We reported earlier that there were two new EOS bodies coming in the first half of 2020. We have no been told to expect those announcements to occur in February and May of 2020.
We were also told to expect the EOS RS (High-megapixel) body to come first, with an “unknown type of body” in May.
Another source has said it won't be the EOS R Mark II in the first half, but a lower megapixel body to “rival the A7 S line”. We have been unable to confirm this with more than one person at this time.
More to come a bit later today.
All I want:
- Usable 4k mode - if necessary only on APS-C, but not this 1,8 crop mode shit.
- Dual Card Slots
- more than 50mpixel and more than 5 fps.
The R was in many respects somewhere between a 6D and 5D. Was this because it was the first? Or is this the new direction? I think going forward that Canon might have to, rather like Nikon did with the D700/800/850, accept a smaller camera also being top level quality. Canon has traditionally kept the 5D just a bit below the 1D - often small things like the viewfinder cover being built in on the 1D and that flimsy bit of rubber for the 5D. With the size and quality advantages of mirrorless I suspect this connection between size and quality will disappear.
So we might have the R as the jack of all trades. The RP as the low price consumer body. Then maybe an RS as a higher spec, higher megapixel body aimed at landscape use. And eventually an RX for sports etc. That would make for a nice clean line up. In time one could imagine the R and RS then merging as both Nikon and Sony push ahead with combining high fps, good AF and high resolution, it might not be feasible long term for Canon to segment the market like that.
I am convinced Canon took the right approach. Top quality, wonderfully engineered 2.8 zooms covering 15-200mm, all stabilised, a couple of 1.2 primes, a 24-240 and a 24-105/4 and finally a stabilised, small, light 35/1.8. Right there that could cover like 90% of most uses. Now Canon can bring out the better bodies and start bringing out more unusual and specialist lenses while the really exotic stuff like tilt-shift lenses will remain EF mount for years.
A few other things I wonder about are:
Will there be an APS-C RF mount camera? Years ago it made sense, people upgraded gradually through the system. But nowadays I think this is fairly limited to birders using cameras like the D500 and full frame glass etc. With higher and higher resolution full frame sensors Canon might decide to really go for Ef-M as their consumer mount as it allows for really tiny cameras which matters a great deal for consumers. I think on internet boards it is vastly overstated how many people actually use both full frame and crop and want to put full frame lenses on crop cameras.
Will there be IBIS in the coming years? I would love it, like many here, for adapting lots of old lenses. But since Canon put IS in all of the 2.8 zooms I am far from sure they will go down this route just yet. Chances are they would rather we buy the new RF 24-70 rather than adapt the EF version!
In the EF mount, does anyone know if Canon actually cooperated with Zeiss for the ZE lenses and Voigtlander for their EF mount glass? I remain a bit jealous of the amazing glass that Voigtlander is putting out for Sony's FE mount and would love to have some of those options for RF. Unless Canon is planning to make a manual focus 40mm 1.2 (haha)) why not let Voigtlander produce it for RF?
That's a good question. From the "birder" point of view, I think it's the pixel density that is paramount, rather than the "crop factor". My M6 II can put a lot more pixels on a Blue Jay than my 5D4 can at equal distance with the same lens, but the 5D4 does a better job with high-ISO. And if that Blue Jay is in the deep shadows of the woods, then it's the 5D4 that wins that battle. However, the ISO difference isn't but a stop to a stop and a half, so just getting an extra stop through the lens by NOT using a teleconverter helps a great deal.
I did some side-by-side between the M6 II and 5D4, with the 1.4X added on the 5D4 shots vs. the bare 500/4 lens on the M6 II. Fairly comparable in terms of noise, though I didn't get too extreme with the ISO. I'd say that it still slightly favors the 5D4, but the ability to avoid needing the 1.4X is something to think about too.
Can't say a lot about the tracking of the little M6 II, as I haven't has much experience with that aspect of its operation yet.
Getting that kind of pixel density doesn't require a crop sensor, though getting enough speed to handle uncropped 4K may be a different story. But that's a different subject.
Now, in 2020, many of the Sony people will likely move back to Canon with these true high end pro R mirrorless bodies with likely IBIS and new sensors on top of their already stellar and growing RF lenses.
That said though, even the best camera and sensor will only go so far in getting that great shot. That still lies in the mind and capabilities of the photographer.
Yes that all sounds reasonable. I suppose I feel though more and more birders will continue to move to full frame. If we get 60 then 70 megapixel bodies to allow cropping I think the allure of that will be hard to resist. The problems around frame rates etc with the high resolutions are being solved day by day with the advances in computing - look at the A7R IV from Sony.
I might have got this totally wrong. Thom Hogan, a man I respect, seems quite obsessed with the idea Canon has made a huge mistake having Ef-m and RF mounts rather than just one. But I really think that is the 2000-2010 mindset, when even early crop cameras cost a fortune, you got into the system and then worked your way up and bought a high level crop the matched up a great white prime. I just don't see that pattern continuing, even if a small number find it useful, as full frame resolutions improve.
The advantage of Ef-m is how small the mount is - perfectly sized for crop. Until I held an M5 I didn't appreciate it and immediately bought it. When travelling for work it plus a couple of the really tiny lenses is wonderful to take. Whether it was the right business decision time will tell, Nikon obviously is going the other way. If camera manufacturers want to have a future in consumer cameras though they are competing against smartphones so I think size will matter more and more.
I hope you enjoy it. I was dubious about the R but having bought one I love it and the lenses are wonderful.
My advice would be to take a bit of time to set it up. The Touch Bar can be customised a great deal and I've come to enjoy using it. Most buttons can be remapped. Assuming you're coming from an SLR it might take a bit of time to get your mind dialled in to it but once set up I find it as easy to use and as intuitive as the 5D. Remember you can use the touchscreen as a replacement for the joystick and the control ring on the lens to replace the back main dial (or anything else).
If you find a good deal on it and you like grips I strongly recommend the battery grip - it really makes it a pleasure to use, especially if adapting any larger EF glass.
Oh and perhaps obvious but make sure you're on the latest firmware - Canon has really improved the camera enormously from the earlier firmware. I never thought I would have that to say about Canon! :)
Your last part is always worth remembering - the best photographer I know uses a 5D III and lots of quite beaten up ZE lenses. You could give me a 1000 mp RSX Mark 12 and I still wouldn't make as good photos.
I think Canon took the right approach going for the 2.8 zooms and 1.2 primes first but I am most looking forward to hopefully some very small but high quality f/4 zooms (the Nikon 14-30/4 shows what mirrorless can do for wide angles in particular) and 1.8 primes and therefore taking my camera gear further on hikes etc so in that sense the gear can help.
I dabbled with a Sony body, adapted Canon lenses to it via metabones. The sensor tech is excellent, no point denying it. The eye-AF is great too and IBIS is nice with old lenses. Like many I disliked the ergonomics. But what killed it for me was buying a few Sony lenses and finding them wildly decentered. Admittedly I bought the ZA 35/1.4 which is notorious for appalling quality control - tried 3 copies in the end as it has a lovely rendering but for the money I couldn't accept such a badly built lens (plus I was used to the tank-like 35L II). Had a similar situation with the 16-35 GM - couldn't find a copy that worked well beyond 28mm. I actually had a great copy of the 55/1.8 and then also picked up the Loxia 21 but by them my patience with Sony had been exhausted and I decided to just stick with Canon for their quality long term. For landscapes the Sony with Loxia or Voigtlander glass is pretty amazing though.
I was really hoping that all of the mirrorless cameras would be announced in the first half of 2020 so Canon would have more space in the back half for announcing the 5D5.
Things I would expect and like to see for such a camera are: unlimited record times, dual UHS-II card slots, headphone & mic jack, dual gain sensor, fully articulating touchscreen, uncropped full-frame recording with DPAF functionality, C-Log profiles, on par recording modes/options of the Panasonic S1H, and IBIS (of course).
Well Canon has taken that approach for decades now - they make the best glass and then make sure you are always left wanting to buy another body! Leica is even more extreme in that regard.
In fairness to Canon when Sony tried the opposite approach from like 2008-2012 it failed completely.
Nikon was perhaps the most "balanced" in their approach of top end glass with feature-rich bodies but over the past several years have pushed more and more into making lenses cheap in China that can't be easily repaired etc. which is a pity really. A friend of mine bought the Nikon 35/1.4G some years back, it's actually a quite beautiful lens. Recently it was damaged and he was shocked that the repair shop told him that the lens allowed almost no adjustment and a large part of the optics simply have to be swapped out. And that is a made in Japan lens from a decade ago before the real cost cutting started. I dread to think what happens when the little motor on the (optically wonderful) Nikon 105/1.4 gives up the ghost or an element gets tilted etc.
So while I get the feeling that the grass is greener and Canon could just give us a "perfect" body, remember we are still getting damn near perfect lenses which in the long run is what matters most I think, made in Japan, repairable, engineered better than anyone else.