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

Kit.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Apr 25, 2011
2,021
1,369
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.
R6s?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joules and SteveC

usern4cr

EOS RP
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
512
465
Kentucky, USA
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.
You mention the IQ breaking down severly for the 15-35L zoom. You do know (I hope) that the image circle of that lens, for some aperture & zoom combinations, happens to be a bit smaller in diameter than what it should be to more properly illuminate the sensor all the way to the corner. That is a serious vignetting issue for that lens, and I'm told that it's a common (corner only) problem for very wide angle zoom lenses in general. Less illumination results in lower IQ when compensated to expected brightness. They could have designed that lens with a slightly larger image circle in general to avoid this problem, but they chose not to for some reason. Again, that's a purely lens issue and not a sensor issue.

Also, I understand what 1:1 viewing means, but I don't know what 2:1 zoom means to you. Do you mean every original pixel is duplicated 4 times or do you mean that interpolation of some sort is used to enlarge the 1:1 image to 2 times the width & height? If so, I guess that you should use a 1.41 : 1 zoom to show you what it would look like if the lens resolution was less than what's needed to properly fill 90MP.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
1,855
1,716
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 ;)
Oh they can put one in a $6,995 body. But it might only be a few thousand pixels.... :ROFLMAO:
 

highdesertmesa

R5/Ra | GFX 50R
CR Pro
Apr 17, 2017
328
392
Placitas, NM
www.instagram.com
You mention the IQ breaking down severly for the 15-35L zoom. You do know (I hope) that the image circle of that lens, for some aperture & zoom combinations, happens to be a bit smaller in diameter than what it should be to more properly illuminate the sensor all the way to the corner. That is a serious vignetting issue for that lens, and I'm told that it's a common (corner only) problem for very wide angle zoom lenses in general. Less illumination results in lower IQ when compensated to expected brightness. They could have designed that lens with a slightly larger image circle in general to avoid this problem, but they chose not to for some reason. Again, that's a purely lens issue and not a sensor issue.

Also, I understand what 1:1 viewing means, but I don't know what 2:1 zoom means to you. Do you mean every original pixel is duplicated 4 times or do you mean that interpolation of some sort is used to enlarge the 1:1 image to 2 times the width & height? If so, I guess that you should use a 1.41 : 1 zoom to show you what it would look like if the lens resolution was less than what's needed to properly fill 90MP.
For the RF f/2.8 trinity, it seems like they designed for maximum compactness and somewhat have ignored the growing demands of their sensor resolutions. But in fairness, I don't think corner-peeping landscape shooters were their target market for these. The good thing about the 15-35, though, is it is much better at 15mm than it is at 35, so for me, it's really a 15-24 with a bonus 24-35. I think the longer range of going from 16mm for EF to 15mm for RF was harder on the image circle than was anything else. No free lunch as they say.

2:1 zoom is 2:1 zoom. Photoshop translation for that would be viewing the image at 200%. Certainly I could resize the image to 90mp in something like Topaz to get a better approximation.

But back to the 15-35, I think you're discounting sensor design too much, placing too much blame on the lens design. I say that because the corner performance of this lens at all focal lengths is actually *better* on the R5 than it is on the R. On the R, 15mm corners at infinity are super soft, and IQ at MFD at 35mm is almost laughable. Both those conditions are night and day better on the R5. Both So Canon did *something* to the sensor design (or to the coatings on the UV/IR cut filter) between the R and R5 that has helped improve IQ. I suppose if they continue these improvements as they scale up to 90mp, we may have nothing to be concerned with.
 
Last edited:

Sorosuub

I'm New Here
Jul 10, 2020
22
17
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.
Agreed, I was hoping that this niche would be filled by the EOS R MK II. Sadly I think I have to get an R5 now.
 

usern4cr

EOS RP
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
512
465
Kentucky, USA
For the RF f/2.8 trinity, it seems like they designed for maximum compactness and somewhat have ignored the growing demands of their sensor resolutions. But in fairness, I don't think corner-peeping landscape shooters were their target market for these. The good thing about the 15-35, though, is it is much better at 15mm than it is at 35, so for me, it's really a 15-24 with a bonus 24-35. I think the longer range of going from 16mm for EF to 15mm for RF was harder on the image circle than was anything else. No free lunch as they say.

2:1 zoom is 2:1 zoom. Photoshop translation for that would be viewing the image at 200%. Certainly I could resize the image to 90mp in something like Topaz to get a better approximation.

But back to the 15-35, I think you're discounting sensor design too much, placing too much blame on the lens design. I say that because the corner performance of this lens at all focal lengths is actually *better* on the R5 than it is on the R. On the R, 15mm corners at infinity are super soft, and IQ at MFD at 35mm is almost laughable. Both those conditions are night and day better on the R5. Both So Canon did *something* to the sensor design (or to the coatings on the UV/IR cut filter) between the R and R5 that has helped improve IQ. I suppose if they continue these improvements as they scale up to 90mp, we may have nothing to be concerned with.
First, I'd like to say that I own the RF 15-35 f2.8L and am extremely happy with it. I don't sweat the corners IQ after they're compensated for in post.

Second, you're the first person I've heard say that the R5 sensor makes any lens behave substantially better than the R sensor (other than just more pixels). I appreciate you mentioning it (thanks!). Is this true if you take photos on a tripod for a non-moving subject? (to remove any issues from using IBIS or not). I wonder if your R has an issue with flange depth being slightly off, or some other orientation issue for the particular R you have? Have you seen the same problem with other R bodies? I have to say I'm really surprised to hear this, but at least I'm happy that the R5 (which I own) is the one that's much better! :)
 

gmon750

EOS 90D
CR Pro
Jan 30, 2015
116
69
I had the same issues with my Ikelite housing. Moving from the 5Diii to the 5Div was a bigger improvement overall. More pixels, faster AF/fps etc was very useful underwater. Buying the 5Div second hand was not too expensive and I ended up selling it for more than I paid when I went to the R5
I did find that the knob for changing from still to video and back wasn't ideal on the 5Diii but did work fine on the 5Div so there were minor changes to the body shape.
I jumped to the R5 housing as there isn't much else I would want in a body. Speed, AF, pixels, high ISO, video etc are good enough to keep me going for a long time to come even if a replacement body is somehow better in the future.
Selling second hand housings is not simple during this travel-restricted time but the flexibility to handle 5Diii/iv/SR is an advantage over other options. I am not sure what the lifespan of a housing should be... 5-8 years at least I guess. Hard to imagine that a R5ii will have a revolutionary jump in specs even in 4 years time so I will be happy to keep mine for a long time to come.
Yeah...My concern is that the future R5M2 will be physically different than today's R5, so whatever housing used today won't work. An example is Sony refreshing their cameras far faster than Canon used to with their dSLR's. It has me hesitating to push the button. I think Canon will introduce an R5M2 in two years and not four. I'm considering buying the 5DM4 as it's rather cheap and will give me that extra time to wait.
 

TAF

EOS RP
CR Pro
Feb 26, 2012
414
107
I had the same issues with my Ikelite housing. Moving from the 5Diii to the 5Div was a bigger improvement overall. More pixels, faster AF/fps etc was very useful underwater. Buying the 5Div second hand was not too expensive and I ended up selling it for more than I paid when I went to the R5
I did find that the knob for changing from still to video and back wasn't ideal on the 5Diii but did work fine on the 5Div so there were minor changes to the body shape.
I jumped to the R5 housing as there isn't much else I would want in a body. Speed, AF, pixels, high ISO, video etc are good enough to keep me going for a long time to come even if a replacement body is somehow better in the future.
Selling second hand housings is not simple during this travel-restricted time but the flexibility to handle 5Diii/iv/SR is an advantage over other options. I am not sure what the lifespan of a housing should be... 5-8 years at least I guess. Hard to imagine that a R5ii will have a revolutionary jump in specs even in 4 years time so I will be happy to keep mine for a long time to come.
The lifespan of the Ikelite housing is virtually limitless. Keep up with the maintenance of the o-rings and seals, and it should outlast the camera.

I sold my Ikelite with the Rollei 35 film camera I had (which was at least 40 years old) a couple of years ago. It still worked perfectly.

And I still have (someplace; I moved and haven't unpacked) the housing for my Rollei TLR. That's pushing 60 years old.
 

privatebydesign

Garfield is back...
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,188
3,410
120
The lifespan of the Ikelite housing is virtually limitless. Keep up with the maintenance of the o-rings and seals, and it should outlast the camera.

I sold my Ikelite with the Rollei 35 film camera I had (which was at least 40 years old) a couple of years ago. It still worked perfectly.

And I still have (someplace; I moved and haven't unpacked) the housing for my Rollei TLR. That's pushing 60 years old.
I’ve seen more than a few Ikelite housing backs crack where the clasps go through the perspex.
 

David - Sydney

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
453
375
www.flickr.com
Yeah...My concern is that the future R5M2 will be physically different than today's R5, so whatever housing used today won't work. An example is Sony refreshing their cameras far faster than Canon used to with their dSLR's. It has me hesitating to push the button. I think Canon will introduce an R5M2 in two years and not four. I'm considering buying the 5DM4 as it's rather cheap and will give me that extra time to wait.
Twas an expensive year for me so far :)
If you can afford it, I believe that you should jump into RF. I am constantly amazed by the difference from my 5Div.
I don't think that you can rely on Canon keeping the same form factor/button locations for R5ii. Each of the R bodies has been different. They dropped the touch bar (useless underwater anyway) in the R5. The joystick is great but my housing can't use it either.
A R5ii body may be different simply to have better thermal performance which is really the only thing that the R5 could be improved on IMHO (besides remapping the Rate button)
Sometimes, you need to bite the bullet with known information.
 

David - Sydney

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
453
375
www.flickr.com
I’ve seen more than a few Ikelite housing backs crack where the clasps go through the perspex.
Was that with the older 4 lock system or the newer DL (or smaller DLM) system? I have been really happy with the build quality in my 5D housing and R5 housing for many years now but I am not a full time /professional user.
If I was, then I would probably go for a Nauticam setup... the Leica of housings :cool:
 

privatebydesign

Garfield is back...
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,188
3,410
120
Was that with the older 4 lock system or the newer DL (or smaller DLM) system? I have been really happy with the build quality in my 5D housing and R5 housing for many years now but I am not a full time /professional user.
If I was, then I would probably go for a Nauticam setup... the Leica of housings :cool:
I believe the older ones, but I never paid much attention. Yes the Nauticam setups can add up especially when you put $1,500 eyepieces on them etc etc. though personally I have always found the Subal housings to be my favorites, they always seem that bit better form fitting and ‘tighter’.

Though I haven’t had a dive housing in quite a while, my most recent housings have been SPL and Aquatech Delphin surf housings, they give me the depth I am interested in but more importantly the durability.
 

Chig

Birds in Flight Nutter
Jul 26, 2020
75
46
Orewa , New Zealand
If it is going to be a 7D counterpart, which lenses its users are interested in?
I'm a typical 7D user and I'm not interested in small lenses , I use big EF telephoto L lenses only and would want to use big RF ones eventually too.
The whole point of these cameras is using the crop sensor for more reach not a compact system
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bahrd

Chig

Birds in Flight Nutter
Jul 26, 2020
75
46
Orewa , New Zealand
cheaper Rp version will def mean the end of APSC line for sure. time to start saving for the move be a great time to get cheap R bodies and RP bodies ! Any chance they will finally switch to usb-c ssd storage ?
Why ?
7D users prefer aps-c for more reach with big whites , we don't care about cheap FF and happy to pay a premium for a decent 7D ii replacement R7
 

David - Sydney

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
453
375
www.flickr.com
I believe the older ones, but I never paid much attention. Yes the Nauticam setups can add up especially when you put $1,500 eyepieces on them etc etc. though personally I have always found the Subal housings to be my favorites, they always seem that bit better form fitting and ‘tighter’.

Though I haven’t had a dive housing in quite a while, my most recent housings have been SPL and Aquatech Delphin surf housings, they give me the depth I am interested in but more importantly the durability.
I did a surf photography course with Phil Thurston, Sean Scott, Warren Keelan and Phil Gallagher from Aquatech a couple of years ago. Nice guys all round and nice gear as well. The bigger dive housings weren't as practical for surf.
 

highdesertmesa

R5/Ra | GFX 50R
CR Pro
Apr 17, 2017
328
392
Placitas, NM
www.instagram.com
First, I'd like to say that I own the RF 15-35 f2.8L and am extremely happy with it. I don't sweat the corners IQ after they're compensated for in post.

Second, you're the first person I've heard say that the R5 sensor makes any lens behave substantially better than the R sensor (other than just more pixels). I appreciate you mentioning it (thanks!). Is this true if you take photos on a tripod for a non-moving subject? (to remove any issues from using IBIS or not). I wonder if your R has an issue with flange depth being slightly off, or some other orientation issue for the particular R you have? Have you seen the same problem with other R bodies? I have to say I'm really surprised to hear this, but at least I'm happy that the R5 (which I own) is the one that's much better! :)
I thought it could be the IBIS, too, but then my RF 70-200 2.8 and RF 50 1.2 should also look better on the R5, but they don't. Maybe IBIS is helping with handheld rotational movement that shows up more at 15mm.

On the R5 versus R:
15mm corners @ infinity – sharper
35mm corners @ infinity – about the same
35mm entire image @ MFD wide open – much sharper and the soft haze is gone

How is the 35/MFD/2.8 performance on your 15-35 on the R5?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

tigers media

EOS M50
Mar 26, 2020
27
11
Why ?
7D users prefer aps-c for more reach with big whites , we don't care about cheap FF and happy to pay a premium for a decent 7D ii replacement R7
i'm no animal shooter but my M50 has terrible low light noise , even my best images when you go to blow up get built in noise surely a nice F/F would be better for your image quality ? or doesn't it matter with the animal side , excuse my ignorance.
 

Skux

EOS M6 Mark II
Feb 21, 2020
70
94
An APS-C body needs APS-C lenses, otherwise the only people who will care about the body will be sports and wildlife shooters who are happy to mount big telephoto lenses. Canon had better bring a compact and reasonably-priced standard zoom, pancake, and a wide angle if they want all the other kinds of photographers and content creators to choose them over Sony or Fuji.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tigers media