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

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,248
6,781
Other than cost, I never saw the point of APS-C lenses. The non-L ff lenses seem very inexpensive to me. I think you are right.
Size, in some cases. The EF-S 18-55 vs the EF 17-40, for example.

Again, I think it comes down to the market Canon is targeting. If they release an APS-C RF body intended to supplant the Rebel/xxxD DSLRs, then I expect they’d release a some small image circle lenses as well, to make them cheap. If they are aiming at the xxD/7D market segment, probably just a cheap small image circle kit lens. Or none at all, and that’s the purpose of the rumored RF 18-45mm f/4-5.6, which in that case I’d expect to be light on build quality and requiring significant digital correction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,025
1,195
UK
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.
Check out this article on dpr by video expert Jordan Drake, in which he discusses the reasons why shooting with an EVF, and having IBIS, are superior techniques:


It blows away some of the myths perpetuated here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,248
6,781
Check out this article on dpr by video expert Jordan Drake
I don’t find DPR to be particularly reliable, and I don’t shoot video on ILCs. So, no thanks. Since the post to which you replied mentions photos but not videos, I doubt the input of a video expert is particularly relevant.

Did anyone question the utility of an EVF for video? Heck, even the first video camera I used had an EVF…and that was one of those massive, shoulder-mounted beasts from the 80s where the VHS tape recorder was a separate box carried on a shoulder strap. IIRC, it was a green-tinged monochrome EVF, but still an EVF.

5652ABE5-16D4-42F5-9231-D29691AA7785.jpeg

It blows away some of the myths perpetuated here.
What myths? Please note that if an opinion differs from yours, that does not make it a myth.
 

scyrene

EOS R6
Dec 4, 2013
3,007
1,212
UK
www.flickr.com
At some point, I need to test the effectiveness of the IBIS in my R3 with my TS-E 17 and 24. It’s been suggested that the RF 28-70/2 gets 8 stops IBIS because it has a large image circle (the non-stabilized RF 50/1.2 gets 7 stops).

TS-E lenses have huge image circles to allow for lens movements, so if that’s the rationale for the 28-70 they should get that max 8-stop benefit. Probably less benefit with a large degree of tilt and/or shift applied.

I often use shutter speeds in the 4-15 second range for my blue hour architecture shooting, and assuming a 1/15 s handholding, 8 stops of IS means a 15 s exposure. Not saying I’d leave my travel tripod (RRS TQC-14) at home when I go on trips, but it might mean that when I need exposures up to 8 s or so, I leave the tripod strapped to the backpack (at least for shift, which is doable handheld; tilt, not so much at least for me).
I remember reading on here some time ago that some of the RF lenses (even ones without IS) have an extra accelerometer to help the IBIS, so perhaps the TS-E lenses wouldn't be able to get the 8 stop benefit despite the larger circle; definitely worth testing! I take it Canon doesn't officially say how much benefit IBIS gives to adapted EF lenses?
 

jordanisaak

I'm New Here
Jan 29, 2022
18
37
Long time lurker, but I can't resist the siren call to share my opinion.

Here's what I would do if I were running the show at Canon - not what I personally want as a camera user, but what I think makes business sense.

RP replacement -> R100

This would be the EVF-less model. To go with it, design an ultra low end kit lens - something in the ballpark of a 28-70mm f/5.6-10. The goal (and reason to cut the EVF) would be to hit a price point as low as possible while still having a full frame sensor, hopefully within range of the T8i. With the ultra cheap kit lens, image quality should be similar to base APS-C cameras in that price range. Advertising would lean heavily on the "professional grade full frame sensor" that could "use the full capabilities of the RF lens system" and "grow with you on your photographic journey" with the intent of shunting sales that would have gone to competitors' crop sensor cameras (or EF-S/EF-M) into the RF system. Of course a detachable viewfinder would be available, including as a kit. I would lean towards reusing the R sensor to give it a higher megapixel count compared to its crop sensor rivals, but if that's too expensive to make the price point work then the R6 or even RP sensor would be fine - whatever is required to get that base price down.

And on that note, the infamous "Canon cripple hammer" would be applied liberally. Software would be bare bones, essentially T8i/M50 level with no extra frills. *But* I would start offering paid firmware feature upgrades. Want full frame 4k video? That'll be $300 please. Intervalometer? Another $40, thank you very much. And so on. The idea would be to generate a new revenue stream from customers upgrading their camera firmware - one that from Canon's perspective has close to no incremental cost for each sale, relatively low development cost, and will be completely unaffected by supply chain shortages. And it actually could be a win for customers too. At the entry level, full frame is available at a price point never seen before. Yet if there's one specific feature you want, you no longer have to buy the more expensive body with all the bells and whistles you don't need. And of course, the photographers that can afford the everything-including-the-kitchen-sink R3/5/6 will continue to happily buy them for a premium while turning their noses up at the cheaper bodies - no change needed there, the target markets are completely different.

Crop sensor RF -> R7

Drop an M6II 32mp sensor in an R6 body and ship it. Minimal development cost since all the pieces are already there. It's a niche, but for such a low cost to try it why not.

R replacement -> R8

I would have basically done an R quality body with the R5 sensor, but it sounds like Canon are developing a new sensor instead. Still a single card slot, still no IBIS. Full frame 4k, improved AF trickled ddown from the R5/6, and the better sensor would be the main selling points. Similar price point to what the R launched at.

Not mentioned in this rumour are the R1 (spend the time and money to make it unquestionably the best FF camera money can buy), a high resolution R5s (identical to the R5 except the sensor) and an R10 that would essentially be the R6 sensor in a cheaper body with no IBIS, single card slot, and lower end software that could be upgraded like the R100. Those would be for 2023/2024.

As far as the EF-S/EF-M lines go, I would continue the current strategy - spend as little as possible on these systems while riding the long tail of sales into the sunset. Continue to manufacture and sell existing bodies and lenses. Periodically assess how sales are doing. If sales transfer over into the RF system through the R100 and R10, let the other systems slowly dwindle. If they continue strong but competitors' cameras get a significant upgrade cycle, do one last release of a T9i/M50III that drop the 32mp M6II sensor into the current T8i/M50II bodies.
 

RexxReviews

EOS M6 Mark II
Sep 3, 2021
51
27
I bet for the names being:
  • R7 for around 32MP APS-C (great features and speed, crippled sensor and OVF nostalgia plus EVF)
  • R10 for the new full frame bellow R6/R5 with around 32MP (mirrorless 90D successor and R replacement)
  • R100 for a tiny entry-level full-frame with no EVF (mirrorless 850D successor and RP replacement)
Except you ignore the fact that if its using the R6 sensor it wont be 32mp...
 
Sep 13, 2018
3
0
Yikes, I hope that if they remove the EVF, that they only do it on the cheapest model. Viewing on a little rear screen is OK for people who just want to take snaps, but near-impossible for people shooting sports, action, wildlife or anything requiring careful composition. Heaven forbid that EVF isn't lost from any other models.
Would potentially work well for astro if the sensor is right
 

Czardoom

EOS RP
Jan 27, 2020
519
1,123
Better for some, but not for others.

More details? Yes. Some photographers care for those.

I don't care for your straw man arguments. Go find a donkey who'll eat those.
So, when someone makes some good points about why less MPs might be advantageous, you decide they are straw man arguments.

I would argue that, like so many on the forum who can't stand when someone disagrees with them, you have no real argument, but resort to insults.

Good for you. Very clever.
 

Antono Refa

EOS R
Mar 26, 2014
1,403
502
So, when someone makes some good points about why less MPs might be advantageous, you decide they are straw man arguments.
Your wording is "might be advantageous" to use less MP. For others it might be to have more MP. Canon does not serve the best for those, and the rest is you making word games.

1. Higher FPS? Canon offers lower resolution modes for years.

2. Better Buffer capacity? Canon offers lower resolution modes for years.

3. Better high ISO noise? Not for the same print size, and lower MP doesn't allow for higher print sizes, so this argument is rubbish.

4. Diminishing returns as more MPs means diffraction sets in at lower apertures - again, there's no loss for the same print size, and there's a gain with higher apertures.

5. Higher shutter speeds are needed or you need to use a tripod more often - same, as above.

6. High MP camera is clearly a niche product that is not a high priority for Canon - its high enough for Canon to actually make such sensors, which go into real cameras. Not the type you're talking about, but some have actually seen one, which means they think is "the best."

Next time, feed your straw men to donkeys.

I would argue that, like so many on the forum who can't stand when someone disagrees with them, you have no real argument, but resort to insults.
I have real argument, you're just not worth the effort of making it, because you're not as clever as you think.
 

Skux

EOS 90D
Feb 21, 2020
166
226
I thought I wanted it but I can't see Canon making an APS-C R-mount camera anymore. We haven't heard anything about crop lenses, and Canon still seems happy to sell Rebels and EOS M cameras to the entry level market. The price difference between an APS-C and full frame is not nearly as large as it used to be either.

They will likely do a budget RF camera and include their non-L zooms in a cheap kit as a sequel to the RP, with the idea that buyers will eventually upgrade to much more expensive RF lenses.
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,220
2,396
At some point, I need to test the effectiveness of the IBIS in my R3 with my TS-E 17 and 24. It’s been suggested that the RF 28-70/2 gets 8 stops IBIS because it has a large image circle (the non-stabilized RF 50/1.2 gets 7 stops).

TS-E lenses have huge image circles to allow for lens movements, so if that’s the rationale for the 28-70 they should get that max 8-stop benefit. Probably less benefit with a large degree of tilt and/or shift applied.

I often use shutter speeds in the 4-15 second range for my blue hour architecture shooting, and assuming a 1/15 s handholding, 8 stops of IS means a 15 s exposure. Not saying I’d leave my travel tripod (RRS TQC-14) at home when I go on trips, but it might mean that when I need exposures up to 8 s or so, I leave the tripod strapped to the backpack (at least for shift, which is doable handheld; tilt, not so much at least for me).

I'm wondering if the fact that the camera body has no idea how much tilt or shift movement has been applied might lead Canon to be fairly conservative with how much sensor movement they'd allow with those lenses, though.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,220
2,396
Which would you rather purchase and carry around a race track for 6 hours: a FF camera with a 400 f/2.8 lens or an APS-C body with a 300 f/2.8 lens? How about trying to capture a skittish tiny bird from too great a distance, when you really need a 1200mm lens? The phrase is "focal length limited". You may have high hopes for the M-system. I certainly did at one point, but there don't seem to be enough of us to get Canon's attention. Incidentally, an M5 looks ridiculous on my Sigma 150-600 Sport zoom but it works remarkably well.

There's an even more significant difference, both in price and size/weight, between needing a fast handling FF camera + 300/2.8 vs. a fast handling APS-C + 70-200/2.8 to shoot field sports at night. Not to mention that with the 300/2.8 prime, you need a second body with 70-200 anyway for when the action gets close to the sideline.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,220
2,396
I think that it will be highly unlikely for twin slots as much as the 7D users would prefer it (with the same weather sealing).
No need for an expensive new BSI sensor with low rolling shutter when video won't be a priority and 10-14fps could be handled by an existing sensor.
I could be wrong but the pricing will dictate what the feature set will be. I think that it will be priced under the R6

I don't think Chig said anything about how likely it was, just what he would rather have.

Why does every comment about any feature one might find useful have to turn into an expectation that the feature in question is likely to appear in an upcoming product from Canon?
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,220
2,396
I think it would be a winner for consumers who want that body style but not a full frame sensor.

I don’t purport to know what it would cost for Canon to make this camera, but it is my understanding that the most expensive part of the camera is the sensor. If the development in the body is already there (meaning they don’t have to build from the ground up and just adjust cooling/firmware/etc. for the smaller sensor) and they swap the expensive full frame sensor for a cheaper APS-C, it may actually be within reason to sell something like this in the high $1,000’s. I bought my 7D Mark ii new for $1,500 when the 5D Mark iii was over $3,000. If an R6 is selling for $2,500, maybe it’s feasible.

I’m not an engineer or a salesperson though, so I’m just throwing ideas out there for the sake of conversation.

Meanwhile, the "current" replacement for the 5D Mark III is selling for $3,900. Adjust that $1,799 7D Mark II (introductory price) by the same inflation factor and it's at $2,300.

Not to mention that the 7D Mark II was probably the most camera-per-dollar at introductory price that Canon has ever sold or will ever sell in the future. Fast handling (for its time), built like a tank, large viewfinder, top of the line (for its time) AF system, dual card slots, etc. It really was a "mini 1D X" with a sensor only slightly smaller than the original APS-H 1D series. Give it an integral grip and, at barely one-third the price, it would have been superior to the 1D Mark IV, which debuted at the same time as the original 7D.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,220
2,396
If they released a 7D2 'mini 1DX' again Id be interested. If it was an M5 update I would be, even though I cant use EF_M with it. As said above, it probably will be neither, so be interesting to see what Canon's take is, Im guessing 90Dish? Ie a good camera at a useful pricepoint but probably not what people in this forum would be wishing for.

Yes, I think the handwriting has been on the wall since the release of the 90D and M6 Mark II without a 7D Mark III using the same sensor that Canon doesn't intend to sell any more APS-C bodies with near 1-series build quality and durability. Any top tier RF mount APS-C body will likely be much more akin to the 90D than to the 7D Mark II.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,220
2,396
Is the rolling shutter on the M6ii okay for action?

No one really knows, because the typical EOS M buyer doesn't really shoot action, and typical action shooters want cameras that aren't as delicate as an M6 Mark II with an eye level viewfinder attached to the hot shoe.