The next full-frame RF mount camera will be a replacement for the Canon EOS R

[LogicExtremist]

The reports for shuttershock are for the R7 not the high resolution R5, and it's due to the design of the shutter combined with the very high fps in EFCS and not the camera resolution. It's not due to the IBIS either because some EF lenses are immune to it. The ES modes on the R7, R5 and R3 can be used for single shots at long exposures.

Facts aside, I agree with your comments about fuss. Like life in general, you get the most out of it by doing what you are good at, avoiding what you are bad at, and finding workarounds for difficulties. These camera fusspots must be glass-half-empty critics in general. Just get the best out of your gear by making the most of it.

Thanks for the clarification.

Would the high pixel density of the R7 play a role in making it more sensitive to less than perfect technique. I remember reading about the 5DSr having a bit of a steeper learning curve than lower MP DSLRs because any small movement would move the subject across more pixels with such a fine pixel pitch, that images were easier to blur?

I was really just wondering about the stability of a floating IBIS sensor when the whole camera body was being shaken by the shutter movement. The degree it would be moved around (perhaps none?) would determine whether it was an issue or not I guess.

It's quite interesting that some EF lenses are unaffected by it. That would suggest that the shutter shock phenomenon is some sort of an interplay between the lens and camera body then?

 

[AlanF]

Thanks for the clarification.

Would the high pixel density of the R7 play a role in making it more sensitive to less than perfect technique. I remember reading about the 5DSr having a bit of a steeper learning curve than lower MP DSLRs because any small movement would move the subject across more pixels with such a fine pixel pitch, that images were easier to blur?

I was really just wondering about the stability of a floating IBIS sensor when the whole camera body was being shaken by the shutter movement. The degree it would be moved around (perhaps none?) would determine whether it was an issue or not I guess.

It's quite interesting that some EF lenses are unaffected by it. That would suggest that the shutter shock phenomenon is some sort of an interplay between the lens and camera body then?

If you crop out the same number of pixels from each of a high resolution and low resolution sensor of the same size, then the more the motion blur, the aberration, the noise etc from the high resolution because you are magnifying it more and looking just at a smaller portion of the image. But if you crop out the same size from each in mm then there will be the same motion blur, aberration noise etc. Similarly, if you print the whole of the frame from a high resolution sensor and low resolution sensor, you have the same amount of the movement across both.

Taken to an extreme, a 1 pixel FF sensor will never show any motion blur because you wont see anything but a single shade of colour. What this extreme example tells you is that if your sensor has insufficient resolution, you might not see motion blur of fine detail but you wouldn't be seeing the detail anyway.

If you you use a very high resolution sensor because you need to crop, then you do need good technique.

 

[Del Paso]

If you crop out the same number of pixels from each of a high resolution and low resolution sensor of the same size, then the more the motion blur, the aberration, the noise etc from the high resolution because you are magnifying it more and looking just at a smaller portion of the image. But if you crop out the same size from each in mm then there will be the same motion blur, aberration noise etc. Similarly, if you print the whole of the frame from a high resolution sensor and low resolution sensor, you have the same amount of the movement across both.

Taken to an extreme, a 1 pixel FF sensor will never show any motion blur because you wont see anything but a single shade of colour. What this extreme example tells you is that if your sensor has insufficient resolution, you might not see motion blur of fine detail but you wouldn't be seeing the detail anyway.

If you you use a very high resolution sensor because you need to crop, then you do need good technique.

Which, for me, means getting an R3 or R5 instead of an Rs...

 

[masterpix]

I am not convinced it would make much sense but Canon could easily make a cheaper R6 with a smaller buffer, one card slot, and no IBIS.
Call it an R6 P or something like that

I agree, the problem is basically: "what else can we remove from the R6 to make it even cheaper" and at the same time, still keep the R6 a competitive camera. If the two are too close to each other, than what is the point?

 

[LogicExtremist]

If you crop out the same number of pixels from each of a high resolution and low resolution sensor of the same size, then the more the motion blur, the aberration, the noise etc from the high resolution because you are magnifying it more and looking just at a smaller portion of the image. But if you crop out the same size from each in mm then there will be the same motion blur, aberration noise etc. Similarly, if you print the whole of the frame from a high resolution sensor and low resolution sensor, you have the same amount of the movement across both.

Taken to an extreme, a 1 pixel FF sensor will never show any motion blur because you wont see anything but a single shade of colour. What this extreme example tells you is that if your sensor has insufficient resolution, you might not see motion blur of fine detail but you wouldn't be seeing the detail anyway.

If you you use a very high resolution sensor because you need to crop, then you do need good technique.

Excellent explanation, thanks! That makes sense.

 

[LogicExtremist]

I agree, the problem is basically: "what else can we remove from the R6 to make it even cheaper" and at the same time, still keep the R6 a competitive camera. If the two are too close to each other, than what is the point?

I'd be happy with an EOS R replacement that's a R6 body minus the IBIS, minus the second card slot, with a much lower burst rate (maybe half @ 6fps mechanical shutter, 10fps ES), smaller frame buffer, with a higher MP sensor (even the old 5D Mk IV/EOS R one,) and more basic video (1080p120fps, 4K 30fps). I'm not sure how much that would bring the cost down though.

 

[AlanF]

Excellent explanation, thanks! That makes sense.

Thanks - I work hard at my explanations.

 

[criscokkat]

I'd be happy with an EOS R replacement that's a R6 body minus the IBIS, minus the second card slot, with a much lower burst rate (maybe half @ 6fps mechanical shutter, 10fps ES), smaller frame buffer, with a higher MP sensor (even the old 5D Mk IV/EOS R one,) and more basic video (1080p120fps, 4K 30fps). I'm not sure how much that would bring the cost down though.

If the mk IV sensor could be made on newer equipment, it would be slightly less noise and a bit faster. However from a prosumer standpoint I am not sure how to reconcile the '12 megapixels more' resolution vs the r6.

Perhaps if they came out with an r6 II shortly thereafter using the chip from the r3 - but now what's the difference between it and an R3?

My gut tells me they drop the r6 to about 2k, and release the replacement r (r8?) at 100 dollars more than the R7. Improve the fps slightly, bring it on par for their other R series cameras in eye detection, and just target it as a less capable r5. If you want speed on a budget get the r6, if you want more resolution get the r8.

Or... they just live with the fact that the R6 is going to be cannibalized. Maybe the replacement for the R is the... R6 II? New sensor takes it up to 28-30mp range, same specs for the most part, sell it for roughly the same price. Capture even more of the mirrorless market share to sell more lenses. Sometime around the end of 2023 we expect the r5 mkII to be anounced anyhow with a release 4-6 months later. It won't be a far cry different from the 5d vs 6d series. The 6d seemed a great value in comparison to the 5dIII but seemed much worse than the 5dIV which came out not too long after. The future RP replacement at the low end could be the current R6 sensor with cheaper everything around it.

 

[gruhl28]

I'd be happy with an EOS R replacement that's a R6 body minus the IBIS, minus the second card slot, with a much lower burst rate (maybe half @ 6fps mechanical shutter, 10fps ES), smaller frame buffer, with a higher MP sensor (even the old 5D Mk IV/EOS R one,) and more basic video (1080p120fps, 4K 30fps). I'm not sure how much that would bring the cost down though.

This is what I want too, except I do want IBIS.

 

[LogicExtremist]

Thanks - I work hard at my explanations.

You're damn good at them too, I learn a lot!

 

[dolina]

Not that bad at all, but enough to get quite a few complaints across several forums if you do a search on "Canon shutter shock". It's harder to conduct heat out of a sensor mounted on a moving sliding frame, remember the overheating problems with R5?

It's really just the same old point as always, every design feature has trade-offs, pros and cons. If people understand that, then it's expected something will be discovered that's less than ideal, namely because nothing is 'perfect'. The quicker people come to terms with that fact that all design involves compromises, the less disappointed they'll be with the way things work in the physical world!

If people want the benefits of IBIS, expect downsides to that too. Some people don't need IBIS and therefore don't want the compromises it brings. Everyone has different needs.

In other words people are just looking for something to complain about?

 

[LogicExtremist]

In other words people are just looking for something to complain about?

In other words, people are reluctant to hear objective analysis of inanimate object they're emotionally attached to! They're just products with their inherent limitations, just like every other tool. Buying into the marketing hype and believing that 'newer is always better' and you have to have the latest gear to do good photography, without an objective analysis of the their pros and cons is an irrational and emotive way of dealing with technology.

I get it though, in a consumerist culture, many people lead materialistic lives and just buy any crap to feel good. A new gadget provides a powerful but temporary rush of serotonin, stimulating the reward centres of the brain. It soon fades and people then seek validation from others that their purchased product is worthy. When there's an ego identification with a brand through attachment to one's purchases, it just becomes a form of substitute tribalism which creates the fanboy phenomenon. In the light of the psychological investment in inanimate objects, anyone objectively describing the limitations of said products is seen as making harsh negative comments. It's a bit like people getting upset when someone explains that a dump truck isn't great handling curves at high speed and a sports car isn't ideal for carrying a few tons of sand!

 

[dolina]

In other words, people are reluctant to hear objective analysis of inanimate object they're emotionally attached to! They're just products with their inherent limitations, just like every other tool. Buying into the marketing hype and believing that 'newer is always better' and you have to have the latest gear to do good photography, without an objective analysis of the their pros and cons is an irrational and emotive way of dealing with technology.

I get it though, in a consumerist culture, many people lead materialistic lives and just buy any crap to feel good. A new gadget provides a powerful but temporary rush of serotonin, stimulating the reward centres of the brain. It soon fades and people then seek validation from others that their purchased product is worthy. When there's an ego identification with a brand through attachment to one's purchases, it just becomes a form of substitute tribalism which creates the fanboy phenomenon. In the light of the psychological investment in inanimate objects, anyone objectively describing the limitations of said products is seen as making harsh negative comments. It's a bit like people getting upset when someone explains that a dump truck isn't great handling curves at high speed and a sports car isn't ideal for carrying a few tons of sand!

In other words, just take photos and share them as the audience into arguing vis a vis is aging & slowly dying off.

 

[LogicExtremist]

In other words, just take photos and share them as the audience into arguing vis a vis is aging & slowly dying off.

Well, sort of, the whole point of photography ultimately IS to take photos, either for one's own enjoyment, or for sharing with others for their enjoyment, either freely or as a paid vocation!

I'll let you in on a secret, the argumentative old people on the internet come from the population of argumentative younger people, who grow older, get more grumpy and take the place of their predecessors, so they never reduce in number, and nature retains its balance!

 

[dolina]

Well, sort of, the whole point of photography ultimately IS to take photos, either for one's own enjoyment, or for sharing with others for their enjoyment, either freely or as a paid vocation!

I'll let you in on a secret, the argumentative old people on the internet come from the population of argumentative younger people, who grow older, get more grumpy and take the place of their predecessors, so they never reduce in number, and nature retains its balance!

That's under the assumption that there are enough young people, to replenish with, who are inclined to spend the money that they do not have.

I've seen many photo forums shut down without warning largely because the users

- age & die
- change of hobbies
- change of occupation

I would not be surprised if CR has a high churn rate.

About a decade ago I did a survey on 1 dozen photo forums and 1 consistent thing I saw was almost everyone was born prior to 1970. Those born after were but a handful.

 

[LogicExtremist]

That's under the assumption that there are enough young people, to replenish with, who are inclined to spend the money that they do not have.

I've seen many photo forums shut down without warning largely because the users

- age & die
- change of hobbies
- change of occupation

I would not be surprised if CR has a high churn rate.

About a decade ago I did a survey on 1 dozen photo forums and 1 consistent thing I saw was almost everyone was born prior to 1970. Those born after were but a handful.

Yes, discussing the matter seriously, the concern is that there is a real problem with social isolation with the younger generations, and an increase in the prevalence of mental health issues. It's projected mental health will become the leading health problem ahead of chronic cardiovascular health issues in the western world.

To quote the World Health Organisation "Mental health conditions are increasing worldwide. Mainly because of demographic changes, there has been a 13% rise in mental health conditions and substance use disorders in the last decade (to 2017). Mental health conditions now cause 1 in 5 years lived with disability. Around 20% of the world’s children and adolescents have a mental health condition, with suicide the second leading cause of death among 15-29-year-olds. Approximately one in five people in post-conflict settings have a mental health condition."

Engaging with nature and people is important for people's mental health. Forums, despite their failings, are online global communities where people can share thoughts, ideas and interests. The right ones also provide good mental stimulation and opportunities for learning. It's kind of curious that many more older people are using the technology to interact, rather than younger people. I have no idea what the turnover rate is at CR, the thing is that many people just read forums but don't join. For forums to survive, in my mind, they need to be welcoming to beginners, and supportive of them, sharing knowledge and experience, being real community.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

I understand the "cropping to the same size" argument, but as I am quite a pixel peeper, it would quite frustrate me to have slightly blurry high resolution images that may still look okay when printed or downsampled to 24 megapixels. If you have a high resolution camera, that might change the way you do photos, because suddenly having a tripod for example might deliver sharper images while on the 24 megapixel camera the difference was so visible in most situations. As a result you might carry a tripod more often, use faster shutter speeds, lower ISO or higher apartures than you would do on a 24 megapixel camera. My current camera only has 18 megapixels and that influences my style of taking photos. I know they (only) need to be sharp at 18 megapixels.

I am thinking about buying an R7 as a second camera though for certain situations where it could give me sharper photos or more reach without much addional work. Just for the 5% or so of shots where my ancient camera struggles a little. It is nice to see how cheap the R7 is. Many expected a price far over $2,000 as it is something like the flagship crop camera. It would be interesting to see how often I would use it on city trips. Obviously not all the time unless I have a lot of spare batteries.

 

[adrian_bacon]

People complain about every camera Canon makes.
I do not remember the last one that people did not complain about.
The R10 video is better than pretty much anything else in its price category.

Personally, I find that reviewers tend to fall into a couple of different categories: The reviewer that recognizes that the camera is aimed at a specific audience, accepts the camera for what it is, gives a nice overview of the features, notes any potential gotchas for the intended audience of the camera and leaves it at that. Then there is the reviewer that expects every camera released to deliver the moon, at a price of free, or near free. They seem not to agree with market segmentation, or be unaware of it. If the camera doesn't do what they think it should do, it's garbage and not worth buying. This is a form of bias, but not as bad as the last type of reviewer, which is the biased camera reviewer. That type of reviewer tends to be a user of one specific brand and all reviews are through the lens of owning and using that reviewers favorite camera.

 

[adrian_bacon]

Nice to see dolina again.
It is interesting that there is no discernible pattern to the release schedule of the 6 series.
We could potentially see an R6 II at any time.
I am not sure that it would make much sense for one to come out before an R5 II though.

I'd love to see an R6 with the same features it has now, but with the R3 sensor. The 1DXIII sensor should have been 24MP. I understand Canon's rational and desire not to go there then, but 24MP has kind of been the resolution entry point for a while now.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

excluding the 600/800L primes

Are you referring to the 600/800 f11 primes (which are not L lenses) or the EF600/4L and EF800/5.6L that I was referring to which have RF equivalents at an unprecedented markup of ~25% over their EF primes?

Those RF L primes have very little advantage over their EF equivalent especially when the price increase is included in the calculation.

As far as I know, the only advantage of the RF 600 f/4 L is the stabilization.
That can lead to more sharp photos which could be a big advantage to the target market.
The RF 800 f/5.6 L is arguably a step backward in image quality, but it did address the main complaints people had about the EF version.
I am not in the target market and I have not seen much of a reaction from the target market one way or the other.
Most of the folks I have heard complain would not buy either lens.