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

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,817
4,791
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Well we are all "imposing our own viewpoint" merely by making comments on a forum...
Not really. There is a difference between expressing an opinion and declaring that your opinion should be the ruling factor.

"...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."

There is not a lot of space between that statement and "I don't like it, so therefore they shouldn't do it."

Everyone on the forum is expressing their own viewpoint. But expressing that viewpoint is not the same as declaring that your viewpoint should govern how others behave.

People are free to make choices, including bad ones.

And, apparently Canon wants to give people choices. However, "bad" is subjective and what is "bad" to you may be "good" to someone else.

As I've already said a number of times, I'm not interested in a camera without a viewfinder. I just don't begrudge Canon for offering one, if indeed they do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,891
15,503
An add on EVF may not be elegant, but it will allow the camera without an EVF to be sold at that lower price point that Canon may be aiming for, while also giving those who want an EVF the chance to buy the lowest cost R camera. I briefly owned the M6 II and bought the add-on EVF and it worked great for me. I bought the add-on EVF used, so it cost me less than $250. If they offer the low cost R camera without an EVF at all - than that would be a camera I would never buy - even for 50 bucks. There's no way I can hold the camera at arm's length and take the shot along with the fact that you can't see the screen in many lighting conditions. So no EVF means no buy. Add-on EVF means potential buy.
I briefly owned a G3X (24-600mm zoom equivalent). It was impossible to use at 600mm without the optional slide on EVF and bracing the camera against my cheek. Problem was where to store the EVF as it seemed too delicately fixed for carrying around.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,247
6,779
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.
I missed this statement in the back-and-forth until @unfocused pointed it out. I have to say, as the user of an M, M2 and an M6 I find it rather offensive. For example, I don’t think this is a technically poor, badly composed snap. Nor did the director of a nearby Audubon sanctuary who decided to hang a print of it on the wall.

BB82B1C2-A243-4F5F-B5B1-8C030F3E6B1D.jpeg

It was taken with an M2 and an EF-M 55-200mm lens.

Perhaps your photography is limited to technically poor, badly composed snapshots unless your camera has a viewfinder, but please understand that shortcoming does not apply to all photographers.

Edit: maybe it’s semantics or interpretation, and by using ‘IMO’ what you meant was you cannot take the types of pictures you want without a viewfinder, but that’s not how it came across. If I said, “IMO, no one should take COVID vaccines because they aren’t fit for purpose, don’t work and actually cause your testicles to swell up,” the fact that I was just expressing my opinion would not make me sound any less like a moron.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,020
1,190
UK
Not really. There is a difference between expressing an opinion and declaring that your opinion should be the ruling factor.

"...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."

There is not a lot of space between that statement and "I don't like it, so therefore they shouldn't do it."

Everyone on the forum is expressing their own viewpoint. But expressing that viewpoint is not the same as declaring that your viewpoint should govern how others behave.
Not really - I deliberately used the terms "I feel" and "IMO" to indicate that I was stating a personal view, which is my normal practice on CR.
 

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,020
1,190
UK
I missed this statement in the back-and-forth until @unfocused pointed it out. I have to say, as the user of an M, M2 and an M6 I find it rather offensive. For example, I don’t think this is a technically poor, badly composed snap. Nor did the director of a nearby Audubon sanctuary who decided to hang a print of it on the wall.

View attachment 202270

It was taken with an M2 and M55-200mm lens.

Perhaps your photography is limited to technically poor, badly composed snapshots unless your camera has a viewfinder, but please understand that shortcoming does not apply to all photographers.
I think you're overreacting and to take offence is just a bit silly. We are after all just expressing our own opinions about cameras, which is the purpose of this comments section. I can't see anything even remotely offensive in anything I've said, and you may rest assured that I have no intention to upset any delicate feelings!

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.

You did well to get a technically good and well composed shot using what I very much regard to be a less than ideal method of viewing and composition... ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

InchMetric

Switched from Nikon. Still zooming the wrong way.
CR Pro
Jun 22, 2021
222
251
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.
Good thing that most offering will have the OVF you desire. Some customers might well occasionally (or always) prefer an ultra-compact without the bulk, weight, and cost of a viewfinder. I'll jump on a little "deck of cards" that attaches to some of those light and compact RF lenses like the RF50 F1.8. Ideal grab for family shots or pocket for play in the park. Leave the R5 with battery grip at home. Basically a Fuji X100. Give it a 35mm f2.8 ( or faster) in the smallest possible config.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Hector1970

EOS R
CR Pro
Mar 22, 2012
1,450
943
That's at least as good as any DIF I have ever shot if not sharper. But, the AF of the R5 is good enough to catch them in flight. In fact, I bought the R5 after testing it with the adapted EF 100-400mm II, and there are lots of shots in our dragonflies thread. Here is a thread I devoted to it. https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...rf-100-500mm-for-dragonflies-in-flight.40622/
Hi Alan - I've had say reasonable success tracking dragonflies with a 1DXIII but it never really locks on. It's sort of hit and miss, if the dragonfly flies predictably you have better success. Do you find the R5 tracks the dragonfly well?
How are finding it with birds?
The 1DXIII is the best focussing camera I've ever had but 20MP is a bit weak for small birds (which is about all I get). It's very good for sport where people fill the frame. I'm putting away money for the eventual 1DR which I hope will be a 50MP camera. The R5 is the only one so far that would tempt me. It has alot of happy users.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,247
6,779
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’s more than possible, personally I don’t find particularly difficult to take good pictures on an M. But your statement really does not allow much wiggle room for that possibility:

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.
Take a step back and think about the context of your statement: what you’re suggesting is that Canon intentionally developed cameras to take crappy pictures. Do you honestly think that makes sense or that that was their intent?

I’m not suggesting that you cannot have that opinion, or that you cannot share it. Just be aware that like people who have and share their opinion that the Earth is flat, you sound foolish.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,020
1,190
UK
Good thing that most offering will have the OVF you desire. Some customers might well occasionally (or always) prefer an ultra-compact without the bulk, weight, and cost of a viewfinder. I'll jump on a little "deck of cards" that attaches to some of those light and compact RF lenses like the RF50 F1.8. Ideal grab for family shots or pocket for play in the park. Leave the R5 with battery grip at home. Basically a Fuji X100. Give it a 35mm f2.8 ( or faster) in the smallest possible config.
Well, I seem to have inadvertently stirred up a hornet's nest on this subject...

Of course, there will be people who consider pocketability to be very important. I can absolutely understand that - after all it's one of the main reasons so many use smartphones for photography.

However, the pocketability (or lack of it) of an RF mount camera is largely dictated by the diameter of the mount, and the size of the lenses that will be fitted to it, rather than by whether it has an EVF.

Even the little Sony 1" sensor RX100 cameras have a pop-up EVF, so one could certainly be put in a FF Canon.

I think the point some here are missing, is that having an EVF or OVF just makes a camera so much more usable, and if the camera is well designed, it doesn't need to add to the size (although it would of course add to the cost).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,020
1,190
UK
Take a step back and think about the context of your statement: what you’re suggesting is that Canon intentionally developed cameras to take crappy pictures. Do you honestly think that makes sense or that that was their intent?

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Deleted

7D2
Sep 30, 2021
111
337
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.
What is the right tool for the job depends on both the job, and the person doing it. Not everyone has the same needs, desires and ability. I would guess this non-EVF camera is aimed at a specific market. It might be for vloggers for instance, or those that just want to have a bit of fun with it. We haven’t even seen this rumoured camera yet. If it ever does emerge then it will be interesting to see how it sells and to whom.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,891
15,503
Hi Alan - I've had say reasonable success tracking dragonflies with a 1DXIII but it never really locks on. It's sort of hit and miss, if the dragonfly flies predictably you have better success. Do you find the R5 tracks the dragonfly well?
How are finding it with birds?
The 1DXIII is the best focussing camera I've ever had but 20MP is a bit weak for small birds (which is about all I get). It's very good for sport where people fill the frame. I'm putting away money for the eventual 1DR which I hope will be a 50MP camera. The R5 is the only one so far that would tempt me. It has alot of happy users.
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.


309A4020-DxO_male_brown_hawker_dragonfly_flying-ls-sm.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9 users

Chig

Birds in Flight Nutter
Jul 26, 2020
519
780
Orewa , New Zealand
IBIS is pretty crucial to telephoto users…?
Why do you say that? Most telephoto shooting is of fast moving subjects where high shutter speeds are required , once you acquire a subject it's fairly easy to keep it in frame even for birds like swallows.
IBIS isn't crucial for any photography but quite handy at times, I'd much rather have really useful features like higher fps, twin CFe card slots and of course better heat transfer from a fixed sensor than IBIS
 

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,020
1,190
UK
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
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
 

AJ

EOS R
Sep 11, 2010
806
226
If the EVF is an optional attachment, then the body should have two mounting points: one on the left and one on the right, for left- and right-eyed shooters. Maybe you could mount two EVFs for shooting with the 5.2/2.8 dual fisheye.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,020
1,190
UK
What is the right tool for the job depends on both the job, and the person doing it. Not everyone has the same needs, desires and ability. I would guess this non-EVF camera is aimed at a specific market. It might be for vloggers for instance, or those that just want to have a bit of fun with it. We haven’t even seen this rumoured camera yet. If it ever does emerge then it will be interesting to see how it sells and to whom.
Just had a look at your flickr pages.

There's no way that your photos are "distinctly average". You've got some great shots there, thanks for sharing!
 

Inspired

EOS M50
Jun 21, 2017
45
28
Caribbean
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,282
1,063
www.flickr.com
4k cropped, lp e17 battery.
I don't need video but it does 4k - correct? I still think that the majority of use cases for 4k video at the lower end of the market is not so much.
The small size of the RP means that the larger LP-e6 battery can't be used. I agree that a longer battery life is always better but small and light is the RP's niche. I would be using external power in any case.
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,282
1,063
www.flickr.com
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.
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!