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

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,397
1,165
www.flickr.com
I don't think the R was intended to stop pros from switching to Sony - it was clearly an amateur camera with modest build quality, very modest specs, and a gimmicky swipe bar. It was certainly a stop-gap model though, as Canon were clearly caught off-guard by Sony and had very much underestimated the demand for mirrorless and IBIS from keen amateurs.
I also think that the R5/6 took longer to develop than Canon expected. They leap frogged the competition certainly put a fire under the market at the time... despite the overheating hype which was basically the only thing that competitors could point to as a major deficiency.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,397
1,165
www.flickr.com
Same here.

I've been eyeballing getting the Kolor Vision treatment on it and make it into an IR and UV camera....seemed it would be great for that, but I'd not want it for my "main" workhorse camera.

I'd get R5 or maybe R1 for that.
Wouldn't the Ra already provide some IR capabilities given the changed filter for Ha band?
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,397
1,165
www.flickr.com
We get it - you don't llike the R. But pretty much every description you have come up with it only describes your bias - not the camera. "Mediocre, gimmick-laden"...that very well could describe Sony's early mirrorless full-frame ventures. Yes, the R didn't have IBIS or two card slots. Other than that it was essentially a mirrorless 5D IV - costing about $1000 less. Was the 5D IV mediocre in your mind? Gimmick-laden? Oh, I forgot, that swip bar! Everybody hated it except for those few who actually learned that you could use it as just another button. But most folks clearly didn't learn how to use it thus decided to make fun of it. I briefly owned the Sony A7 II - one of those cameras that Canon was so afraid of apparently. I wouldn't trade my R for that camera in a million years. Sure, spec lovers thought those Sonys were great, but my Sony A7 II underexposed by 1 1/2 stops, the EVF was so dim, I often reached up to take off my sunglasses, but wasn't wearing any, and the ergonomics and usability were about as bad as a camera could get. (And I won't even mention the awful weather sealing or still-not-any-good dust removal..oh, I guess i did mention it.) Yes, Canon up until that time made boring, conservative cameras that worked, were comfortable, easy to use, and did all the fundamental things as well or better than anyone (things like exposure and color...)
I always found it strange that the R was so much cheaper than the 5Div given the only major differences were battery life, OVF, dual slot. I get that it was a different market segment that it was competing in. I wonder if the 5Div will be discontinued at the same time as the R is???
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,397
1,165
www.flickr.com
To answer your other question "was the 5DMkiv mediocre?" - yes, IMO it was. Just compare it to its closest rivals the Nikon D750, D810 and D850, all of which were launched around the same time (or earlier) than the Canon, but were better specified, better performing and more reasonably priced. I was already too deeply tied into Canon (having previously owned 40D, 50D, 6D, 7D, 7DMkii, 5DMkiii and 5DS, plus several Canon L lenses), and the 5DMkiv had the best sensor that Canon made, but compared to Nikon models it was - mediocre.
The 5Div was much better than the 5Diii though. Although some saw it as an incremental update, it certainly improved all round as a body and was a worthwhile upgrade for me. I agree that there was better models from Nikon at the time. The D850 in particular. I recall seeing one and thinking "who would possible need so many pixels" until I got be R5 :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,397
1,165
www.flickr.com
It’s totally fine for me if Canon decided to reuse the 5DIV 30mp sensor.
Price below R6 is welcome.

I was thinking to purchase an R after the announcement of R5 & R6, because of the price is so attractive,but I go with the Rp which is a gift for my wife.
I don’t shoot video, even if I shoot, I don’t go with 4k so the huge crop doesn’t bother me at all.
After all, I believe R still a very good camera.
Glad to see an update for it.
Cheers!
I am coming to the same conclusion... 5Div sensor + Digic X would price it under the R6 as it would be recycled tech but provide a welcome fps/af update especially for video (within the rolling shutter speed limits).
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,397
1,165
www.flickr.com
OMG is there a banned D-word now? Damn wokeys everywhere! We're all d-d-d-dooooooomed!
looks like it isn't banned anymore... that said, I haven't seen it written for a long time now so perhaps that not even perceived to be the case now.
c r i p p l e d is another one though
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

scyrene

EOS R6
Dec 4, 2013
3,044
1,273
UK
www.flickr.com
Well, as a guy that uses mostly lenses that have no IS, IBIS would be wonderful for me. That is the "missing feature" I'd love to have.
It's definitely handy. I've done some casual testing with my R6 and the EF 100L macro and 24-105 L mk I and both benefit from it; the latter especially, as its IS was an older type that never gave me as much benefit; IBIS effectively makes up the difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

JeffHou16

EOS R6
Aug 14, 2022
1
0
Bay Area, USA
The reasonable specs for the RII (just in my opinion):
1. a new sensor around 30mp (similar to R)
2. 8-12 fps (between R and R6)
3. IBIS
4. cropped 4k 60p
5. clog but no clog 3 (may also not allow us to have custom video settings like R)
6. same evf resolution as R and R6
7. probably just single card slot
8. $1,699 (similar to A7C)

overall it should be an all-rounder camera for enthusiast but not professionals, or a backup camera for professionals. I hope it'll be equiped with dual slots (I'll consider getting one if so) but that might make R6's price no longer competitive.
 

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
501
347
looks like it isn't banned anymore... that said, I haven't seen it written for a long time now so perhaps that not even perceived to be the case now.
c r i p p l e d is another one though
The Canon cripple hammer has struck much harder with the RF mount as the mirrorless format allows them to cripple lenses more then ever before. We're really seeing this with many of Canon's consumer-grade lenses.

Most likely, the collapse of the camera market (around 90% reduction) and the loss of the lower end of the market to smartphones is forcing photography back into a niche interest, and driving Canon to focus more on the high end enthusiast and pro lenses. the expensive and high profit margin L series lenses, which is what they stated they want to do.

15524.jpeg


This appears to be leading to greater cost-cutting measures and higher prices on many consumer lenses. In the past Canon really only crippled their camera bodies to achieve 'market segmentation', but now they've started on their lenses. Enough said... :(

The idea of selling a heavily software corrected plastic consumer lens such as the Canon RF24mm F1.8 MACRO IS STM which has 11% rectilinear distortion for USD $599, or even worse overseas at AUD $1,049 (USD $747) or £719 (USD $872) is a complete joke. Canon, giving you less for more! :oops:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,397
1,165
www.flickr.com
The Canon cripple hammer has struck much harder with the RF mount as the mirrorless format allows them to cripple lenses more then ever before. We're really seeing this with many of Canon's consumer-grade lenses.

Most likely, the collapse of the camera market (around 90% reduction) and the loss of the lower end of the market to smartphones is forcing photography back into a niche interest, and driving Canon to focus more on the high end enthusiast and pro lenses. the expensive and high profit margin L series lenses, which is what they stated they want to do.
This appears to be leading to greater cost-cutting measures and higher prices on many consumer lenses. In the past Canon really only crippled their camera bodies to achieve 'market segmentation', but now they've started on their lenses. Enough said... :(

The idea of selling a heavily software corrected plastic consumer lens such as the Canon RF24mm F1.8 MACRO IS STM which has 11% rectilinear distortion for USD $599, or even worse overseas at AUD $1,049 (USD $747) or £719 (USD $872) is a complete joke. Canon, giving you less for more! :oops:
Hmmm, I am not sure that I follow your logic. "Cripple hammer" is a derogatory phrase to say that Canon has withheld features from a camera body deliberately to hit a market niche where a simple firmware change could unlock them. Canon has certainly done this in the past and - I believe - is a common marketing strategy for any product. Car manufacturers have been doing it for years.
I have no issue with it except where it wouldn't hurt their market eg electronic shutter noise/eshutter speeds <20fps and remapping of the Rate button.

Enabling cheaper/smaller/lighter lenses with greater focal lengths based on computational corrections is actually adding features that couldn't be possible in the past. Having 14mm focal length with 77mm filter thread is remarkable!
What price Canon charges for them is a different story but I don't think that there is anything stopping you from using adapted EF/EF-S lenses instead if they are too expensive for you. The market will respond if there is no demand due to over pricing.

The world has some weird business models now....
Adobe sells SW on subscription to have cash flow certainty but bundled LR/PS at a price that seems ridiculously cheap compared to the past SW licenses.
Apple sells hardware and gives away SW updates for free
Amazon sells widgets but has a paid subscription for freight and gives away video contact for free
Tesla sells cars with SW updates and some are paid subscrptions
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Aug 9, 2018
1,794
2,093
The 5Div was much better than the 5Diii though. Although some saw it as an incremental update, it certainly improved all round as a body and was a worthwhile upgrade for me. I agree that there was better models from Nikon at the time. The D850 in particular. I recall seeing one and thinking "who would possible need so many pixels" until I got be R5 :)
When it became time for me to switch to digital, I was far more tempted by the Nikon 850 than by the EOS 5 DIII.
But the Canon lens offer was THE argument in favour of Canon in the end. I wanted a 24mm TS, and a tele-zoom. Nikon could not compete optically with the 24 TSE II or with the 100-400 L II. I never regretted my decision, even less after having replaced the 5 D III with the 5 D IV, which represented indeed an improvement, mostly its sensor, not just an incremental one.
PS: for a very short lapse of time, I had a Sony. I just hated it for its menu and so-called ergonomy... They seem to have improved in the meantime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
501
347
Hmmm, I am not sure that I follow your logic. "Cripple hammer" is a derogatory phrase to say that Canon has withheld features from a camera body deliberately to hit a market niche where a simple firmware change could unlock them. Canon has certainly done this in the past and - I believe - is a common marketing strategy for any product. Car manufacturers have been doing it for years.
I have no issue with it except where it wouldn't hurt their market eg electronic shutter noise/eshutter speeds <20fps and remapping of the Rate button.

Enabling cheaper/smaller/lighter lenses with greater focal lengths based on computational corrections is actually adding features that couldn't be possible in the past. Having 14mm focal length with 77mm filter thread is remarkable!
What price Canon charges for them is a different story but I don't think that there is anything stopping you from using adapted EF/EF-S lenses instead if they are too expensive for you. The market will respond if there is no demand due to over pricing.

The world has some weird business models now....
Adobe sells SW on subscription to have cash flow certainty but bundled LR/PS at a price that seems ridiculously cheap compared to the past SW licenses.
Apple sells hardware and gives away SW updates for free
Amazon sells widgets but has a paid subscription for freight and gives away video contact for free
Tesla sells cars with SW updates and some are paid subscrptions
The way that some lenses are crippled is that they're a regression from their EF or EF-S counterparts, they're either darker, more distorted or stripped back in functionality. There are some great new RF lenses that aren't L-series lenses, but some of them only offer benefits to specific photography niche uses, such as personal travel photography, where portability (size/weight) trumps image quality.

The RF 16mm f/2.8 and 24mm f/1.8 macro are really poor excuses for lenses in that they can't be used for the majority of genres those UW focal lengths are used for. The reality is that these are just lenses for vlogging/Youtube and casual travel/hiking photos to share on social media. and they're great for that purpose.

I'm not sure how Canon can take an EF-M lens like the EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 STM IS, and copy it to make the Canon RF-S 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM, but somehow make it darker on the wide end? Must have saved a few cents somewhere.

Once Canon was no longer constrained by the minimum DSLR aperture necessary for AF to function, or the real-world view of an OVF, some of their consumer lenses got darker or more distorted, simply because mirrorless camera bodies can work with less! It's not like the consumer EF and EF-S lenses were so outstanding that they could be crippled a bit more without losing something. Using a crippled lens that can do less does eat into whatever gains are delivered by the new camera body technology, meaning that the potential of the camera tech isn't fully realised , because it's a classic case three steps forward, two steps back.

Like you said, there's nothing stopping people from continuing to use adapted EF/EF-S glass, and waiting until Canon releases a more comprehensive range of lenses that offer more choices. That's kind of an amusing idea when third-party RF mount AF lenses are progressively decreasing in number for some strange reason, but as the brand-loyal strongly assure us, there's nothing to see here! If there's no compelling reason to pay very premium prices for good L-series RF glass, or put up with the compromises of consumer RF lenses, then people are better off saving their money for now. Having an almost total monopoly in the RF lens market means buyers are backed into a situation of either buying consumer lenses with whatever compromises Canon's cripple hammer chooses to inflict, or paying for brilliant but mostly overpriced RF L lenses.

I've done what any reasonable person would do, bought the RF lenses that suit my needs, got an adapter for my EF lenses, and ignored the RF lenses in my wants category that may be nice to have, but are either overpriced, aren't good value for money, lack the image quality I require, or that don't give me much over my EF lenses for all the additional cost.

Right now I'm patiently waiting to see if the promised Canon 150-600mm lens ever arrives and if it's is going to be any good... ;)
 

EOS 4 Life

EOS R
Sep 20, 2020
1,406
1,127
The way that some lenses are crippled is that they're a regression from their EF or EF-S counterparts, they're either darker, more distorted or stripped back in functionality.
EF 16-35 f/2.8 -> RF 15-35 f/2.8 IS
EF 35 f/2 ->RF 35 f/1.8 Macro
EF 70-300 -> RF 100-400
EF 100-400 -> RF 100-500
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Oct 31, 2020
328
417
The RF 16mm f/2.8 and 24mm f/1.8 macro are really poor excuses for lenses in that they can't be used for the majority of genres those UW focal lengths are used for. The reality is that these are just lenses for vlogging/Youtube and casual travel/hiking photos to share on social media. and they're great for that purpose.
It's so weird that you complain about the 16mm and the 24mm and then point out what they are great for. Those lenses were designed for those exact purposes and they are great for their intended use. Furthermore, they are a bargain and good value for money. Btw, you can use for the "genres UW focal lengths are used for" on top of their intended purposes.

If you want UW lenses for perfect astro shots or great landscaping images, go for the 15-35mm or the 14-35mm, they'll serve your needs.

To put in a different way: nobody would purchase the 15-35mm for vlogging and than complain about the weight and the fact you can't shoot handheld on a gimbal because it's too heavy. I can hear those people now:
"For that kind of money I'd expect a super light UWA zoom..."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Oct 31, 2020
328
417
The 10D was announced in 2003
Canon ran out of names in 2019 with the 90D
Well, I thought product cycles will be longer with mirrorless. And if they add a mkII to every second model (R10, R10 mkII then followed by R20) or go for double digits (R10, R11, R20, R22...) Canon will be on the safe side for another 50 years. :)

I guess there a lot more things that Canon really has to worry about then their numbering scheme.
 
Oct 31, 2020
328
417
You make a lot of assumptions as if you know the facts, but I guess that is typical of the internet forum user. You have no idea that the R was rushed out - considering cameras take about 3 years to develop, this seems highly unlikely. I don't recall a lot of bug fixes or major problems upon release which would have given an indication of it being rushed out and a stop-gap camera. Spec wise, it seemed in line with what Canon had been offering all along.
Nobody knows for sure, that's true and you're right about that. But when the camera did come out in 2018, it did feel like a it was rushed. The...
- mechanical FPS was a nightmare
- (silent) e-shutter only worked/ works for single shots
- eye-AF was so bad, it wasn't even noticeable
- ergonomics were far from perfect (changed with the R5/6)
- video specs were far worse compared to the competition...

All these things make you question: Why was this camera released at that point? Imho, I thought Canon felt the pressure because Sonys sales were overwhelming and Nikon was about to introduce the Z-Mount. Furthermore, the L-mount alliance started... Canon would have been the only company without a mirrorless full-frame camera. Therefore, I do believe the camera was rushed and they could have done a much better job and have and much easier launch with more enjoyable critics.

But, only Canon knows what they did and why, we can only speculate.
 

masterpix

EOS RP
Jun 29, 2016
343
260
OK, we have the R3-semi flagship, the R5 megapixel, the R6 which is working horse, and R7 the R3 in APS sensor, and the R10 which is the R-rebel. So where will we slide the new R/RP version? it can be R8 or R9 cause we "go down the line", but it needs to be lower htan the R6 but higher than the R10. So, if it is R8 it will be closer to the R6/R7 and if R9 then closer to the R10 with FF sensor. The space and differences are getting narrower as we speak. Personally I would go to the R9 more than the R8 cause the R8 (with the advance in technology since the R5/R6 came out) is too close to the R6 to really make the margin needed to be a "different" camera.