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

[Michael Clark]

I think customers would like to know whether they'll get the sensor's full resolution, or the camera will auto crop the image for them.

If they're even aware of the possibility they might say they'd like to know if someone asked them if they'd like to know. But Nikon got away with it for years with many users not having a clue that when they used cheaper DX lenses on FX bodies the images were being auto cropped.

 

[InchMetric]

It gives you only a small amount more. Canon claims for the RF 100-500 that its IS is 5 stops and on the R5 6 stops with the IBIS. I don't see 6 stops. Ken Rockwell has done experiments - click the following links - and finds very little if any extra stabilization from the IBIS added to the IS of telephotos.

I tested the R5 with a vintage Questar 700 mirror lens and got minimal benefit to IBIS. Nikon Z did better even at the wrong focal length of 800.

 

[Michael Clark]

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.

Here's the problem with your desire to *help* those poor souls who don't know that an eye level viewfinder is superior to a rear LCD screen:

Those poor souls make their buying decisions based on what they do know, not on what they do not know.

 

[Michael Clark]

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.

When someone else is buying an entry level camera it matters not what you believe.

It only matters what the potential buyer believes at the time they are making their purchase decision.

 

[Rocky]

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.

Can you still see what is on the screen when it is flipped up when you are ouitdoor?? the sun will make it useless.

 

[Michael Clark]

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.

Not really. Canon will make only those products that they think will maximize total profit.

If Canon thinks selling (a cheaper, slightly less capable) product B along with (a more expensive, slightly more capable) product A will make less total profit than selling only product A, then product B will never see the light of day.

 

[Michael Clark]

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.

As long as there are cameras with different sensor sizes that can share the same lenses, there will be some confusion in the market. That is because many consumers don't understand the distinction between focal length and angle of view.

I'm a current 7D Mark II user who has never owned a wide angle EF-S lens (unless you count a single 18-55mm kit lens, which I do not consider wide angle on APS-C). If I want to take a wide angle shot, I use one of my FF bodies.

 

[Michael Clark]

Disagree completely. The longer the focal length the more magnified camera shake is. That’s a photography basic.

It's also a basic that for IBIS to correct for the same amount of camera movement, the sensor has to move 10X as far with a 600mm lens as it moves with a 60mm lens. But since most 600mm lenses don't project oversized image circles large enough to do that, it makes no sense to raise the cost and complexity of the IBIS system to even bother making a sensor that could move that far.

 

[HMC11]

Personally I don’t think so. The R6 is effectively a £2,500 mirrorless 1DXIII, and most people shooting at that rate don’t seem to want more than 20-ish mp. Unless you need that speed you’re probably wasting your money.
Construction of the R6 also made me feel better about swinging a relatively heavy lens like the 70-300L about on an RP. According to those that own both cameras the construction (mag alloy chassis, polycarbonate shell) is identical, and as the R6 is clearly intended to be used with big, heavy lenses I’m guessing the RP can handle it too - with the grip extension, or I can’t handle it !

I have used the EF 70-300L on the RP with an adapter. No cracks so far on the body . They work well enough together with very decent images. Not for small & fast wildlife though, as both the reach of the lens and the slow frame rate of the RP make it difficult to get enough sharp images with the subject filling a good portion of the composition. I am expecting that an R6 would work well with a RF 100-500 for me as I do not wish to carry too much weight, although the 20mp would limit the amount of cropping. As such, it is a workable combination, again for me only, especially if the R6 price falls with the introduction of competitive (assumption) new bodies. Alternatively, if the rumored above-entry new body is indeed closer to the R but with 30ish mp and comparable frame rate to the R6, then that would work too. The R5 is also an option, though I am hesitating because (a) it is expensive for my amateur usage; (b) I hardly do videos so 2 SD slots rather than having to buy an expensive CF Express card is preferred; (c) 45mp slows down my editing software and eats up hard disks space; (d) for a pair of not-that-steady hands, I imagine that 45mp is harder to handle even with IS; and that (e) 20-30mp is good enough for the occasional A2/A3 large prints (though upwards of 26mp would be needed for A3). All these mean that I am eagerly awaiting the new bodies to see what they bring on the table......

 

[Bishop80]

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.

I bought my M6 Mark II primarily as a backup camera for sports where it stays around my neck or on a Spider quick-release. I typically keep a wide-medium zoom on it, for when the action gets too close for the telephoto on my 1DX Mark III. I have not noticed any rolling shutter phenomenon. It tracks the action surprisingly well. It also gets a lot of use when I'm not in a sport season.

 

[Antono Refa]

If they're even aware of the possibility they might say they'd like to know if someone asked them if they'd like to know. But Nikon got away with it for years with many users not having a clue that when they used cheaper DX lenses on FX bodies the images were being auto cropped.

As far as I know, all Nikon crop lenses have DX written on the barrel (do you know of any exception?), same as all Canon crop lenses have EF-S written on the barrel. That's what I expect Canon to do, in case it releases crop RF lenses - mark them as crop.

Whether some photographers missed that is beside the point.

 

[Michael Clark]

I bought my M6 Mark II primarily as a backup camera for sports where it stays around my neck or on a Spider quick-release. I typically keep a wide-medium zoom on it, for when the action gets too close for the telephoto on my 1DX Mark III. I have not noticed any rolling shutter phenomenon. It tracks the action surprisingly well. It also gets a lot of use when I'm not in a sport season.

Rolling shutter issue with athletes will be more pronounced at longer focal lengths, just as shutter speed blur is more of an issue with longer lenses. Using the M6 Mark II at wider angles of view will not reveal rolling shutter shooting athletes as much as using it with longer lenses would. It would show up in fence posts, telephone poles, etc. if you were whizzing by them in a car, where the poles tend to be moving horizontally while the shutter curtains or line-by-line electronic readout are moving vertically. But with random movements that aren't usually orthogonal to the direction of shutter movement/line scanning, it's a different ball game.

I shoot high school football at around 1/800 to 1/1000 with my long lens (either a 120-300/2.8 or 70-200/2.8 on a 7D Mark II). I can get away with 1/400 on my wide body (typically a 24-70/2.8 or 24-105/4 on a FF body) because even though the action is closer when I'm using the wide lens, the same amount of player movement covers a smaller portion of the frame.




This one was actually shot at 1/250, f/4, ISO 3200. The blur in the left of the frame is probably due to the fact I was rotating the camera as I raised it from where it had been hanging on my right side and shooting one-handed with the camera still in front of my abdomen while moving the monopod with my long lens and camera on it away from my eye using my left hand.

 

[Michael Clark]

As far as I know, all Nikon crop lenses have DX written on the barrel (do you know of any exception?), same as all Canon crop lenses have EF-S written on the barrel. That's what I expect Canon to do, in case it releases crop RF lenses - mark them as crop.

Whether some photographers missed that is beside the point.

Marking a lens barrel is not the same thing as altering a mount with an extra tab so that an EF-S lens can not be mounted to a full frame EOS EF mount camera.

In Nikon's case, they didn't leave room for the possibility that DX lenses could protrude further into the mirror box, so no tab preventing use of DX lenses on FX bodies was needed. The much smaller throat diameter of the Nikon F-mount compared to the EOS EF/EF-S mount might have had something to do with it.

At any rate, there were a lot of Nikon shooters who had no idea their FX camera bodies were auto cropping when using DX lenses. It may be beside your point, that was precisely the point I was making.

 

[Michael Clark]

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.

Not really, though. With a Blad you could hold the back of the film pack firmly against your waist to help stabilize the camera because the VF was on top of the main body. With a flippy screen you can't do that because the screen tilts out from the back of the camera body, not from the top.

 

[Antono Refa]

Marking a lens barrel is not the same thing as altering a mount with an extra tab so that an EF-S lens can not be mounted to a full frame EOS EF mount camera.

Your point being...?

Mind you, what I wrote was "I think customers would like to know whether they'll get the sensor's full resolution, or the camera will auto crop the image for them". For that purpose, marking on the barrel is sufficient.

At any rate, there were a lot of Nikon shooters who had no idea their FX camera bodies were auto cropping when using DX lenses. It may be beside your point, that was precisely the point I was making.

Replying to me makes it look like you think it isn't beside my point. Next time, make your beside-the-point as an independent post, rather than a reply.

 

[Michael Clark]

Your point being...?

Mind you, what I wrote was "I think customers would like to know whether they'll get the sensor's full resolution, or the camera will auto crop the image for them". For that purpose, marking on the barrel is sufficient.


Replying to me makes it look like you think it isn't beside my point. Next time, make your beside-the-point as an independent post, rather than a reply.

My point is, I think you're assuming that customers want to know something about an issue which they're not even aware exists. That's my point.

Your assumption is wrong.

Nikon proved it for years. Most of the customers you are talking about don't have a clue what you are talking about, thus they don't care about something they have no clue about.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

That is ridiculous. First they get rid of the mirror and say that an EVF is better than an OVF and then they get rid of the EVF.

Keep in mind that even the cheapest DSLR has a viewfinder.

 

[scyrene]

Can you still see what is on the screen when it is flipped up when you are ouitdoor?? the sun will make it useless.

Is the sun always shining from directly overhead where you are?? And if it were, wouldn't your head/body cast shade onto it?

 

[Antono Refa]

My point is, I think you're assuming that customers want to know something about an issue which they're not even aware exists. That's my point.

Your assumption is wrong.

Nikon proved it for years. Most of the customers you are talking about don't have a clue what you are talking about, thus they don't care about something they have no clue about.

Unless you have data to support that claim, I'll stick to my doubts about this claim.

 

[unfocused]

I think that's more a reference to the wider end, where APS-C only "superzoom" lenses tend to start at around 18mm to 20mm, rather than 28mm like FF "superzoom" lenses start.

I get that. But, it's not correct to say that a 24-240 RF lens is not a focal length that crop sensor users would want, given how popular the EF-S 55-250 mm zoom is. A lens that is equivalent to 39-384 mm on a crop sensor could be very appealing, especially since it can also be used on a full frame body with no adapter. The price tag might be a bigger problem than the zoom range.