What’s next from Canon?

degos

EOS RP
Mar 20, 2015
308
225
If the R1 is a bit bigger than the R5 and doesn't have the recording limits with better heat dissipation I think it could be attractive to filmmakers.
There's a whole Cine line of cameras from Canon, why can't film makers just buy those and leave our photographic cameras alone.

I don't understand this obsession with making everything into a video camera.
 

drama

EOS M6 Mark II
Sep 1, 2016
95
227
Maybe English isn’t your first language but I don’t know how you can infer any negativity or resistance from my post. My only user feedback was I find looking through EVF’s for extended periods nauseating, I know others do too hence the 1DX III and not an R1 yet.
I wasn't suggesting you were being negative. You mentioned caring about the EVF, and I used that as a jumping off point to addres your point and the wider discussion points on the board.

CR boys are very sensitive the week after an official announcement. It must be the comedown from all the news....
 
  • Haha
Reactions: privatebydesign

drama

EOS M6 Mark II
Sep 1, 2016
95
227
It would be really nice to see Canon release an R mount camera aimed at stills photographers.

Right now, if I had to replace my 5D's in a hurry (if they were stolen or dropped of a cliff or something) - the options I have for a new camera are: 5D4 (with 4 year old tech) - or move to Sony with the A7R4 (or R3). Its kind of disappointing that after 4 years and 4 RF bodies, Canon have nothing new to offer 5D users, and nothing seems to be in the pipeline either.
[and no - a £4200 R5 is NOT a replacement for a '5D' camera]
What is it exactly that you see in a A7R4 that you don't see in an existing Canon body? And does the price differentiator make sense when you factor in new batteries, lenses, etc? Honestly curious. Because I cannot for the life of me see any logic to what you posted.
 

Pixel

EOS 90D
Sep 6, 2011
172
84
There's a whole Cine line of cameras from Canon, why can't film makers just buy those and leave our photographic cameras alone.

I don't understand this obsession with making everything into a video camera.
Because the overall public demand and consumption of video versus stills is thru the roof.
 

AEWest

EOS RP
Jan 30, 2020
209
255
There's a whole Cine line of cameras from Canon, why can't film makers just buy those and leave our photographic cameras alone.

I don't understand this obsession with making everything into a video camera.
Unfortunately we live in a YouTube world and if you don't include useable video features in your cameras you drastically reduce potential user base for your camera. Therefore all mainstream manufacturers include video in their still cameras.

Wedding photographers generally have much more earning potential if they shoot both stills and video as an example.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

cornieleous

5D4 + R5
Jul 13, 2020
208
733
There's a whole Cine line of cameras from Canon, why can't film makers just buy those and leave our photographic cameras alone.

I don't understand this obsession with making everything into a video camera.
Would you be upset if your phone could not do both? If you understand the basic technology of the various features, stills and video use the same electronics for image capture, stabilization, focus, etc. so why NOT put both in? Despite the perception, we are are not paying that much (if any) extra for video at all, and besides, the market wants both. Example: I want both in one body because stabilized lenses and body will be vastly superior for both stills and video jobs than a slower and lower spec. stills camera and separate professional camcorder with weak stabilization, or truly video centric DSLR like GH5 with a tiny sensor and weak autofocus. Not to mention I don't have 10-15K for a cinema camera and its accessories anyway.

The R5 offers incredible stills AND incredible video because it can, and costs only $400 more than the 5D4 and 5D3 which were both mostly stills cameras that were barely competent in video mode. While bringing so much more than the predecessors offered, as well as being mirrorless and having a new and better lens mount, the R5 is a better value for stills alone even if you never touched video. DPAF2 and the 1DXiii focus system plus fast stills shooting are all incredible additions for any stills photographer. For stills, the 5 series has clearly gone up market a bit due to competition, but everyone wants and is putting video and stills in one body. If you wanted just the great 5D4 sensor in a mirrorless body, well you already have it in the EOS R, and the 5D4 is still a great camera itself.

As to the technology for video vs stills, it is much the same: A high resolution sensor that can shoot 20 frames a second is only 10 frames shy of 30 fps at max sensor resolution- in this case an 8K sized sensor. Adding 10 more frames a second is a matter of a bit faster readout speed of the sensor- and the Digic X and the ADC readout hardware already needs to be a beast to do all the stills processing like HDR, DPAF, fast bursts, noise, lens corrections, etc. So it really is just two applications of the same electronic hardware- if you think stills and video are that different, you are perhaps misunderstanding how modern digital cameras work. The only "extra" is how many times the sensor can be read per second, and at the highest rate, heat. As for the other video modes below 8K, down sampling and lower video resolutions with higher frame rates use the same data bandwidth as 8K30 with different binning of pixels to share the max readout bandwidth. Maybe some engineering was spent on cooling and firmware for video, but again, referring back to the previous cameras, the R5 is borrowing from the rest of the Canon lineup and hardly making us pay that much for the "extra" of video and will be a great stills camera with features we could only dream of two years ago. Also, no one is holding you hostage to buy the R5, there are plenty of great still cameras with less video from Canon and other brands at all price points.

So please, reconsider your complaint against video in this and other cameras as if it is hurting you unless you have a logical argument. It is actually making your stills camera more capable to have hardware with this much power. If you don't want video don't use it. Or you could wait for another R that is sure to come with a different balance of features or get the R6 if you don't need high resolution. Canon is simply making a camera with wide appeal that does many things well, but it is not compromising on stills by doing so, nor did they add a big pricetag for the video features- I don't see how that argument can be made when you look at the predecessors. I suppose looking at Canon price premium in general is another argument, but according to the competition I think they are being competitive on price.
 

Antono Refa

EOS R
Mar 26, 2014
1,073
258
The market has contracted but is still above historical norms and the price per unit is way higher than historically
Out of curiosity, higher in absolute numbers, or in cameras sold per X persons?

Higher price per unit doesn't sound all that surprising to me. Price of electronics has dropped, but there's so much more of it in a modern camera.
 

Grimbald

EOS M50
Sep 30, 2017
36
27
I would love to see a compact 15-35mm f4 version... ideally >500g, similar to the Nikon 14-30.
If you already get a smaller camera like the R5, a small landscape lens for travel with great resolution and flare resistance would be mich needed....
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr and pj1974

TPatS

I'm New Here
Aug 20, 2019
24
18
I'm interested to see what plans Canon has for any future EF/EF-S lenses and APS-C cameras. As much as we like to get excited about the R5/R6, Canon's APS-C DSLR cameras are still where most people getting into photography, enter the canon ecosystem. Wonder if that elusive 7D mk3 will ever come, or will there be a new EF-S 10-18mm or new 50mm F1.4....
 

Danglin52

Wildlife Shooter
Aug 8, 2018
252
226
I'm going to be really bummed if Canon doesn't release a 5DV, so much so that I'm probably going to write an email to Canon USA.

The 1DX3 just doesn't have enough resolution for my needs and the R5 is probably going to be fairly inadequate for motorsports photography (especially karting).
Other Thant he the potential lag of the EVF and battery life, what do you think the R5 is missing for motorsports? With motorsports you panning a lot, so I don't see the lag as causing a significant problem. The battery issue can be somewhat solved by using the battery grip. Canon is usually conservative on shot count and you should get 800-1200 shots with a grip. ISO, should be on par or better than the 5d IV even with a 45mp sensor. AF, has roots in the 1dx iii a nd should blow away even the 1dx II (which I just sold). FPS, Matches my current 1dx II @ 12 FPS mechanical & 20 FPS electronic. Ergonomics, everything I read says it feels like a DSLR instead of a mirrorless. Overall, based on spec and early information this camera sounds like it blows away the 5dIV and will probably do better than a 5dV with AF points since the 5dV would use a separate sensor for AF. Not trying to rain on your parade, but I don't see Canon releasing another DSLR as long as the R5/R6 are capable of delivering on the specs, especially since you can adapt all EF lenses and they work seamlessly. I ordered the R5 to replace my 5dIV and the R6 as a possible replacement for my 1dx II.
 

Antono Refa

EOS R
Mar 26, 2014
1,073
258
You can never be superior to an OVF, by definition.
Definitions are rather arbitrary. EVF can do tricks OVF can't, such as brighten the image for lenses with small max aperture, apply corrections, display B&W image, etc.
 

bbb34

5D mk V
Jul 24, 2012
150
165
Amsterdam
You can never be superior to an OVF, by definition.
What definition would that be?

The only parameter where an EVF cannot beat the OVF, even in theory, is propagation delay (aka lag). Nevertheless, the delay can very well be low enough not to be noticeable. In that case it is out of the equation.

What else? Brightness? Exposure simulation? Information overlays?

Of course, 'better' is subjective. But I don't see a single parameter where EVF doesn't have the potential to - at least - come close enough.

Oh yes, I am aware of one, that is power consumption. The smaller the camera, the worse is the relative impact of battery weight. Do you see what that means for the anticipated R1?
 
Last edited:

bbb34

5D mk V
Jul 24, 2012
150
165
Amsterdam
EVF vs OVF is not something I expect to ever be "settled" just like how there are still a lot of folks who prefer film.
Sure, there will always be people who prefer an OVF. I love it myself.

But for my curiosity, do you really believe chemical film still plays a significant role in still (or motion) photography?
 

koenkooi

EOS R
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,310
1,089
You can never be superior to an OVF, by definition.
For me EVFs are superior. With the MP-E65mm at 5x, an EVF is nice and bright and it gives me the option to 10x zoom to fine-tune the focus. EVFs and live-view are what make the MP-E65 usable outdoor for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbb34

Mark3794

EOS 90D
Sep 4, 2018
147
430
Behold the prophecy from Mark:

We will probably see in 1-2 years the EOS R1, there are two possibilities: Canon goes back to being Canon and they just make another body with the 1DXmIII sensor but with integrated battery grip, top notch weathersealing and all that stuff. Or they have another sensor in the pipeline that could match sony a9 readout.

I don't really know if we will see the high-megapixel R camera, but knowing Canon they will develop a 83mp sensor just to one up everyone else.

There is a probability that the M5 mark II is coming with ibis, evf and articulating screen. Same specs as m6 mark ii.

The M50 is still, literally, the best selleing mirrorless in every place. I think they can still wait a bit before bringing a replacement.

EF-M needs a standard zoom, or a kit lens mark ii. Expect a 18-45 F2.8-4 or a 15-45 F3.5-6.3 mark II

No more EF cameras guys, probably another round of Rebels and entry levels.
 

scyrene

EOS R6
Dec 4, 2013
2,800
944
UK
www.flickr.com
Of course I am not saying that. The low Mpx FF sensors are great for high speed data transfer and low noise at high isos. The high Mpx series FF cameras have better reach but slower performance. The 7D series have small APS-C sensors that enable high speed and high reach but at the expense of noise at high iso. The R6 is very different from a 7 series.
While I agree the R6 and 7D are in substantially different niches, you get back some of that 'reach' on the former because it can AF with much narrower apertures, so you can mount longer lenses, teleconverters, and I guess even stacked teleconverters and retain (hopefully useable) AF (and without having to buy the more expensive telephoto lenses). It'll never compete on price and I guess not on weathersealing or ruggedness, but it has the high fps 7-series users are used to. (Obviously the R5 also has these features too, but at a substantially higher cost).
 

yoms

EOS 90D
Jul 4, 2012
105
75
Definitions are rather arbitrary. EVF can do tricks OVF can't, such as brighten the image for lenses with small max aperture, apply corrections, display B&W image, etc.
Agreed, I probably should have clarified this. It seemed obvious to me, but it isn't.

To me, the viewfinder's first goal, whether optical or electronic, is a "window on reality" to show you what you're framing, what you're looking at... for real. And in that regard, you cannot do better than optical since you're directly looking at, well the real thing. There are no intermediate electronic pieces and processing. It's a direct connection between what you're framing at and your eyes/brain.

So yes, you (and others) are totally right: EVF can do tricks that OVF cannot and I totally admit that these tricks can be considered better. But that wasn't what I was thinking about in my 1st post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark