Update: The Canon EOS R3 will be officially announced on June 29th

peters

EOS RP
Dec 25, 2017
523
511
who needs to run 120fps 4k that long? What are you filming full sports in 120?
You underestimate just how incredible fast the R5 overheats. On a sunny day is realy a dealbreaker.
Last shooting I got the overheat warning after 45 minutes of shooting. In this time I only recorded 15 (!) minutes of 4k60 footage. Its aweful and a real problem on location.
I used it in 4k25 after that.
Some time later I tried to record some 4k120 - after about 5 shots, each less than a minute it started blinkin again.
The 4k120 mode overheats incredible fast. Sometimes you need more than just 1 minute...
but if you add up to maybe 5 minutes record time in maybe 30 minutes on set, you get the overheat...
 

EOS 4 Life

EOS R
Sep 20, 2020
1,292
1,031
Two problems with Canon doing that (at least to Canon):
1. Such a camera would not result in any additional RF lens sales which is a high priority for Canon;
2. Amortizing the additional engineering costs for DSLR IBIS would have to be absorbed by just one camera model as Canon is phasing out the DSLR product line.

It is therefore extremely unlikely they would go down that road.
#2) Is not 100% fact.
Canon stated that they would not make any new DSLRs unless there is demand for it.
While that is not a commitment to make DSLRs if there is demand it definitely leaves open the possibility.
Canon has no inherent reason to phase out DSLRs or EF lenses.
A sale is a sale.
If they determine that they can make more money off DSLRs then they have no reason not to.
When it comes to R and D, Canon has a bunch of lovely patents that will expire if they do not use them.
I have no idea how much demand Canon requires but I am part of that demand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

AEWest

EOS RP
Jan 30, 2020
399
495
#2) Is not 100% fact.
Canon stated that they would not make any new DSLRs unless there is demand for it.
While that is not a commitment to make DSLRs if there is demand it definitely leaves open the possibility.
Canon has no inherent reason to phase out DSLRs or EF lenses.
A sale is a sale.
If they determine that they can make more money off DSLRs then they have no reason not to.
When it comes to R and D, Canon has a bunch of lovely patents that will expire if they do not use them.
I have no idea how much demand Canon requires but I am part of that demand.
I am a happy Canon DSLR owner, but do see the writing on the wall. Canon would not want to keep two competing product lines going for very long, they would be competing against themselves in addition to Sony and Nikon.

In addition, I believe they hedged their bets by saying they may develop future DSLRs. Specifically I believe they meant that if mirrorless sales were lackluster, they could go back to DSLRs as a fallback (i.e. Plan B). But the market has strongly accepted the RF cameras and lenses, so its full speed ahead on Plan A.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,949
6,255
Canon would not want to keep two competing product lines going for very long, they would be competing against themselves in addition to Sony and Nikon.
The EOS M line launched in 2012. If Canon didn’t want to keep two ‘competing product lines’ then why have they done so for close to a decade?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

AEWest

EOS RP
Jan 30, 2020
399
495
The EOS M line launched in 2012. If Canon didn’t want to keep two ‘competing product lines’ then why have they done so for close to a decade?
I would not consider the M line competing with the FF line. It is a complementary line for specific users, little overlap.

As an example, a 5DIV user shooting a wedding with a few EF lenses could instead be using an R5 with the RF version of those lenses. Canon wants to eliminate this overlap.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,272
2,152
Kentucky, USA
sRAW is not RAW. If you’re interested in a more in-depth examination of Canon’s sRAW and mRAW formats (with a short description of RAW to start, for comparison), see the excellent article by Doug Kerr.
Why are we talking about sRAW? The Canon option in the R5 is cRAW. After reading the article you mentioned here (thanks, neuroanatomist) I see that sRAW reduces the resolution to a mere 1/4 of the pixels and then discards more chrominance data after that (which doesn't sound good). But cRAW shows (in the post software I've seen) the same #MPixels and typically 50% of the filesize. I would be more interested in the mechanism of cRAW to decide on its usage.

I am one that has been impacted enough by too many photos at full 45MP raw size, and have opted for cRAW because of it. That means I'm already severely affected by R5 filesize enough to try to mitigate it. One advantage of the R3 30MP vs R5 45MP would be an expected reduction of 33% in the full raw size from the R5 to the R3. It might be reduced enough that I just use the R3 full RAW instead of the R5 cRAW, which might be a much better thing for me to use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,739
4,679
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
I am a happy Canon DSLR owner, but do see the writing on the wall. Canon would not want to keep two competing product lines going for very long, they would be competing against themselves in addition to Sony and Nikon.

In addition, I believe they hedged their bets by saying they may develop future DSLRs. Specifically I believe they meant that if mirrorless sales were lackluster, they could go back to DSLRs as a fallback (i.e. Plan B). But the market has strongly accepted the RF cameras and lenses, so its full speed ahead on Plan A.
I am a happy mirrorless owner, but I can entertain the possibility that Canon could continue to develop DSLRs well into the future. It really depends on whether or not Canon can convert enough DSLR owners to mirrorless and attract enough new customers that they can afford to write off DSLR buyers.

In a shrinking market each loyal customer becomes more valuable and it is simply a mathematical proposition for Canon. Can they make a profit making and selling DSLRs to a smaller base? Can they convert those customers to the R system? If their financial people say yes to the first question and the marketing people say no to the second, then we will see new DSLRs in a few years once Canon has built out the R system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,949
6,255
I would not consider the M line competing with the FF line. It is a complementary line for specific users, little overlap.
I didn’t say that. The M line ‘competed’ with Canon’s APS-C DSLRs, especially the xxxD series. In fact, it still does (and in Japan last month, the Kiss X10/250D was the best-selling ILC, and the Kiss M/M50 and their MkII versions were close behind). Canon has no problem with that, why would they suddenly be afraid of FF DSLRs ‘competing’ with FF MILCs?

I’m putting ‘competing’ in quotes because it’s really not competition. Whether Canon sells a DSLR or an MILC to a customer, it’s a sale. You may want to brush up on your business acumen.

As an example, a 5DIV user shooting a wedding with a few EF lenses could instead be using an R5 with the RF version of those lenses. Canon wants to eliminate this overlap.
Sure. That’s why Canon has given the RF lenses advantages over their EF counterparts in many cases. A 24-70/2.8 with IS. A 28-70 f/2. A 15-35/2.8 with IS instead of a 16-35/2.8 without, and now a 14-35/4 IS instead of a 16-35/4 IS. Et cetera.

But if a 5DIV user wants to buy a 16-35/2.8 III or a 5DIII user wants a 5DIV, Canon will happily sell them.

So far this year, the MILC : DSLR ratio has been 56:44. Last year, it was 55:45. Barely a majority for mirrorless. I really don’t understand why people seem to think Canon would just abandon nearly half of their market.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Aug 7, 2018
378
331
I just wish Canon would make a DSLR with IBIS.
They could if they wanted to.
It would be an automatic sale for me but I still would keep my R5.
Somewhere I read an explanation why that is unlikely: The idea of a DSLR is that you take a photo of what you see through the viewfinder. If the sensor is stabilized and the mirror is not, you lose that connection. That is different from using a stabilized lens, which will also appear stabilized through the optical viewfinder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

UpstateNYPhotog

EOS M50
Jun 3, 2021
48
41
#2) Is not 100% fact.
Canon stated that they would not make any new DSLRs unless there is demand for it.
While that is not a commitment to make DSLRs if there is demand it definitely leaves open the possibility.
Canon has no inherent reason to phase out DSLRs or EF lenses.
A sale is a sale.
If they determine that they can make more money off DSLRs then they have no reason not to.
When it comes to R and D, Canon has a bunch of lovely patents that will expire if they do not use them.
I have no idea how much demand Canon requires but I am part of that demand.
I would buy a DSLR with IBIS. I have some very good non IS legacy glass. But given the rate at which the are discontinuing making EF lenses I doubt there will ever be another moderate to high end full frame Canon DSLR. I'd love to be proven wrong. I think the other killer feature of the new mirrorless cameras is the focusing accuracy and ability to track subjects around the frame. I've borrowed them and used them enough to know they aren't perfect, but in general they are a big step up from the 5 series and a smaller, but important step up from the 1 series. I've shot professionally with every 1 series except the early full frame versions and the 1Dx III and every 5 series. The liveview in my 5D IV beats all of them for focus.
 

UpstateNYPhotog

EOS M50
Jun 3, 2021
48
41
Somewhere I read an explanation why that is unlikely: The idea of a DSLR is that you take a photo of what you see through the viewfinder. If the sensor is stabilized and the mirror is not, you lose that connection. That is different from using a stabilized lens, which will also appear stabilized through the optical viewfinder.
You'd just have to learn to shoot a little bit loose. I'd be worried that the theoretical single plane movement of the sensor might have just enough play in two or more planes to through off the AF. But I'm not an engineer so this is just a guess.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,949
6,255
Somewhere I read an explanation why that is unlikely: The idea of a DSLR is that you take a photo of what you see through the viewfinder. If the sensor is stabilized and the mirror is not, you lose that connection. That is different from using a stabilized lens, which will also appear stabilized through the optical viewfinder.
Technically correct, but I don’t think that would be a major impediment. Sensor stabilization could be operating, but only actually effective at the time of image capture instead of during composition.

There is a good precedent for that – Mode 3 IS on newer long lenses (EF, and I’m pretty sure RF as well although I haven’t checked the latter), where the IS only activates at the moment the shot is taken.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

AEWest

EOS RP
Jan 30, 2020
399
495
I didn’t say that. The M line ‘competed’ with Canon’s APS-C DSLRs, especially the xxxD series. In fact, it still does (and in Japan last month, the Kiss X10/250D was the best-selling ILC, and the Kiss M/M50 and their MkII versions were close behind). Canon has no problem with that, why would they suddenly be afraid of FF DSLRs ‘competing’ with FF MILCs?

I’m putting ‘competing’ in quotes because it’s really not competition. Whether Canon sells a DSLR or an MILC to a customer, it’s a sale. You may want to brush up on your business acumen.


Sure. That’s why Canon has given the RF lenses advantages over their EF counterparts in many cases. A 24-70/2.8 with IS. A 28-70 f/2. A 15-35/2.8 with IS instead of a 16-35/2.8 without, and now a 14-35/4 IS instead of a 16-35/4 IS. Et cetera.

But if a 5DIV user wants to buy a 16-35/2.8 III or a 5DIII user wants a 5DIV, Canon will happily sell them.

So far this year, the MILC : DSLR ratio has been 56:44. Last year, it was 55:45. Barely a majority for mirrorless. I really don’t understand why people seem to think Canon would just abandon nearly half of their market.
I guess Canon has poor business acumen. When they switched from FD to EF mount, they phased out of FD even though many photographers had FD cameras and could not even adapt the EF lenses. Many would have loved for Canon to continue with the FD mount for years (and bought many more FD mount cameras), but it was phased out very quickly. Strange thing is Canon overtook Nikon in the SLR market to become #1 with the new mount despite abandoning their loyal FD base.

The reality is that it is not about just making an individual camera and selling it (DSLR or Mirrorless), it is about a full system based on lenses. I know of no manufacturer that can afford to run two lines of 80+ lens systems which is what would be needed to keep all EF and RF users happy in the long run. So the M and EF-S lines are simply not comparable examples because they are very limited line systems - not a lot of investment needed.

Canon has to make a choice on their main camera system, and it appears with every passing day that RF is their go to system. This can be seen in the cameras and lenses announced over the past two years (1Dx3 being the last EF FF camera in January 2020) and no new EF lenses announced over that time. Sony has also abandoned the A mount for the E mount, I guess more poor business acumen.

I would love for Canon to continue the EF line for the next 10 years as I am heavily invested in it. The reality is Canon is investing heavily in the RF system (three new RF cameras since the 1Dx3, many lenses), and they need as many photographers to move over as quickly as possible to this system to amortize the substantial development costs. That becomes much more difficult if they retain the EF mount for a long period of time.
 

UpstateNYPhotog

EOS M50
Jun 3, 2021
48
41
I guess Canon has poor business acumen. When they switched from FD to EF mount, they phased out of FD even though many photographers had FD cameras and could not even adapt the EF lenses. Many would have loved for Canon to continue with the FD mount for years (and bought many more FD mount cameras), but it was phased out very quickly. Strange thing is Canon overtook Nikon in the SLR market to become #1 with the new mount despite abandoning their loyal FD base.

The reality is that it is not about just making an individual camera and selling it (DSLR or Mirrorless), it is about a full system based on lenses. I know of no manufacturer that can afford to run two lines of 80+ lens systems which is what would be needed to keep all EF and RF users happy in the long run. So the M and EF-S lines are simply not comparable examples because they are very limited line systems - not a lot of investment needed.

Canon has to make a choice on their main camera system, and it appears with every passing day that RF is their go to system. This can be seen in the cameras and lenses announced over the past two years (1Dx3 being the last EF FF camera in January 2020) and no new EF lenses announced over that time. Sony has also abandoned the A mount for the E mount, I guess more poor business acumen.

I would love for Canon to continue the EF line for the next 10 years as I am heavily invested in it. The reality is Canon is investing heavily in the RF system (three new RF cameras since the 1Dx3, many lenses), and they need as many photographers to move over as quickly as possible to this system to amortize the substantial development costs. That becomes much more difficult if they retain the EF mount for a long period of time.
Maybe your first sentence is sarcastic? I had a full FD system, from 20mm to 400mm all F/2.8 or faster. Did the switch to EFi hurt? Yes. Was I able to sell most of them for something? Yes. Was the EOS system far superior? Yes. I believe there was an FD to EF adapter available for CPS members. I remember researching it. I think it was a 1.3 teleconverter. I never saw one in the flesh.

I think that the functionallity of EF lens on the RF mount via the adapter is sensational. It's nothing like as traumatic as the FD to EF switch.

I think you undermine you first point when you say "no manufacturer that can afford to run two lines of 80+ lens systems."
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,195
994
www.flickr.com
I would not consider the M line competing with the FF line. It is a complementary line for specific users, little overlap.

As an example, a 5DIV user shooting a wedding with a few EF lenses could instead be using an R5 with the RF version of those lenses. Canon wants to eliminate this overlap.
Neuro's original post was comparing APS-C DLSRs with the APS-C M series.

For full frame, Canon has had competition between the EOS R and 5D for coming up to 3 years now and the RP vs 6Dii for a bit over 2 years so far. I haven't seen much discounting for the 5Div so far so it must still be selling okay and no need to discontinue it. I recall that the 5Diii was still available for some time after the 5Div was released as well

In addition to the 2 scenarios you mention 5Div+EF and R5+RF there is the normal transition option of R5+EF. I think that there were very few R5 buyers that immediately went for all RF lenses not least of which were the gaps in the RF lens lineup that EF fill nicely.

Canon doesn't want to eliminate the overlap. They want existing EF lens users to leverage their existing investment and then move to RF lenses when they feel the time is right based on improved specifications: up to 8 stops of IBIS, sharpness, focal length width (RF15-35mm/2.8, RF14-35/4, RF100-500mm), extending design for compact storage and reduced weight in some cases, improved minimum focus length (RF100 macro, etc).

My EF16-35mm/4 is my most used lens and used in difficult circumstances with no problems but I won't upgrade to RF14-35mm as the filter cost alone makes it cost prohibitive. If my EF16-35mm dies EF100mm macro die or covered under insurance claim then it will be a no-brainer to go to RF.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,195
994
www.flickr.com
Invest in camera glass...not the camera bodies. The bodies worth drop like a hot brick over 3-5 years. Most lenses only take a 20% hit over their life span of 10-20 years.
It might depend on the local market... Most current EF lenses go for ~60% of retail value for good examples. Previous version for about a third. The EF100-400mm ii is an exception with about 70-80% second hand price which is why I went to RF100-500mm (@ 20% off sale). EF70-200/2.8ii is about 60% of the new mark iii retail price. Very few ads for EF70-200mm/2.8iii though.

For bodies, the 5Div is selling second hand for ~60% of retail price with reasonable shutter count and a few years old. I bought mine second hand and then sold it for slightly more than I sold it for!

The market for EF lenses is obviously a bit saturated due to people migrating to RF. This will depress their prices permanently but their performance will continue to be excellent for many years to come.

It would be tough to decide which OEM/mirror v mirrorless to choose from if I was to start a camera kit from scratch now. From a pure cost perspective, second hand Canon DLSR + EF lenses would make good financial sense. Sony's marketing machine (including fanbois) would be hard to ignore though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

2Cents

EOS R5, 1DX mkiii, C70, R5 C
Nov 2, 2020
44
44
Los Angeles, CA
www.606.media
The R1 may well be a slower shooting high MP studio camera rather than a sports camera. So the right choice may depend on your type of photography.
I shoot a wide variety of things including quite a bit of video. I also have a R5 but as my collection of RF glass grows I'm using the 1DX mkiii less often. This 1D durability in a mirrorless camera has my attention also. Durability is important when spending this much money. Assuming we're talking $5k+
 

AEWest

EOS RP
Jan 30, 2020
399
495
Maybe your first sentence is sarcastic? I had a full FD system, from 20mm to 400mm all F/2.8 or faster. Did the switch to EFi hurt? Yes. Was I able to sell most of them for something? Yes. Was the EOS system far superior? Yes. I believe there was an FD to EF adapter available for CPS members. I remember researching it. I think it was a 1.3 teleconverter. I never saw one in the flesh.

I think that the functionallity of EF lens on the RF mount via the adapter is sensational. It's nothing like as traumatic as the FD to EF switch.

I think you undermine you first point when you say "no manufacturer that can afford to run two lines of 80+ lens systems."
I don’t remember an FD to EF converter. My point was that Canon is moving to RF, and phasing out of EF, which is a very expensive proposition. They need to encourage as many photographers as possible to make the switch. Making more EF cameras discourages the switch.