This is the possible Canon RF mount camera roadmap [CR2]

lbeck

*
Jul 30, 2019
17
40
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.
 

GadgetDave

All the cameras
CR Pro
Nov 30, 2016
16
15
I'm surprised nobody has pointed this out yet - if you read the article:
A new entry-level camera to replace the EOS RP
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”.
And you think about the current/legacy DSLR line, doesn't it equate to:
New entry level camera = "Rebel Rx"
New "above RP replacement" camera = "xxR" (i.e. xxD) line
New "APS C" = "R7"?
etc. etc.
 

Exploreshootshare

EOS M6 Mark II
Oct 31, 2020
89
98
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.
 

highdesertmesa

R5 | 50R | Q | M
CR Pro
Apr 17, 2017
345
481
www.instagram.com
...
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 didn't answer because I don't have any way of knowing. I do know that currently the L-class lens IQ at the corners is acceptable at 1:1 on the R5, but it breaks down severely (for the L zooms like the 15-35) or noticeably (RF 50 f/1.2) at 2:1 zoom. 2:1 zoom on the R5 to me is an indicator of what I may see on a 90mp sensor if there are no changes to the sensor tech or if like you say the IQ is set in stone based on the lens design.

Another possibility is the R5s/R5sR gets a global shutter like the R1 is rumored to have. Not sure if that would help or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
491
227
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.

There have been rumors and patents for a novel sensor that would have twice the dynamic range, in effect able to take an HDR photo in one photo. It'd also be capable of "global shutter" and "built-in ND filter."
 

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
491
227
Canon has time to think this through
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.
 

nchoh

EOS RP
Apr 3, 2018
310
196
Calgary
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.
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.

Furthermore, the value preposition is not there when there is such a huge price gaps in their lineup. For example designing an R camera cheaper than the RP means that they are extending their market space. Filling the gaps also means that Canon makes their product line more extensive, thus putting them in a better position versus the competition. As well, Canon needs to sell more R cameras to sell more R lenses. Filling out the line on every price point would make the buying decision easier for the consumer with a fixed budget.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,145
2,029
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.

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.
 

nchoh

EOS RP
Apr 3, 2018
310
196
Calgary
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.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveC

esglord

EOS RP
May 9, 2019
42
54
Was hoping for EOS R mkII with DPAF II, joystick instead of touch bar, focus bracketing and slightly faster fps burst, but who knows, maybe this in-between camera could still be that. Probably would have IBIS and a new sensor, justifying a new name. Anyway, if it doesn't happen, I'll buy an R6 in a couple years when cheaper. Seems like they could just save development dollars on an RP replacement and just slowly reduce the price on the existing RP to keep selling it. It's a good camera.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ColinJR

Exploreshootshare

EOS M6 Mark II
Oct 31, 2020
89
98
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.

I´d preorder a camera with similar specs in a heartbeat! I like the R6 ergonomics and fps but I'm worried that the resolution when in crop mode is just too low. 30-35mp would be very, very tempting.
 

ColinJR

EOS-R
Nov 27, 2018
81
90
robertsonrep.com
This might sound nuts, but I really wonder if they could put a larger sensor in the high-res body, not unlike APS-H was to APS-C. It would put Canon a lot closer to Fujifilm's GFX line than they ever could with "regular" full frame...

On a body in-between the entry-level RP replacement and R6 (not counting an APS-C model), I struggle to see the niche. Maybe they'll make something that's a different body style, like the Sony A7C? That could be cool...
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

AEWest

EOS RP
Jan 30, 2020
249
311
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.

-Brian
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.
 

wanderer23

EOS M6 Mark II
CR Pro
Feb 8, 2020
66
75
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
 

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
589
1,001
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'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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonGrunt

navastronia

EOS RP + 5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
691
804
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.

I agree that would be a tremendous, and I would also take that tradeoff if it came to it. B and H (the store) says in their article about global and rolling shutter that a rolling shutter "will have less noise and a wider dynamic range while generating less heat," and that a global shutter developed to compete in these respects would be dramatically more expensive to produce -- not more dramatically, I hope, than could fit in a $6,995 Canon body ;)
 

keithcooper

EOS RP
CR Pro
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.
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 ;-)
 
  • Like
Reactions: amorse

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
589
1,001
You know, considering the tiny ND filter mechanism Canon fit into the C70... is it crazy to think some day Canon could include the ND filters in a stills camera? A 5DS replacement with similar 8 stops of built-in ND filters would be incredible for portraits and high resolution landscape long exposures. Just a random, passing thought here, I know it would increase the price by a good bit, but it definitely doesn't seem to impact size on the C70.
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr
<-- start Taboola -->