I'd gladly do away with the touch bar if it meant the addition of Built in GPS instead. I'd buy one straight away to complement my 6D MKII
I bet you for this price you don't even get the crop in the 4K video!I think it would need to be less than $1500. U.S. to differentiate sufficiently from first R to attract low end buyers. What would they leave off? Would it simply be a lower res camera with no touch bar and slightly fewer options in the menu?
I think that the A7III created downward pressure on FF ILCs, and we'll eventually see $1500 USD FF bodies, or at least $2000 FF MILC kits. Remember, Canon has a non L RF kit consumer grade lens coming out this year, would be a good bundle with a new body that's a little lower end.I thought the R was entry level. It's cheap already.
I can’t speak for the EOS R’s touch bar, but I quite like the feature on my Mac – for example, when giving talks I find that many AV systems only support a duplicated display (where the projector mirrors the internal screen, rather than being treated as an extended desktop), and as a result the PowerPoint/Keynote presenter display does not function, meaning no preview of the upcoming slides. The Touch Bar on my Mac shows thumbnails of the slides, allowing me to see what's coming next.That touch bar nonsense reminds of the same thing on Macbooks. Crap that people don't need, don't want and would really wish they didn't have to pay for. And yet Apple and Canon push unwanted creepy tech on us. We want better sensors - Canon gives us touch bar. OMG. I just can't.
I do not understand some stubbornly repeated criticism...
To add a point of contrast, I actually really appreciate that Canon tries weird stuff like that.
What if this lower end R is without a viewfinder? Because that would effectively distinguish it from EOS R. And make it cheaper for Canon. I know that some people rarely use viewfinders and always use LCDs. (Personally I am the opposite.) I don't know how big this niche is, but as there is no lower end FF body under 6D, this is a new territory for Canon. In EOS M the lowest bodies also don't have VF. Maybe it would be a good combination with something like a compact RF 24-70/4. Would you buy FF camera without VF?
I would not, but I like the way you are thinking outside the box.What if this lower end R is without a viewfinder? Because that would effectively distinguish it from EOS R. And make it cheaper for Canon. I know that some people rarely use viewfinders and always use LCDs. (Personally I am the opposite.) I don't know how big this niche is, but as there is no lower end FF body under 6D, this is a new territory for Canon. In EOS M the lowest bodies also don't have VF. Maybe it would be a good combination with something like a compact RF 24-70/4. Would you buy FF camera without VF?
Agree that it would distinguish it from the EOS R, but maybe in the same way a new ‘inexpensive’ Tesla would be distinguished from current models by coming without a steering wheel.What if this lower end R is without a viewfinder? Because that would effectively distinguish it from EOS R. And make it cheaper for Canon. I know that some people rarely use viewfinders and always use LCDs. (Personally I am the opposite.) I don't know how big this niche is, but as there is no lower end FF body under 6D, this is a new territory for Canon. In EOS M the lowest bodies also don't have VF. Maybe it would be a good combination with something like a compact RF 24-70/4. Would you buy FF camera without VF?
Would you buy FF camera without VF?
You can't understand that people have and express opinions? And that they come to gear forums to discuss them?
Only express praise? Would that be a "discussion"?
Maybe eight or ten or twenty people express the same negative opinion. To you, that is "repeated." But to each individual, that is complaining once about a feature they don't like.
I expect Canon has gotten the message: The touchbar is not indispensable for some of their customers.
Well, they do need to basically replicate the EF-mount lineup of bodies so why not? EF will disappear over time in favor of RF and entry-level bodies are necessary to attract new users (who aren't willing or able to pay $3-4k just to get started). Eventually a sub-$500 RF-mount body is needed (it would be nuts expecting people to start out with EF-M and then switch to RF later)
Lower resolution EVF, no touchy-slidey-bar, no touchscreen... There are probably plenty of little things that could be done to lower manufacturing cost. Plus a lower margin could be accepted for something expected to sell in higher volumes and some artificial limitations could be implemented to motivate users to upgrade.
I think FF cameras will hit that mark soon, but there Canon likes to have tiers. I still think the possibility of a larger than APS-C but smaller than Full frame is a possibility, and it lends itself to marketing well with a small/medium/large setup. The medium could use the R lenses and be a stepping stone but could still be a step up from M.I think that the A7III created downward pressure on FF ILCs, and we'll eventually see $1500 USD FF bodies, or at least $2000 FF MILC kits. Remember, Canon has a non L RF kit consumer grade lens coming out this year, would be a good bundle with a new body that's a little lower end.
24-26 megapixel, reduced advanced AF modes, little lower upper end ISO, less weather sealing, 0.5-1 FPS slower, little smaller, maybe different battery, is what I expect.
Canon has to do so much catch-up work to remain competitive. The wolves are circling and moving quickly. Will the Canon glacier move?
Yes, you can really see how Canon needs to catch up to remain competitive by looking at ILC market share, which Canon has dominated for the past 15+ years, and continues to dominate today.Canon has to do so much catch-up work to remain competitive. The wolves are circling and moving quickly. Will the Canon glacier move?