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

[John Wilde]

Nikon will sell more Z9's and glass than anyone could imagine based on the R1 being vaporware.

Won't most potential R1 buyers be people who already own a 1 DX and a bunch of Canon lenses? I doubt that many would want to get rid of all their Canon lenses and buy Nikon lenses.

 

[GoldWing]

Won't most potential R1 buyers be people who already own a 1 DX and a bunch of Canon lenses? I doubt that many would want to get rid of all their Canon lenses and buy Nikon lenses.

I've seen shots of Big Whites attached to the Z9 and the shots are much better than if the same glass was attached to a 1DX 1 2 or 3 and R3

My bet is, many will use adapters that allow for focus and tracking while they start to build their Nikon Glass kits.

The increased resolution/IQ is so good, that it's worth transitioning.

 

[Jethro]

I've seen shots of Big Whites attached to the Z9 and the shots are much better than if the same glass was attached to a 1DX 1 2 or 3 and R3

My bet is, many will use adapters that allow for focus and tracking while they start to build their Nikon Glass kits.

The increased resolution/IQ is so good, that it's worth transitioning.

So you've seen (i) shots of Canon big whites physically attached to Z9s, or (ii) the images resulting from that adaptation? I wasn't quite clear.

If someone has done a detailed comparison of examples of (ii) with comparable shots on the Canon bodies you mention, then please share the reference - I'm sure many here would be very interested.

 

[Abbuzze]

Maybe a little M50 mixed with some 7D” is how it was described.

Sounds like a bigger M50 with improved AF, but with the need for using bigger and heavier RF-lenses.

Without dedicated RF-S lenses it will be difficult for Canon to hold EOS-M users. The EF-M 32mm is an extraordanary lense, or the small 22mm.
So this camera is maybe more interesting if you are allready own a RF 70-210, or a RF 100-400mm.

RF 18-45mm as a Kit-Lense? Thats a realy poor range for a APS-C starter Kit nowaday (beside the size!). Worse than the EF-M 15-45mm. Even Nikon offers a 16-50mm for Z-Mount.

Of course it would be easy for Canon to cange the older EF-M lenses to RF-S. And most EOS M users choosed this system because of the small size and weight. Nothing a RF lense APS-C could offer.

 

[Swerky]

Ok Canon listen here. For that mid range model that sits between the R6 and the entry level model, make it an EOS R with ibis, if you wish to beef up the body a bit for that, fine, maybe even complete the body frame so that it wraps under the screen as well, like on a 6D II, and replace the Touch Bar by a thumb controller and you should have a winner. Here's for daydreaming.

 

[Michael Clark]

That may be true (we don't really know for sure) but the point is that the camera can do sports with pixel density for reach and good fps.
If you are referring to professional sports shooters then there would be very few in my opinion but the stereotypical "soccer mum" would think that it is a good camera for action.
I really noticed the difference going from my 7D to 5Diii for indoor sports but I wouldn't have thought about using the M6ii as a replacement. My R5 is a dream now

I had pretty much given up on using my 7D for sports in artificial light due to the poor AF performance in low light as well as the amount of noise in the files. I was using my 5D Mark III with my 70-200/2.8 and my older 5D Mark II with my wider lens (usually a 24-105/4). I too noticed a significant difference 7D → 5DIII in terms of both hit rate and image quality. I still used the 7D for daylight sports where the difference in reach was greater than the difference in noise/AF in good light.

Then the 7D Mark II came out. I had absolutely no plan to ever buy another APS-C body again. Until I saw that it had flicker reduction.

The flicker reduction provided by the 7D Mark II was worth more to me than the better S/N ratio of the 5D III if both are used in the exact same point in the cycle of the light's flicker. The 7D Mark II shutter is always fired at the peak of the light cycle and the 5DIII shutter is not. The light falling on the front of the lens can be a stop or more brighter, as well as fuller spectrum, at peak than when the light is in the bottom of the trough. With the APS-C camera always firing at the peak and the FF 5DIII a crap shoot that often shifted color/brightness from one side of the sensor to the other or hit the very dark bottom of the trough, the S/N ratio difference was moot. My hit rate went way up and my post processing time went way down because the color was much more consistent from frame to frame as well as from one side of each frame to the other. The 7D Mark II AF is also almost as good as the 5DIII AF even at HS stadium light levels.

So I switched back to using the 7D Mark II with the longer lens and the 5DIII (and then 5DIV) with my wider lens when shooting sports under lights. I'm now using a Sigma 120-300/2.8 with the 7D Mark II and the 70-200/2.8 with the 5D IV. Depending on the weather forecast, I'll put either a 24-70/2.8L (original) if it's going to be dry or 24-105/4L IS (original) if it might get wet on the 5DIII.

That 120-300/2.8 is heavier than a beginner's eight pound bowling ball, though. I'm debating selling it and going back to just cropping the stink out of the 7D II + 70-200/2.8 and only carrying two bodies for field sports. I really need the wider angle for the work I do at halftime with the bands, and it's far too swampy here in the south during all but the end of the season to make me comfortable with changing lenses at the beginning and then again at the end of halftime.

 

[Michael Clark]

That is a good point that APS-c DLSRs will still be made for some time to come. Canon has optimised the cost of the pentaprism and mirror assembly to hit the Dxxx price points... but will the cost of the rear LCD may match it either now or in the future?
We are all talking about Canon's future models and future strategic direction.
The M series hasn't made the xxxD models obsolete so there is room for both if Canon can handle the product / inventory complexities.

Rebels don't have pentaprisms, they have pentamirrors. That's one way they keep both the cost and weight down.

 

[Michael Clark]

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.

The EF-S 55-250mm had only a 4.5X zoom ratio, and all of that was longer than the registration distance for the EF mount. That allowed a simpler lens design with no retrofocus needed to get to focal lengths shorter than 44mm. That's why it could be so cheap and still have better IQ than superzooms that required retrofocus designs to get wider than that 44mm barrier.

It wasn't popular because it offered a "single lens solution". It was popular because it got users to 250mm at well below even the relatively modest price of the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6.

 

[bergstrom]

Ok Canon listen here. For that mid range model that sits between the R6 and the entry level model, make it an EOS R with ibis, if you wish to beef up the body a bit for that, fine, maybe even complete the body frame so that it wraps under the screen as well, like on a 6D II, and replace the Touch Bar by a thumb controller and you should have a winner. Here's for daydreaming.

and put in an LPE6 battery. A mini R6 with a sprinkle of bits and pieces from the R3. And no recordig limit, or at least increase it to 60-90 minutes and no overheating, so a mini R5c and all under $1700. Lets do this!