible with EF, it'd take EF lenses natively but would be called differently and would also take new lenses incompatible with old EF mount. So it was close to your (2) or (3) case.
That is, I can't imagine Canon releasing a new mount and not having already developed lenses for it.

 

[JBSF]

Well I think that RF means “Reverse/Forward.” The body will have a little stick shift on the back, and you will shift up or down to select ISO. In months it will be such a hot feature that all Sony fanboys will jump ship and buy Canon. This is in the secret Canon road map that ONLY I HAVE SEEN.

 

[Refurb7]

The R stands for "Really?" As in, really good, or really bad. We'll see which!

 

[mppix]

Please clarify what 'fully EF compatible new mount' means to you:

• If you mean what everyone else is doing -- thin flange distance plus EF adaptor -- then yes. 100% they need a few new lenses a launch. Hopefully they are lenses that make the size savings pop and are not clones of higher end EF glass (which would send EF users into a panic that EF is going away, even with an adaptor in the mix).
  
  
• If you mean it's straight up identical physically to EF but it secretly has fancy/improved lens communications, I'd wonder why they did it, have a jillion questions about how this isn't fragmentation of the mount for future lenses a la Nikon. Yes, they could put out a new EF-Fancy 24-70 f/2.8 Special AF to show this off, but I'd just be scratching my head why they did.
  
  
• If you mean weird new mount that receives two different kinds of lenses, like the EF-X concept or a variable/actuated flange distance, then yes, some nestled/tucked-in lenses would be in order.

But if it's just straight EF, I would argue no new lenses need to be made: kit the damn thing with the 24-105L II or something. In fact, it might be best not to put out new glass at launch. There's no better way to hammer home that EF will be money on this new system than to kit EF with it and show how perfectly it works.

- A

I believe the EF-X concept (shall we call it RF? - its safe to assume it won't be ER) remains an intriguing option for the follwing reasons
- Huge lens selection available form 11mm to 600mm (or if you want to count up to the 1200mm..)
- Few new "intruding" lenses needed (likely all <=35mm)
- A LOT* of people will pick one up as B or C camera, in part work out the new tech
- No need to convince people that new lenses are coming (see Nikon)
And finally
- If they don't release new "intruding" lenses now, they can always move to slim mount if the experiment fails.

This is risk minimization and leveraging corporate strengths 101. I don't see why Canon would ever do it differently.

* I'd go so fare to guess that EF compatibility can give Canon N.1 spot in FF-MILC next year. This camera is very likely to itch every FF shooter indipendent of spec (well except the extreme ones).