The Canon EOS R8 will be announced at CP+ in February

[koenkooi]

That’s what I hope for. A modest increase in resolution. I’m more interested in autofocus improvements as well as low light performance than in a high megapixel count.

Canon could do another M50II move and release the R5 with the R6II firmware as the R5II.
I think that will be a much better camera, but it would feel like a lazy cash grab.

 

[scyrene]

The previous "S", the 50 Mpx 5DS had 67% more pixels than the next highest 5D, the 5D IV, giving a noticeable ~30% increase in resolution. An 88 Mpx R5 S would give a 20% increase over a 60 Mpx R5 II under ideal circumstances of low iso and wide lenses as we are really getting into diminishing returms from diffraction and noise lowering resolution. So, with all the possibilities of increasing resolution from pixel shift and other technologies, I wonder if their would be much demand for an R5 S over an R5 II?

Another choice could be, keeping the same resolution or bumping it just modestly for the R5II, but using a more modern architecture like the R3, and keeping the older style sensor but a higher res (eg ~80MP) for an R5S. But in reality I agree it's harder to differentiate them the higher everything goes.

 

[Jethro]

It might also depend on what the plans are for the R1, which has been rumoured as high MP, and which would help to differentiate it from the R3. If that's true, would they really need a high MP R5S in the line as well?

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I wonder how much buying power the part of the internet that keeps saying they want "an R5, but for still photos". Those people would like megapixels and won't let reality get in their way.

For still subjects then sure.
I expect the R5 II to be 40 FPS in photo mode just like the R6 II currently is.
I would be surprised if an R5 S is even 20 FPS like the R5.
Plus I would expect the R5 II to have a deeper buffer.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Another choice could be, keeping the same resolution or bumping it just modestly for the R5II, but using a more modern architecture like the R3, and keeping the older style sensor but a higher res (eg ~80MP) for an R5S.

Not a bad idea but where would that leave the R1?
Maybe R5 II 45 MP stacked, R5 S 80+ MP, and R1 60 MP stacked.

 

[AlanF]

Canon could do another M50II move and release the R5 with the R6II firmware as the R5II.
I think that will be a much better camera, but it would feel like a lazy cash grab.

For me, it would be only a marginally better camera if it's just firmware. The R6 II does have hardware upgrades over the R6, like a more efficient processor.

 

[gruhl28]

One of the main reasons sensor manufacturers developed BSI was to enable smaller pixel sizes for small, high MP sensors. But BSI pixels of equal size have lower read noise and higher QE, so for low light applications it makes sense to use BSI (especially in combination with cooling – scientific cameras have also been taking that approach for many years).

So even for full-frame, a high megapixel sensor with smaller pixels would benefit from BSI, right?

 

[neuroanatomist]

So even for full-frame, a high megapixel sensor with smaller pixels would benefit from BSI, right?

Depends on what you mean by benefit. With a FF sensor in the 60-80 MP range, noise with FSI at ISO 100 might be like ISO 95 with BSI, or noise at ISO 6400 might be like ISO 6100 with BSI. Is that a meaningful benefit? Perhaps in specific applications, such as shooting tiny, white dots on a field of black, that very minor difference might be of meaningful benefit. But for every day photography I believe the difference, while technically a benefit, is functionally and practically irrelevant.

Meaningful benefit from BSI becomes evident with pixel sizes smaller than about 2 µm, for FF sensors that means over 200 MP. With today’s full frame cameras, BSI is a marketing tool.

 

[Czardoom]

...

Meaningful benefit from BSI becomes evident with pixel sizes smaller than about 2 µm, for FF sensors that means over 200 MP. With today’s full frame cameras, BSI is a marketing tool.

Well said! And personally I am glad that historically Canon has cared more about making good, solid, easy to use cameras and not fallen into the trap of making less than solid products and trying to make up for it with steller marketing. (Yes, Sony, I mean you.)

 

[photophil]

Is it just me being impatient or have there been very few leaks at all about the R8 / R50 despite them being close to their rumored announcement?

 

[koenkooi]

Is it just me being impatient or have there been very few leaks at all about the R8 / R50 despite them being close to their rumored announcement?

Both

 

[photophil]

Thanks for the input lol. Guess I will have to wait a while longer before I can figure out my best option (R8, R10, or R50) for vacations and occasional birding, both of which are not exactly the biggest strength of the R6 due to size/weight and resolution.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Thanks for the input lol. Guess I will have to wait a while longer before I can figure out my best option (R8, R10, or R50) for vacations and occasional birding, both of which are not exactly the biggest strength of the R6 due to size/weight and resolution.

I presume you mean wait for actual announcements. Rumors, at whatever frequency, aren't really useful in making purchase decisions. FWIW, I'm in the same boat, waiting to see what APS-C bodies and lenses are released in the next few months and available before a family trip at the beginning of summer. I'd consider an R10 if there's an RF-S 11-22mm launched, or another crop R body if it falls between the R7 and R10 and is reasonably small. Else, I'll stick with my M6II for the trip (as a secondary/daytime camera; I'll also be bringing the R3 and a set of lenses including at least one TS-E).

 

[photophil]

I would not purchase blindly based on rumors alone of course, you have that right. The features in the R10 sound amazing already, but I would prefer something even smaller, comparable to the M6.

 

[SteveC]

I would not purchase blindly based on rumors alone of course, you have that right. The features in the R10 sound amazing already, but I would prefer something even smaller, comparable to the M6.

I'm expecting, someday, to have to replace my Rebel T6i with the R10 (same size/resolution sensor, and for what I'm doing that actually matters, a lot more than the feature set does). I just the body breaks before the 100mm macro on the body does, otherwise I'll end up buying the replacement body and lens at the same time.

 

[Michael Clark]

Downmarket retreat? What does the E-M1X do that the OM-1 with the HLD-10 battery pack doesn't do better?

Weather and dust resistance can be better when a detachable grip is not involved. If you want the battery life or vertical controls provided by using a grip, you have to accept that a one piece body can do it better than an add-on grip in terms of environmental durability.

 

[SaP34US]

I can’t wait to see what the R8 offers and if the also announce an R50.

 

[Michael Clark]

I'll be highly surprised if Canon ever licences the RF mount - it just doesn't make economic sense, when you currently have the market to yourself, and are selling stacks of RF lenses, to make it easy for third parties to steal sales from you. Particularly as Canon probably makes a lot more money from selling lenses than from selling bodies. I don't think the unavailability of third party AF lenses has much impact on the sales of RF cameras either, as Canon covers *most* people's needs/wants already.

Sigma (and to a lesser extent Tamron, who have an agreement regarding Nikon Z mount) will be working hard to reverse engineer for RF, but the longer it takes, the harder it will be for them to compete with Canon's own lenses, because the line is expanding all the time, leaving Sigma etc with only a handful of specialised optics to cover. Many of the latter, particularly macro and shift lenses, are already covered by Laowa, who have no issues with RF protocols because all their glass is manual focus.

Well, considering that the EF mount wasn't closed to those manufacturers, Canon has previously shown willingness to let other manufacturers engage. I would think the benefit changes over time. Today, there is benefit to Canon to keep it closed because having another manufacturer release something Canon plans to release eventually will give those other manufacturers a competitive advantage and impact Canon's long-term revenue. For instance, if Sigma bolts on an RF mount to their 14mm 1.8 before Canon releases a 14mm in RF, yes, people who may have bought the RF version may buy the Sigma instead because it's available today and Canon's version doesn't yet exist. Competition here is impacted by being first to market.

Once Canon has rounded out their offerings on RF, the benefit may change to make opening the mount more favourable. Competing with Canon wouldn't be about being first to market with a product, but rather finding niches where they can find some success because Canon hasn't filled the niche - whether by being a lens that is a low volume speciality product, or lower cost/quality option. If a secondary manufacturer wants to release a lens that Canon doesn't believe will be profitable enough to warrant manufacturing, it's a benefit to the system to have someone else do it - more lenses available, Canon wasn't planning on selling that product anyway, reduces some of the noise about the closed ecosystem, wins for everyone.

Patents expire. Canon introduced the EOS system in 1987 and USM AF just a few years later. I think it is more than just a coincidence that Sigma's Global Vision Series and Tamron's similar entry into the higher quality lens space occurred shortly after the last patents regarding the EF mount AF system had expired in the last countries that are part of Canon's marketing areas of concern where they were still in force.

Canon doesn't have to license anything to make it easier for third party lens makers to produce RF mount lenses. They just have to "look the other way" instead of aggressively pursuing them in legal proceedings.

 

[Michael Clark]

It's price, I'm afraid. Canon can, I think, can always fabricate an FF sensor with the same pixel pitch as an APS-C but it will cost more and take longer to read out data, unless maybe if it's global.

Price and speed. At the time the EOS 5Ds and 5Ds R were introduced most potential buyers were still willing to trade handling speed for megapixels. I'm not sure if that is so much the case today as it was 2015?

 

[Michael Clark]

I guess the difference between FSI and BSI depends on pixel size, is that correct? That’s an interesting point that I had not thought about.

I mentioned astronomy cameras, not smartphone sensors. The astronomy cameras don’t use small smartphone sensors and often have large pixels, and yet they switched to BSI years ago.

Astrophotography is the extreme edge case in terms of the impact of signal to noise ratio on one's results.