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

[jam05]

Majority? Not. Availability. For entry level, Canon simply has a larger footprint, better price points, and larger availability than most 3rd party lenses. Remember everyone on the planet doesn't use shipping and delivery mail service. Canon cameras and lenses can be purchased on every continent and in remote locations that there is simply no presense of many modern 3rd party lenses at all.

 

[scyrene]

As per my post on the last page. I own both FF and crop cameras. When out for a long hike, I can carry a 100-400 on a crop body and still get the pixels on subject I would with a FF/600mm combo. Also means I can track fast subjects like swift handheld for a lot longer than I could with a 600 F4. For a 100-400 I do not need a tripod but for long use I would with a big 600 depending on the situation.

I also shoot macro handheld for hours. I favour crop/60mm over my ff/100mm all the time. The 60mm fits in the bag easier. More importantly it is much lighter on long sessions. As the muscles tire it is more of a struggle to keep steady so less successful shots.

Tracking swifts in flight is impressive!

 

[Loswr]

Great marketing and great sales doesn't always mean a great product.

Your personal dislike of something doesn’t make it an error on the manufacturer’s part. The only error here is your assumption that your opinion is shared by a meaningful number of people.

 

[Joaquim]

I've been waiting for the R7 for some time now. Not investing in modern day aperture zooms simply because my older Sigma EX versions are still brilliant even if the 50-150 OS doesn't work with the Fringers on my Fuji's. As much as I cannot financially justify selling my fuji stuff and moving back to Canon, (if the R7 princess to actually be a baby R1/R3 which is what the original 7D line was modeled after) I'd still be happy if it's a really great product. Having said that, 'mix of M50' doesn't sound promising to me.

 

[entoman]

Were you ever part of that target audience? If you are over 30, I doubt it. Don't fall into the trap of "I won't buy it, so they shouldn't make it." There are millions of people who have never used a viewfinder and wouldn't hesitate to buy a camera without one. I'm always surprised when I see someone shooting a Rebel using the rear screen, but that's just the way many people have always shot photos, even if I would never do it that way.

Yes I fully realise 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. And sure, manufacturers are just responding to that demand. But I feel that manufacturers also have a *responsibility* to ensure that their products are fit for purpose. And IMO, a stills camera without a viewfinder is not fit for purpose, unless that purpose is to produce technically poor and badly composed snaps.

 

[entoman]

The rear screen is also used for motion picture, video etc.

I should have clarified that I was referring to stills usage, not professional video.

I realise that "rear screens" are in many cases preferable for TV, cinema and other serious videography, mainly because the equipment is too large and unwieldy to be held at the eye.

In those examples, the screen is typically an external monitor, and a large one, with a sunshade, so my criticisms of (small) rear screens do not apply.

Drone photography also of course uses a separate screen, but in this case the screen is likely to be at least 6 inches across, making it possible to judge focus and composition properly.

The issue with rear screens on APS-C and FF cameras, is that a) the screens are too small to be usable for composition or analysis of details, b) they are used at arms length which makes it much harder to keep the camera steady, and c) reflections from ambient light make them virtually unusable in sunlight. Using an OVF or EVF solves all those issues, and leads to better photography.

 

[entoman]

Composition was always using the rear glass/screen long before digital cameras came on the scene anyhow.

Yes, composition on rear screens was common in the early days of photography. It must have great fun trying to compose a dull, upside-down, reversed image on a plate camera /s.

In my days as an industrial photographer (I'm now retired, and a hobbyist wildlife photographer), I used many different types of camera, including Rolleiflex twin-lens reflexes and Hasselblad SLRs, in which composition and focusing took place on a 6x6cms waist-level screen. The image was laterally reversed, making it very difficult to follow movement, and the whole experience was awful and archaic compared to using a pentaprism OVF or a modern EVF.

Times, thankfully, have moved on since then.

IMO, the ideal viewing method for stills (and for relatively compact video cameras), is to have a tilting EVF - i.e. similar to the Leica Visoflex attachment, but integral rather than a clip-on accessory.

 

[Antono Refa]

Well, they could always make a FF sensor with identical pixel density (with far more resolution and same IQ at image level) for the same exact tele reach of APS-C. This just depends on how they cut the CMOS wafers.

Instead they choose to make the FF in one body (bigger pixels) and the long reach (smaller pixels) in a separate cropped body (more chances to sell both). Both sensors are "crippled" in some way from the technologically feasible high resolution single FF one.

Canon can make sensors with a higher resolution. We could have a long discussion on why it doesn't, the bottom line is Canon is in it to make a profit, not to sell customers the very best it can.

And, AFAIK, Nikon did the same for a long while, with FF and APS-C cameras having sensors with the same resolution.

 

[Bob Howland]

Canon can make sensors with a higher resolution. We could have a long discussion on why it doesn't, the bottom line is Canon is in it to make a profit, not to sell customers the very best it can.

And, AFAIK, Nikon did the same for a long while, with FF and APS-C cameras having sensors with the same resolution.

A cropped sensor with fewer but smaller pixels can be read more frequently than a FF sensor with the same size pixels. The Canon 32MP APS-C sensor, scaled up to FF gives 80MP but the smaller sensor might be readable at 10 FPS. The same processing engine at 80MP could only get 4 FPS. Improving the processing engine costs money. It boils down to: speed, resolution and/or cost - choose two.

Change that last sentence to: At any particular time, it boils down to: speed, resolution and/or cost - choose two.

 

[Jasonmc89]

I just hope the crop sensor model has:

a) a view finder
b) good in low light (tests show R5’s smaller pixels on par with R6for IQ)
c) focus bracketing

100% buy for me if so. I’m still using an 80D.

 

[scyrene]

Yes I fully realise 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. And sure, manufacturers are just responding to that demand. But I feel that manufacturers also have a *responsibility* to ensure that their products are fit for purpose. And IMO, a stills camera without a viewfinder is not fit for purpose, unless that purpose is to produce technically poor and badly composed snaps.

1. An EVF is just a screen you view in a different way. 2. Consumers at the low end (which is what we're talking about) aren't as likely to make the most of their equipment by whatever technical standards of 'quality' and composition you choose, and I doubt the way they observe the image before pressing the shutter button is the main reason for that. 3. A camera only needs to produce images that satisfy its user (or in professional circumstances, the client), and it matters not a jot whether they fail to meet other standards, however defined. 4. I doubt very much you could reliably tell whether images were composed with a viewfinder or rear screen in a blind test.

 

[scyrene]

I just hope the crop sensor model has:

a) a view finder
b) good in low light (tests show R5’s smaller pixels on par with R6for IQ)
c) focus bracketing

100% buy for me if so. I’m still using an 80D.

With regard to b - the size of the sensor is the same in the R5 and R6, which is far more important for low light noise levels than the size of the pixels (unless you're viewing 1:1 which is an unfair comparison). An APS-C sensor will perform worse, though a new one may well do better than older models.

 

[Jasonmc89]

With regard to b - the size of the sensor is the same in the R5 and R6, which is far more important for low light noise levels than the size of the pixels (unless you're viewing 1:1 which is an unfair comparison). An APS-C sensor will perform worse, though a new one may well do better than older models.

For sure, but in a comparison video I watched, when zoomed in to over 100% the R5’s low light IQ was the same, if not better than the R6. Even though the pixels in the R6 are almost twice as big!

Surely the low light performance from a crop sensor made up of R5 pixels would be as good as the R5 would it not?

Genuine question.. would it?

cheers

 

[Jasonmc89]

I am not sure that the R7 will have IBIS. It will mostly be targeted at telephoto users where IBIS is less effective anyway.

IBIS is pretty crucial to telephoto users…?

 

[Jasonmc89]

Can someone help me understand the advantage of having a large RF mount for an APS-C sensor? Mounting a high end expensive RF lens on an APS-C sensor camera makes no sense to me. Many people like Fuji X mount cameras because they are compact and overall system cost, weight and size are reduced significantly. Personally I hope Canon would revitalize the M series and develop some high quality prime or zoom lenses for travel photographers, and concentrate on producing more affordable RF bodies and lenses.

All ef lenses can be used. Fast crop sensor bodies are the best for small wildlife, unless you can afford a 600mm f4. Also, once a user has an RF mount, well, then they’re trapped in the system and will likely buy more RF lenses down the line. It’s a good way for Canon to get another chunk of the market (the birders who can’t spend 20k on camera gear) using RF mount cameras.

 

[Loswr]

Surely the low light performance from a crop sensor made up of R5 pixels would be as good as the R5 would it not?

Genuine question.. would it?

No. The perceived noise in an image inversely proportional to the total light gathered. A smaller sensor, whether physically smaller or only using a cropped potion of a larger sensor, gathers less light. Less light means more perceived noise.

 

[entoman]

1. An EVF is just a screen you view in a different way. 2. Consumers at the low end (which is what we're talking about) aren't as likely to make the most of their equipment by whatever technical standards of 'quality' and composition you choose, and I doubt the way they observe the image before pressing the shutter button is the main reason for that. 3. A camera only needs to produce images that satisfy its user (or in professional circumstances, the client), and it matters not a jot whether they fail to meet other standards, however defined. 4. I doubt very much you could reliably tell whether images were composed with a viewfinder or rear screen in a blind test.

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.

 

[vladk]

So the R5s and R1 will not come until 2023... and no APS-C glass ever, or maybe merely only a single kit lens? A single crop camera model does not deserves a entire line of crop glass...

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.

 

[Loswr]

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 to disagree. What *helps* them take photographs that they'll treasure is always having a camera in their pocket. That's why smartphones are eroding the low end of the ILC market. People are far less likely to have an ILC with them to 'capture the moment'. Case in point – I took a couple of nice images of my daughter skiing last night, they were not technically perfect but they are definitely keepsakes. My thousands of dollars worth of FF cameras and lenses were at home (I actually had my M6 + M11-22 in my bag for group shots at the lodge, but I did not bring it on the lifts with me). My iPhone was in my pocket.

I'm curious, when you put your camera on a tripod and carefully compose a shot, do you use the VF or the LCD? Personally, I use the LCD. It's especially helpful for landscape shots, and architecture with my TS lenses. Being able to pick parts of the frame and check focus by zooming to 10x magnification (especially when using tilt) is far better than using an OVF, for me. Or for macro shooting, where the camera is at or near ground level – I have an Angle Finder C for my 1D X, but an articulating LCD is a far easier solution. So for me, even with efforts at "art" a rear LCD is much more helpful than a decent VF.

Of course, I would not want to track a bird in flight with my 600/4 using the rear LCD.

 

[AJ]

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 to agree.

I have a friend who recently bought an SLR because of the viewfinder. With a viewfinder you can make accurate compositions, judge focus, and have exposure controls at your fingertips. The reason for him buying an SLR was because of these features. My friend said he wanted a "real" camera, and if he was going to shoot using a screen he might as well use his phone. The viewfinder, then, is a big part of what sets apart a "real" camera from a phone. For him, the phone and the SLR both deliver plenty of image quality (Instagram) and it's the viewfinder that he wanted. IMO his rationale resonates with me.

For me, as an amateur, I'm happy with the quality APSC sensors deliver. I can display images on my 4k screen and print 13"x19" coffee table books that are tack-sharp. That's all I need. I don't have an 8k screen or clients who want wall-sized prints. I'd buy a low-end APSC mirrorless camera. I want the viewfinder for the reasons stated above, plus interchangeable lenses, plus manual zoom (I hate having to flip little levers and hearing a whiny little zoom motor). APSC has small, light, inexpensive lenses that deliver the quality I need.

At this point you'll tell me "Hey, AJ, it sounds like M is the way to go for you." Yes, that's 80% true, but the lens selection of the M line is limited. M has been sadly neglected and its future is up in the air. As for lens selection - in the past you could get EF glass and adapt it, but RF can't be adapted to M. A low-end APSC RF-mount camera would be the ticket for me.