And you think about the current/legacy DSLR line, doesn't it equate to:This camera will be cheaper than the current EOS RP camera body.
A second body above the EOS RP replacement
There will be a big price gap between the EOS RP replacement and the EOS R6 at $2499. I have been told a second camera will fit between these two bodies. It won’t be an “EOS R Mark II”.
I feel that list is too much. IMO they simply need a 1DX replacement for the RF mount and a APS-C replacement. Once they have those two models they should stop and focus on Mark II versions of each, and more lenses.
But all this doesn't touch on my main question I asked, which is how much of the image trouble you see as you approach the edge of the sensor is caused by the lens itself, and not the sensor or its microlenses. We know the resolution of lenses drops appreciably as you reach the edges and I would guess that this is the main cause of the drop in performance you are seeing and has less to do with the microlenses structure. So I would expect the ~90MP sensor to have the same ratio of loss of resolution towards the edges as you have now.
I wonder what they can possibly do in the segment above the R5. More Mega pixels for landscape photography? or faster FPS for action/sports? Better low light performance...or all three.
If Canon were thinking things through, the EF-M mount would have been the diameter of the current RF and use the bus of the current RF and the RF mount would be that EF-M mount, and the M cameras would BE the small-sensor R cameras and all able to take all the RF glass.Canon has time to think this through
Perhaps you think that it is easier to develop the Mark II version the develop the in between models? I don't think that there is much difference and in some sense, developing the Mark II models is more difficult. A Mark II model would imply the same buttons, but that something else would need to improve. The sensor? That's much more investment than body changes, if I am not wrong.I feel that list is too much. IMO they simply need a 1DX replacement for the RF mount and a APS-C replacement. Once they have those two models they should stop and focus on Mark II versions of each, and more lenses.
I disagree. R1, R5, R5s, R6, RP replacement and "above RP" make up six cameras. Counting the "APS-C" rumored camera (R7 or not) there'd be seven cameras, which all of them cater to a specific customer branch. RP is essential in acquiring customers for the RF mount since there is no comparable Xxd line. The gap between the RP and R6 would be too huge, so many customers would never upgrade (or worse for Canon: chose a different company), which is why a "above RP level" is absolutely needed. I don't think one needs to argue for a R1, R5, R5s, R6...
The only camera I might consider "not essentially needed" would be an APS-C (the m-line sells!) or R7 (like the in-camera cropping idea people mentioned in this forum). But it seems to me that there are several people would order a R7 in a heartbeat.
More people with an RF mount camera, which ever of this seven models, means more lense sales and later they'll upgrade because they invested in the R-Mount. Therefore, I'd even say more camera models are certainly possible such as a video-centric hybrid shooter (R5c rumor?). If they use bodies/ parts throughout several models new cameras aren't that expensive to develop.
They say hindsight is 20/20. But this is not even that. IIRC, the M series was under the P+S team (division, whatever). They wanted a small and cheap ILC to expand their line, so the M was born.If Canon were thinking things through, the EF-M mount would have been the diameter of the current RF and use the bus of the current RF and the RF mount would be that EF-M mount, and the M cameras would BE the small-sensor R cameras and all able to take all the RF glass.
There was just no reason I see, except for engineered-in non-comparability, for the RF flange to be 20mm when the EF-M was 18mm. And no great reason for the EF-M to be as narrow as it is; they could have made the cameras and lenses the same size with a much bigger mount. Only the lens caps would really have been bigger.
And to my mind there's a significant gap between the R5 and R6, which will never be built because there's no gap in the numbering scheme for such a camera to fit into. I'm thinking of an R-like resolution but with R6 features (which would likely necessitate a new sensor), about 30-35 MP, with dual SD slots. I would have bought that in preference to the R5.
My optimal camera would be a 32 mp camera with slower frame rate than R6, but with a joystick unlike the R and of course IBIS.That EOS R replacement is interesting. I wonder if it will get dual card slots. I kind of doubt it. I think they'll keep that a differentiator for the R6. But it will probably have a higher MP sensor with lower frame rates. Ugh that'd be a tough decision as far as what to upgrade to coming from a 5D3.
I'd honestly like to see a C90 be basically the same specs as the R5 but with internal fans, built-in ND, large heat sink, BP-A batteries, and XLR or mini-XLR outputs. I can't imagine there's too many reasons why they couldn't make and sell such a camera for 16,000 like the current C500 Mark II, considering the R5 is only $3,900.A c90 that can do more than just filter down from c500 would be amazing... Would be nice to see faster frame rates , or dual native iso
I don't disagree and I would personally love IBIS, but part of what makes me think that the R1 could ditch IBIS is if it has a global shutter, Canon could brag that they have a pro camera with 0 moving parts, which would be a huge flex for the pro market where one could imagine getting literally 100 million photos out of the camera before something non-mechanical wears out. That would be a big statement piece for a pro body, and I think Canon could go for that in the first generation, before they include IBIS in a mark II.
That's fine for someone with an R5 in their 'list' - I tried one and am still waiting for something to replace my 5Ds - the CR list looks just fine by me ;-)I feel that list is too much. IMO they simply need a 1DX replacement for the RF mount and a APS-C replacement. Once they have those two models they should stop and focus on Mark II versions of each, and more lenses.