I don't see how. Have you seen dual card slots in a 6D series camera? 12 fps mechanical shutter? 1/250s X-sync?the R6 is the mirrorless 6D series camera.
Or maybe a joystick?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I don't see how. Have you seen dual card slots in a 6D series camera? 12 fps mechanical shutter? 1/250s X-sync?the R6 is the mirrorless 6D series camera.
Let me explain it real simple like...The 5 series DSLRs were higher end more expensive FF cameras. The 6 Series DSLRs were the lower priced, lower spec'ed (but still in the $2000 range) FF cameras. Now, in mirrorless, the R5 is the higher end, more expensive FF camera. The R6 is the lower priced, lower spec'ed (but still in the $2000 range) FF camera. See how easy! That's why they continued using the numbers 5 and 6. To make it simple to understand, even for forum dwellers.I don't see how. Have you seen dual card slots in a 6D series camera? 12 fps mechanical shutter? 1/250s X-sync?
Or maybe a joystick?
Simple - and wrong. 5D series started with 5D and 5DII, and only then got split into (higher than 5DII) 5DIII and (lower than 5DII) 6D.Let me explain it real simple like...The 5 series DSLRs were higher end more expensive FF cameras. The 6 Series DSLRs were the lower priced, lower spec'ed (but still in the $2000 range) FF cameras.
Wrong again. We have R5, R6, R, and RP. R was positioned between 5DIV and 6DII, R6 is higher-spec'ed than R in everything but resolution, and Canon has already promised a FF camera that would be a lower tier than RP. All this makes your SLR lineup analogy irrelevant.Now, in mirrorless, the R5 is the higher end, more expensive FF camera. The R6 is the lower priced, lower spec'ed (but still in the $2000 range) FF camera. See how easy!
They may continue to use whatever numbers they want, but it doesn't make the R6 "the mirrorless 6D series camera".That's why they continued using the numbers 5 and 6. To make it simple to understand, even for forum dwellers.
Careful. I suggested that the R7 might not be a ‘mirrorless 7D’ and some people became rather upset.They may continue to use whatever numbers they want, but it doesn't make the R6 "the mirrorless 6D series camera".
If you believe that the specs dictate the numbering, so be it. Pretty much everyone else understands the logic of Canon's numbering scheme when it comes to "5" and "6". But if you have to be "Right" - I guess there is no arguing with you. It just seems like an UNBELIEVABLE coincidence that Canon decided to use the numbers 5 and 6 for both of their new RF FF cameras when they were released, when their DSLRs in roughly the same price bracket were also numbered 5 and 6! Wow! How silly of me to think there might be a logical, reasonable explanation!Simple - and wrong. 5D series started with 5D and 5DII, and only then got split into (higher than 5DII) 5DIII and (lower than 5DII) 6D.
Wrong again. We have R5, R6, R, and RP. R was positioned between 5DIV and 6DII, R6 is higher-spec'ed than R in everything but resolution, and Canon has already promised a FF camera that would be a lower tier than RP. All this makes your SLR lineup analogy irrelevant.
They may continue to use whatever numbers they want, but it doesn't make the R6 "the mirrorless 6D series camera".
What makes you so emotional about the simple observation that R6 is not an 6D series equivalent, but a higher-tier camera?If you believe that the specs dictate the numbering, so be it. Pretty much everyone else understands the logic of Canon's numbering scheme when it comes to "5" and "6". But if you have to be "Right" - I guess there is no arguing with you. It just seems like an UNBELIEVABLE coincidence that Canon decided to use the numbers 5 and 6 for both of their new RF FF cameras when they were released, when their DSLRs in roughly the same price bracket were also numbered 5 and 6! Wow! How silly of me to think there might be a logical, reasonable explanation!
My opinion:What makes you so emotional about the simple observation that R6 is not an 6D series equivalent, but a higher-tier camera?
My opinion:My opinion:
Canon naming conventions seem to be based on *several* criteria including price range, specification, build quality and target users. Cameras are constantly evolving and it's quite obvious that specifications will become more advanced with each successive model within a numerical designation, hence R5 is far more advanced than 5DS, even though they use the same numerical designation, and are/were the "high megapixel flagships" of their eras.
Actually, the proverbial "5-series" started with EOS 10 (EOS S in the U.S.) in 1991. Then it became EOS 5, then EOS 3.5D series have always been "economy pro" and "hi-end serious amateur" FF cameras, as is the case with R5.
"6D" series was a lower-tier spin-off of the "5-series" after the 5DII. Only two models of the 6D series have been made.6D series have always been "affordable mid-range FF", as is the case with R6.
"7D series" has a history of having only two models and being the slowest updating Canon series ever. EOS 7D was released in 2009, EOS 7DII was released in 2014.7D series have always been "economy pro" and "hi-end amateur" APS-C cameras, so logically the same will apply to the "R7". if it actually exists and uses that designation.
Actually, the closest analogy to EOS 3 in Canon's digital lineup would be EOS 5DIII. EOS R3 is a completely different beast.R3 is clearly an intermediate model between R5 and "R1", and uses the "3" designation because it uses "eye-control AF point selection", just like the EOS 3.
Canon's Rebel models traditionally have 3-digit and 4-digit model numbers.The bottom of range FF models will most likely be single digit "R8" and/or "R9"
As for the expected "mirrorless Rebels", my guess is that they will be called "R10" (double digits for budget APS-C)
Meh. The 7D II DSLR was priced at $1799 (body only). Canon has contempt for first-time camera buyers who want something new-affordable.
The closest positioning of the R6 would actually be a continuation of "pre-5DIII" 5D series. Similar price to 5DII, similar ergonomics, similar build quality.
My opinion:
Canon's naming "conventions" can be given some rationalization in hindsight, but are actually unpredictable. For example, no one outside Canon would predict splitting the 5D series into two after 5DII, nor would expect Canon to come up with RP (and then not with RS, but with R5) either.
Actually, the proverbial "5-series" started with EOS 10 (EOS S in the U.S.) in 1991. Then it became EOS 5, then EOS 3.
EOS 5, released in 1992, already had the eye control AF.
"6D" series was a lower-tier spin-off of the "5-series" after the 5DII. Only two models of the 6D series have been made.
The closest positioning of the R6 would actually be a continuation of "pre-5DIII" 5D series. Similar price to 5DII, similar ergonomics, similar build quality.
"7D series" has a history of having only two models and being the slowest updating Canon series ever. EOS 7D was released in 2009, EOS 7DII was released in 2014.
Actually, the closest analogy to EOS 3 in Canon's digital lineup would be EOS 5DIII. EOS R3 is a completely different beast.
Canon's Rebel models traditionally have 3-digit and 4-digit model numbers.
Have you a desire to see technology stand still, just to comply with your imaginary model categorisation?I don't see how. Have you seen dual card slots in a 6D series camera? 12 fps mechanical shutter? 1/250s X-sync?
Or maybe a joystick?
If you ever tried to use the 5D Mark II's AF in even moderately low light you'd never compare the R6, with its mind-blowing AF performance, to the 5D Mark II.
The 5D Mark II had near 1-series image quality but a Rebel level AF system.
Maybe you both should start arguing with each other?Have you a desire to see technology stand still, just to comply with your imaginary model categorisation?
Kit has a point: the 5D was not mid range FF at its introduction, it’s was the ‘budget’ model, and very basic. (But wonderful). The five series then grew in stature over the next two models, and the III became a genuinely ‘pro’ level body. At the same time the 6D was introduced which was kind of the spiritual successor to the original 5D as the budget model. Even if we take standards for 2012 compared with now, the R6 is still streaks ahead of what the 6D was, as a simple, slow basic FF camera. The mirrorless equivalent of the 6D is the RP. If Canon introduce a FF camera below the RP series in future it will be a more budget orientated camera than the 6D ever was.If you believe that the specs dictate the numbering, so be it. Pretty much everyone else understands the logic of Canon's numbering scheme when it comes to "5" and "6". But if you have to be "Right" - I guess there is no arguing with you. It just seems like an UNBELIEVABLE coincidence that Canon decided to use the numbers 5 and 6 for both of their new RF FF cameras when they were released, when their DSLRs in roughly the same price bracket were also numbered 5 and 6! Wow! How silly of me to think there might be a logical, reasonable explanation!
I wasn't aware that I was "arguing" with anyone...Maybe you both should start arguing with each other?
Have you a desire to see technology stand still, just to comply with your imaginary model categorisation?
You seem to be confused - I note that you "liked" my comment, which presumably means you agreed with it?Have you no comprehension of the difference between technological advances (i.e. faster memory card standards) and features (i.e. how many memory card slots a camera has)?
You seem to be confused - I note that you "liked" my comment, which presumably means you agreed with it?
Rather oddly, you also "liked" Kit's reply, which disagreed with my own comments.
The comment to which I replied was directed at Kit, not you. I assume you and Kit are not the same person.
I've explained the rationale behind my views on Canon's model designation. If you disagree, that's fine, and not worth arguing about. Have a nice day.
Well you're giving me a good laugh, so by all means carry onI don't see where anyone has "liked" the comment to which I replied?
View attachment 203990
The only comment on this page from Kit that I reacted to was a 'Laugh", not a "Like".