They are going to gear it towards Vloggers and Youtubers.... who don't need an EVF. Understand the target audience for a camera like that."No EVF" is quite a disturbing idea. Not only "old folks" are using EVF by the way.
Upvote
0
They are going to gear it towards Vloggers and Youtubers.... who don't need an EVF. Understand the target audience for a camera like that."No EVF" is quite a disturbing idea. Not only "old folks" are using EVF by the way.
Well don't get your hopes up. I fully expect the entry level RF to be APSC and to also be the unit with no EVF. An RF upgrade to the M6 MKII which is $849. M6MKII was geared towards Vloggers/Streamers and YouTubers. This will EASILY be $800+ If you think $800 is too much you don't want to be in the RF system, you will never be able to afford glass. (I don't mean you as in YOU personally, using it as a general term)Well, I hope that Canon can do a R platform for less than USD800... wouldn't that be an amazing bridge between phones and "real" cameras!
I was replying to a comment that said that the RP was on sale before Christmas for USD800 which - as you point out - is less than the retail M6ii.Well don't get your hopes up. I fully expect the entry level RF to be APSC and to also be the unit with no EVF. An RF upgrade to the M6 MKII which is $849. M6MKII was geared towards Vloggers/Streamers and YouTubers. This will EASILY be $800+ If you think $800 is too much you don't want to be in the RF system, you will never be able to afford glass. (I don't mean you as in YOU personally, using it as a general term)
Perhaps you can’t. I have no trouble using my M6 on sunny days, with proper technique.especially doing a shoot on a sunny day. You couldn't depend on the lcd.
Same here. Any of the M bodies plus a couple compact primes/zooms make for a fantastic lightweight kit. It's my casual kit when I know I'm going to want something better than the iPhone, but photography isn't the main goal. Canon should position the M line as the replacement for P&S cameras for those people who don't find phones to be a sufficient replacement.I really wish Canon could continue the EOS M series or camera and coming out a weather sealed M6 mark iii in future.
The mirrorless camera was invented to have smaller body and smaller lens, RF mount lens isn’t that small, even there will be a APSC body that slightly smaller than RP, it is still larger than M6.
Just my wish.
Thanks for the info. It looks, well, ok. While I like the focus tracking capabilities of the R3/5, I‘m not sure I want as much info displayed in the EVF as it appears there is. I like the relative visual solitude of an OVF. At this point I can’t see myself composing anything but static subjects on a rear LCD.The Sigma fp L external EVF is attached on the side of the camera - rangefinder style. Reviews say that it isn't the best. If I recall correctly, it couldn't be attached on the top.
Yes and I was referring to the future RP replacement. As I own one of those I can identify room for Canon to produce a cheaper, simpler FF camera below the RP that becomes the ‘budget’ FF model whilst retaining any future ‘RP II’ broadly as it is now - a very competent, complete and small FF camera.There is no doubt that keeping both the EVF and rear LCD will be the best solution but we are discussing how Canon can release models that are lower cost as bridge to higher end products.
With a top LCD Screen, instead of the rebel styled controls. Why make a camera so expensive and high end as the R6 and then to stick it in a Rebel's body?That sounds like a likely specification for the rumoured upcoming replacement for the R, and I think it will be cheaper than you suggest.
I think it will be based on the R6 body though, not the R5, but that's no bad thing.
My guess is 33MP, IBIS, and possibly a different menu and EF interface for stills and video.
Having handled these cameras I think that the build is superior to the Rebels TBH. Regarding the top plate layout, do we really need a LCD now we have both rear screen and EVF ? Canon are probably testing the market on this design. However I think there will be many people who agree with you given the price.With a top LCD Screen, instead of the rebel styled controls. Why make a camera so expensive and high end as the R6 and then to stick it in a Rebel's body?
Makes no sense.
At least on the R3, that’s customizable. You get up to three different OVF displays (you can cycle through them during use with the Info button), two of which you can edit to show detailed info along the sides, a histogram, an electronic level, or none of those. Deselecting all of them gives you the ‘uncluttered’ display of an OVF, showing only the exposure info under the image, and the active focus point(s) when focusing.Thanks for the info. It looks, well, ok. While I like the focus tracking capabilities of the R3/5, I‘m not sure I want as much info displayed in the EVF as it appears there is. I like the relative visual solitude of an OVF. At this point I can’t see myself composing anything but static subjects on a rear LCD.
You mean OPTICAL viewfinder. Most mirrorless cameras also have a viewfinder and they should really have one, because it is a very basic thing.If it didn’t have a viewfinder it wouldn’t be a (D)SLR would it?
Basic, nice to have, but not a requirement.You mean OPTICAL viewfinder. Most mirrorless cameras also have a viewfinder and they should really have one, because it is a very basic thing.
An EVF on my Olympus TG5 that I use for underwater shots when snorkelling would not be better than using the LCD, in fact quite the opposite.You mean OPTICAL viewfinder. Most mirrorless cameras also have a viewfinder and they should really have one, because it is a very basic thing.
I have to mention again, that even my cheap compact camera "Canon PowerShot S1 IS" had an EVF, although that one had quite a low resolution.
A low resolution EVF still is better for composing a photo than having no viewfinder at all. Even a low resolution EVF can show framing, colours and exposure.
Cheers, I can understand that. Still, would prefer ibis to no ibis!Yes, more lens IS but sensor IS is LESS effective due to the massive sensor shift movements needed to counteract movement of the image at 600mm vs at 35mm for instance
No. I said it wouldn’t be a Digital Single Lens Reflex if it didn’t have a viewfinder. By definition all DSLRs and SLRs must have a viewfinder. Other cameras can also have a viewfinder without being an SLR. But it can’t be a DSLR or an SLR without a viewfinder. That’s what Single Lens Reflex means.You mean OPTICAL viewfinder. Most mirrorless cameras also have a viewfinder and they should really have one, because it is a very basic thing.
I have to mention again, that even my cheap compact camera "Canon PowerShot S1 IS" had an EVF, although that one had quite a low resolution.
A low resolution EVF still is better for composing a photo than having no viewfinder at all. Even a low resolution EVF can show framing, colours and exposure.
The 'reflex' bit refers to the 45 degree mirror, not the OVF.No. I said it wouldn’t be a Digital Single Lens Reflex if it didn’t have a viewfinder. By definition all DSLRs and SLRs must have a viewfinder. Other cameras can also have a viewfinder without being an SLR. But it can’t be a DSLR or an SLR without a viewfinder. That’s what Single Lens Reflex means.
Yes, but the mirror is there to reflect the image to the viewfinder. Without an OVF, there is no reason to have a mirror.The 'reflex' bit refers to the 45 degree mirror, not the OVF.