There are currently 3 EOS R system cameras coming in the second half of 2022 [CR2]

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
884
1,010
UK
Am I the only one that would just like an R5 that's 30mp, 4k oversampled, no 8k, No overheating and about $2500. - $3500?
Obviously it woundnt be called an R5 but you get the idea
That sounds like a likely specification for the rumoured upcoming replacement for the R, and I think it will be cheaper than you suggest.

I think it will be based on the R6 body though, not the R5, but that's no bad thing.
My guess is 33MP, IBIS, and possibly a different menu and EF interface for stills and video.
 
Last edited:

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
884
1,010
UK
This is a similar situation as audio quality. CD quality really pushed the envelope but when iPods etc came out, it was much more important to the market to have portability and the number of songs than quality.

Similarly here where where billions of photos are shared on facebook etc which are acceptable quality to the majority of people. Every phone is a stills (and video) camera without a viewfinder!
Yes I agree, although my posts were really addressing the usability / versatility of the projected camera, rather than the quality of its output, which I'm sure will be fine.

Anyway I'll give the subject a rest as I seem to have inadvertently touched a few raw nerves, and I've posted more than enough here tonight.
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,193
994
www.flickr.com
Sorry but I have to disagree.

An eye-level OVF or EVF is a far more efficient way to view a scene and allows you to compose and judge focus, depth of field, bokeh and distracting background elements far better than peeking at a little screen at arm's length.

"Consumers at the low end" probably don't *care* much about the quality of their images, which are mostly keepsakes rather than efforts at "art" - many wouldn't even notice the existence of garbage in the background, poor exposure, bad focus or lousy composition. OK, that may sound elitist, but a decent OVF or EVF would *help* them to take photographs that they'd treasure, which is surely why they take photos in the first place.
I have drives of landscape and underwater photos that I have taken but when I die, the family will only be interested in the ones that had people in them - even if they aren't technically perfect or art. I won't be a famous photographer selling my prints long after I am dead.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,585
14,299
Great shot Alan!

Would you mind sharing the settings you use?

Focus zone?
Case ?
Animal AF on or off?
Eye-AF on or off?

I'm assuming you have all these settings saved to AF/ON?

Cheers
Face + tracking (no zones). Case 2 (highest tracking, highest accln/decln). Animal eye-AF on. AF-ON BBF. Full manual speed, aperture and iso. The other BBF is point focus at the centre.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,193
994
www.flickr.com
Sure, it's possible to take good photos via a flippy screen, but I consider it to be much easier to use an EVF or OVF, particularly in bright sunlight when reflections on the screen compound the issues with them that I've already suggested to exist.
It depends on your shooting genre and I agree with bright/direct sunlight but....

Taking astro landscapes on a tripod with your camera pointing at the sky was a massive pain in the back/neck (literally!) when using the OVF or fixed rear LCD with my 7D/5Diii/5Div as they didn't have a flippy screen. Arguments for and against tily vs flippy are a separate issue.

Canon's previous stance that flippy screens weren't robust enough has been put to rest with recent models and being able to flip the screen inwards is another benefit. Of course, there is no reason that the screen can't be left facing outwards like previous models with the only downside being the real estate that the mechanism takes up
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Hector1970

EOS R
CR Pro
Mar 22, 2012
1,415
779
I've got very good shots as well with a 5DSR and 5DIV when the DIF is hovering. But, the R5 just locks on and you can track it. If the background is clear, then it's easy - it will pick up flying birds and dragonflies faster than I can see them. This is a shot of a Brown Hawker from last summer with the R5 and 100-500mm - it swooped past really fast, rather than hovering,and the camera caught it for me.


View attachment 202272
Excellent, very interesting about the tracking. Might make it tempting to get an R5. Thanks Alan
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,193
994
www.flickr.com
What made you believe there will be no APS-C glass ever? And how do you know there will be only a single APS-C camera model?
While it can be quite possible there will be no midrange and telephoto APS-C glass for some time because the full frame RF glass line is far from completion, I am positive Canon will provide an RF alternative for at least 10-22.

I am more curious about the M line. APS-C RF most likely means it is dead.
The cost for Canon to produce another line of lenses for a small number of users would be high and produce some confusion in the market.

There may be more APS-C models in the future but the situation is that Canon hasn't released a 7Dii successor for a very long time suggests that they don't see a significant market for it. Who knows, it might become a best seller if the pricing is compelling

All current 7Dii users are using EF glass (including wide angle EF-s glass) and they will continue to use them adapted on a RF APS-C body.
The upside for Canon will be moving them to telephoto RF glass but not wide angle RF glass.

The M series will continue as is for as long as there is a market for it even if Canon hasn't released any new bodies/lenses for the system. They are still very popular based on a number of rankings in particular markets. It is definitely not "dead" and fits the !
A better question is whether Canon will release new M bodies/lenses to support new sales by people upgrading.
 

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
884
1,010
UK
It depends on your shooting genre and I agree with bright/direct sunlight but....

Taking astro landscapes on a tripod with your camera pointing at the sky was a massive pain in the back/neck (literally!) when using the OVF or fixed rear LCD with my 7D/5Diii/5Div as they didn't have a flippy screen. Arguments for and against tily vs flippy are a separate issue.

Canon's previous stance that flippy screens weren't robust enough has been put to rest with recent models and being able to flip the screen inwards is another benefit. Of course, there is no reason that the screen can't be left facing outwards like previous models with the only downside being the real estate that the mechanism takes up
Let me be clear that I'm not criticising the existence of flippy screens - I fully agree that there are some circumstances where they are actually *more* suitable than an EVF.

What I've criticised is the *absence* of an EVF, or to be more accurate, the absence of choice.

I think that even a basic camera should have both EVF *and* flippy, to make it versatile and easy to use in the wide variety of situations that even a novice will encounter.

I wonder who would buy a camera with only a rear screen? It sounds like a bottom of range budget model for novices, does it not? In which case, would they not be better off using a smartphone, which has a much larger screen, and would probably cover 99% of their needs?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Czardoom

EOS RP
Jan 27, 2020
458
997
No.

What I'm suggesting is that by omitting an EVF, Canon are cutting a very desirable feature from a camera in order to keep the cost down, and that they see a demand for a cheap product without an EVF.

Canon is in photography to make money, and they'll make anything that they think will make a profit and is good enough in quality to bear the company name.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that it's the best tool for the job. I stand by my opinion that a camera with an eye-level viewfinder is much more usable than a "rear-screen only" device, particularly when that rear screen is much smaller than that on a smartphone. A camera can be kept small and still have an EVF, especially if the size of the camera is dictated by the diameter of the mount.
If you look at your comments on this subject, such as this one:

"Yes I fully realize that there are millions who have never used a viewfinder, and I'd go so far as to say that I'm sure their images suffer as a result of using a camera that way." it seems pretty obvious that you are insulting photographers who shoot with the rear LCD. Maybe your images suffer from not using an EVF - and I would say most assuredly that mine would as well - but you make it quite clear that you don't think that - in general - people are competant enough to shoot and compose using the LCD. And your reasons seem very shaky and vague at best. For those that shoot that way - and are used to shooting that way, they almost certainly see all the necessary things in the LCD they you claim they won't see. I think LCDs today are high enough quality so that IQ is not an issue.

Whether it is the EVF or the LCD, you get the rectangle of the photo and you can see all that is within. Perhaps you can't - that's OK, and it may be easier for you - and maybe for me, too, but composing your photo on an LCD is essentially the same as doing so on an EVF as far as I can see. Both methods have times where the sun gets in the way of getting a clear view - it's not just the LCD that runs into that problem.

On the other hand, it may indeed be true that is easier to hold the camera still up against one's face. I know for me personally, it is definitely the case. I have never seen anyone do a comparison or a study, but it would not surprise me if this would be demonstrably true. If it's not, then I would certainly accept the results and understand that my personal preferences - and techniques that definitely work better for me - are not necessarily better for everyone.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,193
994
www.flickr.com
I wonder who would buy a camera with only a rear screen? It sounds like a bottom of range budget model for novices, does it not? In which case, would they not be better off using a smartphone, which has a much larger screen, and would probably cover 99% of their needs?
I can't tell you the volume of sales but the Sigma fp (USD1500) which is 25mp full frame and the Sigma fp L (USD2500) which is 60mp full frame and are clearly not budget cameras and yet don't have a EVF. Their small size is remarkable!
You can get an external EVF for an extra USD500 for the fp L but the ergonomics aren't great
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,904
6,181
I think the point some here are missing, is that having an EVF or OVF just makes a camera so much more usable,
I think you’re missing that point, yourself. The converse of ‘makes a camera much more usable’ is not ‘purposed for producing technically poor and badly composed images’.

As pointed out by me and others, having a rear LCD makes a camera so much more usable.

Obviously, having both is the best of both worlds. But as someone with years of experience using cameras with only an OVF, only an LCD, and both, if I had to choose between a camera with only a VF or only an LCD, I’d pick the LCD without hesitation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,723
4,663
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
I wonder who would buy a camera with only a rear screen? It sounds like a bottom of range budget model for novices, does it not? In which case, would they not be better off using a smartphone, which has a much larger screen, and would probably cover 99% of their needs?
I live adjacent to the largest park in town. It's a frequent site for photographers shooting senior pictures and engagement shots. I've seen a number of young photographers shooting DSLRs using the rear screen only. It's a generational issue. That's the way they learned to shoot on their phones and they've carried it over to their cameras. They are obviously getting paid for their photographs, so I wouldn't assume that it's a shooting style reserved for novices.

In fact, I'm pretty sure I've seen videos of at least one of the younger Canon Explorers shooting that way.

But, setting that aside, I'm still trying to wrap my head around why you care. If Canon wants to make an R model that only has a rear screen, no one is going to put a gun to your head to buy it, so what's the harm? And, yes...I anticipate such a camera would be targeted to young photographers on a budget. Good for Canon to be offering more options.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
884
1,010
UK
I am more curious about the M line. APS-C RF most likely means it is dead.
The M series cameras are excellent, and huge sellers, especially in Asia, so it's highly unlikely that Canon would discontinue them in the immediate future. Canon is a huge company and easily capable of keeping both M and RF systems in production for many years. There are already enough lenses in the M system to satisfy most of the people who buy these cameras, so Canon doesn't need to plough money into developing more of them.

The only question in my mind is "where does M go from here?" - the M50 is pretty much perfect already, but eventually will go out of fashion, What features might Canon add? How can they improve the specification without making it "too advanced" or "too complex" for its target market, which seems to be mostly, but not entirely, novices?

As for RF mount APS-C cameras, we know that one is coming, and I hope it is a sports/wildlife machine, but it could just as easily turn out to be a budget consumer model. Either way, it's unlikely that canon will bring out more than a couple of crop lenses for it - maybe a 28mm F2.8 pancake, maybe a retractable short tele-zoom?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
884
1,010
UK
I think you’re missing that point, yourself. The converse of ‘makes a camera much more usable’ is not ‘purposed for producing technically poor and badly composed images’.

As pointed out by me and others, having a rear LCD makes a camera so much more usable.

Obviously, having both is the best of both worlds. But as someone with years of experience using cameras with only an OVF, only an LCD, and both, if I had to choose between a camera with only a VF or only an LCD, I’d pick the LCD without hesitation.
Ah, finally you get it - "having both is the best of both worlds".

I've used a multitude of cameras, with fixed/tilting/fully articulated screens, with OVF, with EVF, also rangefinders, film SLRs, TLRs, field cameras, industrial cameras, compacts, smartphones, you name it, I've used it.

But I'd make the opposite choice to you - if I had to choose between a camera with only a screen, or only an EVF, I'd most definitely go for the EVF, and wouldn't remotely consider having to rely on a screen-only model.

I do like to have both however - I've rarely, if ever, used the screen for composing, but I do find it easier to navigate the menu on a screen, as opposed to cycling through the overlay in the EVF.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,585
14,299
Ah, finally you get it - "having both is the best of both worlds".

I've used a multitude of cameras, with fixed/tilting/fully articulated screens, with OVF, with EVF, also rangefinders, film SLRs, TLRs, field cameras, industrial cameras, compacts, smartphones, you name it, I've used it.

But I'd make the opposite choice to you - if I had to choose between a camera with only a screen, or only an EVF, I'd most definitely go for the EVF, and wouldn't remotely consider having to rely on a screen-only model.

I do like to have both however - I've rarely, if ever, used the screen for composing, but I do find it easier to navigate the menu on a screen, as opposed to cycling through the overlay in the EVF.
The next innovation by Canon will be eye-menu - look through the evf at the item to adjust.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 3 users

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
884
1,010
UK
I live adjacent to the largest park in town. It's a frequent site for photographers shooting senior pictures and engagement shots. I've seen a number of young photographers shooting DSLRs using the rear screen only. It's a generational issue. That's the way they learned to shoot on their phones and they've carried it over to their cameras. They are obviously getting paid for their photographs, so I wouldn't assume that it's a shooting style reserved for novices.

In fact, I'm pretty sure I've seen videos of at least one of the younger Canon Explorers shooting that way.

But, setting that aside, I'm still trying to wrap my head around why you care. If Canon wants to make an R model that only has a rear screen, no one is going to put a gun to your head to buy it, so what's the harm? And, yes...I anticipate such a camera would be targeted to young photographers on a budget. Good for Canon to be offering more options.
I agree that it's largely a generational thing. Most younger photographers have grown up using smartphones, so it seems more natural to them to compose on a screen.

You chose to misread my post, in which I referred to "mostly, but not entirely, novices". Yes, there are some young pros who shoot via the rear screen. There was in fact fairly recently a shoot out between Jared Polin and a young fashion photographer. Jared took quite tight compositions via the EVF, and the other photographer took much looser compositions with lots of empty space around the subject (leaving space for text and inset images). I think that if she was shooting tighter compositions, she would have found an EVF much better.

Why do I care? Because I think a more versatile, more usable camera will result in greater pleasure and wider photographic opportunities for the user. Having the option of both an EVF and a rear screen makes a camera more versatile, more usable and therefore I think more pleasurable for most people to use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
884
1,010
UK
The next innovation by Canon will be eye-menu - look through the evf at the item to adjust.
Quite possibly! If they manage to get higher precision with the eye-control, it could well be possible to just look at an icon, and twiddle the dial to make a selection. But it's probably more likely that such decision-making will eventually be taken away from the user and handed over to AI automation... :rolleyes:
 

Otara

EOS RP
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2012
472
279
Ah, finally you get it - "having both is the best of both worlds".

I've used a multitude of cameras, with fixed/tilting/fully articulated screens, with OVF, with EVF, also rangefinders, film SLRs, TLRs, field cameras, industrial cameras, compacts, smartphones, you name it, I've used it.

But I'd make the opposite choice to you - if I had to choose between a camera with only a screen, or only an EVF, I'd most definitely go for the EVF, and wouldn't remotely consider having to rely on a screen-only model.

I do like to have both however - I've rarely, if ever, used the screen for composing, but I do find it easier to navigate the menu on a screen, as opposed to cycling through the overlay in the EVF.

I can think of cases where Id much prefer to have a viewfinder, but not to that point. If anything much of the stand alone camera market is moving towards neither, with viewing taking place on a separate device, ie action cams, 360 etc.

Id like it if attachable external EVF's were going to stabilise in features that they were viable enough to keep for the next camera, would solve a lot of issues as a oneoff cost rather than paying for a new one for each camera over the years.
 

lote82

EOS 90D
Jan 4, 2022
114
98
Obviously, having both is the best of both worlds. But as someone with years of experience using cameras with only an OVF, only an LCD, and both, if I had to choose between a camera with only a VF or only an LCD, I’d pick the LCD without hesitation.
Why choose if you can have (as you said) 'the best of both worlds'?
1. VF makes the camera marginally bigger but far more versatile.
2. Even if VF is too bulky for you(!) there are technical ways to make them disappear if wanted (ask sony for further information)
3. If you always(!) need a pocket sized camera, why don't you buy a fixed lens camera or take a smartphone?
 

John Wilde

EOS 90D
Jan 2, 2021
196
331
We'll have to agree to disagree - I believe that shooting with an EVF *is* objectively better than using a small screen at arms length, for reasons I've already stated several times.
The lack of an EVF doesn't mean that you shoot at arms length. Among many other options, a camera like the M100/200 can be used in the Hasselblad Position, when the screen if flipped up.
 

Attachments

  • HasselbladMan.jpg
    HasselbladMan.jpg
    10.7 KB · Views: 13
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users