# What’s next from Canon?



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 25, 2022)

> As with any camera launch, this time the Canon EOS R7 and Canon EOS R10, the day after has people asking “what’s next?”. We get it, that’s what we’re in the business of.
> The information about what’s next is fairly vague, but we think there are some realistic rumors floating around.
> The next RF mount camera will be a full-frame model and it won’t be the Canon EOS R1, as we expect that at some point in 2023, even if folks wish it was coming sooner. With Canon still having issues meeting the demand for the Canon EOS R3, I think that expecting new tech from Canon in the near term is unlikely.
> We will see a replacement or two for the Canon EOS R...



Continue reading...


----------



## neurorx (May 25, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



I'm hoping for the RF 135mm and 35mm for the holiday season!


----------



## subtraho (May 25, 2022)

Still hanging onto hope for those rumored compact DO long primes like the 500mm f/4.5.


----------



## fastprime (May 25, 2022)

35mm 1.2


----------



## H. Jones (May 25, 2022)

subtraho said:


> Still hanging onto hope for those rumored compact DO long primes like the 500mm f/4.5.



From what I can tell from colleagues that have gotten ahold of the new Nikon 800mm F6.3 PF, there seems to be some solid agreement that slightly slower + DO is significantly more usable in the field than the ISO lost by the third of a stop or any image quality changes from the DO. I haven't heard any real complaints about the 800. Same thing goes for the Nikon 500mm F/5.6, which is a lens I'm honestly very jealous of and would buy in a heartbeat if it was an RF lens.

Honestly for the 400mm F/4 and 500 F/4, these are "lighter" options of the supertelephoto line-up to begin with, so if a third or half a stop can shave even a little bit of weight off, I think that's a lot better of an option than sticking to the same formula.


----------



## USMarineCorpsVet (May 25, 2022)

By the time the R1 arrives, it will be another step further behind the competition's flagships...


----------



## H. Jones (May 25, 2022)

Also, on the lens line-up, there's still a separate "RF 18-45mm F/4-5.6" listed for RF lenses, as well as the new RF-S 18-45mm F/4-6.3. These are the same lenses, right? 

So then with that said, we only really have the TS-R 14mm and 24mm lenses, 10-24mm F/4, 35mm F/1.2, 135mm F/1.4, 24mm F/1.8 macro, and 500mm left?


----------



## jolyonralph (May 25, 2022)

I think we'll see an R5 Mark II and R6 Mark II sooner rather than later. The R and RP will possibly be discontinued, we'll probably see the R5 and R6 Mark 1 remain in production and moved to a lower price point, with the R6 Mark 1 being priced competitively as an RP replacement.

With modern photography becoming increasingly reliant on computational power, the need for regular upgrades with faster CPUs, more internal RAM, etc, is likely to move to a faster refresh cycle than the traditional 3-4 year cycle for DSLRs. 

I think they'll also follow Sony's trick and keep the Mark 1 R5 and R6 in production simultaneously for a long time. No point in developing new lower-cost cameras when you already have a production line set up for an existing model. Maybe the R and RP will struggle on even longer if they can't get the R5 and R6 down to a low enough unit cost.


----------



## John Wilde (May 25, 2022)

I don't know if they will, but Canon should release a 55-200 RF-S lens. That size is often available for sale in a bundle with an APS-C camera body. Even Nikon has a Z-DX lens in that range. And of course, that size is also available in EF-S and EF-M.


----------



## Maximilian (May 25, 2022)

I'd like to see an RP successor.

Either a lottery win or an RP successor with better sensor an VF could draw me into the R system.
I don't want to sell a kidney or kid


----------



## lustyd (May 25, 2022)

It seems obvious now they've confirmed that RF-S will have M sized lenses that each of the M lens offerings will be converted over the coming couple of years. I imagine the 11-22 will come along when the M6ii replacement R camera arrives (vertical screen and no viewfinder, better mics hopefully), which also feels like a no brainer to fill the vlogger gap. They'd also want to fill the M200 gap for ultra portables before letting M series go.
Whether they can create these with the larger mount while keeping the smaller sizes I don't know, but hopefully they can.


----------



## fox40phil (May 25, 2022)

Still no high MP fullframe body incoming? Ok..
I hope there is much more then this roadmap =/. Still hoping for a f1.8 135mm! f1.4 sounds way to big and heavy... just a small one like the one from Sony.
For wide angle I will stay at EF for a big while. Because of the nice filter adapter. But still hoping for a nice TS-E ... 14mm sounds awesome! They should not kick the TC compatibility here...


----------



## fox40phil (May 25, 2022)

R7 II ? .... with higherend body, BSI sensor without rolling shutter etc... please!


----------



## padam (May 25, 2022)

jolyonralph said:


> I think we'll see an R5 Mark II and R6 Mark II sooner rather than later. The R and RP will possibly be discontinued, we'll probably see the R5 and R6 Mark 1 remain in production and moved to a lower price point, with the R6 Mark 1 being priced competitively as an RP replacement.


The R5 and R6 are selling well, and the R3 and R5C have just joined the party as well as an addition for those want more for video.
So I don't think there is any incentive to upgrade those models at all (or to reduce the price).

It is way more likely that with the Mark II generation they go straight to BSI sensors.

They can expand lower-down however, if they remove the IBIS from the R6 (that has wobbling issues anyway for wide-angle video) and fit the smaller battery with the cheaper displays, they have quite an attractive entry-level FF model. But based on the R and RP, maybe they use a different sensor that is higher resolution and better for stills but less capable for video.


----------



## subtraho (May 25, 2022)

H. Jones said:


> From what I can tell from colleagues that have gotten ahold of the new Nikon 800mm F6.3 PF, there seems to be some solid agreement that slightly slower + DO is significantly more usable in the field than the ISO lost by the third of a stop or any image quality changes from the DO. I haven't heard any real complaints about the 800. Same thing goes for the Nikon 500mm F/5.6, which is a lens I'm honestly very jealous of and would buy in a heartbeat if it was an RF lens.
> 
> Honestly for the 400mm F/4 and 500 F/4, these are "lighter" options of the supertelephoto line-up to begin with, so if a third or half a stop can shave even a little bit of weight off, I think that's a lot better of an option than sticking to the same formula.



Yeah, the 500 f/5.6 PF is a lens that makes me question my brand loyalty, haha. I'd also love an RF native version of Sony's excellent internal zoom 200-600 G.


----------



## vangelismm (May 25, 2022)

RP/R sucessor must have IBIS and dual slot but where the cripple hammer will hit to protect the R6 and R7?


----------



## Teebaybay (May 25, 2022)

*Cough No Record Limit on the R5 and R6 in 1080p and 4K24/4K30 Cough*


----------



## allanP (May 25, 2022)

fox40phil said:


> R7 II ? .... with higherend body, BSI sensor without rolling shutter etc... please!


... and Design of R5. Current design of the R7 is a disappointment, as was the R too. Why all that? Ergonomics of the R5 and R6 is ideal. Never change working system! By the way, that should be called R90 and not R7. Too bad I won't buy this camera.


----------



## amorse (May 25, 2022)

jolyonralph said:


> I think we'll see an R5 Mark II and R6 Mark II sooner rather than later. The R and RP will possibly be discontinued, we'll probably see the R5 and R6 Mark 1 remain in production and moved to a lower price point, with the R6 Mark 1 being priced competitively as an RP replacement.
> 
> With modern photography becoming increasingly reliant on computational power, the need for regular upgrades with faster CPUs, more internal RAM, etc, is likely to move to a faster refresh cycle than the traditional 3-4 year cycle for DSLRs.
> 
> I think they'll also follow Sony's trick and keep the Mark 1 R5 and R6 in production simultaneously for a long time. No point in developing new lower-cost cameras when you already have a production line set up for an existing model. Maybe the R and RP will struggle on even longer if they can't get the R5 and R6 down to a low enough unit cost.


I want this to be true, but I can't help but think the R5 is still moving well enough and comparing favourably enough with other comparable cameras that they may hold off. Maybe a sort of "half upgrade" like Sony seems to do where they update the sensor every other generation?

I've been holding off replacing my 5DIV for a higher-resolution version of the R5, but the longer the wait the more I think that isn't going to happen. I'm kind of thinking I'll lose patience and end up with an R5II if they can improve battery life - I really wish they'd move on from LP-E6 series batteries but with the R7 taking the LP-E6N, my bet is that will remain the standard for the next while regardless.


----------



## SHAMwow (May 25, 2022)

Really missing an L 35mm. I don't mind waiting, but no news of it is tough. Or that 135mm actually.


----------



## bf (May 25, 2022)

Lens: a response to z800pf; probably a DO lens!
Crop: RF-s 22f2, 11-22, and 55-200 sound like low-hanging fruits.
EOS M6-Mkiii with Digic X: a most have IMO!


----------



## bergstrom (May 25, 2022)

Zero point in making it most affordable if its most restricted. R6 is still WAY too expensive, with so many complaints about it. My switch to mirrorless will hang on the R2 or RP2. It / They should have no recording limit, or increase it to 60-90 mins at least, proper full uncropped 4k and get rid of that Goddam LP E17 and no overheating. And maybe, just maybe introduce new security features, passcode or something , in case its stolen.


----------



## bergstrom (May 25, 2022)

allanP said:


> ... and Design of R5. Current design of the R7 is a disappointment, as was the R too. Why all that? Ergonomics of the R5 and R6 is ideal. Never change working system! By the way, that should be called R90 and not R7. Too bad I won't buy this camera.



These 2 crop cameras are just redundant


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 25, 2022)

jolyonralph said:


> I think we'll see an R5 Mark II and R6 Mark II sooner rather than later. The R and RP will possibly be discontinued, we'll probably see the R5 and R6 Mark 1 remain in production and moved to a lower price point, with the R6 Mark 1 being priced competitively as an RP replacement.
> 
> With modern photography becoming increasingly reliant on computational power, the need for regular upgrades with faster CPUs, more internal RAM, etc, is likely to move to a faster refresh cycle than the traditional 3-4 year cycle for DSLRs.
> 
> I think they'll also follow Sony's trick and keep the Mark 1 R5 and R6 in production simultaneously for a long time. No point in developing new lower-cost cameras when you already have a production line set up for an existing model. Maybe the R and RP will struggle on even longer if they can't get the R5 and R6 down to a low enough unit cost.



But the R5 won't simply become cheaper to manufacture just because Canon will release an updated model.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 25, 2022)

bergstrom said:


> These 2 crop cameras are just redundant



Redundant, why? The R7 is not perfect but for that price is great and the best sports/wildlife camera many will be able to buy.


----------



## unfocused (May 25, 2022)

vangelismm said:


> RP/R sucessor must have IBIS and dual slot but where the cripple hammer will hit to protect the R6 and R7?


Nope. Maybe IBIS (50/50 chance). Hard no on dual slot.


----------



## gregedwards69 (May 25, 2022)

Showing Ef-m a little love would be nice. Unlikely, but one can hope.


----------



## unfocused (May 25, 2022)

jolyonralph said:


> I think we'll see an R5 Mark II and R6 Mark II sooner rather than later. The R and RP will possibly be discontinued, we'll probably see the R5 and R6 Mark 1 remain in production and moved to a lower price point, with the R6 Mark 1 being priced competitively as an RP replacement.
> 
> With modern photography becoming increasingly reliant on computational power, the need for regular upgrades with faster CPUs, more internal RAM, etc, is likely to move to a faster refresh cycle than the traditional 3-4 year cycle for DSLRs.
> 
> I think they'll also follow Sony's trick and keep the Mark 1 R5 and R6 in production simultaneously for a long time. No point in developing new lower-cost cameras when you already have a production line set up for an existing model. Maybe the R and RP will struggle on even longer if they can't get the R5 and R6 down to a low enough unit cost.


I disagree with almost all of this.

Has Canon ever kept an older version in the lineup once a newer version is released? Maybe on Rebels and they may have done that with the XX series for a limited time, but not on X series cameras.

As @blackcoffee17 said, cameras don't become cheaper to manufacture when a new model is released.

There is no way Canon will reduce the price of the R6 to RP territory. 

Update cycles aren't driven by technology, they are driven by revenue strategies. In a shrinking market one can argue that refresh cycles might get longer, not shorter, to give Canon more time to recover costs. 

I could see substantial rebates offered on the R and RP to bring down the cost of entry into the full frame system. It is plausible that they would do that rather than introduce new budget models as a temporary strategy.


----------



## unfocused (May 25, 2022)

allanP said:


> ... and Design of R5. Current design of the R7 is a disappointment, as was the R too. Why all that? Ergonomics of the R5 and R6 is ideal. Never change working system! By the way, that should be called R90 and not R7. Too bad I won't buy this camera.


Well, since your avatar says you have switched to medium format, you probably were never in the target audience anyway.


----------



## sanj (May 25, 2022)

USMarineCorpsVet said:


> By the time the R1 arrives, it will be another step further behind the competition's flagships...


Noo


----------



## jd7 (May 25, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> But the R5 won't simply become cheaper to manufacture just because Canon will release an updated model.


I'd be very surprised if manufacturing cost is very relevant at all to Canon's asking price for an R5. For an item like that, any manufacturer wants to be pricing on demand, not cost.


----------



## Jethro (May 25, 2022)

Adrian Ford said:


> Would love to see a camera that is rough and ready for all kinds of conditions but isn't going to cost a fortune.


And whenever I see a goose, I look under it for a golden egg.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 26, 2022)

fox40phil said:


> R7 II ? .... with higherend body, BSI sensor without rolling shutter etc... please!



Well, the 7D Mark II was what the original 7D _should_ have been. So there is that precedent to uphold.


----------



## Jethro (May 26, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I could see substantial rebates offered on the R and RP to bring down the cost of entry into the full frame system. It is plausible that they would do that rather than introduce new budget models as a temporary strategy.


I always saw the R and RP as temporary fixes (based on old sensors and specs from the 5D IV and 6D2). It makes sense to me for newly designed lower-priced FF bodies to soon be introduced to take over the price points the R and RP filled. There were multiple rumours last year of >1 new FF body coming, and maybe supply-chain issues have delayed them.


----------



## David - Sydney (May 26, 2022)

unfocused said:


> As @blackcoffee17 said, cameras don't become cheaper to manufacture when a new model is released.


You are correct that new model don't make existing models cheaper except for:
- shared production steps
- shared parts where higher volumes are ordered

What does change when new models are released is that existing models would have moved into volume production/cash cow phases

Cameras (and other manufactured products) go through a product/cost lifecycle where there are:
- up front R&D costs
- initial production with higher costs for:
- manufacturing until the production process is bedded down and
- parts are ordered in smaller quantities and generally that means higher prices
- volume production with larger batch runs (lower setup costs per unit) and parts ordered in higher volumes
- cash cow phase where R&D costs have basically been amortised and production efficiencies are implemented
- discontinuation with higher costs when (generally) the volumes sold are lower, more inventory on the shelves and last time part orders are made


----------



## David - Sydney (May 26, 2022)

The roadmap is a bit of a furphy as it is a combination of recently released lenses and additions after the fact. 
The RF5.2 dual fisheye was never forecast and only "rumored" a couple of days before release.
The 18-45mm wasn't in a RFs list
There is no RF300mm prime which should be an obvious lens in the forecast

Except for the RF18-45mm (which I think it should be removed now that the RFs 18-45mm has been released) and the RF24/1.8 macro, they are all specialty/high cost lenses (TS-E, f1.2/1.4 super tele, super wide).

So let's revisit the RF roadmap and see where the gaps are between EF and RF now. The obvious one for me are pancake lenses

Canon (besides the 800/1200) have added extra features to their RF versions vs EF equivalents to justify their price premium which indicates that they are happy to have 2 price points of RF and adapted EF lenses as long as people want to buy them. Over time (a long time?), EF lenses will be discontinued in favour of RF but which ones first?


----------



## john1970 (May 26, 2022)

The Canon R1 arriving in 2023 makes perfect sense to me. It provides Canon ample time to obtain feedback on the R3 and incorporate feedback into the R1. Honestly, as someone who exclusively uses the R3 I am sort of glad that the R1 is not being rushed. Let Canon take the time and work out all the details on the flagship camera. I suspect that we will have a R1 announcement within a year. If Canon ships a R1 in Q4 2023 that would basically be four years since the 1Dx Mk3.


----------



## jd7 (May 26, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I disagree with almost all of this.
> 
> Has Canon ever kept an older version in the lineup once a newer version is released? Maybe on Rebels and they may have done that with the XX series for a limited time, but not on X series cameras.
> 
> ...


I don't have a view about whether Canon is likely to start keeping older models on sale after a newer version is released (although as you say, Canon hasn't been in the habit of doing that), and I don't expect to see an R6 for an RP price any time soon. However, there are a couple of points in your post where I disagree (FWIW!  ).

First, I would be very surprised if camera gear, at least anything above the very cheapest entry level models, are priced on cost. I am confident they are priced primarily on demand, ie what will the market pay. So I doubt the fact that cameras don't beceome cheaper to manufacture just because a new model is released is particulary important in itself. Canon is simply trying to sell camera gear for as much money as it can, so ideally it will push consumers towards higher profit models (generally, higher end and/or newer models, I expect). If you assume a new model will command a price premium and hence will be more profitable, keeping an old model around may not be a good idea (assuming a sale is less profitable) if it means too many buyers opt for the old one. Equally though, assuming the newer model really is better than the old one and if the cameras can be in two different price classes (eg what Sony has done with the A7IV relative to the A7III), keeping the old model on the market at a relatively low price may make a lot of sense to target different groups of buyers without going to the trouble of developing another model.

Second, I think it is a fallacy to think Canon needs or necessarily wants to recover the costs of a model before introducing a new model. Canon wants to sell camera gear as profitably as it can. If that means retiring a model and replacing it, so be it. (The statements you so often see on the internet where someone claims Canon (or some other manufacturer) is not doing something because they don't want to cannibalise sales of their other products drive me crazy. Yes, manufacturer's engage in product differentiation to try to increase their overall profitability, but primarily a manufacturer cares that you buy one of its products rather than someone else's product, and whether you buy the manufacturer's product X or product Y is much less significant. Further, I expect many costs are shared across multiple models to some degree or another, so I doubt it is easy to allocate all costs to a model specifically in any event. For example, I am sure a lot of R&D goes into AF systems and the AF system which ends up in a particular cameras is both an evolution of the AF system in earlier cameras and part of the development process which will lead to the AF system in future cameras. I think you can see that quite clearly in the mirrorless era, where newer model cameras (eg Canon R7, Sony A7IV) inherit AF systems similar to those in much higher end cameras (eg Canon R3, Sony A1). AF functions such as eye-tracking are heavily software dependent, so (I expect) it is cheaper for a manufacturer to have one code base and deploy it in all cameras, rather than developing separate sofware just because cameras are in different classes in other respects. And, of course, that doesn't mean the lower end cameras will necessarily have the same AF performance as a higher end camera, given that inevitably there will be hardware differences. As someone else (Neuro, I think from memory) has pointed out in a recent post on CR, the R3 has a sensor with a higher readout speed than the sensor in an R7, which allows the R3's AF system to receive information more quickly, which at least theoretically should allow the R3's AF system to perform better than the AF system on an R7, despite other similarities between the AF systems on the two cameras.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (May 26, 2022)

But where's the high-megapixel R5S?
They've mirrored basically the whole DSLR line, but not the 5DS.


----------



## unfocused (May 26, 2022)

jd7 said:


> I don't have a view about whether Canon is likely to start keeping older models on sale after a newer version is released (although as you say, Canon hasn't been in the habit of doing that), and I don't expect to see an R6 for an RP price any time soon. However, there are a couple of points in your post where I disagree (FWIW!  ).
> 
> First, I would be very surprised if camera gear, at least anything above the very cheapest entry level models, are priced on cost. I am confident they are priced primarily on demand, ie what will the market pay. So I doubt the fact that cameras don't beceome cheaper to manufacture just because a new model is released is particulary important in itself. Canon is simply trying to sell camera gear for as much money as it can, so ideally it will push consumers towards higher profit models (generally, higher end and/or newer models, I expect). If you assume a new model will command a price premium and hence will be more profitable, keeping an old model around may not be a good idea (assuming a sale is less profitable) if it means too many buyers opt for the old one. Equally though, assuming the newer model really is better than the old one and if the cameras can be in two different price classes (eg what Sony has done with the A7IV relative to the A7III), keeping the old model on the market at a relatively low price may make a lot of sense to target different groups of buyers without going to the trouble of developing another model.
> 
> Second, I think it is a fallacy to think Canon needs or necessarily wants to recover the costs of a model before introducing a new model. Canon wants to sell camera gear as profitably as it can. If that means retiring a model and replacing it, so be it. (The statements you so often see on the internet where someone claims Canon (or some other manufacturer) is not doing something because they don't want to cannibalise sales of their other products drive me crazy. Yes, manufacturer's engage in product differentiation to try to increase their overall profitability, but primarily a manufacturer cares that you buy one of its products rather than someone else's product, and whether you buy the manufacturer's product X or product Y is much less significant. Further, I expect many costs are shared across multiple models to some degree or another, so I doubt it is easy to allocate all costs to a model specifically in any event. For example, I am sure a lot of R&D goes into AF systems and the AF system which ends up in a particular cameras is both an evolution of the AF system in earlier cameras and part of the development process which will lead to the AF system in future cameras. I think you can see that quite clearly in the mirrorless era, where newer model cameras (eg Canon R7, Sony A7IV) inherit AF systems similar to those in much higher end cameras (eg Canon R3, Sony A1). AF functions such as eye-tracking are heavily software dependent, so (I expect) it is cheaper for a manufacturer to have one code base and deploy it in all cameras, rather than developing separate sofware just because cameras are in different classes in other respects. And, of course, that doesn't mean the lower end cameras will necessarily have the same AF performance as a higher end camera, given that inevitably there will be hardware differences. As someone else (Neuro, I think from memory) has pointed out in a recent post on CR, the R3 has a sensor with a higher readout speed than the sensor in an R7, which allows the R3's AF system to receive information more quickly, which at least theoretically should allow the R3's AF system to perform better than the AF system on an R7, despite other similarities between the AF systems on the two cameras.


I don't think anything you said conflicts with my comments. I certainly agree that actual manufacturing costs are a small factor in pricing decisions. 

But, I was reacting to the suggestion that Canon would reduce the price of the R6 and sell it as a replacement for the RP. I do doubt that an R6 could be manufactured and sold at that price point (especially since there would still need to be sufficient markup for retailers to make some profit) And even if they could, I doubt that they would, if for no other reason that almost everyone who bought the R6 at the original price would suddenly become disgruntled Canon customers. Certainly manufacturers, including Canon, do reduce the price of older models, but not by more than half and they generally don't keep the product in their lineup after they have cut the price. 

I suppose it is possible that Canon might introduce a new model before recovering the cost of a previous model, but that's clearly not a sustainable strategy. The OP was suggesting that the pace of technological change would drive Canon to permanently shorten the refresh cycle of its bodies. A permanent shortening of the refresh cycle would necessarily require that Canon can recover its costs and make a profit in a shorter time period. They only way to make more money in less time is to either sell more units or increase the per unit margin. No one on this forum has access to the data to make an intelligent guess whether that is possible or not, but I am highly skeptical that Canon could afford to permanently shorten the refresh cycle in a shrinking market where DSLR sales have plummeted and Mirrorless sales have basically flatlined. (See the Chart below from @dolina.) 




dolina said:


>


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 26, 2022)

unfocused said:


> ... in a shrinking market where DSLR sales have plummeted and Mirrorless sales have basically flatlined. (See the Chart below from @dolina.)


That's a nice graphic that @dolina made, thanks for reposting it.

What strikes me is that while DSLR sales have plummeted, they _appear _to be bottoming out at only slightly lower than MILC sales, and the latter have been basically flat since CIPA started tracking them separately from DSLRs. (Note that I highlight appear, because two points don't confirm a trend, but a further piece of evidence to support the idea that they're bottoming out comes from Canon's financials, where they stated just that, i.e. 'the low end of the market is bottoming out', and based on MSRP the DSLRs comprise the low end).

But also worth noting is that the above data are unit sales. Revenues tell a different story, one where DSLRs plummet deeper and MILCs show growth.


----------



## GoldWing (May 26, 2022)

USMarineCorpsVet said:


> By the time the R1 arrives, it will be another step further behind the competition's flagships...


Canon's release of the R1 was put off because of Nikon's Z9. After the Depression, the camera will be scrapped altogether.


----------



## SnowMiku (May 26, 2022)

If they release two new full frames, what numbers will they use for the entry level full frame? Perhaps RP mk II to replace the RP? I can't think of the number they would use for the model below the R6, I think using R8 would be a bit confusing as a full frame model since R7 is APS-C but it could still work.


----------



## josephandrews222 (May 26, 2022)

I am aware of the high level of enthusiasm that the 7D fanboys have for the R7. 

But I have doubts about how well the R7 (and R10, for that matter) will sell. 

Here’s why. 

For years and years, Best Buy stores in my area had, on display, 4-6 different Canon DSLR bodies… and yes, most of these were outfitted with APS-C sensors. 

My oh my today’s high-quality cellphone cameras have decimated this particular market, too…and for the past couple or three years, those same Best Buy stores have drastically reduced their display and shelf space for interchangeable lens cameras from all manufacturers. 

I don’t think this market segment will ever recover. I hope it does, but I have serious reservations…

But, I think that both the R5 and R6 will continue to sell well—Canon has mastered the art of selling big-ticket items. People who read this forum, for example, know what they want and are willing to pay for it. 

The low-end, though, I just don’t see it.


----------



## unfocused (May 26, 2022)

josephandrews222 said:


> I am aware of the high level of enthusiasm that the 7D fanboys have for the R7.
> 
> But I have doubts about how well the R7 (and R10, for that matter) will sell.
> 
> ...


I don't think either the R7 or the R10 could be called low end. I tend to think Canon has a pretty good handle on their markets and would not make cameras that won't sell.


----------



## unfocused (May 26, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> That's a nice graphic that @dolina made, thanks for reposting it.
> 
> What strikes me is that while DSLR sales have plummeted, they _appear _to be bottoming out at only slightly lower than MILC sales, and the latter have been basically flat since CIPA started tracking them separately from DSLRs. (Note that I highlight appear, because two points don't confirm a trend, but a further piece of evidence to support the idea that they're bottoming out comes from Canon's financials, where they stated just that, i.e. 'the low end of the market is bottoming out', and based on MSRP the DSLRs comprise the low end).
> 
> But also worth noting is that the above data are unit sales. Revenues tell a different story, one where DSLRs plummet deeper and MILCs show growth.


Good points. I think many people buying their first (and probably only) interchangeable lens camera are looking for something that says "real camera" and that is still a DSLR. Plus, nothing really matches the price points of Rebels. It is interesting that for their first two APS-C R cameras, Canon aimed for the higher end. They may yet release a series of Rebel-style R bodies, but they aren't leading with that.


----------



## addola (May 26, 2022)

I want a Canon full-frame camera with the new AF features that comes with the DIGIC X cameras, and has about 30 MP sensor (24 MP minimum) with simar IQ to R6 or R5, and has the updated multi-accessories hot shoe (because I am tired of wires). Price it at about $2500


----------



## esglord (May 26, 2022)

Take the R6, drop a card slot, compromise video slightly, bump it up to 30mp and sell it for $1800 as the R mkii


----------



## David - Sydney (May 26, 2022)

unfocused said:


> (See the Chart below from @dolina.)


The chart is certainly interesting but the initial mirrorless data point in 2012 is troubling... I am assuming that it covers interchangeable lens bodies.

Why would they start at ~4m/year? I can understand a ramp up over time but a big bang in 2012 seems unlikely
Sony bought Minolta in 2006 and moved from DLSR to SLT in 2010 but would that be considered mirrorless? SLT was discontinued in 2012
They also added E mount in 2010 and the A99 in 2012 as their first full frame mirrorless body. Only the NEX series was available in 2012 with the a7 starting in 2013.

So what were all the MILC cameras sold in 2012?

The lack of variability over time ie staying around 3-4m/year for 10 years now seems not to include phones taking over the low end of the market. Surely it was not only DLSRs that suffered from this market disruption.


----------



## Franklyok (May 26, 2022)

fox40phil said:


> R7 II ? .... with higherend body, BSI sensor without rolling shutter etc... please!


I have had so many still cameras… I really want to experience “C” autofocus and improved video side…

Perhaps R7C and this time leave the IBIS in for still side.


----------



## allanP (May 26, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Well, since your avatar says you have switched to medium format, you probably were never in the target audience anyway.


Medium format is a different photo section. I use both worlds (act. R3 and R5). This was more DSLR world related. I need to fix my avatar


----------



## allanP (May 26, 2022)

bergstrom said:


> These 2 crop cameras are just redundant


I would rather say anything but perfect


----------



## Del Paso (May 26, 2022)

So many CR members, so many different wishes and hopes.
Mine would be: the R3 with the R5 sensor. That's all, folks!


----------



## koenkooi (May 26, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> So many CR members, so many different wishes and hopes.
> Mine would be: the R3 with the R5 sensor. That's all, folks!


I wonder what the reverse would cost: an R5 with the R3 sensor and EVF. It would beat the both the R6 and R5 on speed in all ways. But I'm not sure how it would fit into the line up.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 26, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> The chart is certainly interesting but the initial mirrorless data point in 2012 is troubling... I am assuming that it covers interchangeable lens bodies.
> 
> Why would they start at ~4m/year? I can understand a ramp up over time but a big bang in 2012 seems unlikely
> Sony bought Minolta in 2006 and moved from DLSR to SLT in 2010 but would that be considered mirrorless? SLT was discontinued in 2012
> ...


The underlying data are from CIPA. The blue bars are ILCs. They also report fixed-lens cameras (i.e. P&S and ‘bridge’) but those aren’t in the chart.

Prior to 2012, they did not separately report MILC vs DSLR, but both are ILCs and were included as such. That’s why there’s no ramp up for mirrorless.

The plot by @dolina is incorrect (and misleading) in that he should have started the DSLR line in 2012 along with the MILC line. Instead, he plotted DSLRs as comprising all ILCs up to 2011, when in fact we don’t know the breakdown of MILC/DSLR prior to 2012 (but almost certainly MILCs would have ramped up over a few years as you suggest).


----------



## Exploreshootshare (May 26, 2022)

esglord said:


> Take the R6, drop a card slot, compromise video slightly, bump it up to 30mp and sell it for $1800 as the R mkii


I’d hit the preorder button right now!


----------



## Exploreshootshare (May 26, 2022)

My guess was/ is the following line-up: 

R1 (coming in 2023) 
R3 
R5 - R5c - R5s

I guess canon will wait for the Sony A 7RV to arrive and then decide what sensor the high resolution camera will receive. My guess is 77-80mp if Sony doesn’t up the mp (as rumors suggest). That way, canon could use a 100mp sensor in 5-7 years (niche cameras have longer cycles)

R6 (mk II in 2023) 
R7 
R8 (R successor coming in Q1/2 in 2023) 

Given the fps specs and ibis for the R7, an R successor at the aimed price point between RP and R6, would at least need IBIS and about 12 Fps. So Canon will have to release an R6 Mk II to differentiate further (e.g. 24 MP BSI sensor) otherwise they’ll either hurt their R6 sales or release a crippled R8… 

R9 (RP successor coming in 2022) 

Please consider: These are all guesses based on my opinion, not facts or rumors which I imply as facts. 
For the time being, Canon can continue to sell the R/ RP as entry models. Besides FPS, the R is a really good camera and great value for money. If you don’t shoot sports/ wildlife, it really is a steal imho.


----------



## Snowleopard1970 (May 26, 2022)

Interesting times. I own an R5 and I am very pleased with the performances. I need a second body for redundancy for a remote expedition next March. Price set aside, should I jump on the R7 soon available or is it plausible that an R1 with all it’s very desirable features be available in time for March 2023 ? A second R5 would be too much of the same thing, an R6 is not suited for wildlife without carrying a big white and the same goes for the R3. I would like ( and will probably do ) upgrade to an R1 but the best camera is always the one you have available. Any thoughts ?


----------



## gregedwards69 (May 26, 2022)

josephandrews222 said:


> For years and years, Best Buy stores in my area had, on display, 4-6 different Canon DSLR bodies… and yes, most of these were outfitted with APS-C sensors.
> 
> My oh my today’s high-quality cellphone cameras have decimated this particular market, too…and for the past couple or three years, those same Best Buy stores have drastically reduced their display and shelf space for interchangeable lens cameras from all manufacturers.


If the US photography market is anything like the UK It's quite sad that shops like Best Buy (and Currys in the UK) are about the only bricks and mortar camera shops left. There used to be at least 4 photographic shops in my local area. All gone. You can only buy cameras locally in Currys and Argos.

That said, I don't think that the stock Currys and Argos carry - and probably Best Buy, is truly representative of what many photography enthusiasts actually want.


----------



## josephandrews222 (May 26, 2022)

gregedwards69 said:


> If the US photography market is anything like the UK It's quite sad that shops like Best Buy (and Currys in the UK) are about the only bricks and mortar camera shops left. There used to be at least 4 photographic shops in my local area. All gone. You can only buy cameras locally in Currys and Argos.
> 
> That said, I don't think that the stock Currys and Argos carry - and probably Best Buy, is truly representative of what many photography enthusiasts actually want.


Your point here is a good one.

A very good one.

Which leads to a question, though (no snark intended)...

Who, exactly, are photography enthusiasts? How is the 'enthusiast' category defined?

And to what degree do what these 'enthusiasts' purchase contribute to Canon's bottom line...compared with those who walked into Best Buy (in the USA) and bought a Canon Rebel XYZ?

I mean...Canon sold MILLIONS of those cameras...film (think Andre Agase ads from the film days) as well as digital (early 21st century).

I very much enjoy (most of!) the back-and-forth on this forum and others like it...and genuinely look forward to seeing what is next for Canon.

But I just don't see the market exploding in a good way...for both the R7 and the R10. 

Could be wrong...!


----------



## josephandrews222 (May 26, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I don't think either the R7 or the R10 could be called low end. I tend to think Canon has a pretty good handle on their markets and would not make cameras that won't sell.


Good point (as far as the R7 is concerned).

My brain, when I wrote that...was here: the R7 is not cheap. People who buy one are probably already in the Canon ecosystem...in a big way (financially). Other than frame rate and price difference, personally, what I've seen of the specs etc. for the R7...are not compelling enough to 'invest' in yet another Canon mount (RF-S). 

And if I'm reading things right...the RF-S 18-150 lens specs are virtually identical to the EF-M 18-150!

Are these two lenses, other than mount, virtually identical?

People here crap all over the quality of the images produced by the EF-M 18-150 (and many of the other EF-M lenses as well!)...

So the R7 demands a better (kit) lens than that...right?

This is no problem for those invested in Canon glass already...

I just really wonder who is going to buy the R7 (beyond enthusiasts)...I guess price and frame rate considerations make it a reasonable facsimile of an R3?

Fun stuff!


----------



## Del Paso (May 26, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> I wonder what the reverse would cost: an R5 with the R3 sensor and EVF. It would beat the both the R6 and R5 on speed in all ways. But I'm not sure how it would fit into the line up.


Could indeed be interesting!


----------



## Del Paso (May 26, 2022)

GoldWing said:


> Canon's release of the R1 was put off because of Nikon's Z9. After the Depression, the camera will be scrapped altogether.


Thanks for the precious insights, Nostradamus...


----------



## unfocused (May 26, 2022)

gregedwards69 said:


> If the US photography market is anything like the UK It's quite sad that shops like Best Buy (and Currys in the UK) are about the only bricks and mortar camera shops left. There used to be at least 4 photographic shops in my local area. All gone. You can only buy cameras locally in Currys and Argos.
> 
> That said, I don't think that the stock Currys and Argos carry - and probably Best Buy, is truly representative of what many photography enthusiasts actually want.


Digital killed local camera shops. 

It was a slow death but the fatal blow came when local shops no longer had film, chemicals and paper to sell. For shops aimed at enthusiasts and pros, it was those peripheral products that were the daily bread and butter of local shops. A camera or a lens was a one-time sale, but it was all the extras that provided the day-to-day revenue stream. 

When I was a youth, I spent far more on feeding my habit through darkroom supplies than I ever spent on cameras and lenses and while I could order a camera through the mail, it was impractical to order darkroom supplies that way. Most camera shops also developed and printed photos as well, which added to their revenue stream. 

Of course, there also used to be a daily newspaper in every decent sized town. I'm pretty sure the local paper I worked at after college provided a significant source of revenue to the local camera shop because we bought a LOT of paper, film and chemicals from them.


----------



## josephandrews222 (May 26, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Digital killed local camera shops.
> 
> It was a slow death but the fatal blow came when local shops no longer had film, chemicals and paper to sell. For shops aimed at enthusiasts and pros, it was those peripheral products that were the daily bread and butter of local shops. A camera or a lens was a one-time sale, but it was all the extras that provided the day-to-day revenue stream.
> 
> ...


...more good points here. I learned a lot...some of which I'd thought previously.

I saw the daily newspaper angle you're supplying here from the sports side of things--the stadia and arenas had, in some cases, rather significant space necessary for the newspaper photographers to work up their own film images, in order to 'beat' deadlines.


----------



## USMarineCorpsVet (May 26, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> So many CR members, so many different wishes and hopes.
> Mine would be: the R3 with the R5 sensor. That's all, folks!


I think a lot of people would love a camera like that. The low resolution of the R3 is a big negative for many people. Especially when Sony and Nikon are offering 45+ mpx


----------



## Del Paso (May 26, 2022)

The R3 with R5 sensor would be for me the ideal macro (eye AF) and landscape camera (integrated grip). Ergonomics are simply perfect!
Or the R5 with eye control AF, perfect for "windy" AF macro shots.


----------



## gregedwards69 (May 26, 2022)

josephandrews222 said:


> Your point here is a good one.
> 
> A very good one.
> 
> ...



No snark detected. TBH I just couldn’t think of a better word for what I was trying to infer. I don’t think there is a distinction between different types of camera buyers, other than “professional” i.e. someone who makes a living from photography. Nor do I know how the "enthusiast" category is defined. 

To me, an enthusiast, or hobbyist is someone who is passionate about photography and invests significant time and money into their hobby, building a camera system, learning techniques, managing a DAM, and enjoys spending time editing. (I see the same thing in guitar circles. There are guys I know who have more, and higher-end gear than touring artists just to play down the dog n duck every other weekend). 

This is a big assumption, but I think this is a different target than your typical Best Buy (or Currys) customer who doesn’t typically venture beyond the kit lens. A cliché, but these are perhaps “soccer moms” (as they’re known in the US), bloggers/vloggers, or tourists who want something better than their smartphone. 

It’s been frequently said that the EOS M series is the best selling mirrorless camera in Japan. This doesn't mean these users are "photographers" or they want to take the art form seriously beyond getting some nice bokeh and sharing straight to social media with minimal editing. 

But clearly, these are canon's biggest market and they would be foolish to ignore it. Perhaps this is why it's difficult to buy something a little more specialised from a physical shop, there's just not the market to stock for the few demanding customers. 

Completely my humble opinion with what little knowledge if have in such matters along with some major assumptions. Always happy to be educated by more knowing individuals.


----------



## josephandrews222 (May 26, 2022)

What a wonderful and enlightening response.

Thank you.

Your humble opinion is at least the equal of mine.

And this is a rumor site! It is all supposed to be fun...and if I learn stuff along the way--winner winner chicken dinner!

To borrow a phrase from your side of the Atlantic (and olde England, in fact?!), the whole M vs R-S thing has me 'bollixed'.

I literally don't understand (actually, I think I do, sort) why so many here crap on the EF-M efforts by Canon...and am puzzled by the demand (?!) for the R7 etc.

...and writing this caused me to look up the entymology of bollix. Testicles?! My oh my you Brits!

bollix (v.)
"bungle, make a mess of," 1937, a respelling (perhaps euphemistic) of bollocks, *from Old English beallucas "testicles," from Proto-Germanic *ball-, from PIE root *bhel- (2) "to blow, swell."* From 1919 as an interjection, "nonsense!" Related: Bollixed; bollixing.


----------



## masterpix (May 26, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


In my view, and some can question it, Canon next camera will be the R1, then a next RP which will be a FF version of the R10. The R replacement is probably the R6, for I don't see a reason for something between then R6 and R5. Especially when the will produce the R5s/rs soon.


----------



## David - Sydney (May 27, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> The underlying data are from CIPA. The blue bars are ILCs. They also report fixed-lens cameras (i.e. P&S and ‘bridge’) but those aren’t in the chart.
> 
> Prior to 2012, they did not separately report MILC vs DSLR, but both are ILCs and were included as such. That’s why there’s no ramp up for mirrorless.
> 
> The plot by @dolina is incorrect (and misleading) in that he should have started the DSLR line in 2012 along with the MILC line. Instead, he plotted DSLRs as comprising all ILCs up to 2011, when in fact we don’t know the breakdown of MILC/DSLR prior to 2012 (but almost certainly MILCs would have ramped up over a few years as you suggest).


That makes more sense!
Assuming that the ramp up of MILCs was up to 2012, what would be a logical reason for MILC sales to stay relatively stable for 10 years vs dramatic change in DLSR sales? 
For me, the rise of the camera phone is logical and has replaced compact cameras but they weren't in the ILC figures. I can see that there would have been some impact to both DLSR and MILC but it doesn't show here.
Canon and Nikon didn't have MILCs in the early years so Sony was the only volume seller but the consistent volume couldn't just be for Canon/Nikon switchers - could it?


----------



## lustyd (May 27, 2022)

gregedwards69 said:


> If the US photography market is anything like the UK It's quite sad that shops like Best Buy (and Currys in the UK) are about the only bricks and mortar camera shops left. There used to be at least 4 photographic shops in my local area. All gone. You can only buy cameras locally in Currys and Argos.
> 
> That said, I don't think that the stock Currys and Argos carry - and probably Best Buy, is truly representative of what many photography enthusiasts actually want.


John Lewis too if you're lucky enough to have one in your town.

I think the real problem is that taking photos with an actual camera is extremely niche in 2022 and becoming more so by the day. I think there will be a resurgence of "camera shops" but they won't cater to photography, they'll cater to content creation with video and streaming at their heart - lots of studio gear, microphones, streamdecks, lighting, and a few good video cameras. It's quite interesting reading the comments on this and other camera sites of what those in the taking pictures niche think should be in a high end camera, often dismissing cameras like the M system which outsells the top end stuff by orders of magnitude. If Canon and others want to stay in business they need to go where the money is, and that's likely to split quite drastically between extremely high end pro photography and cameras for content creation (read video, thumbnail and instagram content) which won't be optimised for taking pictures at all. Not only will the mid-range not be on the high street, I would very much expect the midrange to disapear over the coming years as it loses profitability. I can actually see a future where Canon brings in a range of consumer devices like RED with no screen, no viewfinder, no mic etc. but lots of accessories and configurability, and those will likely come to the high street.

Unfortunately it's a bit of a feedback loop too. Lower availability will lead to fewer customers which will lead to lower availability which will lead to even fewer customers which will lead to reduced ranges and consolidation of manufacturers.


----------



## lustyd (May 27, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Digital killed local camera shops.


Arguably it was the lack of need for cameras that killed camera shops. Everyone already has a camera in their pocket all day every day, why would they buy another? The latest iPhone is not even comparable to the type of 35mm camera average consumers used to buy, multiple lenses, high definition, clear in focus images that they can send to their friends in seconds having already edited and processed them.


----------



## fox40phil (May 27, 2022)

BSI is not IBIS .
BSI is back side illuminated Sensor!
This is also perfect and needed for videos.


Franklyok said:


> I have had so many still cameras… I really want to experience “C” autofocus and improved video side…
> 
> Perhaps R7C and this time leave the IBIS in for still side.


----------



## USMarineCorpsVet (May 27, 2022)

josephandrews222 said:


> What a wonderful and enlightening response.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> ...


I think the question has been answered. Those buying Rebels and M cameras are not the type of people who even are aware a forum like this exists. Those here are very passionate about photography and skew to the higher end gear and technical specs.


----------



## gregedwards69 (May 27, 2022)

josephandrews222 said:


> What a wonderful and enlightening response.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> ...


It is a shame that EF-M gets derided so much. Perhaps it's simple gear snobbery? Again, I've seen the same thing in guitar circles, looking down on the cheaper end of the market, such as Squier and Epiphone, when in fact they are turning out some wonderful instruments these days, but people just look at the price tag and assume it's crap. I used to play several higher-end instruments, but these days my favourite basses are both from the budget end of the market. _Unlike _cameras, the main cost difference between a low end and high-end instrument is the ratio of automated and handcrafting involved.

One would assume that camera price differences is largely down to the technology packed inside. But it's worth remembering that this technology trickles down to the lower end. Even the budget end of the market is arguably as good or in some cases better than the high end from a number of years ago. It wasn't exact;y high end at the time. but my humble EOS M5 pisses all over my old Dynax 7000i.

There is a place for products like EF-M. Partly, it's for casual users like me who perhaps sit below that"enthusiast" bracket I described. I like photography, but it's not my main passion and I know I don't take anywhere near the number of photos as I could but I want a versatile system for holidays. trips and specific scenarios, but otherwise, it's usually my phone that gets the snapshots. And like my guitars, these days I just can't justify anything more expensive for not a lot more return on my investment. That said, whilst I'm happy Canon is keeping EF-M going, I think its days are numbered. Once RF-S matures and the technology trickles down I think it will replace EF-M as the budget-conscious Canon MILC option. It will certainly be easier and more cost-effective for canon to produce cameras and lenses with a single mount.

------

FWIW. We tend to say _bollocksed _rather than _Bollixed _- I think the latter is more "urban". It's such a useful and versatile word and a testament to the evolution of the English language. It can be a curse word if you make a mistake (bollocks), if something is broken (bollocksed), a term for being drunk (I got absolutely bollocksed last night!), or exhausted (I'm completely bollocksed), work hard (I'm working my bollocks off here)or even an expression of how amazing something is (that's the dogs bollocks - aka mutts nuts, or poodles plums).

I'm not often patriotic, but we Brits are world leaders in colourful and creative flair with their swear words (with the possible exception of the Australians)!


----------



## BroderLund (May 27, 2022)

> Canon will address the Cinema EOS lineup in August we have been told, we believe that we’ll see some 8K options for the lineup.


Looking forward to more news on this over the summer


----------



## josephandrews222 (May 27, 2022)

gregedwards69 said:


> It is a shame that EF-M gets derided so much. Perhaps it's simple gear snobbery? Again, I've seen the same thing in guitar circles, looking down on the cheaper end of the market, such as Squier and Epiphone, when in fact they are turning out some wonderful instruments these days, but people just look at the price tag and assume it's crap. I used to play several higher-end instruments, but these days my favourite basses are both from the budget end of the market. _Unlike _cameras, the main cost difference between a low end and high-end instrument is the ratio of automated and handcrafting involved.
> 
> One would assume that camera price differences is largely down to the technology packed inside. But it's worth remembering that this technology trickles down to the lower end. Even the budget end of the market is arguably as good or in some cases better than the high end from a number of years ago. It wasn't exact;y high end at the time. but my humble EOS M5 pisses all over my old Dynax 7000i.
> 
> ...


(Speaking of guitars and guitarists...!)

So Robert Fripp, here:







 tinyurl.com/yck85377

...in the 'out-takes', is uttering the word 'bollocks' because he has made a mistake with his guitar? *Perhaps he is a bit distracted. *Thanks of the clarification!

I had an M5 but returned it--I prefer the smaller sized Ms as well as the M6 and M6MkII, both of which have the option of attaching an electronic viewfinder.

Volume-and-mass...are the advantages of the M format (as you say, for holidays and trips).

Our oldest daughter lived and worked in Oxford UK for nearly a decade (left due to Brexit-related policies).

Small cameras were the rule when we visited her and the European continent. I would be simply amazed if Canon ceded the small ILC market to their competitors.

She traveled to parts of Europe 'on holiday' several times...with Canon gear in hand, including the original M as well as the M10....most times with the tiny 22mm pancake attached. TBH, I bothered her a bit and asked to her to send lots of pictures. She did...and grew quite comfortable with the M (no previous DSLR experience). I never could get her to try a Rebel...she doesn't want to look like a tourist photographer.

And indeed, her vocabulary, upon her (permanent) return to the USA...is a bit more diverse than when she started at Oxford.


----------



## gregedwards69 (May 27, 2022)

josephandrews222 said:


> (Speaking of guitars and guitarists...!)
> 
> So Robert Fripp, here:
> 
> ...


My first M was the M3 and I quickly added the EVF after realising how cumbersome the camera could sometimes be without a viewfinder when I took it on my honeymoon, which was the first time I got to use it extensively. It was a very useful little accessory and made the M3 quite compact without it attached whilst paired with the 22mm. But in the long run, I found using the EVF a bit of a faff - having to remove it every time I wanted to take a selfie or use the hot-shoe. I was always worried it would get knocked off and I'd lose it as well. This is one of the reasons I replaced it with the M5 (as well as the improved AF, touch and drag, and improved connectivity).

As I've mentioned on another thread, I'm tempted to pick up a used original M, or maybe an M100 for a more compact pocketable solution. But TBH, it's more a "want" than anything purposeful. I use my iPhone for everyday snapshots rather than get my camera out.

You might be onto something about Europeans' preference for more compact travel cameras. I certainly feel more comfortable carrying my stuff in a small unmarked shoulder bag than toting a large branded gadget bag around that screams "rob me". And being such a diverse continent, we often take short city breaks and travel quite light, usually hand luggage only. I also wonder if European style, fashion and culture come into play, the preference for a compact system that fits better with these sensibilities. (admittedly, I love the looks of Fuji gear, partly for this reason). And I rarely see a white L series lens outside of a press pit on TV. Perhaps I'm making a sweeping generalisation but you don't see many tourists wearing those flack jackets things in Europe, stuffed to the gills with every accessory they own. Is this more of a US thing, or a cliché that doesn't really exist?

Consider as well, perhaps due to the prevalence of smartphones, people are not that bothered if you point a small camera at them in public. Point a big lensed DSLR at them and they are a lot less comfortable, sometimes very defensive. There's also a rise in some tourist sites banning tripods and 'professional photography'. Unfortunately, this is usually policed by non-photographers who think a big camera = professional. They'd likely baulk at an entry-level Rebel!


----------



## josephandrews222 (May 27, 2022)

gregedwards69 said:


> My first M was the M3 and I quickly added the EVF after realising how cumbersome the camera could sometimes be without a viewfinder when I took it on my honeymoon, which was the first time I got to use it extensively. It was a very useful little accessory and made the M3 quite compact without it attached whilst paired with the 22mm. But in the long run, I found using the EVF a bit of a faff - having to remove it every time I wanted to take a selfie or use the hot-shoe. I was always worried it would get knocked off and I'd lose it as well. This is one of the reasons I replaced it with the M5 (as well as the improved AF, touch and drag, and improved connectivity).
> 
> As I've mentioned on another thread, I'm tempted to pick up a used original M, or maybe an M100 for a more compact pocketable solution. But TBH, it's more a "want" than anything purposeful. I use my iPhone for everyday snapshots rather than get my camera out.
> 
> ...


All good points.

It is really really difficult to analyze/generalize/offer opinions about camera usage in the USA, except that, as you say, cellphone camera sensors and the software that drives them have greatly improved....and supply 'good-enough' snapshots for most people.

I've offered variations of the following opinion here on CR previously:

...with family (and extended family), I've visited Disney World (Orlando) more times than I care to admit.

The last few times we visited the parks, my park-walking camera gear has included an M body and 2 EF-M lenses, occasionally with one additional EF lens and the necessary adapter--35mm F2 IS (for pix inside the attractions).

Sometimes I ask my wife to pack the 35mm F2 lens in her backpack...because the M body/lens + one extra lens + two extra batteries all fit nicely inside of a smallish bag that attaches to me via a belt-loop.

I have taken notice of the gear that other Disney visitors use--very very few full-frame bodies, a few Rebels and the analogues...and for about a decade now: phones phones phones, seemingly, at times, to the exclusion of ALL MILCs (and point-and-shoot cameras, for that matter).

I don't know how accurate a barometer Disney World is as far as camera usage in the USA is concerned...but I feel confident in guessing that more pictures are 'taken' in the Disney parks, on most days, than any other venue in the entire world.

I've always felt confident that my go-to Disney rig: an M body mated to the 11-22mm IS EF-M lens... put me in a good place as far as acquiring high-quality images and videos...while still enjoying the park. The 11-22 lens is the killer app as far as EF-M is concerned.

Other options with other manufacturers exist...many of these are much pricier solutions.

So now I read here the likely supposition that the emergin R format (including R-S) is going to result in the demise of M.

My oh my.


----------



## gregedwards69 (May 27, 2022)

josephandrews222 said:


> All of what you write here is
> 
> All good points.
> 
> ...


The last and only time I visited Disney in Florida was a few weeks after 9/11. I remember wondering if we were going to be able to even fly to America, let alone get to the theme parks. I bought a new camera specifically for the trip, an Olympus MJU 35mm zoom, because I didn’t want to lug my Minolta Dynax 7000i around the parks. Great little camera with a super sharp lens. My brother had just bought a 2mp canon ixus digital compact. But I felt at the time that digital wasn't quite there yet so chose 35mm. Compact flash storage wasn’t cheap and quite meagre (I remember he bought a second 32mb card at the airport, just in case). 

To be honest, if I went on a theme park trip I would probably leave the camera at home and just use my phone. I want to enjoy the experience, and go on the rides without worrying about my camera gear. Although I’d probably kick myself after for not taking it with me!


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 27, 2022)

gregedwards69 said:


> To be honest, if I went on a theme park trip I would probably leave the camera at home and just use my phone. I want to enjoy the experience, and go on the rides without worrying about my camera gear. Although I’d probably kick myself after for not taking it with me!


I’ve been to theme parks with an M-based kit, and also with my 1D X + 24-70/2.8. With the latter, I’ve gotten some great shots of the kids as we all got doused on water rides, where I wouldn’t have taken out my M or iPhone. That was some time back, and my iPhone at the time had no rated water resistance (but did have plenty of moisture sensors allowing Apple to deny repair coverage). 

My current iPhone is rated for submersion so I would be fine using it on a water ride. So, on my next theme park visit (likely this summer), I’ll leave the R3 in the hotel room.


----------



## Tangent (May 27, 2022)

The interview (CanonWatch from xitek) says M is still 30% of Canon camera sales. But the R&D is directed to R. But they are not abandoning M (even though they are).

But -- even with R&D on R, how hard would it be to take the R10 innards (from the R R&D stream) and port it to a M5mkII? Leave everything the same except the mount. (Better yet, use the R7 sensor.) If they actually do still see a market for M it would be low hanging fruit.


----------



## Jethro (May 28, 2022)

Adrian Ford said:


> With canon stating the same info across different models for use in different weather conditions makes you wonder if their cameras are any good, just copy and paste the same info from a 400 quid camera to a 5k one!! They are apologising for an R6 that can't handle someone's lifestyle. She proper put canon on the spot yesterday, calling their website misleading. Pitty canons do use someone like her, the camera would be nuc proof. Personally would rather have a 20 mp camera that was tough than something full of gimmicks to impress a Facebook group.


I genuinely have no idea what any of this is meant to be about. But, really, welcome to the site, and I'm sure you'll provide a lot more insightful and cogent comments over the many years you stay.


----------



## SnowMiku (May 28, 2022)

Tangent said:


> The interview (CanonWatch from xitek) says M is still 30% of Canon camera sales. But the R&D is directed to R. But they are not abandoning M (even though they are).
> 
> But -- even with R&D on R, how hard would it be to take the R10 innards (from the R R&D stream) and port it to a M5mkII? Leave everything the same except the mount. (Better yet, use the R7 sensor.) If they actually do still see a market for M it would be low hanging fruit.


In Australia the M6 mkII is now discontinued and many places have no stock left, I'm thinking the M6/M5 market has now been replaced with the R10 due to the similar price. I think they will keep the M50 and maybe the M200 models for a while since they offer a more affordable price point then the R10. But if they offer a crop R100 in the future at a similar price point to the M50 then I'm not sure how much longer the M series will last.

Another thought I have is maybe they are reusing that M6 MkII sensor and making some adjustments to say it is a new sensor for the R7.


----------



## gregedwards69 (May 28, 2022)

Tangent said:


> The interview (CanonWatch from xitek) says M is still 30% of Canon camera sales. But the R&D is directed to R. But they are not abandoning M (even though they are).
> 
> But -- even with R&D on R, how hard would it be to take the R10 innards (from the R R&D stream) and port it to a M5mkII? Leave everything the same except the mount. (Better yet, use the R7 sensor.) If they actually do still see a market for M it would be low hanging fruit.


Alternatively, considering the rf-s lenses appear to be based upon ef-m designs and the rf-s roadmap pretty much replicates the current ef-m line up, it’s feasible that canon could focus their valuable r&d and develop lenses for both mounts simultaneously. Or at least develop for rf-s and retool for ef-m.


----------



## AlanF (May 28, 2022)

Tangent said:


> The interview (CanonWatch from xitek) says M is still 30% of Canon camera sales. But the R&D is directed to R. But they are not abandoning M (even though they are).
> 
> But -- even with R&D on R, how hard would it be to take the R10 innards (from the R R&D stream) and port it to a M5mkII? Leave everything the same except the mount. (Better yet, use the R7 sensor.) If they actually do still see a market for M it would be low hanging fruit.


The 32 Mpx R7 sensor came from the M6II. So, just put a DigicX processor in the M6II and that’s your M6III.


----------



## entoman (May 28, 2022)

amorse said:


> I'm kind of thinking I'll lose patience and end up with an R5II if they can improve battery life - I really wish they'd move on from LP-E6 series batteries but with the R7 taking the LP-E6N, my bet is that will remain the standard for the next while regardless.


I don't think the batteries are the issue. The cause of poor battery life is more likely to be the relatively poor efficiency of the camera's electronics (as compared with Sony).

As a stills-only shooter, I'd love to see a R5 Mkii, with the AF system from the R3, exposure bracketing with electronic shutter, less EVF lag at startup, a new 45MP sensor with better DR and better high ISO performance, low/medium/high burst speeds with electronic shutter, and with the same body and control design.

The R7 looks to be a great camera for people who only want one body, but it doesn't make a good backup to the R5, as the controls on the rear of the camera are completely different and would cause muscle-memory issues when switching back and forth from one body to the other. A great pity, and an opportunity missed by Canon, as I think most of us were hoping the R7 would be based on the excellent R6 body...


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 28, 2022)

Adrian Ford said:


> I am, the R6 we use is only fit for mid-summer days, I won't be on here and praise canon when something that has cost £2500 has broken down because it can't handle the Uk's cold weather. I would state what is excellent with a Canon camera if it worked. Why I commented and said would like a camera that is rough and ready for real-life conditions.


You mentioned Canon's copy/paste of the information on 'weather sealing'. I can't speak for the R6, but I have the EOS R and it handles cold weather just fine. The images I posted in this thread on waterfalls were taken around Whistler, BC on a sub-zero day where I was outside for several hours (and not too cold thanks to the effort of snowshoeing up trails to various frozen waterfalls). Here's one example:





As for moisture, Imaging Resource tested the EOS R and found it to withstand >30 minutes of use in the equivalent of heavy rain. 

I've used my 1D X in downpours and in very cold conditions (below 0 °F / –18 °C). The latter was while shooting raptors in the New England winter, and that's something I'm worried about with my R3. At that temperature, the rear LCD of my 1D X stopped working, but the OVF (including the transmissive LCD inside) was fine. I'm not sure how the R3 will perform in similar conditions – I may be sorely missing the OVF at that point.


----------



## john1970 (May 28, 2022)

entoman said:


> I don't think the batteries are the issue. The cause of poor battery life is more likely to be the relatively poor efficiency of the camera's electronics (as compared with Sony).
> 
> As a stills-only shooter, I'd love to see a R5 Mkii, with the AF system from the R3, exposure bracketing with electronic shutter, less EVF lag at startup, a new 45MP sensor with better DR and better high ISO performance, low/medium/high burst speeds with electronic shutter, and with the same body and control design.
> 
> The R7 looks to be a great camera for people who only want one body, but it doesn't make a good backup to the R5, as the controls on the rear of the camera are completely different and would cause muscle-memory issues when switching back and forth from one body to the other. A great pity, and an opportunity missed by Canon, as I think most of us were hoping the R7 would be based on the excellent R6 body...


Likely will we get a R5 Mk2 after a R1 and would suspect that some of the R1 technology might trickle down a bit. Be patient. A R1 is likely coming in 2023 and I suspect a R5 Mk2 in 2024.


----------



## entoman (May 28, 2022)

john1970 said:


> Likely will we get a R5 Mk2 after a R1 and would suspect that some of the R1 technology might trickle down a bit. Be patient. A R1 is likely coming in 2023 and I suspect a R5 Mk2 in 2024.


I think we'll see a R5 Mkii sometime in 2023. The sooner the better as far as I'm concerned - I need a backup RF-mount body, and one that has the same ergonomics and MP as the R5. I don't want to go out and buy another R5, only to find that a few months later an even better Mkii version is launched.

As for the R7 - I was very much hoping it would be based on the R5/R6 body. If that had been the case, I would have been happy to pay the same as an R6 for it, as is ideally specified as a birding camera. The specs, and from what I've read, the performance too, of the R7 are just what I wanted, but the completely different back-of-camera control layout (and lack of a third control dial) have completely put me off.


----------



## AlanF (May 28, 2022)

gregedwards69 said:


> I'm not often patriotic, but we Brits are world leaders in colourful and creative flair with their swear words (with the possible exception of the Australians)!


The Greeks are well ahead of us for a start.


----------



## john1970 (May 28, 2022)

entoman said:


> I think we'll see a R5 Mkii sometime in 2023. The sooner the better as far as I'm concerned - I need a backup RF-mount body, and one that has the same ergonomics and MP as the R5. I don't want to go out and buy another R5, only to find that a few months later an even better Mkii version is launched.
> 
> As for the R7 - I was very much hoping it would be based on the R5/R6 body. If that had been the case, I would have been happy to pay the same as an R6 for it, as is ideally specified as a birding camera. The specs, and from what I've read, the performance too, of the R7 are just what I wanted, but the completely different back-of-camera control layout (and lack of a third control dial) have completely put me off.


You might be correct or we could both be wrong. Philosophically I just predict Canon releasing all 1st generation R cameras (R5, R6, R7, R1) prior to releasing Mk2 versions. The next couple of years is going to be interesting....


----------



## Czardoom (May 28, 2022)

Adrian Ford said:


> I am, the R6 we use is only fit for mid-summer days, I won't be on here and praise canon when something that has cost £2500 has broken down because it can't handle the Uk's cold weather. I would state what is excellent with a Canon camera if it worked. Why I commented and said would like a camera that is rough and ready for real-life conditions. I really can't say if the R6 is any good until I hear from canon next week if the camera was in fact faulty when bought new. I will get my friend to join here, *she will go into detail about what's good and bad about the R6*, I just borrow it but it's a very frustrating camera due to its issues, anyway I'm just the messenger mate. I have no in-depth knowledge about cameras or canon, I use a very old Nikon d60 which I haven't used for 7 years, I concentrate on doing my slides nowadays.
> 
> I give canon one thing, their UK main service for warranty repairs has been very helpful. they are very unhappy that one of their cameras isn't allowing its owner to create.


Based on info from your other thread, you have experienced very severe difficulties with your R6. As was mentioned on that thread, your's seems to be an isolated incident - one camera out of thousands that has had these issues.

Yet you persist in making generalizations about the R6 (my bold above) and Canon cameras. Canon cameras - depending on their tier (and cost) - all have different levels of weather resistance. It is unfortunate that your camera has been such a failure, but by refusing to understand that your's is an isolated incident, you are just making yourself out to be a bitter consumer hell bent on bashing Canon.


----------



## unfocused (May 29, 2022)

entoman said:


> I think we'll see a R5 Mkii sometime in 2023…


Standard refresh cycle for Canon is four years. I expect an R5 II in 2024. 


entoman said:


> The specs, and from what I've read, the performance too, of the R7 are just what I wanted, but the completely different back-of-camera control layout (and lack of a third control dial) have completely put me off.



You can’t always get what you want, but if you try you can get what you need. I suspect the R7 will meet the needs of many photographers. If the specs and performance are what you want, learning a slightly different configuration shouldn’t be an insurmountable obstacle.


----------



## entoman (May 29, 2022)

unfocused said:


> You can’t always get what you want, but if you try you can get what you need. I suspect the R7 will meet the needs of many photographers. If the specs and performance are what you want, learning a slightly different configuration shouldn’t be an insurmountable obstacle.


It's not just a case of learning a different configuration, it's about switching back and forth between 2 cameras with very different back-plate controls. Using an R6 alongside an R5 is dead easy, as the differences between them are very minor. Using an R7 alongside an R5 is almost like switching back and forth between 2 different brands.

I appreciate that adding certain features can necessitate a rearrangement of buttons and dials, but I regard inconsistency as generally undesirable, as it causes muscle-memory issues when using multiple bodies. In the case of the R7, none of the control changes were necessary. IMO it would have been far more sensible (and cheaper for Canon, due to common parts) to have used the R6 as the basis for the R7 design.

It all seems to be about experimentation. Sometimes it works (as in the case of the 1Dxiii "AF smart controller"), sometimes it doesn't (most people strongly disliked the swipe bar on the R). The efficiency and ergonomics of the "dial around the joystick" on the R7 will be judged good or bad by users in months to come, but it comes at the expense of losing a vital third dial.

A well designed camera IMO should have the 3 main parameters (aperture, shutter, ISO) all accessible by dial, without a need to press a button first. Ideally a 4th dial should also be available to access exposure compensation, again without having to press a button. The R7 has only 2 dials that offer direct control. Sure, most RF lenses have a control ring that can be used as a third dial, but the position of the control ring can be at the front, middle or back of the lens according to model, creating yet more inconsistency and muscle-memory issues.

There will of course be some people who have the lucky ability to be able to switch instantaneously back and forth between vastly different brands, models and/or formats. I'm not one of them. I want to be able to switch back and forth between bodies without constantly having to remind myself where a particular control is, or what the function of that control is.


----------



## unfocused (May 29, 2022)

entoman said:


> It's not just a case of learning a different configuration, it's about switching back and forth between 2 cameras with very different back-plate controls…


I guess it’s just different perspectives. I’ve used so many different Canon cameras and found that once I become familiar with the controls it’s not hard to switch back and forth. If the R7 has what I want (and I don’t know that it does) I’m not going to deny myself while I wait around for something slightly better.


entoman said:


> It all seems to be about experimentation. Sometimes it works (as in the case of the 1Dxiii "AF smart controller"), sometimes it doesn't (most people strongly disliked the swipe bar on the R)…


I agree with that. The R series is still new and Canon seems to still be figuring out the best configurations. They are making minor changes and seem to be learning from their mistakes. That’s a good thing and, yes, it often creates the sense that we are all beta testers. The 1D XIII and R3 smart controllers by the way are not all that great in my opinion. Same with eye control. But even though they aren’t perfect they don’t make the cameras unusable. I guess I figure that at my age (69) waiting four years for the next iteration is a crap shoot that I’d rather not take.


----------



## AlanF (May 29, 2022)

entoman said:


> It's not just a case of learning a different configuration, it's about switching back and forth between 2 cameras with very different back-plate controls. Using an R6 alongside an R5 is dead easy, as the differences between them are very minor. Using an R7 alongside an R5 is almost like switching back and forth between 2 different brands.
> 
> I appreciate that adding certain features can necessitate a rearrangement of buttons and dials, but I regard inconsistency as generally undesirable, as it causes muscle-memory issues when using multiple bodies. In the case of the R7, none of the control changes were necessary. IMO it would have been far more sensible (and cheaper for Canon, due to common parts) to have used the R6 as the basis for the R7 design.
> 
> ...


It is indeed much easier to have all cameras with same controls, and I like that too. You as an entomology man know that in an unchanging environment it’s best to have a set of genes that are best fitted to it but in a changing environment it’s survival of the most adaptable.


----------



## entoman (May 29, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I guess it’s just different perspectives. I’ve used so many different Canon cameras and found that once I become familiar with the controls it’s not hard to switch back and forth. If the R7 has what I want (and I don’t know that it does) I’m not going to deny myself while I wait around for something slightly better.
> 
> I agree with that. The R series is still new and Canon seems to still be figuring out the best configurations. They are making minor changes and seem to be learning from their mistakes. That’s a good thing and, yes, it often creates the sense that we are all beta testers. The 1D XIII and R3 smart controllers by the way are not all that great in my opinion. Same with eye control. But even though they aren’t perfect they don’t make the cameras unusable. I guess I figure that at my age (69) waiting four years for the next iteration is a crap shoot that I’d rather not take.


Yes, some people can switch back and forth between differently configured cameras with relative ease. I wish I could, but I can't, and at 71 I'm unlikely to be able to change that. It took me quite a while to adapt to my R5 after having used 5D/6D/7D series DSLRs for donkey's years!

I know what you mean about not wanting to wait for the next iteration. A friend of mine intends to get the R7 to use alongside his R6, so I'll have the opportunity to play with it and possibly re-assess my views.

I need a second RF body as backup, and I don't like the restriction of only having 2 control dials on the R7, as I tend to change all 4 parameters (aperture, shutter, ISO, compensation) frequently and I don't like the "press a button and twiddle a dial" method of operation. So it looks like I'll be getting a second R5, if and when I can afford it.


----------



## john1970 (May 29, 2022)

I was pleasantly surprised to see that Canon allows for 15 fps with electronic shutter, but the buffer was still maybe a maximum of 3-4 sec at 15 fps. Honestly, for the price if a vertical grip was available I might have purchased one. However no vertical grip is a no go for me. Why Canon decided against a vertical grip?


----------



## AlanF (May 29, 2022)

john1970 said:


> I was pleasantly surprised to see that Canon allows for 15 fps with electronic shutter, but the buffer was still maybe a maximum of 3-4 sec at 15 fps. Honestly, for the price if a vertical grip was available I might have purchased one. However no vertical grip is a no go for me. Why Canon decided against a vertical grip?


Maybe because they did market research and also have sales figures that show it isn’t commercially worthwhile?


----------



## Michael Clark (May 30, 2022)

josephandrews222 said:


> ...more good points here. I learned a lot...some of which I'd thought previously.
> 
> I saw the daily newspaper angle you're supplying here from the sports side of things--the stadia and arenas had, in some cases, rather significant space necessary for the newspaper photographers to work up their own film images, in order to 'beat' deadlines.



All one needed to do to find them was follow one's nose. I will never regret not having to smell fixer again!


----------



## Michael Clark (May 30, 2022)

entoman said:


> I think we'll see a R5 Mkii sometime in 2023. The sooner the better as far as I'm concerned - I need a backup RF-mount body, and one that has the same ergonomics and MP as the R5. I don't want to go out and buy another R5, only to find that a few months later an even better Mkii version is launched.
> 
> As for the R7 - I was very much hoping it would be based on the R5/R6 body. If that had been the case, I would have been happy to pay the same as an R6 for it, as is ideally specified as a birding camera. The specs, and from what I've read, the performance too, of the R7 are just what I wanted, but the completely different back-of-camera control layout (and lack of a third control dial) have completely put me off.



I'd be shocked if Canon shortened the product cycle of the 5-series from four years, which is where it has been since Canon "reset" their FF lineup in early 2012. If anything, I'd expect them to lengthen it slightly.

5D Mark III was introduced in 2012. 5D Mark IV came in early 2016. R5 came in 2020.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 30, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Arguably it was the lack of need for cameras that killed camera shops. Everyone already has a camera in their pocket all day every day, why would they buy another? The latest iPhone is not even comparable to the type of 35mm camera average consumers used to buy, multiple lenses, high definition, clear in focus images that they can send to their friends in seconds having already edited and processed them.



Camera stores starting dying around the same time affordable DSLRs hit the market, beginning with the original Canon Digital Rebel in mid-2003. Smart Phone cameras didn't really start replacing compact point and shoot cameras _en masse_ until around 2010, by which time most camera chains were already filing Chapter 11 or Chapter 13 for the second or third time. Look at the history of Wolf, Ritz, etc. in the U.S. The stores didn't close until the early 2010s, but they had been bleeding red ink for almost a decade by the end.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 30, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> That makes more sense!
> Assuming that the ramp up of MILCs was up to 2012, what would be a logical reason for MILC sales to stay relatively stable for 10 years vs dramatic change in DLSR sales?
> For me, the rise of the camera phone is logical and has replaced compact cameras but they weren't in the ILC figures. I can see that there would have been some impact to both DLSR and MILC but it doesn't show here.
> Canon and Nikon didn't have MILCs in the early years so Sony was the only volume seller but the consistent volume couldn't just be for Canon/Nikon switchers - could it?



Canon introduced the EOS M line of MILCs in 2012. They've sold well in many markets from the very beginning. Nikon had the much less successful J series of cameras during that same time. Canon & Nikon didn't have any FF MILCs until 2018, but the chart chows all ILCs, not just FF cameras. APS-C and smaller senor ILCs were outselling FF cameras by several orders of magnitude in the early 2010s, so most of the units in the chart are APS-C or even Micro Four-Thirds, not FF.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 30, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Maybe because they did market research and also have sales figures that show it isn’t commercially worthwhile?



If they wouldn't charge $300 less 1¢ for the damn things (admittedly, that was the price of the BG-E20 for the 5D Mark IV, the BG-E16 for the 7D Mark II was only $320 at launch) they might not lose so many sales of them to third parties!


----------



## LeedsCalling (May 30, 2022)

For the the R7 and the R10 we need an RF-S 10mm


----------



## LeedsCalling (May 30, 2022)

neurorx said:


> I'm hoping for the RF 135mm and 35mm for the holiday season!


There already is an RF35mm


----------



## lustyd (May 30, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Camera stores starting dying around the same time affordable DSLRs hit the market, beginning with the original Canon Digital Rebel in mid-2003. Smart Phone cameras didn't really start replacing compact point and shoot cameras _en masse_ until around 2010, by which time most camera chains were already filing Chapter 11 or Chapter 13 for the second or third time. Look at the history of Wolf, Ritz, etc. in the U.S. The stores didn't close until the early 2010s, but they had been bleeding red ink for almost a decade by the end.


I disagree, although perhaps because we are in different markets. In the UK digital cameras were certainly replacing 35mm compacts by 2002 and the impact of Facebook as a means to share images decimated the film processing market in mid 2000s. High end might appear to be where the money is, but mass consumer is bread and butter for stores. Take away the thousands of family holiday rolls of film and you're left with 50 rolls of bird watchers taken on high end gear by the 4 local enthusiasts.


----------



## Del Paso (May 30, 2022)

Isn't it strange that Kodak provided the means to kill themselves?


----------



## entoman (May 30, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> I'd be shocked if Canon shortened the product cycle of the 5-series from four years, which is where it has been since Canon "reset" their FF lineup in early 2012. If anything, I'd expect them to lengthen it slightly.
> 
> 5D Mark III was introduced in 2012. 5D Mark IV came in early 2016. R5 came in 2020.


You may very well be right, but the competition between the leading brands seems more intense than ever, and with updates becoming more reliant on firmware than hardware, I think there's a good chance that new gear will appear more frequently than in the past. If e.g. Sony introduce something exciting, Canon are likely to respond quiet quickly. Hoping for a R5 Mkii in 2023


----------



## davidcl0nel (May 30, 2022)

The market is shrinking, Canon will never have more lines (3 is new already) to have for every number (8 and 9 or 4) a own camera.
R and RP will never be replaced. R6 or the successor will be maybe cheaper to replace R and RP in the middle. They might sell the RP in 3 years without any changes to get something in this pricepoint....

There will be one R100 or even R1000 for the real entry APSC market, but also not so much as before. They sold the 600D and even 550D while bringing the "new" 650D after a year and so on, same with 60 / 70 / even 77D - one 100ish every year and a 10ish every second year will not happen....
A R1000 will be maybe without a viewfinder like the old M1 to address the tiny sector.

R5s might happen, a R5 Mark II will be in 2 years or so. If a R5 Mark II should come in a few weeks they would had never brought the R5c to address the heat issue.
5D and 6D were separate lines with own cycles. R5 and R6 came together, so I think this will happen with R5 II and R6 II also. They will not bring a good R6 II to cannibalize the "old" R5 to early.


Lensewise more 1.2 stuff (which I don't care), or some other unicorn up-to-eleven-lenses like the proposed Tiltshift with autofocus and even 14mm to bring it for 5000€ or more. Not interested either. I stay with TSE17.
I have already all what I need now. 70-200 f4 is stellar good, 35 1.8, 85 2.0 and 16 2.8 are good as well and small - I like them a lot. I came from the 5D3 (2013) and wasn't interested in 5D4 either. R5 was a big step. My next step will be a R5 III in i don't know 2030.
I will use my TSE17 and EF135L till they explode. Nothing more needed.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 30, 2022)

lustyd said:


> I disagree, although perhaps because we are in different markets. In the UK digital cameras were certainly replacing 35mm compacts by 2002 and the impact of Facebook as a means to share images decimated the film processing market in mid 2000s. High end might appear to be where the money is, but mass consumer is bread and butter for stores. Take away the thousands of family holiday rolls of film and you're left with 50 rolls of bird watchers taken on high end gear by the 4 local enthusiasts.


You're disagreeing with the same thing you're saying...

The proliferation of digital cameras is what ended the need for film developing and printing services. Even folks who wanted prints from their new digital cameras often started printing their own inkjet prints instead of paying to have chemical photo prints made by a local camera store. Home inkjet printers, combined with the convenience and lower cost of uploading digital files to online based printers, is what killed the brick & mortar camera store.

Eventually folks realized the inferiority of inkjet vs. chemical prints, but by then the damage was done and brick & mortar photo shops were already gone. Most folks had also moved on to only displaying the vast majority of their photos digitally.


----------



## max (May 30, 2022)

I just want an R6 with a screen at the top... R5 has too many MP and is too expensive for me.


----------



## john1970 (May 30, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> You're disagreeing with the same thing you're saying...
> 
> The proliferation of digital cameras is what ended the need for film developing and printing services. Even folks who wanted prints from their new digital cameras often started printing their own inkjet prints instead of paying to have chemical photo prints made by a local camera store. Home inkjet printers, combined with the convenience and lower cost of uploading digital files to online based printers, is what killed the brick & mortar camera store.
> 
> Eventually folks realized the inferiority of inkjet vs. chemical prints, but by then the damage was done and brick & mortar photo shops were already gone. Most folks had also moved on to only displaying the vast majority of their photos digitally.


Your last sentence is very true. 99+% of the time I use my 50" TV as a 21st century slide projector when showing my photos to friends. I cannot remember the last time I bothered printing a photo.


----------



## Atlasman (May 30, 2022)

John Wilde said:


> I don't know if they will, but Canon should release a 55-200 RF-S lens. That size is often available for sale in a bundle with an APS-C camera body. Even Nikon has a Z-DX lens in that range. And of course, that size is also available in EF-S and EF-M.


Or maybe an RF-s 70-350mm like Sony has done!


----------



## josephandrews222 (May 30, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Maybe because they did market research and also have sales figures that show it isn’t commercially worthwhile?


I never know quite what the intentions are of those who post this sort of comment...(no snark intended)--at times it seems overly dismissive of those stating a different viewpoint.

[And yes some of those viewpoints are wrong, but naturally my own posts here are never to be dismissed!]

Of course Canon has both sales figures and market research at their disposal!

Sales figures are about the past, and market research is about (predicting) the future, right?

But just because sales figures and market research exist, it does not follow that their product development teams never make mistakes.

And in my view, Canon's development of all things EF-M was flawed...almost from the start.

[Canon's market research for their PIxma PRO-100 13x19 inkjet printer (about the same time) was flawed, too. But when used properly, it is a *wonderful *product.]

But back to the M: they never knew what they wanted it to be!

I was an early adopter of the M...with the original firmware that shipped with the M...the autofocus properties of this device were unbelievably bad--the original M/original firmware combination was nothing but a point-and-shoot camera with an absurdly large sensor.

But the original M has a flash mount...which works as a place to put an external mic...the original M has a MIC input.

As I recall (could be wrong), the UI for the original M is an odd blend of PowerShot and more-advanced features associated with the DSLRs of the time.

Somewhere on the 'net I posted, nearly a decade ago...that what the M needed was an on-board pop-gun of a flash...to brighten faces on bright, sunny days.

Sure enough with the M2...my desire for the on-board fill-flash was fulfilled...making it quite suitable for my own travel needs.

It all kind of runs together, but I think I purchased the M2 from an eBay seller based in Japan...as CanonUSA (apparently) decided not to sell-and-market the M2 here.

Same with the EF-M 11-22 IS lens...I bought two of these from Canada.

But then the M3 was released...and sold here in the USA. I passed after reading reviews and peeking at pixels...its images were sort of green?!

And I thought the M3 body was plasticky (as with the M5 that I purchased).

Over the years Canon made some curious decisions about the various Ms...I was (to put it mildly) flabbergasted when discovering that there is exactly (and only) one way to manually adjust exposure compensation on the M6 (as well as the M5)--with a dial on top of the camera!

Thankfully this 'feature' was modified for the M6MkII...with a dial in that position remaining as an option.

=====

So now it is an R world...or so we're led to believe.

The M6MkII has apparently been discontinued. I have to guess at what Canon's intentions are with the M etc.

The M6MkII, even without a viewfinder, is significantly larger and heavier than the M200. And frankly, the M200 more in line with what the M may be best at...a REALLY small and light package with an APS-C sensor inside.

=====

The title of the thread is What's Next for Canon or something-or-other.

I wouldn't be surprised if Canon continues with the M200-sized bodies...and even market them as a high-quality device capable of delivering superior video when used as a webcam.

We do just that in my family (using a 40D/EF-S10-18 IS as the video source)...as my wife still teaches yoga from home.

Canon could do a lot of good work on their webcam software...what works now is fine but Canon should consider implementing something along the lines of what Apple calls 'Center Stage'. Hell if I knew how I'd write the code myself...I'm sure it would sell cameras...and would surpass the Apple product in functionality.

But I'm afraid that the M6 and its analogs may be done. Canon Rumors was (sort of) right...all those years ago.

Why (in part)? Because the M6MkII is just too darned good, and too inexpensive...for what it offers.

But full-featured Ms may be done.

There, I admitted it!


----------



## AlanF (May 30, 2022)

-;


josephandrews222 said:


> I never know quite what the intentions are of those who post this sort of comment...(no snark intended)--at times it seems overly dismissive of those stating a different viewpoint.


It’s not a comment, it’s a question with a ? indicating that fact, beginning with “May be“. It’s raising a point to be considered in a rational discussion as a possibility, and I cannot fathom how that could be considered in anyway dismissive, let alone overly dismissive. We want to know why Canon does not appear to be producing a grip.


----------



## lustyd (May 31, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> You're disagreeing with the same thing you're saying...


I think you're just misunderstanding what I was saying and what I was replying to, but never mind, it wasn't all that important


----------



## lustyd (May 31, 2022)

josephandrews222 said:


> Sales figures are about the past, and market research is about (predicting) the future, right?
> 
> But just because sales figures and market research exist, it does not follow that their product development teams never make mistakes.


I think this sums up a lot of issues. Canon were busy researching the future of taking photos and predicting the next wave of photo cameras. Consequently, in a market obsessed with video content Canon has the M6ii with a 30 minute video limitation imposed by software, and an obsession with viewfinders on cameras. They did at least keep the fold up displays for a while, but sadly those are disapearing with the inferior fully articulating screens that lead to creepy eyes looking to the side gaining momentum. Doing market research only works if you understand where the market is going already, and Sony seem to be better in this respect when looking at their range. A quick search suggests that video streaming alone (~$60bn) has a market twice the size of photography (~$30bn), and that doesn't even include video content such as YouTube. Canon were at least pretty quick to add streaming capability to firmware during lockdowns but they don't seem to be capitalising on that at all


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 31, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Doing market research only works if you understand where the market is going already, and Sony seem to be better in this respect when looking at their range. A quick search suggests that video streaming alone (~$60bn) has a market twice the size of photography (~$30bn), and that doesn't even include video content such as YouTube.


What does Sony’s decision to prioritize other models and suspend production of the ZV-E10 say about the importance of the vlogging market segment?


----------



## lustyd (May 31, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> What does Sony’s decision to prioritize other models and suspend production of the ZV-E10 say about the importance of the vlogging market segment?


Given that they never specified which components were in short supply, it says nothing at all. Their new 11mm 1.8 APS-C lens says a fair bit though, along with the reintroduction of the A6400 which is one of the more popular streamer cams. Streaming is a much larger market than vlogging so it makes sense ZV-E10 would come after A6400.


----------



## Franklyok (May 31, 2022)

fox40phil said:


> BSI is not IBIS .
> BSI is back side illuminated Sensor!
> This is also perfect and needed for videos.


I hoped ibis ,sensor stabilisation for still side to remain even if cinema line… 

Well I have ordered the R7… can’t afford R5C…

Price wise there is lots of space between from 2k, to 4k, for the r7c …

Also… too bad , they there will be no battery grip for R7. That is a feature inflation right there. R7 is not really a 7D2 successor…


----------



## Franklyok (May 31, 2022)

Does canon have direct competitive product to fujifilm X-H2S?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 31, 2022)

Franklyok said:


> Does canon have direct competitive product to fujifilm X-H2S?


No.


----------



## fox40phil (Jun 1, 2022)

Franklyok said:


> Does canon have direct competitive product to fujifilm X-H2S?


not yet sadly.... the H2S is what I was wanting from CANON.... as a real R7!


----------



## Franklyok (Jun 1, 2022)

fox40phil said:


> not yet sadly.... the H2S is what I was wanting from CANON.... as a real R7!



And R7 suppose to be with battery grip. Every time Canon omits something, it says: "this is not for professionals". Everybody remembers when Canon delivered first "R" model only with 1 card slot. People got mad. And now R7 has no battery grip.

H2S with 40 electronic fps has no practical value imho. Anthing with non-globalshutter, electronic shutter and hi FPS has no practical value, imho.


----------



## SnowMiku (Jun 1, 2022)

Franklyok said:


> And R7 suppose to be with battery grip. Every time Canon omits something, it says: "this is not for professionals". Everybody remembers when Canon delivered first "R" model only with 1 card slot. People got mad. And now R7 has no battery grip.
> 
> H2S with 40 electronic fps has no practical value imho. Anthing with non-globalshutter, electronic shutter and hi FPS has no practical value, imho.


I'm thinking that Canon decided not to have a battery grip option on the R7 to protect the R5. Interestingly I just found out that Canon had an official battery grip for the 600/700D but got rid of it for the 800D. They even make unofficial knockoff battery grips for the xxxxD DSLRS with a cable from the grip that goes into the cable release port, perhaps the R10/R7 might get that knockoff option.


----------



## Franklyok (Jun 1, 2022)

SnowMiku said:


> I'm thinking that Canon decided not to have a battery grip option on the R7 to protect the R5. Interestingly I just found out that Canon had an official battery grip for the 600/700D but got rid of it for the 800D. They even make unofficial knockoff battery grips for the xxxxD DSLRS with a cable from the grip that goes into the cable release port, perhaps the R10/R7 might get that knockoff option.


unofficial knockoff battery grips - never ever seen on. 

Well it is a "feature thievery"... or hidden inflation. They just want more money, or sell more higher priced camers... Well "7th" brand line got just damage, imho.


----------



## Franklyok (Jun 1, 2022)

Is there anything relatively reasonably priced video lens in canon system , like fuji has,









Fujifilm launches FUJINON Lens XF18-120mmF4 LM PZ WR - Fuji Rumors


Fujifilm launches FUJINON Lens XF18-120mmF4 LM PZ WR Fujifilm X-H2S: BHphoto / AmazonUS / Adorama / Moment / Focuscamera Fujinon XF150-600mm f/5.6-8: BHphoto / AmazonUS / Adorama / Moment Fujinon XF18-120mm f/4: BHphoto / AmazonUS / Adorama / Moment / Focuscamera Fujifilm Cooling Fan for X-H2S...




www.fujirumors.com





Focus breathing free?


----------



## Sharlin (Jun 1, 2022)

SnowMiku said:


> I'm thinking that Canon decided not to have a battery grip option on the R7 to protect the R5. Interestingly I just found out that Canon had an official battery grip for the 600/700D but got rid of it for the 800D.



Protecting the R5 from the R7? I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous.

I'm pretty sure none of the xxxD battery grips ever turned profit. It's at least plausible that the xxD ones didn't either. Companies typically stop doing things that don't turn profit (and don't even function as loss leaders). It's pretty much their duty to their stakeholders. Like it or not, it's expressly _not_ their duty to make things for the benefit of random individuals at online forums.

Any R7 battery grip would have needed to solve the problem of including another rear dial/joystick combination, and it's not clear how one could have fit on the limited real estate available on a grip and_ also_ not hinder usage in landscape orientation. That alone was probably plenty enough reason for Canon not to bother spending R&D resources on a grip.


----------



## john1970 (Jun 1, 2022)

fox40phil said:


> not yet sadly.... the H2S is what I was wanting from CANON.... as a real R7!


I agree with your statement. The Fuji H2S is what the R7 should have been and been priced accordingly. Oh well, one less camera body to consider purchasing. Wait another 12-18 months for R1...


----------



## Franklyok (Jun 1, 2022)

Sharlin said:


> Protecting the R5 from the R7? I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous.
> 
> I'm pretty sure none of the xxxD battery grips ever turned profit. It's at least plausible that the xxD ones didn't either. Companies typically stop doing things that don't turn profit (and don't even function as loss leaders). It's pretty much their duty to their stakeholders. Like it or not, it's expressly _not_ their duty to make things for the benefit of random individuals at online forums.
> 
> Any R7 battery grip would have needed to solve the problem of including another rear dial/joystick combination, and it's not clear how one could have fit on the limited real estate available on a grip and_ also_ not hinder usage in landscape orientation. That alone was probably plenty enough reason for Canon not to bother spending R&D resources on a grip.


And yet some 3rd party manufacturers find ways to do it at least 50 % cheaper. Battery grip prices have gone up from 250 to 430-something. And it is still not profitable? I still feel the canon saying: "this R7 is not for pros".

R7 has metallic body, for long lasting use. R6 has plastic. So R7 has better body than R6.

Maybe canon could launch R7C , body would be like mini R3


----------



## Czardoom (Jun 5, 2022)

Franklyok said:


> And yet some 3rd party manufacturers find ways to do it at least 50 % cheaper. Battery grip prices have gone up from 250 to 430-something. And it is still not profitable? I still feel the canon saying: "this R7 is not for pros".
> 
> R7 has metallic body, for long lasting use. R6 has plastic. So R7 has better body than R6.
> 
> Maybe canon could launch R7C , body would be like mini R3


Yes, I think Canon is saying the R7 is not for pros. Not sure why so many folks;
a) can't understand that,
b) can't accept that.

Also not sure why so many forum members have to categorize these new cameras as successors to previous cameras. This is a new mirrorless lineup. These mirrorless cameras do not have to be successors. It's a new lineup...deal with it like mature adults. (OK, that was a joke!)

It is quite possible that Canon did not go higher-end with the R7 becuase they do plan on having a high MP FF camera - that is pro level. A high MP FF camera should have the pixel density that wildlife/birders want - whether cropping in camera or in post. So that should satisfy the wildlife/birder segment looking for better weather sealing, bigger body, grip. If they do release such a camera, then the R7 would be redundant if they had decided to make that model high-end. Therefore it is more of a consumer level camera.


----------



## USMarineCorpsVet (Jun 5, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> Yes, I think Canon is saying the R7 is not for pros. Not sure why so many folks;
> a) can't understand that,
> b) can't accept that.
> 
> ...


There is a segment of the market that wants a crop sensor because of the perceived extra reach and cheaper cost. Many wanted a camera along the lines of the 7DMK2, not the 90D.


----------



## Franklyok (Jun 6, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> Yes, I think Canon is saying the R7 is not for pros. Not sure why so many folks;
> a) can't understand that,
> b) can't accept that.
> 
> ...


Well, canon can keep 100 mpx to it self. Bacause majority of content is consumed via mobile phones. Only fullframers notice the difference, most entertainment consumers watching their phone screens do not notice the difference. Watching via mobile screens - I think people do not have time for enterainment. 

Sony rep said, by 2024 mobile phone is better than DSRL.


----------



## vjlex (Jun 6, 2022)

Franklyok said:


> Well, canon can keep 100 mpx to it self. Bacause majority of content is consumed via mobile phones. Only fullframers notice the difference, most entertainment consumers watching their phone screens do not notice the difference. Watching via mobile screens - I think people do not have time for enterainment.
> 
> Sony rep said, by 2024 mobile phone is better than DSRL.


I know many people consume content via mobile devices, but does the *majority* really do that _exclusively_? I guess I fall into the category of full-framers who notice, but I can't stand watching movies or YouTube videos on a tiny 5 inch screen when I know that it was meant to be appreciated on at least a home television, an IMAX theater screen at most. The same goes for a quality photo. Instagram on a mobile phone will do in a pinch. But I cannot fathom the people who think a portable device and one of the larger screens are interchangeable.


----------



## lustyd (Jun 6, 2022)

vjlex said:


> I know many people consume content via mobile devices, but does the *majority* really do that _exclusively_? I guess I fall into the category of full-framers who notice, but I can't stand watching movies or YouTube videos on a tiny 5 inch screen when I know that it was meant to be appreciated on at least a home television, an IMAX theater screen at most. The same goes for a quality photo. Instagram on a mobile phone will do in a pinch. But I cannot fathom the people who think a portable device and one of the larger screens are interchangeable.


Not the majority of people, the majority of content. By watch hours mobile viewing is orders of magnitude more common than using a larger screen. This is even more so when talking about static photos which are now very rarely printed and seldom seen on anything larger than an iPad.

I don't necessarily agree that high MP isn't useful though, GoPro have shown again and again that spare pixels can be used to process for great effect. Their stabilisation is absolutely amazing technology and makes MILC cameras look very basic by comparison, and the work Google do with computational photography is mind blowing given the quality of the inputs. If the traditional camera companies put in this kind of effort we'd see huge advances.


----------



## vjlex (Jun 6, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Not the majority of people, the majority of content. By watch hours mobile viewing is orders of magnitude more common than using a larger screen. This is even more so when talking about static photos which are now very rarely printed and seldom seen on anything larger than an iPad.
> 
> I don't necessarily agree that high MP isn't useful though, GoPro have shown again and again that spare pixels can be used to process for great effect. Their stabilisation is absolutely amazing technology and makes MILC cameras look very basic by comparison, and the work Google do with computational photography is mind blowing given the quality of the inputs. If the traditional camera companies put in this kind of effort we'd see huge advances.


Ah, maybe I misinterpreted what was said (as I often do).

Perhaps I should rephrase my question to ask: Is the majority of content being watched really being watched primarily on mobile devices? And is it the mobility or the size of the screen that is the salient point? Do 15 inch laptops count as mobile viewing? While I know it is pretty straightforward to approximate hours watched on mobile devices or internet connected devices, can the same be accurately done for larger, more traditional screens?

I don't think I disagree necessarily that a lot of people are satisfied consuming content on their 5 inch screens. It's just an unpalatable thought to me personally. I use my phone camera for documenting (literally taking pictures of non-digitized documents at work so I don't have to physically carry them home, weird signs or products I come across in stores but don't want to buy, etc), not capturing or memorializing. I don't think I've ever watched a video longer than 10 minutes on my phone, and generally I will wait till I am at an actual computer to watch it. I won't say never, but I don't see a phone camera supplanting an ILC for me any time in the near future. Two completely different tools that have a few overlapping functions. Mobile devices may be about convenience and quantity, but I seriously doubt they are capable of matching actual ILC or large screen quality for me.

That being said, I know my viewing habits are not representative.


----------



## lustyd (Jun 6, 2022)

Nobody said it was about quality, and those imagining it is are a tiny, tiny niche market - just look at CD vs Spotify revenues! The convenience and ease is the main factor. I doubt many are watching feature length movies that way, but those don't account for a lot of the market either. Get on a train and look around, everyone is consuming media of some sort for the whole journey. Go to a fast food place and you'll probably see the same. Heck, even walking down most streets you'll see people holding up their little devices and watching something!


----------



## vjlex (Jun 6, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Nobody said it was about quality, and those imagining it is are a tiny, tiny niche market - just look at CD vs Spotify revenues! The convenience and ease is the main factor. I doubt many are watching feature length movies that way, but those don't account for a lot of the market either. Get on a train and look around, everyone is consuming media of some sort for the whole journey. Go to a fast food place and you'll probably see the same. Heck, even walking down most streets you'll see people holding up their little devices and watching something!


It is hard to deny. Especially here in Japan. But it still boggles my Luddite mind.


----------



## Franklyok (Jun 6, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Nobody said it was about quality, and those imagining it is are a tiny, tiny niche market - just look at CD vs Spotify revenues! The convenience and ease is the main factor. I doubt many are watching feature length movies that way, but those don't account for a lot of the market either. Get on a train and look around, everyone is consuming media of some sort for the whole journey. Go to a fast food place and you'll probably see the same. Heck, even walking down most streets you'll see people holding up their little devices and watching something!


In general Fullframer is not my audience 

Netflix subscriptions are imploding, what does it say ?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 6, 2022)

Franklyok said:


> Netflix subscriptions are imploding, what does it say ?


That the global economy is in the toilet, and people are moving on from the (still ongoing) pandemic and spending less time at home.


----------



## lustyd (Jun 7, 2022)

Franklyok said:


> In general Fullframer is not my audience
> 
> Netflix subscriptions are imploding, what does it say ?


That they shut off Russia due to the war and lost millions of subscribers overnight, then decided to raise prices and cut off people using in multiple homes but did their sums first and will make more profit regardless. I did read more than the headlines though...


----------



## lustyd (Jun 7, 2022)

vjlex said:


> It is hard to deny. Especially here in Japan. But it still boggles my Luddite mind.


You're not alone, I'm still angry at the world for dumping CD and moving to Spotify and Sonos. May as well put in earplugs while we're at it, but very hard to fight the crowd. It won't be long before cameras split like audio did with home and pro being separated by a huge price and quality chasm


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 7, 2022)

lustyd said:


> You're not alone, I'm still angry at the world for dumping CD and moving to Spotify and Sonos. May as well put in earplugs while we're at it, but very hard to fight the crowd. It won't be long before cameras split like audio did with home and pro being separated by a huge price and quality chasm


My issue with the new world order is that everything is stored on someone else's computer, so I try to buy music and video on physical carriers and make a backup to my own computer.


----------



## Franklyok (Jun 7, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> That the global economy is in the toilet, and people are moving on from the (still ongoing) pandemic and spending less time at home.


I rest my case: more media content is going to be consumed via mobile devices… 

one day fullframers are going to be as mediumformat people… ( pure ego tripsters )


----------



## neurorx (Jun 15, 2022)

LeedsCalling said:


> There already is an RF35mm


I am think L version and 1.4 or 1.2


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 19, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Nobody said it was about quality, and those imagining it is are a tiny, tiny niche market - just look at CD vs Spotify revenues! The convenience and ease is the main factor. I doubt many are watching feature length movies that way, but those don't account for a lot of the market either. Get on a train and look around, everyone is consuming media of some sort for the whole journey. Go to a fast food place and you'll probably see the same. Heck, even walking down most streets you'll see people holding up their little devices and watching something!



But what you _don't_ see is those same people when they get home and watch their large screen TVs for several hours before they go to sleep.

Of course they're watching small screens on the train or at the fast food place. They have no other practical option. But when home for several hours they do have other options.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 19, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> Yes, I think Canon is saying the R7 is not for pros. Not sure why so many folks;
> a) can't understand that,
> b) can't accept that.
> 
> ...



Pixel density is only one of several boxes that need to be checked. 

Fast frame rate and a deep buffer is another. No matter how fast a 100MP+ FF camera is, a 40MP APS-C camera can be that much faster processing and writing 40% as much data to get the same center of the picture.

So is cost.

Then there are those who may want _both_ tools, and want to use both _at the same time_. Throw a WA lens on the 100MP FF and a telephoto lens on the 40MP APS-C. It works a lot faster than constantly changing lenses, especially in outdoor settings with wind , dust, and who knows what else blowing around.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 19, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> But what you _don't_ see is those same people when they get home and watch their large screen TVs for several hours before they go to sleep.
> 
> Of course they're watching small screens on the train or at the fast food place. They have no other practical option. But when home for several hours they do have other options.


On the other hand, how many people watching at home pay extra for higher definition content? I’m guessing that most people save the money and opt for lower resolution.


----------



## lustyd (Jun 19, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> But what you _don't_ see is those same people when they get home and watch their large screen TVs for several hours before they go to sleep.
> 
> Of course they're watching small screens on the train or at the fast food place. They have no other practical option. But when home for several hours they do have other options.


Sorry, mobile still massively outweighs this. I'm not guessing, this is well recorded stuff if you look into it. The number of watch hours on mobile is enormous compared to any kind of fixed set up like TVs, Cinemas, even computers.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 20, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Sorry, mobile still massively outweighs this. I'm not guessing, this is well recorded stuff if you look into it. The number of watch hours on mobile is enormous compared to any kind of fixed set up like TVs, Cinemas, even computers.



Maybe in Japan or in large cities elsewhere in which a lot of folks spend a lot of time commuting via public transit. But in most of the U.S., people have their TVs on from the time they get home until when they go to sleep (if they don't leave them on even then), and turn them on from the time they wake up until they leave.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 20, 2022)

unfocused said:


> On the other hand, how many people watching at home pay extra for higher definition content? I’m guessing that most people save the money and opt for lower resolution.



Even FHD is higher resolution than the majority of phone screens in the world. Only the more expensive top tier phones popular in wealthy nations have 1080p or better resolution.

Amazon often offers multiple resolutions available for the streaming content they offer in both "rent" (stream) and "buy" (download) options, so one would assume at least some folks are willing to pay a premium for the higher resolution when watching on their large, high definition screens.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 20, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Sorry, mobile still massively outweighs this. I'm not guessing, this is well recorded stuff if you look into it. The number of watch hours on mobile is enormous compared to any kind of fixed set up like TVs, Cinemas, even computers.





Michael Clark said:


> Maybe in Japan or in large cities elsewhere in which a lot of folks spend a lot of time commuting via public transit. But in most of the U.S., people have their TVs on from the time they get home until when they go to sleep (if they don't leave them on even then), and turn them on from the time they wake up until they leave.


Your age is showing. Having spent the last several years working on a college campus, i can assure you that @lustyd is correct. Most media is short form video and is being consumed on mobile devices.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 20, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Your age is showing. Having spent the last several years working on a college campus, i can assure you that @lustyd is correct. Most media is short form video and is being consumed on mobile devices.


Indeed, though TV remains a significant platform (the difference is not ‘enormous’ as @lustyd suggests) mobile viewing took the majority position in the US in 2019 and has continued to increase (source):

_US consumers’ average time spent on their phones will reach 4 hours, 31 minutes per day this year, a 2.5% increase YoY. As recently as 2018, the average US adult still spent more time per day with TV (3 hours, 42 minutes) than consuming media on mobile devices (3 hours, 27 minutes), a category that includes smartphones, feature phones, and tablets. *But those positions switched in 2019 and have continued to diverge as mobile time surges and TV time falls.* By 2023, the average US adult will spend a staggering 4 hours, 35 minutes per day consuming media on mobile devices and less than 3 hours (2 hours, 51 minutes) with TV._

Don’t expect @Michael Clark to admit that he’s wrong, though.


----------



## lustyd (Jun 20, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Indeed, though TV remains a significant platform (the difference is not ‘enormous’ as @lustyd suggests) mobile viewing took the majority position in the US in 2019 and has continued to increase (source):
> 
> _US consumers’ average time spent on their phones will reach 4 hours, 31 minutes per day this year, a 2.5% increase YoY. As recently as 2018, the average US adult still spent more time per day with TV (3 hours, 42 minutes) than consuming media on mobile devices (3 hours, 27 minutes), a category that includes smartphones, feature phones, and tablets. *But those positions switched in 2019 and have continued to diverge as mobile time surges and TV time falls.* By 2023, the average US adult will spend a staggering 4 hours, 35 minutes per day consuming media on mobile devices and less than 3 hours (2 hours, 51 minutes) with TV._
> 
> Don’t expect @Michael Clark to admit that he’s wrong, though.


To be clear, I was talking globally. The USA has always been behind the tech curve, especially when it comes to mobile phones and their usage.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 20, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> …Only the more expensive top tier phones popular in wealthy nations have 1080p or better resolution…


I question that. Many less developed nations never had the legacy telephone and television infrastructure of the U.S. and adopted cellular systems much more quickly, leapfrogging over the U.S. I’d be interested in data that supports your assertion, as I have a suspicion that in countries where there is less embedded infrastructure and fewer options people may be more reliant on cell phones for communications, internet access, entertainment and education.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 21, 2022)

lustyd said:


> To be clear, I was talking globally. The USA has always been behind the tech curve, especially when it comes to mobile phones and their usage.


Thanks. Yes, that was clear. However, @Michael Clark was trying to make the point that ‘most of the US’ has more TV media viewing time than mobile media viewing time, which was his attempt to wiggle out of being wrong about the global situation. Of course, he was wrong about the US situation as well.

Or maybe he thinks his house is ‘most of the US’. Lol. Personally (as an irrelevant anecdote), in my house it’s not uncommon for my wife and I to be watching a show on a 4K TV while our three kids are each streaming something different on their mobile devices and the two other 4K TVs in the house are dark.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 21, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Your age is showing. Having spent the last several years working on a college campus, i can assure you that @lustyd is correct. Most media is short form video and is being consumed on mobile devices.



I'd certainly agree with you about the college age and below demographic. I'm around a lot of high school kids that are the same way. That trend has really taken off in the past decade or so. 10-15 years ago the kids were still talking about tv shows and movies they went to see at the theater. But in the U.S., at least, roughly 68.5% of the population is age 25 or older. The median age is 38.31 years. There are also slightly more people in the U.S. age 50+ (117,838,030) than there are 25-49 (108,852,000) or 0-24 (104,312,620). So while the trend is heading in that direction, I don't think we've yet arrived there.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 21, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Thanks. Yes, that was clear. However, @Michael Clark was trying to make the point that ‘most of the US’ has more TV media viewing time than mobile media viewing time, which was his attempt to wiggle out of being wrong about the global situation. Of course, he was wrong about the US situation as well.
> 
> Or maybe he thinks his house is ‘most of the US’. Lol. Personally (as an irrelevant anecdote), in my house it’s not uncommon for my wife and I to be watching a show on a 4K TV while our three kids are each streaming something different on their mobile devices and the two other 4K TVs in the house are dark.



You're wrong about my house. There's not a single television even plugged into an electrical outlet at my house. The newest TV in the house is sitting in a closet. It is a 32" or 35" CRT that I would have gotten rid of years ago if I could do so without paying an arm and a leg to get a recycler to take it off my hands.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 21, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Indeed, though TV remains a significant platform (the difference is not ‘enormous’ as @lustyd suggests) mobile viewing took the majority position in the US in 2019 and has continued to increase (source):
> 
> _US consumers’ average time spent on their phones will reach 4 hours, 31 minutes per day this year, a 2.5% increase YoY. As recently as 2018, the average US adult still spent more time per day with TV (3 hours, 42 minutes) than consuming media on mobile devices (3 hours, 27 minutes), a category that includes smartphones, feature phones, and tablets. *But those positions switched in 2019 and have continued to diverge as mobile time surges and TV time falls.* By 2023, the average US adult will spend a staggering 4 hours, 35 minutes per day consuming media on mobile devices and less than 3 hours (2 hours, 51 minutes) with TV._
> 
> Don’t expect @Michael Clark to admit that he’s wrong, though.



So you think every moment people spend on their phones is devoted to streaming professionally produced media programming? No time at all tweeting? No time spent on internet forums? No time devoted to any other nearly countless apps except YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, etc.? Sure, if you say so.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 21, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I question that. Many less developed nations never had the legacy telephone and television infrastructure of the U.S. and adopted cellular systems much more quickly, leapfrogging over the U.S. I’d be interested in data that supports your assertion, as I have a suspicion that in countries where there is less embedded infrastructure and fewer options people may be more reliant on cell phones for communications, internet access, entertainment and education.



Again, I'd agree with a lot of what you're saying. They did go cellular sooner, but didn't necessarily keep up with cutting edge improvements in data rates. The data networks in third world countries aren't near as fast as those in North America, Western Europe, and the more affluent areas on the Pacific rim like Japan, Australia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, etc. People I went to college and grad school with who've worked in such areas for extended periods of time bemoan the slow connections they're forced to use. Maybe Elon Musk's Starlink network is changing that for those who can afford it in such world areas, but the initial cost (about $600 USD) and monthly subscription (about $110 USD) is still well out of the reach for many in the world.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 21, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> So you think every moment people spend on their phones is devoted to streaming professionally produced media programming? No time at all tweeting? No time spent on internet forums? No time devoted to any other nearly countless apps except YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, etc.? Sure, if you say so.


The discussion was about media consumption, which includes more than just ‘professionally produced’ content. The source I quoted (and cited) was talking about media consumption.

I know that you know this, you’re merely trying to restrict the discussion in yet another futile attempt to avoid admitting you’re wrong.

‘Moving the goalposts’ is a classic worm wiggle move. Another classic worm wiggle move is deflection, exemplified by your tangential post filled with irrelevant numbers about the age distribution of the population. The discussion is about how people consume media, not what age they are.

As I posted, more media is consumed on mobile devices than on TVs in the US, and has been since 2019. That directly refutes your statements. Do you post alternate data on media consumption to suppprt your assertions? No, you post irrelevant data on population age distribution.

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 22, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> I'd certainly agree with you about the college age and below demographic. I'm around a lot of high school kids that are the same way. That trend has really taken off in the past decade or so. 10-15 years ago the kids were still talking about tv shows and movies they went to see at the theater. But in the U.S., at least, roughly 68.5% of the population is age 25 or older. The median age is 38.31 years. There are also slightly more people in the U.S. age 50+ (117,838,030) than there are 25-49 (108,852,000) or 0-24 (104,312,620). So while the trend is heading in that direction, I don't think we've yet arrived there.


Except that media consumption is not evenly distributed by age.


----------



## lustyd (Jun 22, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> The data networks in third world countries aren't near as fast as those in North America


That's just not true. Sure, the US has a few pockets of good connectivity but they are and always have been behind the connectivity curve. Even with connectivity present the US has traditionally been hampered by bad data deals. What you refer to as "third world" almost certainly has better mobile provision since there is no fixed infrastructure, leaving mobile as the only connectivity. Consequently it tends to be quite good.


----------



## lustyd (Jun 22, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> The discussion was about media consumption, which includes more than just ‘professionally produced’ content.


I think this is a very important point, given the start of the thread. Professionally produced content using RED or Black Magic cameras or the like accounts for a tiny, tiny proportion of content consumed. These discussions always seem to centre around the need for more newer high end cameras when in fact the opposite is true. Canon might sell a few thousand R1 units, but they'd sell tens or hundreds of thousands of units of vlogging cameras. Flagship cameras are used to make sure people know and trust the brand, the profit comes from the scale of the ordinary cameras. 
It's exactly the same in the gaming world, big name titles like HALO might take the headlines, but candy crush utterly obliterated it in terms of revenue, profit, MAUs, hours played, pretty much every metric you care to measure. The view of gamers being 16 year old boys in their bedrooms is outdated, gamers tend to be mid-20s women on their way to work. The same is true of video, a few people will attend the cinema but the vast majority of video content produced and consumed now is online low end stuff.


----------



## bergstrom (Jul 26, 2022)

no news on RP2?


----------



## glongstaff (Aug 22, 2022)

Just hope Canon would replace the R5 with an updated version to fix all the bug-bears (but doubt that will be the case due to people still buying a flawed design (just have to wonder what testing was actually carried out!! and for how long). This has had me holding off for the last year or so and biting the bullet and replacing the 5DMKIII

So:
1. Same resolution but with Stacked Sensor to cut down on that rolling shutter
2. Redesign or fix the hot shoe issue of peeling off in your hands
3. Two of the same card slot
4. Seeing the video function is here to stay on a photographic camera - fix the heat dissipation issue (not just by the timer) for those that like to use it
5. Go to the longer lasting battery as per the R3


----------



## unfocused (Aug 22, 2022)

glongstaff said:


> Just hope Canon would replace the R5 with an updated version to fix all the bug-bears (but doubt that will be the case due to people still buying a flawed design (just have to wonder what testing was actually carried out!! and for how long). This has had me holding off for the last year or so and biting the bullet and replacing the 5DMKIII
> 
> So:
> 1. Same resolution but with Stacked Sensor to cut down on that rolling shutter
> ...


If you are waiting for these changes, you can expect to wait a long time.


----------



## Czardoom (Aug 22, 2022)

glongstaff said:


> Just hope Canon would replace the R5 with an updated version to fix all the bug-bears (but doubt that will be the case due to people still buying a flawed design (just have to wonder what testing was actually carried out!! and for how long). This has had me holding off for the last year or so and biting the bullet and replacing the 5DMKIII
> 
> So:
> 1. Same resolution but with Stacked Sensor to cut down on that rolling shutter
> ...


Your "flawed design" is a lot of people's favorite camera. The idea that Canon didn't do extensive testing is of course ridiculous.


----------



## bergstrom (Aug 23, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> Your "flawed design" is a lot of people's favorite camera. The idea that Canon didn't do extensive testing is of course ridiculous.




Yeah that extensive testing on overheating reaped the rewards. zzzzz


----------



## unfocused (Aug 23, 2022)

bergstrom said:


> Yeah that extensive testing on overheating reaped the rewards. zzzzz


Canon screwed up the overheating. But, I believe that was a huge miscommunication between engineering and marketing. Marketing department was told to hype the 8k while engineering buried the overheating issue in a footnote. Still, for most users the problem was hugely overstated. Obviously Canon learned from their mistake and the R5 remains a fantastic camera.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 23, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> Your "flawed design" is a lot of people's favorite camera. The idea that Canon didn't do extensive testing is of course ridiculous.


Of course lots of extensive testing was done on the R5 for many months!  
1. Pre-release marketing hype about 8K video to *test *how the market would respond to such an unqualified claim.
2. Selective release to loyal YouTube reviewers who would '*test*' the cameras by making preview videos (infomercials) that were just citing product specs.
3. After a few weeks, allowing said select reviewers to '*test*' performance by publishing photos and videos taken at a free holiday junket paid for Canon using carefully selected locations and sets with perfect conditions.
4. Slowly allowing other favourable YouTube sites to receive samples to '*test*' the camera, as long as they play up the big specs and play down the shortcomings, otherwise no camera sample next time.
5. Objective and critical analysis by forum fanboys and brand loyalist who pre-ordered the cameras, who concluded after exhaustive testing that their new cameras definitively had no issues, such as overheating.
6. Ongoing, post product launch *testing*, where the aforementioned forum experts have consistently concluded that every alleged fault, be identified to be a hardware issue or a firmware update bug, is actually always a user error, irrespective of the photographer's actual skill or experience.

Totally agree, for anyone to suggest that the R5 wasn't extensively tested is really beyond the pale!


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 23, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Canon screwed up the overheating. But, I believe that was a huge miscommunication between engineering and marketing. Marketing department was told to hype the 8k while engineering buried the overheating issue in a footnote. Still, for most users the problem was hugely overstated. Obviously Canon learned from their mistake and the R5 remains a fantastic camera.


I think you mean "Obviously Canon learned from their mistake *and released the EOS R5 C"* !


----------



## USMarineCorpsVet (Aug 24, 2022)

sanj said:


> Noo


What makes you say that? The reality is that they are already 18 months behind in releasing a true flagship.


----------



## glongstaff (Aug 24, 2022)

unfocused said:


> If you are waiting for these changes, you can expect to wait a long time.


exactly, and for those jumping on the 'flawed design' just a general wording that not everyone is going to agree on but when you have a professional camera and costing to boot and then being released with all the hype and still release a camera with the issue it had - shame on them!
I have been a canon owner since the release of the 350D love the 5DMKIII, but haters are going to hate and if you like your camera good for you....but it is a disgrace that large companies are releasing bodies at these prices with flaws they would know about (not talking about small niggles here) and hope all goes fine, yet the purchaser is the one suffering


----------

