What’s Coming Next from Canon?

[HeavyPiper]

Hope they keep the existing body style. Looking forward to see what Canon gives us in the R8 Mark II.

 

[Rafał]

I think R8II will be same sensor as R6III with rest of the features mainly moved forward. I would assume that this will streamline sensor production and simplify the system.

I would love to see 24-70 2.8 and 24-105 f4 revised. I would prefer size and weight reduction over range extension.

 

[BroderLund]

Still curious what's happening in the EOS Cinema world.

 

[padam]

Still curious what's happening in the EOS Cinema world.

The sensor in an R1 could be a staight upgrade in a C400/C80 replacement, or new models above those.
Dynamic range could be a stop better, readout is a bit faster, high ISO, AF are improved, too.
With proper cooling and a fast processor, it might be 6k120p capable.

 

[Flyingskiguy]

There is still one (or two?) 6GHz wifi camera certifications floating around, implying the existence of higher end bodies on the way.

Also very curious about cinema eos. Would've been really happy with the R5II sensor in a C400 body...

 

[Nathalietje86]

Still hoping they come soon with new compact camera's

 

[MkSprintz]

There is still one (or two?) 6GHz wifi camera certifications floating around, implying the existence of higher end bodies on the way.

Also very curious about cinema eos. Would've been really happy with the R5II sensor in a C400 body...

There was a 5GHz WiFi camera certification that was classified until Mid-June which is the R6 V, the other certification was a 4Ghz which lines up with the R8 MKii retro camera.

No 6Ghz registrations that are known for Canon.

 

[amorse]

I'd still like a higher resolution option than the R5 ii. There are thousands if not hundreds of us!

 

[Chig]

The Canon 300-600 mm f5.6 is likely to be the last telephoto lens I buy from Canon.

The Sony 100-400 mm f4.5 lens is a brilliant lens from Sony and is reasonably light weight at 4 lbs. with a 1.4x TC you get a 140 mm to 560 mm f6.3 lens.

Me too but I can't see it being cheaper than the very similar RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM if it's an L lens I would expect it to be at least 10% more expensive.
If Canon made a non L 300-600mm f/5.6 as they did with the RF 200-800 using cheaper elements and coatings and consumer grade materials then it should be a bit cheaper than the RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM but personally I'd rather they made it a full on L lens and hopefully get the weight down and add a built in 1.4 extender for 420-840mm f/8 with it engaged. I'd be happy to save up for this even if it's USD $12,000

 

[mangobutter]

I want a Canon M6 style camera with a full frame sensor. Basically an R6V lite, stripped down, for photo, and a tilt up screen. I don't care if it shares a low end 24mp sensor recycled from the R8. Give us a super compact RF mount brick style, screen-only camera w/ option for an EVF attachment. Basically M6 style era days with a new 40mm pancake. i hate that there's still no small options like Lumix S9. Canon used to do small very well with the M6 era. then they stopped. No M/M3/M6 replacement, not even for APS-C. what happened? did technology regress? that was 10+ years ago!!

 

[DocInfoSci]

I'd like to see the R3 guts and possibly EVF move downmarket into the R6iv, now that the lower ISO / dirtier images / higher pixel count video stuff has a home in the R6V. This, in my mind, feels much more like the thrust of the R6i and R6ii and would give the R3 a clean place to be put to bed. It's not that the R6iii isn't a good product, it just felt mis-aligned to me in the R6 body given the history. Now if more pixels can be had with the same clean high-ISO of the R6ii or R3, then by all means throw the cherry on top.

 

[MkSprintz]

Me too but I can't see it being cheaper than the very similar RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM if it's an L lens I would expect it to be at least 10% more expensive.
If Canon made a non L 300-600mm f/5.6 as they did with the RF 200-800 using cheaper elements and coatings and consumer grade materials then it should be a bit cheaper than the RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM but personally I'd rather they made it a full on L lens and hopefully get the weight down and add a built in 1.4 extender for 420-840mm f/8 with it engaged. I'd be happy to save up for this even if it's USD $12,000

A fixed F/5.6 300-600 would slot in around $5000-$7000 roughly. At F/4 I could see such a beast being $12000 but F/5.6 at $12,000 isn't happening.

 

[neuroanatomist]

A fixed F/5.6 300-600 would slot in around $5000-$7000 roughly.

Consider that 600mm f/5.6 requires the same front element size as 300mm f/2.8, meaning a 300-600/5.6 is going to be very similar to a hypothetical 150-300/2.8 (the 300-600/5.6 would be a little heavier and a bit longer). That hypothetical 150-300/2.8 sounds very much like the real RF 100-300/2.8L, which is priced at $10,600.

Why do you believe Canon would charge $3000-5000 less than the 100-300/2.8 for a lens that will be physically and optically very similar?

 

[Traveler]

I’d be happy if they keep the R6ii sensor (they need to cripple something) but ad IBIS.

That seems logical to me.

 

[Hector1970]

It’s interesting, it seems very unexciting. Nothing in that list really grabs my attention. I’ve just offloaded a lot of Ef gear to semi fund an R5 II and an RF 70-200 2.8. I was waiting for an R3 II or a new high MP R5. I think it will be a long wait. I have an R5 already and it’s a great camera. I’ll be interested to see if the R5 II is much of an improvement. This will be all camera companies dilemmas from now on. What is there to improve? The wow factor of 2000-2020 will be long gone. It’s hard to even imagine how a lens can be improved from now on.
My only wish is a 15mm TS-E . It doesn’t need autofocus, it doesn’t even need tilt.
That and a 100MP Full Frame (surely not too much to ask )