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

[Joules]

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've been wondering about that too. Would they do a R6s at 45 MP (to recycle the R5 sensor) or 30 MP (develop a new one) and R5s at 90 MP? Each ~1000 $ more expensive than the non-s models, but otherwise very similar especially in terms of build quality?

 

[Joules]

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.

If you can't get closer to the animal or afforder a bigger lens, you won't see an IQ difference between FF and APS-C, as you have to crop to the same framing anyway. If you don't have to crop the FF image, because you are so close or using such a long big white, FF will be just over one stop less noisy.

 

[Chig]

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.

Well if you shoot full frame , you have to crop anyway and you get even more noise .
With wildlife especially small birds we're constantly pushing the limits using high shutter speeds , small apertures (which is necessary to get the whole bird in focus) and never having quite enough reach
You have a choice:

• either use a crop sensor and fairly expensive lenses like EF100-400 ii or RF100-500 plus T.C.s
• or (if you're very rich) use FF and insanely expensive Great Whites like the EF600 f/4 plus T.C.s

Even if I spend more on a really expensive crop sensor camera it works out much cheaper than a budget priced FF because the lenses are the biggest cost

 

[Chig]

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.

But they already have excellent M mount cameras and lenses for this , the RF aps-c camera is (I hope) a specialised camera to replace the 7Dmark ii for us wildlife/sports nutters and we don't want wide angle lenses !

 

[Chig]

If you can't get closer to the animal or afforder a bigger lens, you won't see an IQ difference between FF and APS-C, as you have to crop to the same framing anyway. If you don't have to crop the FF image, because you are so close or using such a long big white, FF will be just over one stop less noisy.

Yeah , but we pretty much always have to crop and the cropped FF has lower pixel density than aps-c ; for example the R5 cropped has 17mp versus the 90D aps-c sensor is 32mp which is twice as much pixels
Also an aps-c camera and a moderately priced L telephoto is much cheaper than a FF camera and a Great white L lens

 

[justaCanonuser]

Been waiting for that high MPIX mirrorless IBIS Canon for years now. Just do it!!!

Will image the hairs in people's noses much crispier than before -- @ F ≤ 2.8

 

[Fischer]

Will image the hairs in people's noses much crispier than before -- @ F ≤ 2.8

Still shooting 4 mpix? No.

Thought so. Why not if you worry about detail?

 

[Maru]

Well ..its clear...Me and others need a 7Dmkiii mirrorless version or 5dmkv mirrorless version {as DSLR is now extinct} ...we need all features like IBIS , Dual card, decent burst rate, rugged body, all buttons, excellent touch screen, excellent EVF , excellent dynamic range ....but don't want to pay more than current 5dmkIV price of 2499 USD...

We like it or not..its not happening guys.. get over it

 

[usern4cr]

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?

While I've loved using my RF 15-35 f2.8L, I'll admit I'm new to using any lens wider than 24mm and so I'm just happy to explore the new horizons the wider view gives me. I haven't tried to take images at MFD yet and I haven't been trying to critically analyze the edge & corner performance. I suppose I could try some tests and get back to you on it, but I don't have an R body to compare it with.

So your RF 50 1.2 & RF 70-200 2.8 look the same on the R and R5? That would indicate to me that your R is working as expected and there's no big difference in sensor technology regarding how they work with RF lenses. If you're handholding your RF 15-35 2.8L then I would expect the R lack of IBIS could be a major factor causing trouble, since lens IS can't correct for some of the modes of image shake, such as rotation while the IBIS can cover those in addition to improving all the other ones. I would suggest that you don't make any tests handheld and only test with a tripod and non-moving subject.

I would assume that the angle of incidence of the light hitting the sensor edges is getting very extreme as you get wider and wider views, such a 15mm or possibly at MFD (I'm just guessing there) and thus that might indeed show there is an effect of the microlens & sensor construction between the R and R5 for severe off-center angle of incidence. To better test that theory, I'd suggest you find someone else with an R body to test your 15-35 lens on to see if it has the same effect (only towards extreme wide angles) with all your RF lenses.

(ps - it's soooo nice to have calm discussions again)

 

[usern4cr]

Will image the hairs in people's noses much crispier than before -- @ F ≤ 2.8

When taking a portrait of my wife, I sometimes try to impress her with the new camera by telling her something like "Wow, it's so sharp, even your nosehairs are in perfect detail!" --- She's not impressed!

 

[LesC]

I'm wondering what the specs of the 'A second body above the EOS RP replacement' will be? How will they make it cheaper than the R6; can't have a FF sensor less than 20MP I guess so what will they remove? Only one card slot? Will they make any more mirrorless cameras without IBIS??

I'd been hoping for an EOS RMKII but if this is not it, I'll have to go for the R5. Shame the R6 is only 20MP, if it had the same 30MP sensor as the EOS R I'd have got it.

 

[highdesertmesa]

While I've loved using my RF 15-35 f2.8L, I'll admit I'm new to using any lens wider than 24mm and so I'm just happy to explore the new horizons the wider view gives me. I haven't tried to take images at MFD yet and I haven't been trying to critically analyze the edge & corner performance. I suppose I could try some tests and get back to you on it, but I don't have an R body to compare it with.

So your RF 50 1.2 & RF 70-200 2.8 look the same on the R and R5? That would indicate to me that your R is working as expected and there's no big difference in sensor technology regarding how they work with RF lenses. If you're handholding your RF 15-35 2.8L then I would expect the R lack of IBIS could be a major factor causing trouble, since lens IS can't correct for some of the modes of image shake, such as rotation while the IBIS can cover those in addition to improving all the other ones. I would suggest that you don't make any tests handheld and only test with a tripod and non-moving subject.

I would assume that the angle of incidence of the light hitting the sensor edges is getting very extreme as you get wider and wider views, such a 15mm or possibly at MFD (I'm just guessing there) and thus that might indeed show there is an effect of the microlens & sensor construction between the R and R5 for severe off-center angle of incidence. To better test that theory, I'd suggest you find someone else with an R body to test your 15-35 lens on to see if it has the same effect (only towards extreme wide angles) with all your RF lenses.

(ps - it's soooo nice to have calm discussions again)

Calm discussions are great

What I meant regarding the 70-200 and 50 on the R5 vs R was that I didn't see any improvement – but I do see the imperfections that were there on the R become amplified on the R5. That's not to say their performance on the R5 is any worse, but I am better able see the imperfections on the higher res sensor because I'm looking more closely at the image at 1:1 magnification on the R5 than I am on the R at 1:1.

The 15-35, I almost returned it when I was using it on my R. I'm glad I kept it and tried it on the R5. I do think they may have changed the microlens design on the R5 so that it improves corner performance for extreme wide angles, but I don't have the testing acumen to prove it. I'll have to leave that to the brick-wall tripod testers out there (for which I am thankful, I don't say that in a derogatory manner).

If there are any optical physics gurus in the audience: does sensor stabilization have a more dramatic effect in the corners for extreme wide angles? I know the movement of the camera is the same between lenses, but on an extreme wide angle, the same amount of movement at the camera should result in the image blur covering a larger distance on a more distant target. So even though the IBIS correction will be the same at 15mm as it will at 50mm for the same camera movement, more of the target image passes across the same corner of the image at 15mm versus 50mm, and that image corner will be less-detailed to begin with and blur will have a more noticeable effect. For example, if I put the same tree in the corner of my image at 50mm and 15mm, I will see more detail in the branches at 50mm than I do at 15mm. So a small amount of blur will have the same effect on both images, but since the subjects contain different levels of detail, the 15mm shot should appear less detailed when blurred, thus giving the impression that IBIS has a bigger impact on the corners the wider the angle of view.