# Canon registered two new ILC bodies



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 28, 2021)

> Canon has registered two new ILC bodies with the Russian certification agency. The two new cameras have the product codes “DS126841” and “DS126842”.  These are not  EOS M cameras, but they are interchangeable lens cameras.
> The product codes are also sequential, so this could mean the cameras are closely related, and it could even simply just come down to color.
> Certifications can come months in advance, so it’s unlikely these new cameras are coming in 2021, but there are announcements expected in January of 2022 and in the spring of 2022.



Continue reading...


----------



## entoman (Sep 28, 2021)

My guess is a replacement for the RP, but with IBIS and a new sensor.

Probably 2 versions, in different colours.

But I’m probably wrong………


----------



## SilverBox (Sep 28, 2021)

entoman said:


> My guess is a replacement for the RP, but with IBIS and a new sensor.
> 
> Probably 2 versions, in different colours.
> 
> But I’m probably wrong………


I feel like this stands to reason. With the R3 coming, I could see them doing a revamp of the older bodies before announcing the R1.


----------



## bergstrom (Sep 28, 2021)

We need a cheaper R3 with the 30 min video length abolished too.


----------



## john1970 (Sep 28, 2021)

SilverBox said:


> I feel like this stands to reason. With the R3 coming, I could see them doing a revamp of the older bodies before announcing the R1.


That idea would be a reasonable strategy for Canon. Maybe a RP and R replacement in 2022 along with a high MP FF body and a APS-C body? Four cameras would be a lot in a single year, but two would be replacements and two would be new offerings.


----------



## entoman (Sep 28, 2021)

SilverBox said:


> I feel like this stands to reason. With the R3 coming, I could see them doing a revamp of the older bodies before announcing the R1.


I’m figuring that the R won’t be replaced, as it is effectively replaced by the R6. The R1 is at least a year away, and just about everything else is covered by the R5 and R3.

… and we know that it isn’t an M series camera.

So that leaves either an R7 (APS) or a RP replacement. The latter seems far more likely, as it is long overdue for an IBIS-equipped replacement.


----------



## i_SH (Sep 28, 2021)

entoman said:


> My guess is a replacement for the RP, but with IBIS and a new sensor.
> 
> Probably 2 versions, in different colours.
> 
> But I’m probably wrong………


Most likely you are right! But I wish at least one of them had a viewfinder!


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 28, 2021)

entoman said:


> I’m figuring that the R won’t be replaced, as it is effectively replaced by the R6. The R1 is at least a year away, and just about everything else is covered by the R5 and R3.
> 
> … and we know that it isn’t an M series camera.
> 
> So that leaves either an R7 (APS) or a RP replacement. The latter seems far more likely, as it is long overdue for an IBIS-equipped replacement.


the R6 sucks for hybrid vs the R. No custom video modes. Maybe that is a way of canon telling us the R6 isnt for video shooters also it has less MP. So it isnt really a replacement.


----------



## maulanawale (Sep 28, 2021)

Silly question for the more seasoned "rumorers" here, is the time between this new registrations and products being either announced or at least leaked a known thing?


----------



## TinTin (Sep 28, 2021)

> These are not EOS M cameras, but they are interchangeable lens cameras.



For the uninitiated among us (ie me), how have those "facts" been determined?


----------



## JoeDavid (Sep 28, 2021)

I finally gave up on canon releasing a high megapixel body and upgraded my Fujifilm GFX 50s to a GFX 100s. If canon ever releases a high megapixel body I’ll still be interested though. I’ve already got the RF lenses to go with it. The 100s is incredible for landscape photography although limited in lens versatility…


----------



## entoman (Sep 28, 2021)

What’s interesting here is that the certification agency actually named THREE cameras, i.e.126841, 126842 and 126801.

126801 is the code name for the 90D.

Could this be a misprint? Could there actually be THREE new cameras registered?


----------



## BBarn (Sep 28, 2021)

A lower cost FF RP replacement seems to be coming. That puts the R6 price is about 3X the RP replacement. A FF priced in between would make sense. Probably not the R (since it's s the oldest), so that would mean yet another FF R series body.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Sep 28, 2021)

I´m guessing it'll be an RP replacement in two versions. I don't believe that an RP replacement will feature IBIS.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Sep 28, 2021)

BBarn said:


> That puts the R6 price is about 3X the RP replacement.


There's clearly a need for an "EOS R Mk II". I'm still hoping that the sentence "there'll be no direct R replacement" actually means that there is a replacement coming which features a different naming scheme. My guess has always been R8 as I mentioned in several other posts.


----------



## kaihp (Sep 28, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> We need a cheaper R3 with the 30 min video length abolished too.


The R3 has already abolished that 30min limit - now it's 6 hours. "Ought to be good enough for most people."

(Here comes my Bill Gates moment).


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 28, 2021)

TinTin said:


> For the uninitiated among us (ie me), how have those "facts" been determined?


Non-M EOS (non-Cinema?) bodies have "DS" product codes. PowerShot and EOS M cameras have "PC" codes. This might change, of course, but it’s doubtful.


----------



## CanonGrunt (Sep 28, 2021)

Might these be the rumored R7 & R8?


----------



## slclick (Sep 28, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> the R6 sucks for hybrid vs the R. No custom video modes. Maybe that is a way of canon telling us the R6 isnt for video shooters also it has less MP. So it isnt really a replacement.


As an R6 user I can testify it's a stills body. No mystery here.


----------



## i_SH (Sep 28, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> the R6 sucks for hybrid vs the R. No custom video modes. Maybe that is a way of canon telling us the R6 isnt for video shooters also it has less MP. So it isnt really a replacement.


In my opinion, the R6 is a misunderstanding. Canon just didn't have a high-resolution sensor at that time. This is a competitor to the Sony A 7III camera, which is expected to be updated (according to rumors) with a 33 megapixel matrix. I understand that many will disagree with me! They have the right to do so!


----------



## Swerky (Sep 28, 2021)

entoman said:


> My guess is a replacement for the RP, but with IBIS and a new sensor.
> 
> Probably 2 versions, in different colours.
> 
> But I’m probably wrong………


Hopefully. Even something very close to the RP with ibis would be fine.


----------



## Andy Westwood (Sep 28, 2021)

My hope is also an improved RP, a new compact FF would be great. I’m not knocking the M series I’ve had a great time with my M5 but the RP isn’t so much bigger than my M5 and with compact RF lenses it would replace my M series.


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 28, 2021)

Is it still allowed to dream of an EOS 5 DV with an R5 sensor?


----------



## John Wilde (Sep 28, 2021)

It's unlikely, but a (very compact, no viewfinder) FF "R200"? With compact-affordable lenses that could be interesting.


----------



## entoman (Sep 28, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> There's clearly a need for an "EOS R Mk II".


It’s probably more relevant to discuss the “needs” of the manufacturer, i.e what is missing from their range that would be in sufficiently high demand to make it a profitable line.

My opinion is that Canon, having produced the R6, probably don’t perceive there being a great demand for an R Mkii.

On the other hand, they need a market leading and very affordable starter camera (i.e. a successor to the RP) to entice people into the Canon system. Brand loyalty is a major driver of future sales, and Canon know that once they’ve got someone hooked, they’ll likely stay with them for several years.

When it comes to the “needs” and desires of enthusiasts as opposed to beginners, I think there’s probably far more demand for a crop sensor RF body, than there is for an R replacement. YMMV.


----------



## jvillain (Sep 28, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> the R6 sucks for hybrid vs the R. No custom video modes. Maybe that is a way of canon telling us the R6 isnt for video shooters also it has less MP. So it isnt really a replacement.



At least it shoots real 4K not 2.8K.



JoeDavid said:


> I finally gave up on canon releasing a high megapixel body and upgraded my Fujifilm GFX 50s to a GFX 100s. If canon ever releases a high megapixel body I’ll still be interested though. I’ve already got the RF lenses to go with it. The 100s is incredible for landscape photography although limited in lens versatility…



Maybe it is a high MP. One with a low pass filter and one with out. Then again it could be a replacement for the RP and the second one has the IR filter removed for astro.


----------



## landscaper (Sep 28, 2021)

Let's Hope the High Resolution 
100 Megapixel Body 
( R5s / RS )
Will Finally be Launched 
After Seven Years of Waiting 
Since the 2015 Release of the 
5DS / 5DSR

Sony has developed a 102 Megapixel Sensor ( IMX555 ) and is Moving 
Rapidly to Launch a High Resolution 
Body in 2022

Possible these two codes are for 
High Resolution Models 
with and without 
Anti Aliasing Filters


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 28, 2021)

jvillain said:


> At least it shoots real 4K not 2.8K.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe it is a high MP. One with a low pass filter and one with out. Then again it could be a replacement for the RP and the second one has the IR filter removed for astro.


i am just saying for real life usability it was a pain in the ass to use. The quality was fine. Canon always finds a way to take something off that makes a camera use when compared to a current or older camera.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 28, 2021)

slclick said:


> As an R6 user I can testify it's a stills body. No mystery here.


it is very good for video it is just heavily nerfed if you do both photo and video during events after being used to the mark 4, R, and R5. I also got a heat warning shooting cropped 1080 for some reason. i dont know what the deal with that was.


----------



## SereneSpeed (Sep 28, 2021)

I don't know if I'm just the odd one out for wanting a camera between the R5 and R6, and there's just no market for that. Or, if Canon is genius for forcing upgrades to the R5.

The R6 just doesn't do it for me. 20mp Just isn't enough anymore.

However, 45 is a lot. Too much for me, mostly. I'm trying to think of what that would do when I'm merging 5-10 images in Ps. My computer would turn into a frying pan...

Obviously Canon knows what they're doing, but I still hope there's a camera in there for me.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 28, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> Is it still allowed to dream of an EOS 5 DV with an R5 sensor?


There seem to be too many people here who think it would be a nightmare


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 28, 2021)

SereneSpeed said:


> However, 45 is a lot. Too much for me, mostly. I'm trying to think of what that would do when I'm merging 5-10 images in Ps. My computer would turn into a frying pan...
> me.


I’ve stopped doing portrait orientated panoramic stitching with the 5DS. It’s just a pain in the butt. The RP is ideal for this though.


----------



## entoman (Sep 28, 2021)

landscaper said:


> Let's Hope the High Resolution
> 100 Megapixel Body
> ( R5s / RS )
> Will Finally be Launched
> ...


I don’t have the sales figures to prove it, but my impression is that ultra high MP cameras are a niche market, and not hugely important in terms of sales. They exist primarily to demonstrate the manufacturer’s capability and technical prowess.

Sure, they’ll be bought by a few landscape and architectural photographers, and by some wildlife photographers etc who believe that heavy cropping is better and more affordable than using big whites for distant subjects.

But I sense a turning in the tide. 100+MP is seen as too big a jump by many people who don’t want to also invest in a high end gaming computer to process the images, and who will rarely, if ever, have a genuine need for such high resolution.

Do you honestly believe that a 100MP camera is needed for your landscape photography? How large do you make your prints, and how close to them are your eyes when you look at them?

It seems to me that buying a 100MP camera is a bit like buying a 200mph Ferrari that never gets driven at more than half that speed.


----------



## esglord (Sep 28, 2021)

I imagine we could something stripped down under $1k to replace the RP as well as a camera that has similar capabilities and resolution to the R but modified to add IBIS and get rid of the touch bar to be sold around the same price as the current R and still firmly below the R6. That said, I don't have any good reason to think this other than these wouldn't require them to design much new tech, and they'd be able to have their own distinct market segments and price points vs R6, R5, and R3.


----------



## Traveler (Sep 28, 2021)

I’d like to see a eos R mark II. Smaller body than R6 (just like the original R) and top LCD. Doesn’t have to be 4K 60fps or 12/20fps shooting.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Sep 28, 2021)

Traveler said:


> I’d like to see a eos R mark II. Smaller body than R6 (just like the original R) and top LCD. Doesn’t have to be 4K 60fps or 12/20fps shooting.



R Mark II does not make sense as far as naming goes. Probably any RF camera from now on will have a number, as R7, R8, etc


----------



## slclick (Sep 28, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> it is very good for video it is just heavily nerfed if you do both photo and video during events after being used to the mark 4, R, and R5. I also got a heat warning shooting cropped 1080 for some reason. i dont know what the deal with that was.


There has been plenty information from the gitgo about the R6, if you bought it for video work you didn't do your homework. Like complaining a Ford Pinto is a horrible NASCAR vehicle.


----------



## slclick (Sep 28, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> R Mark II does not make sense as far as naming goes. Probably any RF camera from now on will have a number, as R7, R8, etc


Canon has made it very clear in C Suite interviews that there will be no Mk ll of the R or RP


----------



## tangerine_sedge (Sep 28, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> Is it still allowed to dream of an EOS 5 DV with an R5 sensor?


That would be great, because then I could buy a reduced price iv


----------



## UpstateNYPhotog (Sep 28, 2021)

All I want for Christmas is 30 MP, IBIS, tilt screen, and external controls and displays like the R5 for about $3200 US. I don't care what the video spec are. I could live with 5-8 FPS. A hair bigger like the 5D IV would be nice so my hand doesn't cramp up from shooting all day.


----------



## sanj (Sep 28, 2021)

Canon is on a roll!!


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 28, 2021)

Maybe two R3 bodies, one black, and another in white matching the super telephotos?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> R Mark II does not make sense as far as naming goes. Probably any RF camera from now on will have a number, as R7, R8, etc


That doesn’t really make sense. What will the update to the R5 be called? They’re going to run out of single-digit numbers fairly quickly, and if a future R5 successor has a double-digit number, that contravenes the convention for both DSLR and EOS M naming. I don’t think Canon is that shortsighted.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2021)

jvillain said:


> Maybe it is a high MP. One with a low pass filter and one with out. Then again it could be a replacement for the RP and the second one has the IR filter removed for astro.


Entry level, I bet. The white versions of the M-series are popular in Japan, so I suspect black and white versions of the new entry-level sub-$1K EOS R.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 28, 2021)

slclick said:


> There has been plenty information from the gitgo about the R6, if you bought it for video work you didn't do your homework. Like complaining a Ford Pinto is a horrible NASCAR vehicle.


Not really. This is a tool. Tools usually get better or easier to use as technology advances.
Terrible comparison my guy.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> Not really. This is a tool. Tools usually get better or easier to use as technology advances.
> Terrible comparison my guy.


Fine, a Ford Bronco. The 2021 model is a lot more technologically advanced than the 1965 model, but would still make a horrible NASCAR vehicle.


----------



## John Wilde (Sep 28, 2021)

slclick said:


> Canon has made it very clear in C Suite interviews that there will be no Mk ll of the R or RP


It will have a different model name, but Canon can't afford to abandon the lower end FF mirrorless market.

I don't know about elsewhere in the world, but in Japan last month (BCN) the RP was Canon's best selling RF camera.


----------



## Traveler (Sep 28, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> R Mark II does not make sense as far as naming goes. Probably any RF camera from now on will have a number, as R7, R8, etc


You’re right. My point wasn’t the name but the style of the camera. Something under R6. I’m just worried that the R6 is a precedent for top LCD being for cameras over 3000 $ :/


----------



## entoman (Sep 28, 2021)

Traveler said:


> You’re right. My point wasn’t the name but the style of the camera. Something under R6. I’m just worried that the R6 is a precedent for top LCD being for cameras over 3000 $ :/


Why? A top LCD may look stylish and modern, but a traditional mode dial is much more intuitive to use, for me at least.

I own an R5, but I much prefer the mode dial on my friend’s R6.


----------



## entoman (Sep 28, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> R Mark II does not make sense as far as naming goes. Probably any RF camera from now on will have a number, as R7, R8, etc


I don’t think so.

The next iteration of Canon cameras will be R3 Mkii, R5 Mkii, R6 Mkii etc.


----------



## Niels_H (Sep 28, 2021)

- R5C 
Ideally R5 in R3 body. 
Price between R3 and R5.

- R7
30mp aps-c,... 
Price as R6 on release. 
(R6 will be discontinued.)


----------



## unfocused (Sep 28, 2021)

entoman said:


> It seems to me that buying a 100MP camera is a bit like buying a 200mph Ferrari that never gets driven at more than half that speed.


I want to avoid the person driving a Ferrari at 100mph.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 28, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> That doesn’t really make sense. What will the update to the R5 be called? They’re going to run out of single-digit numbers fairly quickly, and if a future R5 successor has a double-digit number, that contravenes the convention for both DSLR and EOS M naming. I don’t think Canon is that shortsighted.


I don't think that's what he means. I think he means an R replacement would have a number, as would an RP replacement. Of course there will be Mark II, Mark III, etc. of R5, R6 and R3 (Unless they drop the model altogether).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I don't think that's what he means. I think he means an R replacement would have a number, as would an RP replacement. Of course there will be Mark II, Mark III, etc. of R5, R6 and R3 (Unless they drop the model altogether).


Thanks, that makes more sense.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Sep 28, 2021)

entoman said:


> It’s probably more relevant to discuss the “needs” of the manufacturer, i.e what is missing from their range that would be in sufficiently high demand to make it a profitable line.
> 
> My opinion is that Canon, having produced the R6, probably don’t perceive there being a great demand for an R Mkii.
> 
> ...


I wasn´t asking for a successor of the R because of my "needs". To me it's just obvious that in Canons lineup there would be a huge hole if there'd be no successor of the R and no camera lined up in between the RP and the R6. 

In order to entice people to join a system it is not only an entry-level camera what's needed, there have to be more options to spread out later on. At the moment, if you rule out the R, you'd have: 

entry-level: RP 
semi-pro/ pro level: R6 

There are several people who'd rule out buying the R6 (20mp e.g./ price point too high/ "no need for 20fps...) and are looking/ and might be looking for a camera more capable the RP one day. If the R6 is ruled out it leaves you with the R5... way too expensive "to entice" people to join or get hooked... 

Take a look at Sonys line-up: there are so many options that if you start out with an entry-level camera you have several paths/ directions to go from there on. Canon is missing that if the R would to be omitted. At the moment, the R sits perfectly between the RP and the R6, but it is from 2018 and some features are clearly outdated and therefore they'd need an update. 

In my opinion Canon would need a line-up like this to attract customers: 

R10: crop camera
R9: RP replacement - entry level 
R8: R replacement - enthusiast allrounder... 

R7: crop-pro camera - I hear y'all birders 
R6: you know the deal

R5/c/s: spealised version and all-around work horse
R3: professional sports/ wedding/ wildlife pros

R1: do it all in perfection camera

This line-up would have several entry-level/ amateur options, semi-pro and pro options. I'm sure Canon will come up with a similar line-up. Entry level might have even more options if there are really three crop-cameras coming.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Sep 28, 2021)

entoman said:


> I don’t think so.
> 
> The next iteration of Canon cameras will be R3 Mkii, R5 Mkii, R6 Mkii etc.


Those cameras will surely be released one day, but as long as they are building their line-up in order to provide people with more (camera) options R7 through R10 will be viable options for their naming scheme.


----------



## landscaper (Sep 28, 2021)

entoman said:


> I don’t have the sales figures to prove it, but my impression is that ultra high MP cameras are a niche market, and not hugely important in terms of sales. They exist primarily to demonstrate the manufacturer’s capability and technical prowess.
> 
> Sure, they’ll be bought by a few landscape and architectural photographers, and by some wildlife photographers etc who believe that heavy cropping is better and more affordable than using big whites for distant subjects.
> 
> ...


I think you are


----------



## GoldWing (Sep 28, 2021)

If one is the 80MP R1 at U.S. $8,700.00.... It won't be until Dec or Jan. I however thought it would have been $9,000.00


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Sep 28, 2021)

entoman said:


> I don’t think so.
> 
> The next iteration of Canon cameras will be R3 Mkii, R5 Mkii, R6 Mkii etc.



That's different because all those models have a number already. The R likely was just named just "R" because it was the original.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Sep 28, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> That doesn’t really make sense. What will the update to the R5 be called? They’re going to run out of single-digit numbers fairly quickly, and if a future R5 successor has a double-digit number, that contravenes the convention for both DSLR and EOS M naming. I don’t think Canon is that shortsighted.



Im not saying there won't be "Mark II" designation but won't be a new model named just "R" without a number (+ Mark II for already existing models).


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Sep 28, 2021)

entoman said:


> Why? A top LCD may look stylish and modern, but a traditional mode dial is much more intuitive to use, for me at least.
> 
> I own an R5, but I much prefer the mode dial on my friend’s R6.



I don't think a top LCD excludes the existence of a mode dial. Older high-end DSLR's all had a top LCD and also a mode dial.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 28, 2021)

Just taking a few minutes to list the possible Canon cameras that have been rumored, confirmed or broadly speculated about

R6
R5
R3
RP Replacement
R Replacement
High Megapixel R5
Cinema R
Fanboys go crazy R
Bargain R
R1
R7
Rebel/M Replacement R

That's a whole lot of cameras for a shrinking market. Does anyone believe all or most of these will appear?

At some point Canon (I think) will want to finalize their R lineup. Will they follow car manufacturers patterns and keep developing new low-end models, while upscaling existing models? For example, a non-viewfinder entry level body with a bolt-on accessory viewfinder becomes the low-end sub $1,000 body. Would this also be the "fanboys go crazy" body?

Do they merge the RP and R into a single body that is slotted between the R6 and new entry-level body? I do agree with those who say the gap between sub-$1,000 and the R6 is too large to not have an option.

There is some precedent for this if you consider the 90D to be a merger of the 80D and 7D (Not saying the new body would be APS-C, but rather it would have significantly better features than the RP but still missing some of the features of the R and be priced below the R but above the RP).

Is there really a market for a high mp R5 body? I don't know. The 5D s certainly had a market and I suspect that adding a high megapixel sensor to an existing body saves them money. But would the market be there is you add $1,000 to the price of an R5? Canon left the 5D s in the lineup long after they dropped the 5DIII (which is the body they used). Was that because it took them that long to recover the costs and make a profit? If so, that might have cooled their jets for a high megapixel R body. And, in an era of 45mp as a standard, is a 90mp body as appealing?

Similarly, just how successful was the 1Dc? It started out at a high premium but eventually, it got so you could buy one at about the same price as the 1Dx. Was that a mistake and does Canon want to try again or not? Would an R3c make sense?

Then we come to the big questions, the R1 and R7 and what happens to the M line. I'm of the opinion that Canon will not drop the M line in favor of a compact R system. But, that's my opinion. Based on Craig's comments, it sounds like both the R1 and R7 will emerge, but when? 

All of this doesn't even take into consideration the need for lenses that align with some of these bodies. A sub-$1,000 body requires at least a few lenses to match. Going all-in on Rebel-style R bodies would require reproducing most of the EF-M line.

If there is a point to this rambling post, it's that the list of possible R bodies keeps expanding and I seriously doubt that Canon is willing or able to produce all of these. Because we don't know what we don't know, arguments can be made for *each* of these bodies, but I don't think arguments can be make for *all* of them.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 28, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> If one is the 80MP R1 at U.S. $8,700.00.... It won't be until Dec or Jan. I however thought it would have been $9,000.00


Since you A) shoot sports professionally and B) have been very vocal about wanting a high megapixel R1, I'm curious about the following:

1) What would your clients do with 80mp files? (Not just end use, but do they have sufficient processing power to review, edit and store a couple thousand 80mp files on deadline?)

2) How would you transfer 80mp files to them? (LAN?)

3) Do you think it's realistic that an 80mp camera would have enough processing power and a large enough buffer to handle a 20-30 second 30 fps burst and clear quickly enough for the next play?

4) Do you think an 80mp camera can deliver acceptable results at ISO 25,600 and above, bearing in mind that if you have to downsize the files to reduce noise there isn't much point in shooting at 80mp?

5) What shutter speeds would you anticipate shooting at in order to take advantage of the sharpness offered by an 80mp sensor?

I'm just curious if you have thought about any of these things. I understand that we inhabit vastly different worlds, since I can't rely on someone else to select, edit and process my photos, but have to do everything myself after I've shot a game. The small buffer size and large file sizes of the R5 have made it much less appealing for sports than the 1Dx III. I see the R3 as a reasonable compromise and am looking forward to finding out if I've guessed correctly. I understand the R3 is not acceptable to you, but I am curious what you are looking for and why.


----------



## amorse (Sep 28, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Just taking a few minutes to list the possible Canon cameras that have been rumored, confirmed or broadly speculated about
> 
> R6
> R5
> ...


Hard to tell what Canon would or would not do in practice without knowing what they're doing with the rest of the lines they're currently operating. Your list includes 12 (some of which hypothetical) bodies, but Canon is maintaining more bodies than that right now, even if we remove cameras which could be considered having mostly direct replacements already (i.e. 5DIV to R5 and 6DII to R6, SL2, 80D, etc.). Consider their website (Canadian for me) is still promoting the 1DXIII, R3, R5, R6, Ra, R, RP, 90D, 77D, SL3, T8i (and several older variants), T100i, M6II, M5, M50II, M3, M10, M200. 18 bodies across 4 mounts is a heck of a lot, though I do think a number of those bodies are likely low on their priority list. 

If Canon were to step away from M and APS-C DSLRs, I don't think it would be unexpected to produce a very wide range of bodies under the R mount, and potentially reduce the number of lens mounts they need to maintain. I have no idea if they'd do that, and no doubt M has a following which is shouldn't be ignored, but I'm not sure a big list of bodies is worrisome for Canon based on where they currently are. I'd bet lower cost options on R mount are pretty close to a sure thing, and I wouldn't be shocked if they produced some of the more niche bodies that we always wonder if there is room for - i.e. high resolution or cinema cameras in a stills form factor. Time will tell!


----------



## Maps (Sep 28, 2021)

EOS M fan club: "Oh wow! Could it be th..."
CR: "No"


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Sep 28, 2021)

Niels_H said:


> (R6 will be discontinued.)


Huh? Why do you say that?


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 29, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> Not really. This is a tool. Tools usually get better or easier as technology advances. Terrible comparison my guy.





neuroanatomist said:


> Fine, a Ford Bronco. The 2021 model is a lot more technologically advanced than the 1965 model, but would still make a horrible NASCAR vehicle.


I am talking basics functions and standards set by predecessors not just for niche or specialties. Not having custom video modes in a $2500 camera in 2020 but having it in a cheaper 2018 camera is dumb. I looked it up to see if I was doing something wrong but I seen numerous posts and videos about the omission.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 29, 2021)

Niels_H said:


> - R5C
> Ideally R5 in R3 body.
> Price between R3 and R5.
> 
> ...


Between the R3, R5, and C70. The R5C seems a bit redundant for Canon. The R3 takes care of like 80% of the R5 issues and the C70 takes care of the issues of both not being cinema cameras but with worse AF, not fullframe( if that matters), and lower res. I still don't believe it exists unless Canon took a page from Sony FX3.


----------



## Ian K (Sep 29, 2021)

If there are only ever going to be full frame R cameras then using Canon traditional numbering scheme the R would logically be an R10 and the RP would be either an R100 or R1000, depending on it being the bottom option or not.

If you start adding APS-C bodies into the mix then making the top of that line the R7 really screws the system up.

if the R7 is APS-C then there are no numbers left for R or RP replacements.

They could go with with An alternative naming like Rc7 etc but I think that would be bad.

Having crop camera numbers lower than a FF camera seems bad also.

What could work is all single/ double digit cameras being FF and APS-C being 3/4 digit. The 7D could become the R107.

The moment the original R was released I knew the name was a mistake. It was obvious that others would come and a simple R would not work.


----------



## slclick (Sep 29, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> Not really. This is a tool. Tools usually get better or easier to use as technology advances.
> Terrible comparison my guy.


 "My guy", that in itself is terrible. Unless we're dating now Ray.


----------



## slclick (Sep 29, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Im not saying there won't be "Mark II" designation but won't be a new model named just "R" without a number (+ Mark II for already existing models).


Canon said there won't be a Mark ll. Why isn't that enough for people?


----------



## slclick (Sep 29, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I want to avoid the person driving a Ferrari at 100mph.


I want to avoid everyone here who disregards the Canon Exec who stated there will not be Mark ll versions of the R and RP. Paying attention is free.


----------



## slclick (Sep 29, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> I am talking basics functions and standards set by predecessors not just for niche or specialties. Not having custom video modes in a $2500 camera in 2020 but having it in a cheaper 2018 camera is dumb. I looked it up to see if I was doing something wrong but I seen numerous posts and videos about the omission.


Ray, I'm breaking up with you for just not 'getting me'. No hard feelings? Oh and delete all those horrible videos you made of us with the R6.


----------



## John Wilde (Sep 29, 2021)

slclick said:


> Canon said there won't be a Mark ll.


Link?


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 29, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> R10: crop camera
> R9: RP replacement - entry level
> R8: R replacement - enthusiast allrounder...
> 
> ...


That's 10 models just in R mount vs 5 today with R1 guaranteed to come. R and RP are likely to be replaced next

As @amorse pointed out, Canon have 18 models (excluding colours) across 4 mounts and are comfortable market leaders and profitable. Consolidation makes some sense but there are still compelling market niches that the EF-M and xxD/xxxD models hit at price points and size that R mount may never hit but will get close. Current specialist models like Ra and 5DS/SR may not be replaced.
With R mount able to use adapted EF/EF-S lenses and RF lenses, Canon is betting on its long term future.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 29, 2021)

slclick said:


> I want to avoid everyone here who disregards the Canon Exec who stated there will not be Mark ll versions of the R and RP. Paying attention is free.


I think a lot of people missed that. Could you point people to that interview?


----------



## Rocco Germani (Sep 29, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> the R6 sucks for hybrid vs the R. No custom video modes. Maybe that is a way of canon telling us the R6 isnt for video shooters also it has less MP. So it isnt really a replacement.


I'd say that the R6 is no sleeper when it comes to video. For many people it has the upper hand over the R5, as not a lot of people need 45 megapixels, 20 is perfect for me. Now back to video, the R6 shoots oversampled 5.5K video up to 60 frames per second in 4K, with 10 bit color and the Canon Cinema Gamut if you're using CLOG-3, which is just so awesome, as it can match with higher end canon cinema cameras. (Yes, I'm aware the R5 can do it too, but for much more money!) It's quite underrated for video. While yes, there are better cameras out there, and if you want 8K, go ahead and get the R5, but I really think people should reconsider the R6, it's a fantastic value, a great all-around camera!


----------



## GoldWing (Sep 29, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Since you A) shoot sports professionally and B) have been very vocal about wanting a high megapixel R1, I'm curious about the following:
> 
> 1) What would your clients do with 80mp files? (Not just end use, but do they have sufficient processing power to review, edit and store a couple thousand 80mp files on deadline?)


A. We've spoken to Canon after the Olympics. The camera will *not* preclude you from changing your file size.
B. Our firm provides media for game day and after. Everything from billboards, bus wraps, building wraps, in-store displays, high-gloss magazines, stills for broadcast, digital signage, digital publishers, 
C. During game day we have multiple photographers, shooting from multiple locations all with IP Based Intercom's so the truck/NOC/director/client/producers can direct. When tethered, (an) editor(s) is going through everything on each feed. 


unfocused said:


> 2) How would you transfer 80mp files to them? (LAN?)


It would depend on the venue. Tethered to the truck we have gigabit - Right now we're maxed out at 700Mbps - Which will be upgraded in the R1
Verizon has new 5G towers in many venues and that's 20 gigabits, Well beyond what the R1 will need.


unfocused said:


> 3) Do you think it's realistic that an 80mp camera would have enough processing power and a large enough buffer to handle a 20-30 second 30 fps burst and clear quickly enough for the next play?


80MP will be used when needed or requested. No one will be shooting at 80MP / 30fps. 15fps is really the sweet spot and having the latitude to choose file size for the appropriate condition precludes 10,000 80MP/30fps even being a consideration. The key is having the latitude.


unfocused said:


> 4) Do you think an 80mp camera can deliver acceptable results at ISO 25,600 and above, bearing in mind that if you have to downsize the files to reduce noise there isn't much point in shooting at 80mp?


We're very rarely shooting at ISO ranges like that. Our venues are very well lit. I've seen entire games at 5000ISO even at the highest shutter speeds. In some instances, we're concerned with blowouts vs. shadows


unfocused said:


> 5) What shutter speeds would you anticipate shooting at in order to take advantage of the sharpness offered by an 80mp sensor?


Based on the amount of stabilization offered in the R1, hand held vs. mono/tri pod we'll have to see. Again, we won't be spraying and praying, The majority of shots now capturing what we like can be from 1/1250 to 4000. If a client is requesting a specific athlete which is very common, based on what the shots are used for, will determine what we do. When we do "Athlete Profiles" having the latitude to use the same camera in the studio will be very helpful too. The continuity to workflow will be welcomed.


unfocused said:


> I'm just curious if you have thought about any of these things. I understand that we inhabit vastly different worlds, since I can't rely on someone else to select, edit and process my photos, but have to do everything myself after I've shot a game.


The luxury of having an editor or multiple editors is expensive but the return for the firm is very profitable. Right now a single photographer with just two 500GB cards can shoot an entire game with plenty of space left over. At times we share a 32TB bank with broadcast and we've never even got close. Not too many years ago we were shooting and a PA would dump each card to an SSD as they were sent by a laptop. Things are so much after now. 5G at 20gigabit speeds will make internal/external 5G transmission a very realistic part of workflow. 

You're doing what most of us did for years before we worked for larger firms.


unfocused said:


> The small buffer size and large file sizes of the R5 have made it much less appealing for sports than the 1Dx III. I see the R3 as a reasonable compromise and am looking forward to finding out if I've guessed correctly. I understand the R3 is not acceptable to you, but I am curious what you are looking for and why.



We really want to be able to determine from a creative perspective the resolution we want. If you look at a Blackmagic 12K you can pull 80MP stills.
The Nikon Z9 is a 45MP Sports Camera. The technology is here already. Doubling the resolution of the 1DXMKIII is simplifying things but that's the simple objective and that is 80MP. No one here wants to shoot stills at 30fps. It seems good for marketing but if you're a pro and know your sport 15 or 16fps is optimal.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 29, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> the R6 sucks for hybrid vs the R. No custom video modes. Maybe that is a way of canon telling us the R6 isnt for video shooters also it has less MP. So it isnt really a replacement.


You're right! The EOS R was a stop gap measure by Canon to get a feel for the market and give their customer base a full frame mirrorless, because they sat on their hands for too long and let Sony get too much of a head start in the full-frame MILC market.

The R6 features are intentionally reduced to create market segmentation, and make it 'less' than the R5. It's one thing to not have features because of technical limitations, but Canon have the nasty habit of removing simple functionality on purpose (focus stacking on the R6 when it's even on the RP!) and this bad faith practice has popularly become known as the work of the 'Canon cripple hammer'!


----------



## Talys (Sep 29, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> You're right! The EOS R was a stop gap measure by Canon to get a feel for the market and give their customer base a full frame mirrorless, because they sat on their hands for too long and let Sony get too much of a head start in the full-frame MILC market.
> 
> The R6 features are intentionally reduced to create market segmentation, and make it 'less' than the R5. It's one thing to not have features because of technical limitations, but Canon have the nasty habit of removing simple functionality on purpose (focus stacking on the R6 when it's even on the RP!) and this bad faith practice has popularly become known as the work of the 'Canon cripple hammer'!


How is it bad faith to sell a camera for less money that is less capable? How would the world be a better place if the R6 didn't exist at all?


----------



## Talys (Sep 29, 2021)

Ian K said:


> They could go with with An alternative naming like Rc7 etc but I think that would be bad.


I think that if they did Rebel (North American) numbering, like the T2i, which didn't have a D anywhere in it at all, there is the possibility of no R. So something like the Rebel X2m in North America. But that would be equivalent to a R550 or a Kiss 4L in Japan. Cuz, like, you know, the numbering system has to make as much sense as the whole Rebel scheme


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 29, 2021)

Maybe 1-2 APS RF models; one XXXd like (Z50) £899 and other higher end (A6600) spec £1400, one thing is for sure Canon giant jugglenault is plowing ahead in its ML transformation and implementation of being at top and having one Universal ML mount (RF).


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 29, 2021)

Talys said:


> How is it bad faith to sell a camera for less money that is less capable? How would the world be a better place if the R6 didn't exist at all?


If previous models of camera, at a similar market tier or of a lower tier (so therefore has nothing to do with price) included a certain feature, which is inherent to the hardware, and is intentionally disabled in firmware to make the next higher model look better, that's definitely done in bad faith! 

Case in point is focus stacking which appeared on the RP, but was removed in the R6 to make the R5, where it was retained, to look more appealing. As you can see, this has nothing to do with production cost, it's about revoking features 'accidentally' released in earlier models because they don't fit the later marketing model. 

I believe a similar thing was done with video features going from EOS R to the R6. 

Same with removing 24fps video, but having 25fps and 30fps in some cameras, then doing a backflip and adding 24fps to some models with a firmware update but not others. Was added later in RP, can't remember the other cameras from memory.

We need to be able to differentiate between:

Adding extra or better hardware to increase functionality, which understandably increases the price, and
Intentionally disabling or limiting hardware functionality that is already part of the product, through firmware restrictions, which costs nothing to enable.
Hope this explains the difference!


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 29, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> If previous models of camera, at a similar market tier or of a lower tier (so therefore has nothing to do with price) included a certain feature, which is inherent to the hardware, and is intentionally disabled in firmware to make the next higher model look better, that's definitely done in bad faith! [..]


And how would you call doing the reverse? Limiting useful features (e.g. built-in intervalometer) to lower end models. I've felt that to be snobbery on Canons part.

The thing that really got me on the R5 was that FTP only works if you have a specific grip attached.


----------



## Foxdude (Sep 29, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> Is it still allowed to dream of an EOS 5 DV with an R5 sensor?


Nope. It is all-in in mirrorless system these days


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 29, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> And how would you call doing the reverse? Limiting useful features (e.g. built-in intervalometer) to lower end models. I've felt that to be snobbery on Canons part.
> 
> The thing that really got me on the R5 was that FTP only works if you have a specific grip attached.


That;s just as bad! It's that kind of bad faith towards its customers that gets people to jump platforms for a different set of compromises and problems.

Canon has an interesting marketing strategy, they offer great value for money on entry-level budget cameras such as the M50, and Rebel series. Quite a few people remain happy with that gear and stick with it, case closed. Some photographers grow in proficiency (or don't and get addicted to collecting gear), get hooked by the Canon brand, and decide to upgrade. It's then that the cracks begin to appear in Canon's veneer of benevolence...

It appears that Canon's strategy is to design intentionally incomplete camera systems below the highest tier, to remove really convenient features that the hardware in the camera can do, reducing the versatility of the tool for the purposes of market segmentation.

When certain functions are missing that they need, buyers are forced to upgrade to the next tier. Sometimes Canon's actions are miserly, restricting features that other brands offer across their range only to higher tiers. Other times its just downright malicious, removing certain video modes, such as 24fps from vlogging cameras, or the overall number of video modes and custom memory recall modes from EOS R to R6. For the life of me, I can't imagine why they would do something like omit the metal lens mount from the old 55-250mm STM, how much more would it have cost to put a metal one on like every other lens? How about a sh*tty rubber gasket under the lens mount of non L-series lenses. Yes, I know that a few cents saved here and there, and over millions of products that increases profits, but that's exactly what I meant by mean-spirited bad faith towards their customer base.

To put this into perspective, most cameras these days can take decent images, especially when coupled with a decent lens, and cameras above $1,000 are probably sufficient for most people's needs. If you're happy with a tool for a certain task, and it works, and stick with it, and don't upgrade until you _need _more. Why reward bad corporate behaviour?

If you have specialist needs, or are into collecting camera gear, then it becomes a game of diminishing returns, the more you pay, the less you get for the extra money. That's a typical marketing strategy to create exclusivity, products that few have are highly desirable products, and they can be priced accordingly to create this impression, beyond the actual increased cost of parts within the product.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 29, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> [..] For the life of me, I can't imagine why they would do something like omit the metal lens mount from the old 55-250mm STM, how much more would it have cost to put a metal one on like every other lens? [..]


Lensrentals has shown in a few of their teardowns that the metal lens mounts tend to be screwed into a plastic frame inside the lens. So it's mostly window dressing when used on mid- and low-end lenses. The metal mount on the EF-M 32mm made me laugh, it's only there to make the lens look more 'pro'. That lens has great IQ and value for money, but it's all plastic, except for the mount.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 29, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> …but Canon have the nasty habit of removing simple functionality on purpose (*focus stacking on the R6 when it's even on the RP!*) and this bad faith practice has popularly become known as the work of the 'Canon cripple hammer'!


I’d argue that it’s Canon’s decision what features to put in a camera, and your decision whether or not to buy it. Their job isn’t to make us happy, it’s to extract our money.

However, if you’re going to push the ‘cripple hammer’ argument, it would help your case to make correct statements. Canon states, “_The EOS R6 features focus bracketing, which lets photographers create focus-stacked composite images with much more depth of field than can be generated with small apertures alone._”





__





EOS R6 - Outstanding Autofocus Performance - Canon Europe


With Dual Pixel CMOS AF providing continuous tracking autofocus EOS R6 has a remarkable ability to capture a subject.




www.canon-europe.com


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 29, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> Lensrentals has shown in a few of their teardowns that the metal lens mounts tend to be screwed into a plastic frame inside the lens. So it's mostly window dressing when used on mid- and low-end lenses. The metal mount on the EF-M 32mm made me laugh, it's only there to make the lens look more 'pro'. That lens has great IQ and value for money, but it's all plastic, except for the mount.


Arghhh, cosmetic metal lens mounts??? It's a real shame when Canon creates a great budget lens with really decent image quality, but cheaps out on the construction...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 29, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> And how would you call doing the reverse? Limiting useful features (e.g. built-in intervalometer) to lower end models. I've felt that to be snobbery on Canons part.


Can you say which higher end models omit the intervalometer? The 1D X III has it. Generally, a feature like that is introduced in a particular model then added to all subsequent models.

Like @LogicExtremist’s erroneous example of focus bracketing, which was introduced on the RP and has been included on cameras released since then including the 90D and M6II. They don’t go back and add such features to older cameras, which is why the lower-end RP has focus bracketing but the higher-end R doesn’t. That’s not the same as omitting, though.

I guess checking your facts before you post is too much trouble for some people. Here’s a tip: if you want to argue that low end cameras are ‘crippled’ stick to the AF point-linked spot metering that only 1-series cameras have (as long as you ignore film cameras); if you want to argue that high end cameras are ‘crippled’ stick to the in-camera HDR that no 1-series has (but the R3 will).


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 29, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’d argue that it’s Canon’s decision what features to put in a camera, and your decision whether or not to buy it. Their job isn’t to make us happy, it’s to extract our money.
> 
> However, if you’re going to push the ‘cripple hammer’ argument, it would help your case to make correct statements. Canon states, “_The EOS R6 features focus bracketing, which lets photographers create focus-stacked composite images with much more depth of field than can be generated with small apertures alone._”
> 
> ...


You've stated the facts there, and yes, my typo, it's the EOS R that does not have focus stacking, R6 does, but loses video modes of the former! The cripple hammer lives!!! 

Totally agree:

The vendor decides what to produce, with the sole intention of making sales, the'yre not there to make people happy, that's fanboy thinking.
The market decides if they want what the vendor is producing. 
The vendor also creates marketing hype before release to create market demand and sell unreleased products of unknown quality to the market.
That's why I don't pre-order and didn't buy the EOS R...


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 29, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Can you say which higher end models omit the intervalometer? The 1D X III has it. Generally, a feature like that is introduced in a particular model then added to all subsequent models.
> 
> Like @LogicExtremist’s erroneous example of focus bracketing, which was introduced on the RP and has been included on cameras released since then including the 90D and M6II. They don’t go back and add such features to older cameras, which is why the lower-end RP has focus bracketing but the higher-end R doesn’t. That’s not the same as omitting, though.
> 
> I guess checking your facts before you post is too much trouble for some people. Here’s a tip: if you want to argue that low end cameras are ‘crippled’ stick to the AF point-linked spot metering that only 1-series cameras have (as long as you ignore film cameras); if if you want to argue that high end cameras are ‘crippled’ stick to the in-camera HDR that no 1-series has (but the R3 will).


Does the 1dx3 have both kinds of
intervalometer? One where you get a bunch of images and one where you get only a movie?
It could very well be that I mixed up introduction dates and the lower end model was introduced after the 5 series I was looking at.


----------



## dba101 (Sep 29, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> We need a cheaper R3 with the 30 min video length abolished too.


not too much to ask then


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 29, 2021)

dba101 said:


> not too much to ask then


Would that just be an R6 with a firmware update then?


----------



## bbasiaga (Sep 29, 2021)

Traveler said:


> You’re right. My point wasn’t the name but the style of the camera. Something under R6. I’m just worried that the R6 is a precedent for top LCD being for cameras over 3000 $ :/


You really won't miss it if it is not there. I don't. Its just as fast and easy to use the rear screen, and even the EVF can display all the settings you normally change via the top LCD. The bonus there is that you don't even have to look away from your subject to change them. 

Brian


----------



## unfocused (Sep 29, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> A. We've spoken to Canon after the Olympics. The camera will *not* preclude you from changing your file size.
> B. Our firm provides media for game day and after. Everything from billboards, bus wraps, building wraps, in-store displays, high-gloss magazines, stills for broadcast, digital signage, digital publishers,
> C. During game day we have multiple photographers, shooting from multiple locations all with IP Based Intercom's so the truck/NOC/director/client/producers can direct. When tethered, (an) editor(s) is going through everything on each feed.
> 
> ...


Thanks for your detailed reply. It always helps to understand the perspective of someone else. I hope the R1 will come close to meeting your needs when it finally arrives. With any luck I will be retired by then.


----------



## SilverBox (Sep 29, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> the R6 sucks for hybrid vs the R. No custom video modes. Maybe that is a way of canon telling us the R6 isnt for video shooters also it has less MP. So it isnt really a replacement.


I use it for short clips all the time, its great for casual hybrid shooting. The record button near the shutter can be used to start video recording in any mode. It does tend to overexpose so I have to ride the expo comp but that doesnt bother me having to, having to preroll a few hot frames.


----------



## Traveler (Sep 29, 2021)

bbasiaga said:


> You really won't miss it if it is not there. I don't. Its just as fast and easy to use the rear screen, and even the EVF can display all the settings you normally change via the top LCD. The bonus there is that you don't even have to look away from your subject to change them.
> 
> Brian


I really really miss it on my R6.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Sep 29, 2021)

slclick said:


> I want to avoid everyone here who disregards the Canon Exec who stated there will not be Mark ll versions of the R and RP. Paying attention is free.





> Canon said there won't be a Mark ll. Why isn't that enough for people?


There won't be an EOS R Mark II, no one is claiming there is. But many (I myself as well) believe there will be a camera tsloted in similar way the R is. And the Canon exec never stated there won't be a camera lined-up between the (current) RP and the R6. It was just stated that there will "be no R Mk II" which only rules out a possible name for a camera. 

When looking at the current line-up, it is obvious that Canon hadn't decided on a naming scheme with their first three cameras of the R system (R, RP, Ra) and now they've obviously settled on numbering the cameras. That's the only reason why there won't be an EOS R Mk. II. 

So there is absolutely no need to get mad at people for talking about a possible successor for the R. I'm sure, Canon is too.

PS: I think it is great that the R cameras use the same naming scheme everywhere. No "Kiss here, Rebel there, XXXXd elsewhere...".


----------



## Ian K (Sep 29, 2021)

Talys said:


> I think that if they did Rebel (North American) numbering, like the T2i, which didn't have a D anywhere in it at all, there is the possibility of no R. So something like the Rebel X2m in North America. But that would be equivalent to a R550 or a Kiss 4L in Japan. Cuz, like, you know, the numbering system has to make as much sense as the whole Rebel scheme


But doesn’t the rebel range only cover the 100 series? Don’t you still have a 70D in the USA. So it’s not APS-C that has a different name, just that one segment.


----------



## AJ (Sep 29, 2021)

Ian K said:


> The moment the original R was released I knew the name was a mistake. It was obvious that others would come and a simple R would not work.


Yup.

With the RP they added another letter. Maybe the R-mount APSC camera will be called RC?


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 29, 2021)

bbasiaga said:


> You really won't miss it if it is not there. I don't. Its just as fast and easy to use the rear screen, and even the EVF can display all the settings you normally change via the top LCD. The bonus there is that you don't even have to look away from your subject to change them.
> 
> Brian


Different photographers, different needs or preferences. 
The lack of a top-LCD is one of the reasons why I wouldn't even consider buying an R6. I use my top LCD very often, for a quick glance, camera hanging down on a neck-strap.
On the other hand, even the total absence of video features wouldn't disturb me at all...


----------



## bbasiaga (Sep 29, 2021)

Traveler said:


> I really really miss it on my R6.


Certainly everyone can have their own preference. 

With a dial for shutter, aperture, and ISO, the back buttons configured to change autofoucs modes, and the m.fn button that can bring up drive, white balance, and several other settings on the rear screen or in the EVF, I just don't feel like I have to hunt for anything that was on the top screen of the 5DIII or 5D I used before the R6. I don't miss it. But just because it works for me, doesn't mean anyone else has to like it. 



-Brian


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 29, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> Does the 1dx3 have both kinds of
> intervalometer? One where you get a bunch of images and one where you get only a movie?
> It could very well be that I mixed up introduction dates and the lower end model was introduced after the 5 series I was looking at.


My turn for a mea culpa. I read a review that indicated the 1D X III has an intervalometer, but searching the cameras instruction manual that does not seem to be the case. Apologies, you nailed a good example of nerfing the higher end model.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 29, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> That;s just as bad! It's that kind of bad faith towards its customers that gets people to jump platforms for a different set of compromises and problems.
> 
> Canon has an interesting marketing strategy, they offer great value for money on entry-level budget cameras such as the M50, and Rebel series. Quite a few people remain happy with that gear and stick with it, case closed. Some photographers grow in proficiency (or don't and get addicted to collecting gear), get hooked by the Canon brand, and decide to upgrade. It's then that the cracks begin to appear in Canon's veneer of benevolence...
> 
> ...



I don't think you understand the meaning of the phrase 'bad faith'. How is it 'bad faith' when the specs are clearly stated when the product is announced and released? 
Canon did, once, many years ago produce two cameras that had near-identical funtionality and some functions were 'turned off' in the cheaper model. Then someone found a hack to access them. The flack they got was severe and I don't believe they have ever done this again - so AFAIK if the functionality is not in listed it is not programmed in (or built in) at any level. Unless, of course you can prove differently.
But please tell me which manufacturer does not differentiate models on functionality? In any technological field?



> When certain functions are missing that they need, buyers are forced to upgrade to the next tier.



Have you ever tried to upgrade a photocopier from 6pages per minute to 15 pages per minute, only to find you are forced to pay an additional $1,000 because you have to buy a whole load of other functions you don't need to go with it? Or a car that goes faster? Or a new washing machine with programmes you don't need? Or are you just whining because you want an improvement in one function without paying for a load of others to keep cost down?
Why is that 'bad corporate behaviour'? It makes marketing sense. Look at it this way: you buy the RP - you want better video and because Canon has this technology in the bag, you want them to make an RP with better video and you don't need blitzing AF. But someone else wants an RP with 30 pfs. And someone else wants and RP with focus stacking. And before long Canon have 10 different variants of every model with prices escalating: now that would be stupid. Canon lose money and go bust - followed by every other manufacturer when each one becomes less sustainable all to satisfy your own individual need.


----------



## Tremotino (Sep 29, 2021)

Waiting here for the high MP camera, the R5c ans the R apsc. Not so much interested in RP exept it is a mini FF camera like the sigma pocket FFf camera


----------



## SteveC (Sep 29, 2021)

Ian K said:


> But doesn’t the rebel range only cover the 100 series? Don’t you still have a 70D in the USA. So it’s not APS-C that has a different name, just that one segment.


Your point is good, Rebel doesn't cover the two digit numbers.

However it does cover the _four _digit numbers as well as the 3 digit numbers. Generally a non -i or -s model (e.g. T3 = 1100D) is a four digit model, and something like the T6i (750D) or T6s (760D) is a three digit model.


----------



## AEWest (Sep 29, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> We need a cheaper R3 with the 30 min video length abolished too.


I understand that R3 does not have the 30 min limit.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 29, 2021)

Rocco Germani said:


> I'd say that the R6 is no sleeper when it comes to video. For many people it has the upper hand over the R5, as not a lot of people need 45 megapixels, 20 is perfect for me. Now back to video, the R6 shoots oversampled 5.5K video up to 60 frames per second in 4K, with 10 bit color and the Canon Cinema Gamut if you're using CLOG-3, which is just so awesome, as it can match with higher end canon cinema cameras. (Yes, I'm aware the R5 can do it too, but for much more money!) It's quite underrated for video. While yes, there are better cameras out there, and if you want 8K, go ahead and get the R5, but I really think people should reconsider the R6, it's a fantastic value, a great all-around camera!


i am not doubting what it can do, but the reduced convenience features for no reason doesn't make sense. It's like a dude is at Canon saying "let's take this out just to piss people off"


----------



## bergstrom (Sep 29, 2021)

AEWest said:


> I understand that R3 does not have the 30 min limit.




thats what I meant. You can record 6 hours on R3, but at least 1 hr would be great on the next RP sucessor


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 29, 2021)

Talys said:


> How is it bad faith to sell a camera for less money that is less capable? How would the world be a better place if the R6 didn't exist at all?


Because a lesser cameras will have something the middle camera doesnt. These are weird omissions. It's like when the RP didnt have 24p in the beginning and people had to wait for an update after complaints. Even the 5d Mark II had 24p. 24P is the standard for film making. It's like making a video game system that doesnt support 1080p.


----------



## Talys (Sep 29, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> Because a lesser cameras will have something the middle camera doesnt. These are weird omissions. It's like when the RP didnt have 24p in the beginning and people had to wait for an update after complaints. Even the 5d Mark II had 24p. 24P is the standard for film making. It's like making a video game system that doesnt support 1080p.


Well, I think the analogy you're actually trying to make is that it would be weird if you had 3 video game consoles from the same vendor, and the video support was:

Gold: 4k 2k 1080p
Silver: 4k, 1080p
Bronze 2k 1080p

Making it so that if you wanted 2k, you'd have to buy either Bronze or Gold.

Now, I agree that would be a strange omission, and that I sure, Canon has some odd feature mixes whereby a low end model has a feature a mid-range one is missing. However, I don't see how that would possibly be "bad faith" - bad faith requires some intent to deceive.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 29, 2021)

Talys said:


> Well, I think the analogy you're actually trying to make is that it would be weird if you had 3 video game consoles from the same vendor, and the video support was:
> 
> Gold: 4k 2k 1080p
> Silver: 4k, 1080p
> ...


2K isnt as widely used. It would be more like the bronze has 1080 the silver has the 2K. so in a way it is better but not a standard res for tv. SO every video you do in hd either has black bars or you have to crop in so it makes it inconvenient. Also if you crop every video for 1080 you would have to keep the framing in mind during filming that there will be a crop. There was the dilemma with the c200 it had raw but no 10bit. so you get something better but also some that was extremely data hungry and needed very expensive cards. That is Canon (il)logic. The intent may be to buy a collection of cameras instead of one liek cameras arent already expensive enough.


----------



## Ian K (Sep 30, 2021)

AJ said:


> Yup.
> 
> With the RP they added another letter. Maybe the R-mount APSC camera will be called RC?


Unlikely given there would likely be more than one of them. I did suggest that the crops could be Rc7 etc so they could have an Rc7 at the top end, Rc10, Rc100 if they wanted too. Then the R10 would be the logical successor to the R and the R100 for the RP.

As I say if the have the R7 as a crop there are no numbers between the R6 and R7 for the R and RP models, unless they are going to mix the two sensor sizes across the numbering.


----------



## Traveler (Sep 30, 2021)

bbasiaga said:


> Certainly everyone can have their own preference.


I’m a travel photographer. I wear my R6 on a holster at my hip to have it always ready. However I prefer having the main LCD closed to prevent from scratches etc. It also makes it faster to set the LCD (when needed) from closed position than from the normal position. And when I use the main LCD then I prefer it clean without anything blocking my composition. With the R, I could check or change the settings on the top LCD even before I put it up to my eyes. It may sound strange but these milliseconds often make a difference between the shot being taken or not.
I have to say that the R6 let’s me take more photos in general because it’s way faster and the AF is another level. However the top LCD would make it much much better. As I said, I really miss it and I always will. However I’m not willing to drop that much for the R5 just because of the LCD. 
Another thing is that I could have set one of the buttons to toggle between the C modes which was also way faster than checking the mode dial.


----------



## Botts (Sep 30, 2021)

John Wilde said:


> It will have a different model name, but Canon can't afford to abandon the lower end FF mirrorless market.
> 
> I don't know about elsewhere in the world, but in Japan last month (BCN) the RP was Canon's best selling RF camera.


That surprises me. I'm going to move to RF, and tried an R, R6, and RP this week. I didn't see a happy me after going from 6D2 and 80D to an RP. The RP almost seemed like the first 6D. It existed for the purpose of making FF affordable, but is too slow for it's own good, and just didn't feel "complete". 

Canon mostly fixed this with the 6D2. Going from a 7D or 7D2 to a 6D felt like a big step down, but a 7D or 7D2 to 6D2 felt like a good upgrade.

For the price difference, the R seemed like a far better purchase than the RP. I am heavily leaning towards buying the R's replacement when it's released.


Exploreshootshare said:


> In my opinion Canon would need a line-up like this to attract customers:
> 
> R10: crop camera
> R7: crop-pro camera - I hear y'all birders


If we see cropped RF cameras, market wise it'd require "RF-S" lenses wouldn't it? I mean, the birders will happily shoot RF long lenses, but the general market is going to want an 17-55ish lens and cheaper glass right?


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 30, 2021)

Botts said:


> If we see cropped RF cameras, market wise it'd require "RF-S" lenses wouldn't it? I mean, the birders will happily shoot RF long lenses, but the general market is going to want an 17-55ish lens and cheaper glass right?


All depends if the crop sensor R body will be at the high end or low end of the market.

The existing EF-s wide angle lenses can be adapted successfully eg 10-22mm to the R mount and would make sense for a high end model as they are not as likely to use it for wide angle shooting.

If you mean native glass then that is a big question. The RF18-45mm lens should be a low cost/size etc lens but that only goes down to 30mm full frame equivalent.
If a low end crop sensor R body, then yes, RF-s lenses would be needed to fill out that market which would potentially remove the xxxxD/xxxD/xxD products over the long term. It means supporting a 5th mount though.

I would suggest that Canon updating/creating RF-s glass is likely to be expensive and not a good use of R&D resources as it duplicates existing glass which is of good quality. Even modification like changing the mount, adding RF connections for IBIS etc would mean diverting resources.

Of course Canon won't publicly say to use adapted EF-s on any crop sensor R mount!


----------



## unfocused (Sep 30, 2021)

John Wilde said:


> ...I don't know about elsewhere in the world, but in Japan last month (BCN) the RP was Canon's best selling RF camera.





Botts said:


> That surprises me. I'm going to move to RF, and tried an R, R6, and RP this week. I didn't see a happy me after going from 6D2 and 80D to an RP...


For most buyers, spending $1,000 on a camera ($1,300 with a lens) represents the most they have ever spent or ever will spend on a camera. My guess is they aren't choosing between R models, but between an M and the RP and have decided to splurge on the RP.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 30, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> ...If a low end crop sensor R body, then yes, RF-s lenses would be needed to fill out that market which would potentially remove the xxxxD/xxxD/xxD products over the long term. It means supporting a 5th mount though....


Not picking on you David, and I know I sound like a broken record, but people really have to get out of the EF mindset. Any lens designed for a crop sensor R body will mount seamlessly on any full frame R body. No additional mount or adapter needed. The camera will just crop the image when you mount the lens on your full frame body.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 30, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Not picking on you David, and I know I sound like a broken record, but people really have to get out of the EF mindset. Any lens designed for a crop sensor R body will mount seamlessly on any full frame R body. No additional mount or adapter needed. The camera will just crop the image when you mount the lens on your full frame body.


Of course. I don't think that I suggested otherwise. The question is whether there will be RF-s native lenses when (if?) a crop sensor R body comes along.
I think that if a high end 7D replacement arrives then no RF-s lenses will be introduced with it to provide wide angle coverage as adapated EF-s will fulfil that requirement today. The forecasted RF18-45mm will automatically crop to 30-72mm equivalent and the RF16mm prime converts to ~25mm equivalent so not very wide.
Different story if Canon decides to replace xxxxD/xxxD/xxD models with a crop sensor R mount over the long term.

In terms of mindset - especially for reviewers online - they seem to be only concerned with lens coverage with native lenses. This is clearly not the case and there are many great reasons to continue to buy new EF lenses and adapt them to R bodies. RF lenses (in general) are great but expensive. EF provide a middle ground and round out the speciality uses. 
The use of the ND/CPL adapter plus TS-e lenses, EF 11-24mm and EF8-15mm is a great example of improved features compared to EF lenses on EF mount.

If my EF16-35mm/4 dies then it will be a tough decision whether to replace it with another EF16-35mm or pay more for the RF14-35mm.


----------



## Jethro (Sep 30, 2021)

I strongly suspect any crop sensor R body will (initially at least) be a 7DII equivalent / upgrade, with the intention of enticing 7D users into the RF mount. My impression is that typical 7D-series users would spend most of their time on FF (EF) mounted lenses anyway, and so there would be little immediate need for an RF-s mount. If (and a big if) Canon eventually wanted to move out of the lower level APS-C bodies (and what an 'if' it would be to give up the Rebels?!), then there might need to be some native RF-mount lenses to at least go into kits. But even that is assuming there was a desire for smaller / lighter lenses, and the clear intention seems to be that the M series represents the 'small and light' ML series.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 30, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Of course. I don't think that I suggested otherwise. The question is whether there will be RF-s native lenses when (if?) a crop sensor R body comes along.
> I think that if a high end 7D replacement arrives then no RF-s lenses will be introduced with it to provide wide angle coverage as adapated EF-s will fulfil that requirement today. The forecasted RF18-45mm will automatically crop to 30-72mm equivalent and the RF16mm prime converts to ~25mm equivalent so not very wide.
> Different story if Canon decides to replace xxxxD/xxxD/xxD models with a crop sensor R mount over the long term.
> 
> ...


Yes, as I said, I wasn't trying to pick on you. But people keep referring to EF-S lenses and talking as though a separate or additional mount would be needed. Of course, Canon would likely issue lenses geared toward an APS-C body (I've suggested that they would need a 15-85 and 11-22 to cover most needs of enthusiasts. ) But, it's important for people to understand (obviously you do) that unlike the old EF system, where EF-S lenses could not mount on full frame bodies and thus Canon had to modify the mount, any RF lenses geared toward crop sensor bodies would fit and work seamlessly (in crop mode) on any R body made, thus making things much simpler for both Canon and consumers.


----------



## i_SH (Sep 30, 2021)

Not in the subject, but ... Tom Hogan's most interesting look at the focal lengths of lenses! And changing the views of young people on the problem. Perhaps that is why Canon among the first lenses released 14-35 (and I would like 14-50!) And 16 mm?





__





Did Lens Makers Miss a Turn? | Cameras and Photography Explained | Thom Hogan


Why is the iPhone 13-77mm but ILCs still living in the 24-85mm world?




bythom.com


----------



## degos (Sep 30, 2021)

unfocused said:


> 1) What would your clients do with 80mp files? (Not just end use, but do they have sufficient processing power to review, edit and store a couple thousand 80mp files on deadline?)
> 
> 2) How would you transfer 80mp files to them? (LAN?)



I'd assume that like most events the client wouldn't be handling 80MP files. For push-to-web publishing they'll be reviewing medium-sized OOC JPEGs of whatever dimensions they specify. To them it doesn't matter what was the original resolution.

What high-res gives is the flexibility to (1) re-frame a scene (2) crop for detail (3) re-use a shot for other markets that demand high-resolution (4) use that camera for all shooting jobs.

With a low-res sensor you're throwing away photo information for no particular reason and limiting your future options.


----------



## TravelerNick (Sep 30, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> Same with removing 24fps video, but having 25fps and 30fps in some cameras,



How many R6 users are shooting for hollywood and NEED 24? 25 is TV/video in Europe. 30 in North America.

Did they take out 23.97? That's important for some users.

At some point you're limited by the amount of memory inside the box. Even just a software feature can mean deleting something else.


----------



## Joules (Sep 30, 2021)

TravelerNick said:


> How many R6 users are shooting for hollywood and NEED 24? 25 is TV/video in Europe. 30 in North America.
> 
> Did they take out 23.97? That's important for some users.
> 
> At some point you're limited by the amount of memory inside the box. Even just a software feature can mean deleting something else.


There is no apparent justification for Canon having launched a few cameras without 24 p video. The fact that they later updated them to add that feature shows that it was no technical issue.

Canon simply tried to apply their mantra of knowing better than the market what they want to 24 p (which, as you say, few people truly need) and disliked the response they got. So they caved in and added it back in. No point in sugar coating it for either side.


----------



## TravelerNick (Sep 30, 2021)

Joules said:


> Canon simply tried to apply their mantra of knowing better than the market what they want to 24 p (which, as you say, few people truly need) and disliked the response they got. So they caved in and added it back in. No point in sugar coating it for either side.



How much effort does it take you to convert a 25FPS to 24? A fraction of a second?

Let's compare that with the A1

No DCI in any resolution. At best you can shoot in 8K and crop to 4K DCI. But then
No 4.2.2 in the highest resolution
No internal raw.

That's in a camera costing 6K. You can't work around any of those.

The sort of people who need and care about 24 FPS also want internal ND filters, better audio ports, better battery choices, better codecs etc. Leaving 24 off doesn't push you into the R5. It pushes you into the C300.

The fact they added it to make some people happy proves they'll even give you things that don't matter.


----------



## Joules (Sep 30, 2021)

TravelerNick said:


> How much effort does it take you to convert a 25FPS to 24? A fraction of a second?


That's an impossible conversion. If you slow down or speed up your footage, that causes issues, especially with audio, and if you just skip a frame per second, that's not great either.

Not sure what your point is though. If Canon had thought their initial action was optimal, why didn't they stick with it?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 30, 2021)

Joules said:


> That's an impossible conversion. If you slow down or speed up your footage, that causes issues, especially with audio, and if you just skip a frame per second, that's not great either.
> 
> Not sure what your point is though. If Canon had thought their initial action was optimal, why didn't they stick with it?


It’s clear that by omitting 24p, Canon pulled a Nikon and screwed D f up.

Ba dum bum.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 30, 2021)

Joules said:


> Canon simply tried to apply their mantra of knowing better than the market what they want to 24 p (which, as you say, few people truly need) and disliked the response they got. So they caved in and added it back in. No point in sugar coating it for either side.


My personal take on this is that Canon did (and do) know what the market as a whole needs and wants. What has happened is that a relatively small bunch of self-proclaimed videography spokespeople have a platform to create way more noise than they can really justify. And the manufacturers then have a choice of sticking by what they know to be true, or suffer trial-by-facebook where so-called 'influencers' claim to know more than they do. 
Some people 'need' a 600mm lens in the same way some people 'need' a choice between 24p/25p/30p.

/rant over


----------



## st jack photography (Sep 30, 2021)

john1970 said:


> That idea would be a reasonable strategy for Canon. Maybe a RP and R replacement in 2022 along with a high MP FF body and a APS-C body? Four cameras would be a lot in a single year, but two would be replacements and two would be new offerings.


I would guess that the high MP camera (to replace 5DSr) will be DEAD LAST, because any mp gain they have, which will be next-level, will also come with a huge list of cons that novices and enthusiasts will poo-poo about. I owned a 5DSr, I know how bad the ISO was and how 1/250 was like shooting 1/40, and how slow the buffer and RAW burst and FPS was. That fancy BSI will only help a marginal bit. So yes, it will come last, because it is the one that comes with a huge set of negatives with the positives, AND ALSO they need to have this MP monster be king for a while as well....so yeah, dead last. Expect a December 2022 to Jan 2023 announcement on the R5SR high-mp beast.
Also, the high-mp body better have an R3-type body. Any studio/landscape/high mp camera should be more like a 1D or a medium format than a Rebel or even a 5D/R5.


----------



## st jack photography (Sep 30, 2021)

The R was obviously a tech demo of sorts showing fans what is to come. Because of that, the R is a strange beast, with an odd mix of features. There will likely be no R mark 2. It would be weird, if so: it would be basically an R6 Lite with a top dot matrix screen added, which makes no sense if you look at R5 and R6 compared.
I just do not see any room at all for an R mark two.
I would maybe expect a RP mark 2, or a renamed but similar entry-level FF to match competition.


----------



## slclick (Sep 30, 2021)

Niels_H said:


> - R5C
> Ideally R5 in R3 body.
> Price between R3 and R5.
> 
> ...


Ricockulous


----------



## slclick (Sep 30, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> Would that just be an R6 with a firmware update then?


No, keep your long arse moving pictures off my R6, it's just fine as is.


----------



## Czardoom (Sep 30, 2021)

Mikehit said:


> My personal take on this is that Canon did (and do) know what the market as a whole needs and wants. What has happened is that a relatively small bunch of self-proclaimed videography spokespeople have a platform to create way more noise than they can really justify. And the manufacturers then have a choice of sticking by what they know to be true, or suffer trial-by-facebook where so-called 'influencers' claim to know more than they do.
> Some people 'need' a 600mm lens in the same way some people 'need' a choice between 24p/25p/30p.
> 
> /rant over


I agree completely. Canon has a reputation of designing cameras to be more specific for a certain target market, and when that target market is entry level, many people on forums, and the YouTube influencers are unable or unwilling to understand that the specs and features are not going to be what they are looking for. The RP is entry level, and as someone who does a little video (a few how-to art videos and a few more dog videos for YouTube), I don't want anything video oriented that will make my video shooting more complicated, I would be one of those consumers very glad with my choices simplified. I would guess the target market for the RP when it comes to video, is folks making videos of their kids at sporting events, plays, family gatherings etc. All they want is to have the default settings and no confusion, in my opinion. When I first shot video (with a different brand) they had so many choices, I could not shoot video without looking in the manual. For some odd reason, the default was a video mode that took a photo every few seconds. It was one of many 30p choices - with a little icon that denoted photos. At the time, I would have had no idea whether to set the video to 30p or 24p. It just led to more time wasted and further delays - something that someone shooting their kid playing soccer would not want to have happen. The RP - I am quite sure - was not designed or intended for those looking to shoot "film" type video. It just adds a complication - and I have been very glad in the past that Canon usually has the philosophy of making the experience with your camera simpler and easier than most other brands.


----------



## Botts (Sep 30, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> This is clearly not the case and there are many great reasons to continue to buy new EF lenses and adapt them to R bodies. RF lenses (in general) are great but expensive. EF provide a middle ground and round out the speciality uses.
> The use of the ND/CPL adapter plus TS-e lenses, EF 11-24mm and EF8-15mm is a great example of improved features compared to EF lenses on EF mount.
> 
> If my EF16-35mm/4 dies then it will be a tough decision whether to replace it with another EF16-35mm or pay more for the RF14-35mm.


Doesn't that somewhat create Apple's iPad problem though? In that a used or refurbished one is a better purchase than a new "low-end" model? At retail, is the EF lens, even at lower prices, compelling compared to the RF lens?

I would imagine most people looking at the value side are considering used EF lenses. If I were looking at retail price, between the RF 100-500 or EF 100-400 II, the RF looks pretty compelling. But if I'm value conscious, why wouldn't I take a used 100-400 for $1400? Or for the 16-35 vs 14-35 question: It's $1099 vs $1699 new, or $600 used.

That "small" delta on the new RF lens means no adapter, smaller system, and perhaps better performance vis a vis the IBIS / IS cooperation. It's also newer and (usually) lighter.

And those conundrums are at full-retail for the RF lenses. Once we start seeing discounts on RF, the deltas will make new EF even less desirable.


Lens ModelEF NewRF NewEF UsedRF Weight Advantage100-400 / 100-500$2,399$2,799$1,400225 grams / 7.94oz16-35 / 14-35$1,099$1,699$60075 grams / 2.65oz24-105$1,099$1,099$67595 grams / 3.35oz


----------



## reefroamer (Sep 30, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Yes, as I said, I wasn't trying to pick on you. But people keep referring to EF-S lenses and talking as though a separate or additional mount would be needed. Of course, Canon would likely issue lenses geared toward an APS-C body (I've suggested that they would need a 15-85 and 11-22 to cover most needs of enthusiasts. ) But, it's important for people to understand (obviously you do) that unlike the old EF system, where EF-S lenses could not mount on full frame bodies and thus Canon had to modify the mount, any RF lenses geared toward crop sensor bodies would fit and work seamlessly (in crop mode) on any R body made, thus making things much simpler for both Canon and consumers.


Agree. Canon could have something like RF-C lenses, where the “C” designates Crop., Lenses designated thusly would produce cropped images when mounted on a full-frame R camera, but full-sensor images on APSC R cameras. EF-S lenses cannot mechanically fit on EF mount bodies. RF solves this for cropped lenses.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 30, 2021)

Botts said:


> Doesn't that somewhat create Apple's iPad problem though? In that a used or refurbished one is a better purchase than a new "low-end" model? At retail, is the EF lens, even at lower prices, compelling compared to the RF lens?
> 
> I would imagine most people looking at the value side are considering used EF lenses. If I were looking at retail price, between the RF 100-500 or EF 100-400 II, the RF looks pretty compelling. But if I'm value conscious, why wouldn't I take a used 100-400 for $1400? Or for the 16-35 vs 14-35 question: It's $1099 vs $1699 new, or $600 used.
> 
> ...


I would think that sensible people will look to used EF lenses. More of them on the market now as people migrate to RF. I was using 1.4x/2x TCs with my EF70-200mm/2.8ii but that isn't possible with RF70-200mm so I needed either the EF100-400mm or RF100-500mm. I had pre-ordered the RF100-500mm but cancelled due to the high price. The used EF100-400mm are really holding their value second hand in the Australian market. I waited for a 20% sale for the RF100-500mm instead and have been very happy.

I had no reason to replace my EF24-105mm until there was a 15% off sale on the RF version and then I was planning to travel to New Zealand and get the 10% GST back as well. Unfortunately, we went into lockdown a couple of days before we were flying so that was a bummer. I was planning to use it when doing helicopter flights for aerial shots.

You have left off the 100mm macro which will be another tough choice if I need to replace. I got my EF100mm second hand as I didn't expect to use it much but have used it more than I expected. The RF version is substantially higher in price. 

There are more advantages to RF besides weight eg IBIS, focus speed, size (in most cases) etc.


----------



## John Wilde (Oct 1, 2021)

Joules said:


> There is no apparent justification for Canon having launched a few cameras without 24 p video. The fact that they later updated them to add that feature shows that it was no technical issue.
> 
> Canon simply tried to apply their mantra of knowing better than the market what they want to 24 p (which, as you say, few people truly need) and disliked the response they got. So they caved in and added it back in. No point in sugar coating it for either side.


The sugar coating is that Canon listened to feedback, and resolved the issue.


----------



## drhuffman87 (Oct 1, 2021)

Since a lot of posters are just writing about what their ideal camera would be, I'll throw in my two cents. The eos R is nearly perfect for me. I would love a new version with a 30mp sensor and an upgraded processor that would allow for the newer autofocus system, consistent 8fps mechanical shutter across all autofocus modes, and uncropped 4k video with dual pixel af. They could just replace the touchbar with a dial that i would use to control iso, as i use the control ring for aperture.


----------



## drhuffman87 (Oct 1, 2021)

Botts said:


> Doesn't that somewhat create Apple's iPad problem though? In that a used or refurbished one is a better purchase than a new "low-end" model? At retail, is the EF lens, even at lower prices, compelling compared to the RF lens?
> 
> I would imagine most people looking at the value side are considering used EF lenses. If I were looking at retail price, between the RF 100-500 or EF 100-400 II, the RF looks pretty compelling. But if I'm value conscious, why wouldn't I take a used 100-400 for $1400? Or for the 16-35 vs 14-35 question: It's $1099 vs $1699 new, or $600 used.
> 
> ...


I personally think this is a win-win for canon. Each of these lenses have been upgraded to some extent, and by continuing to support the old and completely viable older glass, new lens purchasers are ensured they will able to keep their top-end glass for 40 years to come.


----------



## sanj (Oct 1, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> I would think that sensible people will look to used EF lenses. More of them on the market now as people migrate to RF. I was using 1.4x/2x TCs with my EF70-200mm/2.8ii but that isn't possible with RF70-200mm so I needed either the EF100-400mm or RF100-500mm. I had pre-ordered the RF100-500mm but cancelled due to the high price. The used EF100-400mm are really holding their value second hand in the Australian market. I waited for a 20% sale for the RF100-500mm instead and have been very happy.
> 
> I had no reason to replace my EF24-105mm until there was a 15% off sale on the RF version and then I was planning to travel to New Zealand and get the 10% GST back as well. Unfortunately, we went into lockdown a couple of days before we were flying so that was a bummer. I was planning to use it when doing helicopter flights for aerial shots.
> 
> ...


Wise.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 1, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> I would think that sensible people will look to used EF lenses. More of them on the market now as people migrate to RF.


I had no trouble selling my EF 70-300L and EF 70-200/2.8 II this past week, although both were to DSLR users not R users planning to adapt them.


----------



## David - Sydney (Oct 1, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I had no trouble selling my EF 70-300L and EF 70-200/2.8 II this past week, although both were to DSLR users not R users planning to adapt them.


Definitely different size local markets! It took a while for my EF70-200 but I was okay to wait for a higher price and went to a DLSR user. My EF24-105mm (original version) is still on the market but not much is moving with our lockdown after 4 months. 11-Oct is open up day for us.


----------



## sanj (Oct 1, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I wasn´t asking for a successor of the R because of my "needs". To me it's just obvious that in Canons lineup there would be a huge hole if there'd be no successor of the R and no camera lined up in between the RP and the R6.
> 
> In order to entice people to join a system it is not only an entry-level camera what's needed, there have to be more options to spread out later on. At the moment, if you rule out the R, you'd have:
> 
> ...


R1 will not be 'do it all'. No camera ever is. Sir.


----------



## JasonL (Oct 1, 2021)

CanonGrunt said:


> Might these be the rumored R7 & R8?


A weather sealed, burly, wildlife capable R7 and a lower build quality R8? I like the way you think!


----------



## HMC11 (Oct 1, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I wasn´t asking for a successor of the R because of my "needs". To me it's just obvious that in Canons lineup there would be a huge hole if there'd be no successor of the R and no camera lined up in between the RP and the R6.
> 
> In order to entice people to join a system it is not only an entry-level camera what's needed, there have to be more options to spread out later on. At the moment, if you rule out the R, you'd have:
> 
> ...


Your list sounds most logical unless Canon's market research somehow has a quirk or two to mess it up. Using your list for FF cameras, the pricing could well be:
R9 ($1k), R8 ($1800?), R6 ($2500), R5 ($3900), R3 ($6000), R1 ($8500?). If so, the R8 could be an attractive option for an entry-plus camera.


----------



## entoman (Oct 1, 2021)

Ian K said:


> Unlikely given there would likely be more than one of them. I did suggest that the crops could be Rc7 etc so they could have an Rc7 at the top end, Rc10, Rc100 if they wanted too. Then the R10 would be the logical successor to the R and the R100 for the RP.
> 
> As I say if the have the R7 as a crop there are no numbers between the R6 and R7 for the R and RP models, unless they are going to mix the two sensor sizes across the numbering.


My suggested nomenclature:

Full frame sports & reportage: R1, R3
Full frame wildlife/enthusiast: R5
Full frame affordable: R6, R9

Crop sports/wildlife: R7
Crop novice/affordable: R60, R600

Canon have used single digit designation previously for both FF and crop bodies (7D), so there’s nothing to stop them doing it again. And it would make a lot of sense for a crop sports camera to follow the old “7” designation.


----------



## kaihp (Oct 1, 2021)

HMC11 said:


> Your list sounds most logical unless Canon's market research somehow has a quirk or two to mess it up. Using your list for FF cameras, the pricing could well be:
> R9 ($1k), R8 ($1800?), R6 ($2500), R5 ($3900), R3 ($600), R1 ($8500?). If so, the R8 could well be an attractive option for an entry-plus camera.


I'll take three R3's at that price


----------



## HMC11 (Oct 1, 2021)

kaihp said:


> I'll take three R3's at that price


Duly corrected


----------



## reef58 (Oct 1, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Can you say which higher end models omit the intervalometer? The 1D X III has it. Generally, a feature like that is introduced in a particular model then added to all subsequent models.
> 
> Like @LogicExtremist’s erroneous example of focus bracketing, which was introduced on the RP and has been included on cameras released since then including the 90D and M6II. They don’t go back and add such features to older cameras, which is why the lower-end RP has focus bracketing but the higher-end R doesn’t. That’s not the same as omitting, though.
> 
> I guess checking your facts before you post is too much trouble for some people. Here’s a tip: if you want to argue that low end cameras are ‘crippled’ stick to the AF point-linked spot metering that only 1-series cameras have (as long as you ignore film cameras); if you want to argue that high end cameras are ‘crippled’ stick to the in-camera HDR that no 1-series has (but the R3 will).


I can't find one in my 1dx3, but I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes to tech.


----------



## reef58 (Oct 1, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I had no trouble selling my EF 70-300L and EF 70-200/2.8 II this past week, although both were to DSLR users not R users planning to adapt them.


The 70-300l is such a great lens, but takes a beating 2nd hand. I will probably just keep mine until it dies.


----------



## AEWest (Oct 1, 2021)

entoman said:


> My suggested nomenclature:
> 
> Full frame sports & reportage: R1, R3
> Full frame wildlife/enthusiast: R5
> ...


I fail to understand why Canon would need two sports/PJ models to compete against each other.


----------



## entoman (Oct 1, 2021)

AEWest said:


> I fail to understand why Canon would need two sports/PJ models to compete against each other.


If you’re referring to the R3 and R1, I’m not sure either, as the specs of the R1 are anyone’s guess. Perhaps the R1 will have higher resolution, even faster burst speeds, even better AF, even more efficient eye-control, better battery performance, global shutter? Who knows?

If you’re referring to the R3 and the “R7”, the difference is the sensor size, which will allow more reach with any given lens, and enable the use of less expensive and lighter lenses of shorter focal length to obtain a given angle of view.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 1, 2021)

AEWest said:


> I fail to understand why Canon would need two sports/PJ models to compete against each other.


An R3 released now and an R1 released in 2024 would not really be competing against each other.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 1, 2021)

reef58 said:


> I can't find one in my 1dx3, but I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes to tech.


Indeed...


neuroanatomist said:


> My turn for a mea culpa. I read a review that indicated the 1D X III has an intervalometer, but searching the cameras instruction manual that does not seem to be the case.


----------



## BurningPlatform (Oct 1, 2021)

Joules said:


> That's an impossible conversion. If you slow down or speed up your footage, that causes issues, especially with audio, and if you just skip a frame per second, that's not great either.
> 
> Not sure what your point is though. If Canon had thought their initial action was optimal, why didn't they stick with it?


Well, the reverse is true every day here in Europe. All 24 fps movies are shown on TV in 25 fps. We are enjoying slightly condensed movies with a bit higher pitch. No problem for the average viewer. However, try to mix 24 fps clips with 25 fps clips in your video timeline and you have problems.


----------



## Joules (Oct 1, 2021)

BurningPlatform said:


> Well, the reverse is true every day here in Europe. All 24 fps movies are shown on TV in 25 fps. We are enjoying slightly condensed movies with a bit higher pitch. No problem for the average viewer. However, try to mix 24 fps clips with 25 fps clips in your video timeline and you have problems.


So, what?

As I said, no point in sugar coating either side. Using 24 p isn't really a good idea for most of the market (neither is 25 in my opinion, as your average media is consumed on a 60 Hz Laptop, PC or Smartphone instead of a variable refresh rate TV or display anyway. Biased opinion obviously, as I don't even own a TV). Nonetheless, a very vocal and presumably large protion of the market _values_ the option of using 24 p very highly. From what we can tell, Canon misjudged this value and initally left of the feature, only to correct their course to better meet their tarket markets requirements.

Values are subjective. I really don't see why it is in any way unreasonable to not support either side in this argument.


----------



## Ian K (Oct 2, 2021)

entoman said:


> My suggested nomenclature:
> 
> Full frame sports & reportage: R1, R3
> Full frame wildlife/enthusiast: R5
> ...


But there has never been a crop camera with a number lower than a full frame camera. Your numbering puts the R9 at FF and R7 at APS-C


----------



## Ian K (Oct 2, 2021)

reefroamer said:


> Agree. Canon could have something like RF-C lenses, where the “C” designates Crop., Lenses designated thusly would produce cropped images when mounted on a full-frame R camera, but full-sensor images on APSC R cameras. EF-S lenses cannot mechanically fit on EF mount bodies. RF solves this for cropped lenses.


Pretty sure they’ve already said there will never be an RF-S mount lens system. I expect that goes for -C also. If you want crop just turn it on.


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 2, 2021)

Ian K said:


> But there has never been a crop camera with a number lower than a full frame camera. Your numbering puts the R9 at FF and R7 at APS-C


My expectation is that if there's a crop R series, it will be Rxx, and all the single digit models will be FF.


----------



## Ian K (Oct 2, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> My expectation is that if there's a crop R series, it will be Rxx, and all the single digit models will be FF.


Which is fine but you can’t then have an R7 as the best crop body.


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 2, 2021)

Ian K said:


> Which is fine but you can’t then have an R7 as the best crop body.


I expect much online outrage if that happens


----------



## entoman (Oct 2, 2021)

Ian K said:


> But there has never been a crop camera with a number lower than a full frame camera. Your numbering puts the R9 at FF and R7 at APS-C


My designations were a suggestion, not a prediction.

R7 would be the logical designation for a crop replacement for the 7DMkii.

There’s no number in between R6 and R7 for a RP replacement. Canon have stated that there will be no “RP Mkii”, and FF cameras never have a double-digit name. So IMO the most likely remaining possibility is R9, which would leave place for a future R8 to be slotted in.

Of course, it’s entirely possible that they might continue with a double-letter designation, and call the RP replacement e.g. “RX”. Either way, I’m sure Canon will have thought seriously about the nomenclature of the new generation RF cameras, and that it will follow a logical pattern.


----------



## BurningPlatform (Oct 2, 2021)

Joules said:


> So, what?
> 
> As I said, no point in sugar coating either side. Using 24 p isn't really a good idea for most of the market (neither is 25 in my opinion, as your average media is consumed on a 60 Hz Laptop, PC or Smartphone instead of a variable refresh rate TV or display anyway. Biased opinion obviously, as I don't even own a TV). Nonetheless, a very vocal and presumably large protion of the market _values_ the option of using 24 p very highly. From what we can tell, Canon misjudged this value and initally left of the feature, only to correct their course to better meet their tarket markets requirements.
> 
> Values are subjective. I really don't see why it is in any way unreasonable to not support either side in this argument.


My reply was meant to be a joke, sorry about that. I do agree with you. (Showing 24p footage speeded up to 25 fps is not a conversion). Some people want 24p, that seems to be a fact.


----------



## DBounce (Oct 3, 2021)

I think with the rising popularity of RF Mount anamorphic lenses it would be great if canon enabled open gate mode on these cameras as well as the full frame R3, R5C. The 4:3 aspect ratio would be well suited to anamorphic that have more aggressive squeeze factors.


----------



## st jack photography (Oct 3, 2021)

Botts said:


> Doesn't that somewhat create Apple's iPad problem though? In that a used or refurbished one is a better purchase than a new "low-end" model? At retail, is the EF lens, even at lower prices, compelling compared to the RF lens?
> 
> I would imagine most people looking at the value side are considering used EF lenses. If I were looking at retail price, between the RF 100-500 or EF 100-400 II, the RF looks pretty compelling. But if I'm value conscious, why wouldn't I take a used 100-400 for $1400? Or for the 16-35 vs 14-35 question: It's $1099 vs $1699 new, or $600 used.
> 
> ...


I am glad that EF work well on R bodies, but I do not like the adapters, and many EF lenses are not sweet 9-bladed lenses, they have 8 blades, ugly bokeh and sunstars, and really soft edges. The EFs also, when used on a R body, do not have focus peaking kick in the second you override the one-shot AF. THAT FEATURE alone (for some or even many shooters) is worth getting or waiting on an RF lens and not fooling with EF. Plus I also think the distance displayed in the VF is not present in EF using an R body.
I have a friend that still uses a 5D Classic and strict manual focus. She dislikes all newer Canon stuff, and is convinced things have changed so little that it isn't worth the money to switch. I think she is mad, but nonetheless she make great compositions and blows them up large with her 24-105 mark 1 and her 5d classic.
I acknowledge her art, that the tools can give an edge but not much of one, and if people still like EF, then great. I, on the other hand, am 110% done with EF regardless of the "deal", because to me the differences are very noticeable and worth it.


----------



## TravelerNick (Oct 4, 2021)

DBounce said:


> I think with the rising popularity of RF Mount anamorphic lenses it would be great if canon enabled open gate mode on these cameras as well as the full frame R3, R5C. The 4:3 aspect ratio would be well suited to anamorphic that have more aggressive squeeze factors.



The R3 has open gate. Doesn't it? How else is it shooting 6k?


----------



## LogicExtremist (Oct 4, 2021)

Mikehit said:


> I don't think you understand the meaning of the phrase 'bad faith'. How is it 'bad faith' when the specs are clearly stated when the product is announced and released?
> Canon did, once, many years ago produce two cameras that had near-identical funtionality and some functions were 'turned off' in the cheaper model. Then someone found a hack to access them. The flack they got was severe and I don't believe they have ever done this again - so AFAIK if the functionality is not in listed it is not programmed in (or built in) at any level. Unless, of course you can prove differently.
> But please tell me which manufacturer does not differentiate models on functionality? In any technological field?
> 
> ...


I actually do understand that being dodgy in dealing with customers through questionable marketing releases and misinformation is acting in bad faith. 

Seriously, how can people ignore the blatantly obvious mismatch between actual engineering specs and stated marketing specs! We've been through this before on every forum, with the R5 overheating denialist fanboys who don't want to see and acknowledge a reality that doesn't sit comfortably with their brand-loyalty consumerist tribalism...

As an example, with the R5, we have a hybrid camera that is marketed in the initial hype phase before release with all the focus on 8K video recording, with very little mention on its capabilities as a stills camera. Turns out the R5 is a mighty fine stills camera, with decent 4K video, 8K is not really usable, and they might release an R5 more focused on video:

Rumored Canon EOS R5c could fix the Canon EOS R5's video weaknesses - https://www.techradar.com/news/rumored-canon-eos-r5c-could-fix-the-canon-eos-r5s-video-weaknesses
The Canon EOS R5c is coming in Q1 2022 [CR3] - https://www.canonrumors.com/the-canon-eos-r5c-is-coming-in-q1-2022-cr3/ 

We get promises of high frame rates in the advertising, R5 can do 20fps, but if we dig through the fine print we get a long list of obscure qualifiers that aren't even hinted at anywhere! 

Here are the specs from the Canon web site currently:


Continuous Shooting - Max. ApMax. Approx. 12fps. with Mechanical shutter or 20fps with electronic shutter speed maintained for 350 JPEG or 180 RAW images 6 7
The little superscript numbers at the end of the statement tell us there's more to it, information which wasn't available pre-release or post release, people had to dig through their manuals in the fine print to find, it, and it's now in the fine print at the bottom of the Canon page:

6. Max Frames per second will vary depending on the battery type, if Wi-Fi is turned on, operating temperature lens used and file size. The number of possible shots and maximum burst vary depending on shooting conditions (including [1.6x (crop)], aspect ratio, subject, memory card brand, ISO speed, Picture Style, and Custom Function). The speeds quoted are based on testing with the following settings: Shutter speed 1/1000 sec. or faster, Aperture Maximum aperture, Flash Not used, Flicker reduction Not used, Battery pack Fully charged LP-6NH, Temperature Room temperature (23°C / 73°F). Battery grip or WFT-R10 Not used, Wi-Fi settings OFF.

7. Max Frame rates for stills can vary between lenses and aperture setting used


Realistically. and what Canon is telling us here, is that those maximum frame rates are only possible using RF lenses of particular focal lengths, and only at certain apertures, with fully charged batteries, with certain memory cards, with specific ISO settings, with WiFi switched off, and only when shooting outdoors, because flicker reduction needs to be switched off also, and only when the weather is not too warm!

To use your photocopier example, if Canon's marketing segmentation used for camera products was used with photocopiers, was used, it would more like this:

Entry level cameras photocopiers would have lots of useful; features and offer great value for money.
Midrange photocopiers would offer faster printing rates, higher resolutions, and better build quality, but would be missing network connectivity, you need to buy the next tier for that.
Top tier models would offer faster printing, higher resolution, and a longer duty cycle for continuous operation, and all have network connectivity. All top tier models will come with a collator, high capacity paper tray, and automatic stapler, but some of these would be disabled in firmware depending on which top-tier model is selected below the flagship model.
With the flagship model, there would be a single extra versatile function limited in firmware, like artificially locking out the highest level of high colour and high resolutions output that the hardware is capable of, to push you to buy their dye sublimation printer range which costs many times more

That would be more accurate comparison, which would be just as bad, and hopefully illustrates more clearly what I was saying!


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 4, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> I actually do understand that being dodgy in dealing with customers through questionable marketing releases and misinformation is acting in bad faith.
> 
> Seriously, how can people ignore the blatantly obvious mismatch between actual engineering specs and stated marketing specs! We've been through this before on every forum, with the R5 overheating denialist fanboys who don't want to see and acknowledge a reality that doesn't sit comfortably with their brand-loyalty consumerist tribalism...
> 
> ...


Have you ever had to deal with leasing photocopiers? The reality is quite close to what you describe already.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Oct 4, 2021)

TravelerNick said:


> How many R6 users are shooting for hollywood and NEED 24? 25 is TV/video in Europe. 30 in North America.
> 
> Did they take out 23.97? That's important for some users.
> 
> At some point you're limited by the amount of memory inside the box. Even just a software feature can mean deleting something else.


Some people prefer to shoot 24fps for various reasons, if it wasn't necessary, it would stand to reason that none of Canon's hybrid digital cameras would include it. It's there because there is a market demand for it. Individuals have different preferences, and the options of including the here come at no extra cost.

The argument of hardware limitations (insufficient memeory) being the reason fro excluding 24fps video is just an assumption, and doesn't stand up to scrutiny, considering that some of Canon's highest and lowest spec cameras support it:

Canon R5 video modes that support 24 fps

8K DCI (17:9) 8192 x 4320 (29.97, 25, *24*, 23.98 fps) RAW, intra or inter frame 
4K DCI (17:9) 4096 x 2160 (119.9, 100, 59.94, 50, 29.97, 25, *24*, 23.98 fps) intra or inter frame 


Canon M50 ideo modes that support 24 fps
4K video, at *24* fps, or 25.00 fps (when video recording is set to “PAL”)
Full HD video (1920 x 1080), at 60 fps, 30 fps, or *24* fps

The above was copied from Canon's website.

It's not just Hollywood that needs 24fps video.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Oct 4, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> Have you ever had to deal with leasing photocopiers? The reality is quite close to what you describe already.


If they're using the same marketing strategies, I wouldn't be surprised! 

Canon does have a laser copier product line. I wonder if the Canon cripple hammer works across other product divisions!!!


----------



## TravelerNick (Oct 4, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> Some people prefer to shoot 24fps for various reasons, if it wasn't necessary, it would stand to reason that none of Canon's hybrid digital cameras would include it. It's there because there is a market demand for it. Individuals have different preferences, and the options of including the here come at no extra cost.
> 
> The argument of hardware limitations (insufficient memeory) being the reason fro excluding 24fps video is just an assumption, and doesn't stand up to scrutiny, considering that some of Canon's highest and lowest spec cameras support it:
> 
> ...



Arguing you need 24 FPS and that 25 is a hardship is the video equivalent of complaining your car lacks five point racing harness while ignoring the lack of seats.

And I challenge anybody to drop a 25 FPS clip into a 24 FPS and find people who notice.

And no audio isn't an issue. You just unlink the audio. Of course if you REALLY cared about 24 FPS you'd almost certainly be using an external recorder.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Oct 4, 2021)

TravelerNick said:


> Arguing you need 24 FPS and that 25 is a hardship is the video equivalent of complaining your car lacks five point racing harness while ignoring the lack of seats.
> 
> And I challenge anybody to drop a 25 FPS clip into a 24 FPS and find people who notice.
> 
> And no audio isn't an issue. You just unlink the audio. Of course if you REALLY cared about 24 FPS you'd almost certainly be using an external recorder.


Hi TravelerNick, that's the logical fallacy known as the strawman argument, to equate what I said to "24 FPS and that 25 is a hardship", without addressing either of my arguments that I proposed - Canon including 24fps because of its utility and usefulness to parts of its customer base, and its inclusion being hardware independent.

Would you ague the opposite of what I've stated, and claim that Canon is including outdated standards in its cutting edge tech, or that the Canon M50 hardware is more capable than that of the R6? I would think not, so you have no argument with me.

If you're asking about me personally, I don't own an R6, I don't care about 24fps. and shoot video at 25fps! 
Like I said, just because you or I don't use something, it doesn't logically follow that it's useless and that nobody else wants or needs it. To assume that what applies to one part of something will apply to the whole is the logical fallacy of composition and division.

Thanks though for providing a practical solution for those who can't shoot 24fps, but need to drop their 25fps video footage into a 24 fps timeline.


----------



## DBounce (Oct 4, 2021)

TravelerNick said:


> The R3 has open gate. Doesn't it? How else is it shooting 6k?


It crops the top and the bottom for a DCI format video. The resolution for the 6K video is (6000 x 3164) or 18.98MPs. The stills resolution is 24MPs. The full sensor height is only used for still image capture. Conversely, the Panasonic cameras are able to use the full sensor height for both stills and video.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 4, 2021)

Traveler said:


> I’d like to see a eos R mark II. Smaller body than R6 (just like the original R) and top LCD. Doesn’t have to be 4K 60fps or 12/20fps shooting.



I'd be very surprised if Canon introduces another R body cheaper than the R6 which has a top LCD. I think that ship has sailed for all but the upper tier bodies.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 4, 2021)

tangerine_sedge said:


> That would be great, because then I could buy a reduced price iv



Canon was discounting the 5D Mark IV to around $1,999 in the U.S. a while back. You missed the boat on that one. 

With supply shortages everywhere I doubt you'll see a camera that capable at that price for a long, loooooong time, if ever again.


----------



## Deleted (Oct 10, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> I actually do understand that being dodgy in dealing with customers through questionable marketing releases and misinformation is acting in bad faith.
> 
> Seriously, how can people ignore the blatantly obvious mismatch between actual engineering specs and stated marketing specs! We've been through this before on every forum, with the R5 overheating denialist fanboys who don't want to see and acknowledge a reality that doesn't sit comfortably with their brand-loyalty consumerist tribalism...
> 
> ...


I have tried an R5 with EF lenses and you can get the full 12/20 fps on some of them. All canon cameras have the limitations you list, always have. Take a lens wide open vs f22 and that hints at why it slows down. Moving those blades takes time, less noticeable at 5fps, go to 10+ and repeatedly stopping down takes time and effort.

All brands have similar limitations, some of which are far from forthcoming in how extreme they are. Canon seem one of the better brand at putting that info out.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Oct 11, 2021)

Distinctly Average said:


> I have tried an R5 with EF lenses and you can get the full 12/20 fps on some of them. All canon cameras have the limitations you list, always have. Take a lens wide open vs f22 and that hints at why it slows down. Moving those blades takes time, less noticeable at 5fps, go to 10+ and repeatedly stopping down takes time and effort.
> 
> All brands have similar limitations, some of which are far from forthcoming in how extreme they are. Canon seem one of the better brand at putting that info out.


Thanks, that's precisely my point, it does take time to move the mechanical components in lenses, so the burst rate can vary.

I think Canon's accuracy in advertising regarding camera burst rates varies from model to model. With many earlier and lower tier models, there is often a huge disparity between claimed burst rates and real world use figures. 

Previous burst rates quoted were with a fixed focus, which bears no semblance to real world use, as high burst rates are used for moving subjects, not stationary ones, so the camera auto focus will need to track the subject and refocus between shots, which slows things down. This is less of an issue with the specefications of the newer and better cameras which have very fast AF systems.


----------



## Deleted (Oct 11, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> Thanks, that's precisely my point, it does take time to move the mechanical components in lenses, so the burst rate can vary.
> 
> I think Canon's accuracy in advertising regarding camera burst rates varies from model to model. With many earlier and lower tier models, there is often a huge disparity between claimed burst rates and real world use figures.
> 
> Previous burst rates quoted were with a fixed focus, which bears no semblance to real world use, as high burst rates are used for moving subjects, not stationary ones, so the camera auto focus will need to track the subject and refocus between shots, which slows things down. This is less of an issue with the specefications of the newer and better cameras which have very fast AF systems.


Fixed focus is probably the only way to sensibly measure things. For instance, on my 7D2 I could AF fully and get 10fps. I checked a few times, tracking kingfishers and swif. Why did I check? At the time a well known photographer and maker of flash diffusers was adamant the 7D2 could not achieve 10fps. My testing was wide open with the 100-400II. Had I used a really old EF lens with its Noisy motor then I am sure my frame rate would have dropped. There are so many lenses, lots of setup variables and also different environmental conditions that the spreadsheet to list it all would be huge, as would the time taken to test every combination. So fps has to be measured with as few variables as possible or the user would end up really struggling with the data.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Oct 12, 2021)

Distinctly Average said:


> Fixed focus is probably the only way to sensibly measure things. For instance, on my 7D2 I could AF fully and get 10fps. I checked a few times, tracking kingfishers and swif. Why did I check? At the time a well known photographer and maker of flash diffusers was adamant the 7D2 could not achieve 10fps. My testing was wide open with the 100-400II. Had I used a really old EF lens with its Noisy motor then I am sure my frame rate would have dropped. There are so many lenses, lots of setup variables and also different environmental conditions that the spreadsheet to list it all would be huge, as would the time taken to test every combination. So fps has to be measured with as few variables as possible or the user would end up really struggling with the data.


Agreed, measuring FPS from a fixed focus is an efficient way to standardise the testing, because it's almost impossible to standardise a moving subject for testing purposes. 

The real point of concern is the discrepancy between real technical specs and the more malleable marketing specs, which usually omit critical information or qualifiers. Usually, camera companies are more discerning and accurate with the numbers when it comes to cameras built for high burst rates, such as the ID nad 7D series, but are a bit more 'creative' with those specifications on lower models that aren't used for specifically that purpose, probably because no general consumer is going to complain too much I guess.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 16, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> Agreed, measuring FPS from a fixed focus is an efficient way to standardise the testing, because it's almost impossible to standardise a moving subject for testing purposes.
> 
> The real point of concern is the discrepancy between real technical specs and the more malleable marketing specs, which usually omit critical information or qualifiers. Usually, camera companies are more discerning and accurate with the numbers when it comes to cameras built for high burst rates, such as the ID nad 7D series, but are a bit more 'creative' with those specifications on lower models that aren't used for specifically that purpose, probably because no general consumer is going to complain too much I guess.


So what is your solution? Instead of complaining, give us an example of what they should be saying, considering their camera is capable of achieving those specs.
How are they any different to the other manufacturers (especially Sony).


----------



## LogicExtremist (Oct 26, 2021)

Mikehit said:


> So what is your solution? Instead of complaining, give us an example of what they should be saying, considering their camera is capable of achieving those specs.
> How are they any different to the other manufacturers (especially Sony).


I already have proposed a solution in the original comment by explaining the difference between real-world technical specs, which are qualified as necessary to truly indicate what performance a buyer can realistically expects, vs throwaway 'advertising specs' which are inaccurate. Obviously, more or the former, less of the latter.

Not sure what Sony does with their advertising, only have one of their compact cameras and it delivered on advertised specs, but if others are doing the wrong thing, that doesn't make it right to do the same. That's known as the 'bandwagon' logical fallacy of 'everyone is doing it', the problem is that the popularity of something does not logically validate it as right.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 27, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> I already have proposed a solution in the original comment by explaining the difference between real-world technical specs, which are qualified as necessary to truly indicate what performance a buyer can realistically expects, vs throwaway 'advertising specs' which are inaccurate. Obviously, more or the former, less of the latter.


So what conditions should they use as their 'real world'? A fast moving subject where the AF is working harder? darker conditions where the AF takes longer to lock on? How dark/bright? A half-full battery or a third-full battery? A 600mm tele with 2x converter or a 50mm plastic fantastic or a 24-105 f4?
You have the same problem with CIPA battery life - are you shooting with all functions turned on? short bursts? long bursts? tracking? 
It would be impossible to give 'real world' situations for all customers in all genres.

I have sympathy with your comments with your comments but dong what is required is near impossible.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 5, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Canon left the 5D s in the lineup long after they dropped the 5DIII (which is the body they used). Was that because it took them that long to recover the costs and make a profit?



The 5Ds and 5Ds R weren't just a high resolution sensor put into a 5D Mark III body. They had some things that the 5D Mark III did not which then showed up in the 5D Mark IV.

Flicker reduction, for example. Also DiG!C 6 (mark III had DiG!C 5).


----------

