# This is the possible Canon RF mount camera roadmap [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 16, 2020)

> I continue to receive little bits and pieces of information in regards to future RF mount cameras. I have attempted to piece together what is coming for the RF mount camera lineup based on the information from multiple known and anonymous sources.
> A new entry-level camera to replace the EOS RP
> This camera will be cheaper than the current EOS RP camera body.
> A second body above the EOS RP replacement
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## slclick (Nov 16, 2020)

I can fathom them keeping the body shapes relatively the same for production line continuity and moving away from the R and RP shapes. Like you and I, it's whats inside that counts


----------



## Twinix (Nov 16, 2020)

Canon C50?


----------



## J’s Pic (Nov 16, 2020)

I wonder what they can possibly do in the segment above the R5. More Mega pixels for landscape photography? or faster FPS for action/sports? Better low light performance...or all three.
they could fix the overheating for 8k video, but since they have a different line for that, I doubt that will be enough.

(personally I have an R6 and the autofocus is such an improvement over the 6d...next: RF glass)


----------



## Andy Westwood (Nov 16, 2020)

An RP replacement that is cheaper than the current one, must be great news for full frame lovers or enthusiasts that wish to move on from crop sensor cameras


----------



## LensFungus (Nov 16, 2020)

> A flagship RF mount camera
> 
> The Tokyo Olympics appear to be a go, and I expect we’ll see some kind of a flagship RF mount camera body announcement.


According to my source it will have a pop up flash but it is directed in the photographers direction and if you press the shutter button the flash sprays liquid hand sanitizer in your face. If you dislike the idea of doing it manually you can activate "automatic sensor cleaning" and it happens every time you set the power switch to "off".


----------



## Chaitanya (Nov 16, 2020)

I really hope we get a EOS x0D replacement on RF mount with dual SD slots. It will be great for macro shooters.


----------



## neurorx (Nov 16, 2020)

Given the lag in backorders in cameras and lenses, this seems like an aggressive effort to launch so many cameras, when people still can't get the current ones. I am curious about the flagship camera.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Nov 16, 2020)

J’s Pic said:


> I wonder what they can possibly do in the segment above the R5. More Mega pixels for landscape photography? or faster FPS for action/sports? Better low light performance...or all three.
> they could fix the overheating for 8k video, but since they have a different line for that, I doubt that will be enough.
> 
> (personally I have an R6 and the autofocus is such an improvement over the 6d...next: RF glass)



A high-res body with "IBIS gen 2" would be very interesting; it probably has limited video modes and/or none that are full-frame. On the contrary, I am skeptical if the RF 1DX equivalent has IBIS at all because there is so little to be gained and much to be lost (battery life, size, heat, weight) for the purposes of a body like that, but there is no reason that body couldn't have fantastic 4k oversampled video that's even better than the 1DX III (particularly if they up the sensor to 24 MP). Then in fall 2022 or spring 2023 you get the R5 MKII with either IBIS 2 or 2a or 3 and generationally-improved video capabilities (i.e. significantly less heat/recycle limitations).

While I'm at it, if they're going to release a cheaper full-frame than the RP, AND an R-ish body above the RP, then to me that means the APS-C body must be the enthusiast body (7D replacement) everyone is clamoring for. To me that means a similar sensor to the 90D with an R6-like feature set, but R5 weather sealing.


----------



## Aaron D (Nov 16, 2020)

"twice the resolution'" sounds like plenty. If it was 120MP, I'd pass and stick with the 45MP R5. But this means waiting another year until the 's' version is available. Guess I'll have to buy lenses in the meanwhile.


----------



## Rivermist (Nov 16, 2020)

I would hope that keep the compact format of the RP for its replacement, I find it a huge plus in my camera bag and the ergonomics of the current RP are fine. Upgrade the sensor and the EVF, and put a lock on the mode dial (similar to what the 5D3 or 5D4 have), and a possibility for a grip with vertical controls and 2 batteries would be nice.


----------



## DJPatte (Nov 16, 2020)

J’s Pic said:


> I wonder what they can possibly do in the segment above the R5. More Mega pixels for landscape photography? or faster FPS for action/sports? Better low light performance...or all three.
> they could fix the overheating for 8k video, but since they have a different line for that, I doubt that will be enough.
> 
> (personally I have an R6 and the autofocus is such an improvement over the 6d...next: RF glass)



After using my R5's a couple of months I actually DO think they can and will improve the auto focus quite a bit.
Better equipment pushes the borders for what we are trying to achieve and I’m constantly throwing myself into situations where the eye and face detection isn’t sufficient - horse and bicycle riders with helmets AND goggles, far away in a messy forest for example. Half of my framing time can consist in trying to tap in the focus and then, when it kicks in it might take one or half of a second of reframing, and in a split second, the subject is gone. Did I get it? Sure. Am I satisfied? No, I missed a lot as well.
Some kind of complementary initial focus system is bound to come, a specially for the low light situations. And I’m really looking forward to it )


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Nov 16, 2020)

One problem i see with the entire Canon lineup is the lack of a decent 4K camera under $2500.
Sony, Fuji, Nikon, Panasonic all offering at least one camera with uncropped 4K, except Canon.

The only one Canon has is the M6 but the M is kind of a dead-end system.


----------



## entoman (Nov 16, 2020)

If this is really what they are going to release in 2021, Canon are simply going to wipe the floor with Sony, Nikon and Panasonic, especially with all the lenses now on the roadmap.

I fancy an R5 "s" with 90MP (and options for full frame capture at lower resolutions, an even higher resolution EVF, burst speed around 10fps, better battery life, and video features either kept to a minium or completely removed. I think that's a realistic possibility. Unfortunately what they *won't* do, is to fit a more versatile S1-style tilting/articulated rear screen. Which is a pity, but not a deal breaker.


----------



## Stanly (Nov 16, 2020)

Still waiting for that hybrid camera or at least something that is a C70 with full frame sensor.

At the moment there is still no reliable camera that can take full advantage of RF lenses for video. R5 is probably closest to that, but without C-Log update and overheating unpredictability I can't imagine making that jump.


----------



## bbasiaga (Nov 16, 2020)

That EOS R replacement is interesting. I wonder if it will get dual card slots. I kind of doubt it. I think they'll keep that a differentiator for the R6. But it will probably have a higher MP sensor with lower frame rates. Ugh that'd be a tough decision as far as what to upgrade to coming from a 5D3. 

-Brian


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 16, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> There will be a big price gap between the EOS RP replacement and the EOS R6 at $2499. I have been told a second camera will fit between these two bodies. It won’t be an “EOS R Mark II”.



Really wondering what this camera could be. Is it maybe a EOS R Mark II but with a new naming scheme? I know, I'm probably one of the few (most people want R5/6 now) who'd actually be interested in a successor to the R, but it fits my needs perfectly and I love it. The real flaw to me is the fps in continuous shooting and frames with silent shutter... It would be really nice if they fix this and bring it out a successor, maybe with a better auto-focus or/ and a slight bump in MP.

But "between RP and R6"? This rumor really leaves me a bit baffled.


----------



## Bishop80 (Nov 16, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> *A second body above the EOS RP replacement*
> There will be a big price gap between the EOS RP replacement and the EOS R6 at $2499. I have been told a second camera will fit between these two bodies. It won’t be an “EOS R Mark II”.



Priced between the RP and the R6, but not an R Mark II. Does that mean "not in the R price range", or "similar in price to R but a completely new model like 'RQ' "?

Current retail prices in USD for these models:

EOS RP body: $999.99
EOS R body: $1,799.00
EOS R6 body: $2,499.00


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 16, 2020)

slclick said:


> I can fathom them keeping the body shapes relatively the same for production line continuity and moving away from the R and RP shapes. Like you and I, it's whats inside that counts


Canon doesn't need to produce more at current time - have large enough range already and 
only thing that is missing from their line up & Nikon is a pro ML camera, e.g., R1 or Nikon Z9, etc.

With a contracting camera market may be sensible for Canon to do less in terms of no of active camera models be it compact, APS ML and RF ML (APS & FF) and have smaller range of cameras and leave the rumored updates for Gen 3 in 2022 onwards


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Nov 16, 2020)

Just hope the APS-C model is every bit a 7D3 and doesn’t skimp on the features. 

There is a HUGE market for a 7D3!!


----------



## Bahrd (Nov 16, 2020)

> Hold tight for some smaller lenses for folks that want a nice and compact APS-C system.


If it is going to be a 7D counterpart, which lenses its users are interested in?


----------



## xps (Nov 16, 2020)

pro R body:
32-40MP (or like Sony A9II successor) at 16 fps with shutter, 22 with electronic shutter
even 1 step better DR in low light
better battery performance, able to get 1000+ shots with one battery 
next gen quad AF system and IBIS that can be easily activated and deactivated
4k120
2 cf express cards
built in wireless transmitter/receiver
bigger display


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 16, 2020)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Just hope the APS-C model is every bit a 7D3 and doesn’t skimp on the features.
> 
> There is a HUGE market for a 7D3!!


Good point but will 1 or more APS RF cameras mean an end to the existing EOS M system ?


----------



## Osama (Nov 16, 2020)

I would take an APS-C body if it got clog and doesn't overheat.


----------



## TMHKR (Nov 16, 2020)

APS-C RF camera, if affordable enough, will need some SERIOUSLY cheap lenses. I'm speaking of EF-S cheap.


----------



## Swerky (Nov 16, 2020)

The RP replacement will be cheaper than the launching price of the RP but that doesn't mean that it will be lower end than the RP. How low can a camera get? I'm expecting software improvements and maybe a new sensor. Remaining things should be similar. As for a new body above the RP replacement and below the R6, that's what I'm interested in. An affordable EOS R with ibis. I just hope that Canon doesn't make it a habit to keep the top panel for high end models.


----------



## AccipiterQ (Nov 16, 2020)

Bahrd said:


> If it is going to be a 7D counterpart, which lenses its users are interested in?



I'd slap my 600iii on it, and consider the 800 5.6


----------



## Hector1970 (Nov 16, 2020)

A high resolution R5 is what I'm waiting for. The R5 seems a great camera but I'm still happy with my existing EF cameras.
What would tempt me is 90-100 MP camera with the processing power to deal with it.
If it could have dedicated viewfinder zoom button or someway to quickly increase the image size for wildlife photography would be great.
I'd be quite happy if the video capabilities were basic. 8K video is overkill for most people. Especially if it reduced the cost of it (it probably won't).

The specs of the R1 will be interesting. It's bound to be better than the 1DXIII but how good it can be will be interesting. It's sure to have more MP than the 1DXIII. (I've always felt the 1DXIII was a missed opportunity - a 30MP sensor would have been no issue to it.)
Something to look forward to anyway


----------



## Hector1970 (Nov 16, 2020)

AccipiterQ said:


> I'd slap my 600iii on it, and consider the 800 5.6


A 300 2.8 would be a great sports lens on it.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 16, 2020)

_"A second body above the EOS RP replacement"_

Can't stop thinking about the EOS R Mark II type camera replacement. How about
- 32 MP (current RP has 24, R has 30MP) 
- 8 fps mechanical shutter (full autofocus) 
- 12 fps silent shutter
- maybe even IBIS 
- 1-card slot (people will now hate me )

Canon would save costs on the card slot, no need to develop fps/ new autofocus. I further think they could include IBIS since other manufacturers are doing the same. They could save costs non IS-lense instead. But I'd see how Canon would only put IBIS into the R6 and other upscale cameras to protect their sales. 

For an Amateur/ enthusiast this could be great value and guess Canon would start pricing it at 2.000 $ or maybe a bit less.


----------



## Arod820 (Nov 16, 2020)

Anybody know if there’s gonna be Black Friday or cyber Monday deals on the C70?


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 16, 2020)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Just hope the APS-C model is every bit a 7D3 and doesn’t skimp on the features.
> 
> There is a HUGE market for a 7D3!!


I would probably buy the APS-C model if it's a 7D3 equivalent but I don't think the market is all that large. What I wonder is whether Canon could use the same basic architecture to develop something similar for the M-mount and how well such a camera would sell.


----------



## keithcooper (Nov 16, 2020)

“twice the resolution”.

Is that twice the MP (~90MP) or half the pixel pitch (~180MP) ;-)

Having tried the R5, I wouldn't replace my 5Ds for it (great as it is), but I'll take the 90MP... (and pixel shift for specialist stuff)
Yes, it matters for my work YMMV ;-)


----------



## bbasiaga (Nov 16, 2020)

Swerky said:


> The RP replacement will be cheaper than the launching price of the RP but that doesn't mean that it will be lower end than the RP. How low can a camera get? I'm expecting software improvements and maybe a new sensor. Remaining things should be similar. As for a new body above the RP replacement and below the R6, that's what I'm interested in. An affordable EOS R with ibis. I just hope that Canon doesn't make it a habit to keep the top panel for high end models.


I used an R6 for a weekend and shot a soccer game and some other minor stuff. I thought I'd miss the top LCD, but didn't. Not even one bit. The third dial, plus all the info available in the EVF/rear touch screen, plus a control ring and alternate button mapping using the m.fn button and everything is just right there to change in an instant. If you don't want to do it with your eye up to the screen, then its all just a few quick taps away on the rear LCD. 

That doesn't mean you wont miss it, or that it would be nice to have another display. Just that in my use it was no hindrance at all to work without it. 

-Brian


----------



## Dragon (Nov 16, 2020)

I think the R5s will be well before any APS-c body. That will test the water to see if "reach" or "frugality" is driving the 7d screech machine. The M5 really needs a replacement, and that is in some conflict with the APS-c R as described. I have an R5 and an M5 and I would buy the R5s and the M7 (or whatever), but not even consider an APS-c R.


----------



## CanonGrunt (Nov 16, 2020)

Are there any rumored specs for the c90?


----------



## Larsskv (Nov 16, 2020)

One thing that speaks against the 1DXR type body coming in 2021, is that the Olympics wasn’t planned to be in 2021. Given the expected development time for such a camera, it seems more likely to be ready for the winter olympics in 2022...


----------



## Dragon (Nov 16, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> I would probably buy the APS-C model if it's a 7D3 equivalent but I don't think the market is all that large. What I wonder is whether could use the same basic architecture to develop something similar for the M-mount and how well such a camera would sell.


I think that is exactly the conundrum Canon is facing. The M line is popular and releasing an APS-c R would telegraph to many that the M line is history. To replace the M line with an APS-C R line would require several bodies and a bunch of new lenses and the result would still not be as portable as the M line. I really don't see Canon throwing away a large market segment to appease the relatively (note I said relatively) small number of 7D wannabes. It is a hard call, but I think we will see a 5Ds and an M5 II (or equivalent). I would note that there is no real competition from Nikon or Fuji in the 7D space, because the Z50 is really in the Rebel space and Fuji has no long glass. Canon has time to think this through (and to see if the R5s picks up a lot of the "reach" slack). I think a high res FF makes BIF easier due to the wider field of view and you give up nothing with respect to pixels on the target. The same could be said for sports with the possible need for an in-camera cropping tool to satisfy those who are shipping out photos immediately, although simply running the high res camera in crop mode may be suitable for sports, particularly if it allows for higher frame rate.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 16, 2020)

I. Don't. Care. Need. $. For. Glass. Body. Irrelevant. 4. Now.


----------



## fox40phil (Nov 16, 2020)

RII would be awesome.... with the stuff from the R6! But with 30MP :S... but would be more expensive then the R6..damit!

a cheaper RP?! I love my RP.... only a more faster CPU and EVF + dial in the back. (+ 2nd cardslot) and the bigger battery?!  

So I will wait for the complete RF-body release in 2021! feels like back in the days before some years...


----------



## rom (Nov 16, 2020)

Exploreshootshare said:


> _"A second body above the EOS RP replacement"_
> 
> Can't stop thinking about the EOS R Mark II type camera replacement. How about
> - 32 MP (current RP has 24, R has 30MP)
> ...


I love my R. I actually don’t want the R5 or R6. So this if this is the new R “Mark II” it will be perfect


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 16, 2020)

Bishop80 said:


> Priced between the RP and the R6, but not an R Mark II. Does that mean "not in the R price range", or "similar in price to R but a completely new model like 'RQ' "?
> 
> Current retail prices in USD for these models:
> 
> ...


I was going to say that R is between RP and R6.
It would make sense for RP2 or some number like that to be between RP and R.
The RP can use any numbering Canon comes up with.
Between the R and R6 could be confusing put Canon could add a different number after R then P. 
That way they could come up with any number they want.


----------



## Hyperion (Nov 16, 2020)

Between RP and R6, but not RmkII... Rangefinder style FF camera from Canon?!


----------



## SteveC (Nov 16, 2020)

[email protected] said:


> Good point but will 1 or more APS RF cameras mean an end to the existing EOS M system ?



I doubt it, because the EOS M is aimed at a different group of people. Yes, you can get a fantastic camera with the M series (the M6-II) which has, I believe, many of the features the 7D folks want, but falls short in build quality and of course has no viewfinder. But on the whole the Ms are aimed at the same market as the Rebels.

If something "dies" in EOS M land, it might be that they never produce another M series camera at the same "level" as the M6-II.


----------



## lexptr (Nov 16, 2020)

I just need the damn R5 finally! Bring it to stores, Canon, please!


----------



## fred (Nov 16, 2020)

Canon, why still no direct Z6(II)/A7III(IV) competitor?


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 16, 2020)

fred said:


> Canon, why still no direct Z6(II)/A7III(IV) competitor?


Or, given the unprecedented success Canon have had in the R5 and R6 one might more reasonably ask Sony and Nikon why no R5 or R6?

But Canon would probably say the R6 is as close to the Z6 II and A7 III as you are going to get for now, either buy it or don't we can sell all we can make.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Nov 16, 2020)

xps said:


> pro R body:
> 32-40MP (or like Sony A9II successor) at 16 fps with shutter, 22 with electronic shutter
> even 1 step better DR in low light
> better battery performance, able to get 1000+ shots with one battery
> ...


I dont think there is a stop of improvement remaining in DR.32mp perhaps but i doubt canon will go to 40 on their 'pro' body. And given that dpaf 2 is brand new i cant see a new gen focusing system yet.


----------



## slclick (Nov 16, 2020)

[email protected] said:


> Canon doesn't need to produce more at current time - have large enough range already and
> only thing that is missing from their line up & Nikon is a pro ML camera, e.g., R1 or Nikon Z9, etc.
> 
> With a contracting camera market may be sensible for Canon to do less in terms of no of active camera models be it compact, APS ML and RF ML (APS & FF) and have smaller range of cameras and leave the rumored updates for Gen 3 in 2022 onwards


Why quote what I said? More bodies on the way was CR's idea not mine.


----------



## cognitivefilms (Nov 16, 2020)

How does the naming work with the C-series. Would a C50 be a step down from C70, or up?


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 16, 2020)

rom said:


> I love my R. I actually don’t want the R5 or R6. So this if this is the new R “Mark II” it will be perfect


I love my R. I'd still take an R5.


----------



## navastronia (Nov 16, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> I dont think there is a stop of improvement remaining in DR.32mp perhaps but i doubt canon will go to 40 on their 'pro' body. And given that dpaf 2 is brand new i cant see a new gen focusing system yet.



On the flagship model, I'd gladly take 28-32 MP on a newly-designed sensor. Even better if there's global shutter.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 16, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I love my R. I'd still take an R5.



I love my R and it fits my finances. Of course, I would not say no to a R5 if it was given to me. But I wouldn't spent the money on a R5 out of my pocket. And the R is a great offer for the money, at least in my opinion.


----------



## deleteme (Nov 16, 2020)

The entire R series mirrorless is Canon's "Shock and Awe" offensive in the enthusiast camera market.
Sony was frightening the community by rattling their MILC sabers with ever better bodies and more lenses. 
Canon was mocked for the R and RP and the world looked like it was going to submit to the dark lord of Sony rule.
But with the launch of "R Storm" , Canon has pounded the market into shock with two new bodies that are significantly far ahead of the competition along with lenses and a roadmap that makes the product planners at the remaining firms wonder why they did not take up a different line of work.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 16, 2020)

J’s Pic said:


> I wonder what they can possibly do in the segment above the R5. More Mega pixels for landscape photography? or faster FPS for action/sports? Better low light performance...or all three.
> they could fix the overheating for 8k video, but since they have a different line for that, I doubt that will be enough.
> 
> (personally I have an R6 and the autofocus is such an improvement over the 6d...next: RF glass)


My guess for R1 is minimum specs as R5 but in 1D body ( AF-On smart controller buttons, dual CFe slots) with:
- Global shutter (no mechanical shutter). Rolling shutter artifacts significantly better than current electronic shutter
- 45mp sensor with IBIS (IBIS can be turned off)
- 30fps electronic shutter burst with full tracking - perhaps with buffer ie not unlimited
- ~20mp on-the fly over sampled (no lossy compression/cRAW/S-RAW) at full 30fps unlimited buffer. Best of both worlds.
- Dual Digic X to spread the heat generation and generate less heat per CPU
- Unlimited 8k cinema raw lite internal recording to CFe card capacity
- 6K/60. 4k/120 unlimited no crop internal recording.
- No line skipping/pixel binning 4k/6k modes
- 29:59 recording limit
- Clog2/3
- minimum 16fps using anti-flicker depending on frequency of the flicker lighting
- AF in very low light (quad pixel makes sense but would be equivalent to a 180mp sensor!)
- pixel shift high res stills
- 9+ megadot EFV with no blackout and fast refresh rates (at lease 120fps). >0.5" in size
- full sized HDMI 2.1 port (48G) or thunderbolt 3 USB-C or both
- Mini XLR audio option
- Ethernet port
- Flippy screen included. This one I am not sure on but still needed I think. Weather sealing will need to be excellent though

This merges the current 1Dxiii/R5 features with global shutter possibilities. Main differences are electronic processing/firmware and sensor. The 1D has always had excellent video capabilities and I would expect it to be similar for the R1

USD10k

Won't directly compete with cinema line due to form factor but there will be a similar specced cinema form factor with unlimited 8k raw option, heaps of buttons and vented/fan cooled. Cxxx option will be more expensive.


----------



## Kit. (Nov 16, 2020)

How about actually delivering my R5 first?


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 16, 2020)

Will the follow-up for the RP get a new naming scheme? And the above "RP level, but no R Mark II" camera as well? Canon could do the following: 

R9 - RP successor 
R8 - above RP 
R7 - APS-C Camera, if it is a 7d successor. 

R6 
R5 
R5s 

R1 


This would be a clear naming scheme and easily to remember plus it really gives one a feeling, where ones camera is on a scale. I`d especially like the gap between R5/ R1. It really is a statement for the R1 camera.


----------



## usern4cr (Nov 16, 2020)

3 more R FF bodies, plus 1 new R APS body (& APS lenses) with careful vertical marketing placement, will drastically increase the future growth of Canons R mount system. It's absolutely fantastic for all of us already in the R mount system.

Personally, I'm interested in a 2nd (but no more) body so I can have 2 on hand and not swap lenses. A 90MP R5s, with whatever additional upgrades it has, would probably be worth getting for me. I happen to like taking big multi-row panoramas, but they can have serious stitching trouble with moving imagery. With my R5 I've started to do single row panos with the camera in vertical position so my panos can be 8.2K pixels high and whatever I want wide - that's pretty darn good and gets rid of almost all stitching issues. A 90MP sensor would increase the pano resolution to about 11.5K pixels high which would be even better. The pixels are getting so small that I'm not sure how much better the 90MP images will be compared to the 45MP images, but if you have their best L quality R lenses then I can only hope it will be worth getting the R5s instead of a 2nd R5.


----------



## slclick (Nov 16, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I love my R. I'd still take an R5.


Did you see how the poster totally missed how there was NOT going to be an Rll?


----------



## LeBlobe (Nov 16, 2020)

plz add focus bracketing in EOS R II ! (or the name it will have in that price range)


----------



## Karel (Nov 16, 2020)

is it possible to have ProRes internal recording to CFExpress in the future Canon EOS R1?


----------



## slclick (Nov 16, 2020)

Karel said:


> is it possible to have ProRes internal recording to CFExpress in the future Canon EOS R1?


Anything is possible on a product that doesn't exist


----------



## highdesertmesa (Nov 16, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> ...The pixels are getting so small that I'm not sure how much better the 90MP images will be compared to the 45MP images, but if you have their best L quality R lenses then I can only hope it will be worth getting the R5s instead of a 2nd R5.



I hope they do something special with the microlens design of the high-res R sensor to improve corner performance. Even high-end lenses like the RF 50 f/1.2L shot at f/5.6 and f/8 show some corner weakness at 2:1 magnification on the R5.


----------



## pj1974 (Nov 16, 2020)

This CR2 rumour is particularly enticing for me. I have not yet bought into the RF mount system, but I definitely plan to.

The most attractive camera to me would be the high resolution "R5s" model.
In fact, the R5 is pretty much my ideal camera in almost every aspect: image quality, autofocus, IBIS, build quality, size & weight, ergonomics, etc. The only aspect I really wish it would have a built in pixel shift / high resolution mode.
(As evidenced by Canon in so many ways in digital photography, they test and implement technology when it is thoroughly functional... e.g. DPAF, IBIS, DPAF II, articulating screen, etc).

I use my Canon DSLRs and M5 for photography >95% of the time... that is, I take video only for specific reasons. Decent 4K at 30fps is plenty for me. But 1080 120fps or even 1080 240fps is something I would use in certain applications.

The great thing is that my EF lenses, including some L glass (and even a few of my EF-S lenses) work very well on EOS RF mount cameras. (I have borrowed some friends' EOS R and EOS R6 cameras and my lenses perform wonderfully well!)

So a higher resolution R5s would fit the bill oh so VERY well for me.
I mainly focus (pun intended) on landscape photography, (including panoramas) and other nature photography, e.g. wildlife (animals including birds), macros (plants, insects, etc).

It's a great time to be a photographer. Enjoy the light!

Peace

PJ


----------



## yeahright (Nov 16, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> I hope they do something special with the microlens design of the high-res R sensor to improve corner performance. Even high-end lenses like the RF 50 f/1.2L shot at f/5.6 and f/8 show some corner weakness at 2:1 magnification on the R5.


how could microlens design help with corner sharpness of the lens?


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Nov 16, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> I would probably buy the APS-C model if it's a 7D3 equivalent but I don't think the market is all that large. What I wonder is whether could use the same basic architecture to develop something similar for the M-mount and how well such a camera would sell.


RF is where the lenses are (or will be) at though. Think big whites.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Nov 16, 2020)

[email protected] said:


> Good point but will 1 or more APS RF cameras mean an end to the existing EOS M system ?


Quite possibly yes. Although maybe not. For me it would make sense to have just one APS-C R mount, as in a fast crop sports/wildlife body, but keep the rest of the range full frame... and the M line just be about crop sensors only. I dunno, it’s a confusing one.


----------



## usern4cr (Nov 16, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> I hope they do something special with the microlens design of the high-res R sensor to improve corner performance. Even high-end lenses like the RF 50 f/1.2L shot at f/5.6 and f/8 show some corner weakness at 2:1 magnification on the R5.


Do you think the microlens design at the corner of the sensor has anything appreciable to do with "corner weakness", relative to the weakness caused by the lens itself? I wonder if they take the average angle of incidence into each pixel into account when they lay out the pixel microlens center/shape in the sensor? It's always easier to have the same microlens center & shape for all pixels for ease of microlens design & fabrication, but with advanced computers nowdays you'd think they might have considered this.


----------



## usern4cr (Nov 16, 2020)

[email protected] said:


> Good point but will 1 or more APS RF cameras mean an end to the existing EOS M system ?


If the M system is selling well, then I'd continue it as long as it is profitable if I was Canon. It doesn't have an EVF, so it'd be a different body from the R APS version, in case there are folks who want a really small camera without an EVF (which there probably are).


----------



## gmon750 (Nov 16, 2020)

As an underwater photographer, I’m holding off upgrading my 5DM3 until I see where the R bodies go. It’s frustrating for folks like us. We invest thousands of dollars in underwater gear and the housings we use are made for a very specific camera dimensions and button locations. Those housings usually cost more than the camera itself. One thing I like about my 5D camera is Canon not changing the external dimensions for three cameras (5DM3, 5DM4, 5DSR) so my $4K housing can use all three cameras. 

I wonder if Canon will continue this tradition with the R5, or begin changing them as new cameras are introduced, and at a faster schedule than the 4-year cycle that Canon original did with the 5D models.

First-world problem for sure, but it does make me wonder.


----------



## navastronia (Nov 16, 2020)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I love my R and it fits my finances. Of course, I would not say no to a R5 if it was given to me. But I wouldn't spent the money on a R5 out of my pocket. And the R is a great offer for the money, at least in my opinion.



Honestly, the _RP _is a great value for the money if you're upgrading from older gear. There's nothing else like it in the Canon ecosystem, and there never has been, AFAIK.


----------



## ctk (Nov 17, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> That EOS R replacement is interesting. I wonder if it will get dual card slots. I kind of doubt it. I think they'll keep that a differentiator for the R6. But it will probably have a higher MP sensor with lower frame rates. Ugh that'd be a tough decision as far as what to upgrade to coming from a 5D3.
> 
> -Brian


I'd be happy with the same sensor in the R6 body (IBIS, joystick etc). Maybe better AF implementation. Otherwise I'm very happy with the R.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 17, 2020)

gmon750 said:


> As an underwater photographer, I’m holding off upgrading my 5DM3 until I see where the R bodies go. It’s frustrating for folks like us. We invest thousands of dollars in underwater gear and the housings we use are made for a very specific camera dimensions and button locations. Those housings usually cost more than the camera itself. One thing I like about my 5D camera is Canon not changing the external dimensions for three cameras (5DM3, 5DM4, 5DSR) so my $4K housing can use all three cameras.
> 
> I wonder if Canon will continue this tradition with the R5, or begin changing them as new cameras are introduced, and at a faster schedule than the 4-year cycle that Canon original did with the 5D models.
> 
> First-world problem for sure, but it does make me wonder.


I had the same issues with my Ikelite housing. Moving from the 5Diii to the 5Div was a bigger improvement overall. More pixels, faster AF/fps etc was very useful underwater. Buying the 5Div second hand was not too expensive and I ended up selling it for more than I paid when I went to the R5
I did find that the knob for changing from still to video and back wasn't ideal on the 5Diii but did work fine on the 5Div so there were minor changes to the body shape.
I jumped to the R5 housing as there isn't much else I would want in a body. Speed, AF, pixels, high ISO, video etc are good enough to keep me going for a long time to come even if a replacement body is somehow better in the future.
Selling second hand housings is not simple during this travel-restricted time but the flexibility to handle 5Diii/iv/SR is an advantage over other options. I am not sure what the lifespan of a housing should be... 5-8 years at least I guess. Hard to imagine that a R5ii will have a revolutionary jump in specs even in 4 years time so I will be happy to keep mine for a long time to come.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 17, 2020)

Bahrd said:


> If it is going to be a 7D counterpart, which lenses its users are interested in?


Offer a 15-85 f4 and maybe a 10-20 f4 and that's everything Canon would need to make. Most buyers are interested in using R telephotos anyway.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 17, 2020)

Arod820 said:


> Anybody know if there’s gonna be Black Friday or cyber Monday deals on the C70?


----------



## CanonGrunt (Nov 17, 2020)

cognitivefilms said:


> How does the naming work with the C-series. Would a C50 be a step down from C70, or up?



Down. C90 would be up. Though technically the naming for canon cinema cameras goes by body size, but they put more stuff in the bigger ones. But big number, big camera, big specs. Distinct line from the c100, 200, 300, 500, 700, but they should follow the same pattern...


----------



## unfocused (Nov 17, 2020)

I hope Canon makes some announcements early in 2021. It seems like they run the risk that Fear Of Missing Out might freeze buyers until all the various configurations are announced.


----------



## Sorosuub (Nov 17, 2020)

" It won’t be an “EOS R Mark II”.


----------



## Besisika (Nov 17, 2020)

If I have to dream like others, I wish they made a full frame with native video ISO at 1600, or at least 800. 400 seems to be low sometimes.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Nov 17, 2020)

yeahright said:


> how could microlens design help with corner sharpness of the lens?





usern4cr said:


> Do you think the microlens design at the corner of the sensor has anything appreciable to do with "corner weakness", relative to the weakness caused by the lens itself? I wonder if they take the average angle of incidence into each pixel into account when they lay out the pixel microlens center/shape in the sensor? It's always easier to have the same microlens center & shape for all pixels for ease of microlens design & fabrication, but with advanced computers nowdays you'd think they might have considered this.



They could go to a BSI sensor to improve wide angle corners, but it’s my understanding that the sensor micro lens array can be designed to help even on non-BSI. This is optical science over my head, but all I can say is based on the R5 results I’m getting on the best RF lenses, Canon will need to do something with the sensor to improve the corners on a 90mp full frame setup.









High concentration factor diffractive microlenses integrated with CMOS single-photon avalanche diode detector arrays for fill-factor improvement


Large-format single-photon avalanche diode (SPAD) arrays often suffer from low fill-factors—the ratio of the active area to the overall pixel area. The detection efficiency of these detector arrays can be vastly increased with the integration ...




www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


----------



## Tangent (Nov 17, 2020)

For the RP Plus / level up I'd want and expect

larger battery, longer battery life
still compact, as much as possible given larger battery
IBIS
Better EVF than RP (the R6 EVF, most likely)
Improvements to AF and video
dedicated / programmable button to select AF mode; esp eye tracking
weathersealed, ar at least more so than RP
Still has flip out LCD, of course
Moderate MP 30 more or less
Higher frame rate than RP
Built-in stills intervalometer (!!!)
Better DR (!!!)

For the APS c the roadmap rumor didn't say anything about a 7D level of performance. I dunno, hope I'm wrong, but that kinda sounds like wishful thinking...

A guess: The APSc R lenses will mount on any R body -- the R bodies are already set up for a crop mode. Might be useful in a pinch on a FF. The R lenses will mount on the the APS body too, of course, with a crop factor. So all the lenses will be interoperable.

Ummm... things aren't loooking real good for the M line now...


----------



## Darecinema (Nov 17, 2020)

Arod820 said:


> Anybody know if there’s gonna be Black Friday or cyber Monday deals on the C70?


I highly doubt it seeing as it hasn’t even shipped yet and Black Friday deals are typically to clear out older stock to make way for newer models and get rid of taxable excess inventory before year ending.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 17, 2020)

slclick said:


> Did you see how the poster totally missed how there was NOT going to be an Rll?


LOL! Missed that. I must be slipping.


----------



## esspy2 (Nov 17, 2020)

I suppose there isn't any news on that M-mount camera that was previously reported. I am excited to upgrade from my M50 into an M-mount camera that I can take with me in a tiny sling bag everywhere, especially if said new M-mount camera had IBIS, 4k without line skipping/cropping, and I wouldn't even be mad if it omitted the viewfinder again (provided they still allow the attachable one). Finding another body to use my excellent EF-M 32mm f/1.4 on is proving difficult. RF-mount cameras with those features are rather big.


----------



## Darecinema (Nov 17, 2020)

Karel said:


> is it possible to have ProRes internal recording to CFExpress in the future Canon EOS R1?


I think this is mainly a licensing point honestly, Apple licenses the ProRes Codec so Canon would have to have an incredibly strong reason business wise to make that leap and I don’t think they do as much as it pains me. Átomos and Black Magic Design are two companies who have made the leap but they are purely for cinema prosumers and pros so that makes sense in my mind, not so much for primarily stills cameras. I can’t think off the top of my head of any Milc or DSLR that records ProRes internally from any brand but I might be forgetting one. I think both Nikon and Panasonic had paid upgrades on their roadmap and I think you are making that payment to cover the license fees. Of course I could be completely wrong on all of this...


----------



## Darecinema (Nov 17, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


C90?? Would that be the RF version of the C500II??? Seeing that they solved the ND filters in the C70 (which was amazing to see) and thats somewhat of a C300III minus raw and a couple other things, I’d be thrilled with the full enchilada beast in RF mount and the C500II form factor.


----------



## tigers media (Nov 17, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


cheaper Rp version will def mean the end of APSC line for sure. time to start saving for the move be a great time to get cheap R bodies and RP bodies ! Any chance they will finally switch to usb-c ssd storage ?


----------



## mclaren777 (Nov 17, 2020)

5DV! 5DV! 5DV!

Come on, Canon – just give us one final 5D!


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 17, 2020)

mclaren777 said:


> 5DV! 5DV! 5DV!
> 
> Come on, Canon – just give us one final 5D!


I was really hanging out for a 5Dv as well but I can't see it happening. They can't get enough R5 to customers yet either and I think that by the time they meet all the pent-up demand, then there won't be much demand left for a 5Dv especially once current 5Div users get to see how the R5 works for them. Simple things like the flippy screen make a huge difference for tripod users or vlogging or even selfies.
I assume that you mean that a 5Dv will have the same body size/sealing as the 5Div but if we see how the 1DXiii works compared to the R5 then the only benefits I can see are the OVF and battery life. If the R5 innards are put in a 5Dv then maybe there would be better heat management given the size difference but that is about it. The best AF for the 1DXiii and video is via liveview so holding out the camera is not intuitive.
I would expect that a 5Dv would be more expensive than the R5. Losing the EVF cost but adding the OVF/pentaprism/mirror + AF sensor.


----------



## H. Jones (Nov 17, 2020)

The reality is after my amazing experiences with the R5, I'm going to sell my 5D/1D and leap on the R1 as soon as it gets announced, no matter the actual specs.

That said, this is my expectation:

20 or 30mp
Quad-Pixel AF
Probably no IBIS
Hopefully global shutter
Up to 60 FPS, no-EVF-delay silent shooting with absolutely no rolling shutter whatsoever 
~6K raw video internally at 60 FPS
On its own without changing any specs of the 1DX3, Canon could sell me a dozen R1 cameras if they include a global shutter. That would be absolutely friggin amazing, especially when you consider that you could easily anti-flicker at any framerate or banding since the whole frame would be exposed at the exact same time, and Canon could hopefully include the shutter micro adjustment that Sony included in the A9II. 

There is absolutely no reason to increase the resolution beyond 30 mp, and I would honestly say 30 is too high if Canon pulls off 60 fps stills, which is a crazy spec that would make 20 megapixels totally acceptable in exchange. 

Looking at the R5's raw 8k video, Canon has definitely done some amazing work at increasing their raw output, and I think Canon is really going to move towards photo framerates easily matching video framerates. 

As for IBIS, Canon has consistently continued to include it in many of their high-end lenses, so I anticipate that the R1 will avoid IBIS for durability and heat. Cinema cameras don't tend to have IBIS, as most who work in pro video never rely on IBIS and already have their own preferred methods of mechanical stabilization. 

On the video front, out of dozens, I don't know anyone that I've ever met with a 1DX3 that has used 5.5k raw video. In the news industry, we're mostly shooting 1080p, and in my commercial work we *sometimes* shoot 4K. I think 6K would be more than enough to satisfy the cinema shooters who use the 1D series while not forcing Canon to increase photo resolution by much. 

One of the biggest things to me, though, would be full uncompressed raw at 20 fps with anti-flicker. That would be an absolute dream.


----------



## navastronia (Nov 17, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> The reality is after my amazing experiences with the R5, I'm going to sell my 5D/1D and leap on the R1 as soon as it gets announced, no matter the actual specs.
> 
> That said, this is my expectation:
> 
> ...



I like your list except for what I've bolded. I think Canon should be able to implement decent IBIS, in a robust and sturdy mechanism, by the time they release the R1.

Re: video specs, I think really nice-looking full-sensor 6K would be terrific and would put the camera's resolution at 24 MP (like the S1H)


----------



## justaCanonuser (Nov 17, 2020)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Just hope the APS-C model is every bit a 7D3 and doesn’t skimp on the features.
> 
> There is a HUGE market for a 7D3!!


I'd be ready to get me an R7 Mark I  Why? I think Canon's dual pixel based AF system is now so mature that an R7 would be a really nice upgrade for birders, since the 7D2's AF performance is not overwhelming. Plus, less noisy sensor electronics would be good, our Nikon D500 really puts shame on Canon in that respect. I don't expect Canon to release any new DSRL model on the level of the 7D, so I'd welcome an R7 - IF its price would be settled well below 2k $.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Nov 17, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> As for IBIS, Canon has consistently continued to include it in many of their high-end lenses, so I anticipate that the R1 will avoid IBIS for durability and heat. Cinema cameras don't tend to have IBIS, as most who work in pro video never rely on IBIS and already have their own preferred methods of mechanical stabilization.


IBIS is a nice example for the fact, that Canon sometimes seems to listen too much to people posting their wishes on photo sites. Without the weak heat links of IBIS, the R5 surely would have no heating issues with long 8k video takes. That's why I expect no IBIS in future pro bodies, be it the R or Cine series.


----------



## PerKr (Nov 17, 2020)

Thinking the APS-C might be the lower cost RP replacement. R100. Then an R10 to replace the original R inbetween the R100 and R6. The question is though; how will they differentiate between the R6 and a lower priced full frame body? Single card slot, lower resolution viewfinder, 8fps mechanical shutter, less efficient IBIS? I would assume they would be using the same sensor and processor so the AF would be similar.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 17, 2020)

PerKr said:


> Thinking the APS-C might be the lower cost RP replacement. R100. Then an R10 to replace the original R inbetween the R100 and R6. The question is though; how will they differentiate between the R6 and a lower priced full frame body? Single card slot, lower resolution viewfinder, 8fps mechanical shutter, less efficient IBIS? I would assume they would be using the same sensor and processor so the AF would be similar.



The RP lacks a front curtain, so it's EFCS only. Combine that with a smaller body made with cheaper materials, you should have decent cost savings. Personally, I think putting the R6/1Dx3 sensor + digic X in the current RP body would already be a massive upgrade.

When shooting the RP and 1dx3 side by side I liked the 1dx3 results better, especially above ISO 800. The improved AA filter and DR more than compensated for having fewer megapixels.

There are a lot of knobs Canon to twist to get to a certain price point: body, shutter, sensor, IBIS, card slots and more. I also hope 'software' features won't be capped by marketing, only by engineering. So no RAW video or 20 fps stills on an camera with a single UHS-1 slot.


----------



## padam (Nov 17, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> The RP lacks a front curtain, so it's EFCS only. Combine that with a smaller body made with cheaper materials, you should have decent cost savings. Personally, I think putting the R6/1Dx3 sensor + digic X in the current RP body would already be a massive upgrade.
> 
> When shooting the RP and 1dx3 side by side I liked the 1dx3 results better, especially above ISO 800. The improved AA filter and DR more than compensated for having fewer megapixels.
> 
> There are a lot of knobs Canon to twist to get to a certain price point: body, shutter, sensor, IBIS, card slots and more. I also hope 'software' features won't be capped by marketing, only by engineering. So no RAW video or 20 fps stills on an camera with a single UHS-1 slot.


I would think they might actually keep the same RP sensor in their new cheapest model, the other one in betwen the two might have a new sensor.

From the M50 Mark II people should be aware that new models in the budget segments may not mean massive upgrades to make a case for the higher-end R6 and R5 models.


----------



## H. Jones (Nov 17, 2020)

navastronia said:


> I like your list except for what I've bolded. I think Canon should be able to implement decent IBIS, in a robust and sturdy mechanism, by the time they release the R1.



I don't disagree and I would personally love IBIS, but part of what makes me think that the R1 could ditch IBIS is if it has a global shutter, Canon could brag that they have a pro camera with 0 moving parts, which would be a huge flex for the pro market where one could imagine getting literally 100 million photos out of the camera before something non-mechanical wears out. That would be a big statement piece for a pro body, and I think Canon could go for that in the first generation, before they include IBIS in a mark II.


----------



## Fischer (Nov 17, 2020)

Been waiting for that high MPIX mirrorless IBIS Canon for years now. Just do it!!!


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Nov 17, 2020)

justaCanonuser said:


> I'd be ready to get me an R7 Mark I  Why? I think Canon's dual pixel based AF system is now so mature that an R7 would be a really nice upgrade for birders, since the 7D2's AF performance is not overwhelming. Plus, less noisy sensor electronics would be good, our Nikon D500 really puts shame on Canon in that respect. I don't expect Canon to release any new DSRL model on the level of the 7D, so I'd welcome an R7 - IF its price would be settled well below 2k $.


Agreeeeeeeee


----------



## usern4cr (Nov 17, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> They could go to a BSI sensor to improve wide angle corners, but it’s my understanding that the sensor micro lens array can be designed to help even on non-BSI. This is optical science over my head, but all I can say is based on the R5 results I’m getting on the best RF lenses, Canon will need to do something with the sensor to improve the corners on a 90mp full frame setup.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So far, AFAIK, Canon has resisted using BSI sensors in their cameras. Sony, AFAIK, uses them in theirs. BSI is the best way to get high quantum-efficiency sensors, particularly as the size of each pixel gets smaller and smaller. But it costs more to design and manufacture. If Canon continues to use conventional FSI (front side illumination) on higher MP sensors (with the same frequency lithography) then most of the light will be blocked by all the misc. electrical lines before it reaches the sensor (even more so at the edges of the sensor), and thus they will either have to live with it (and have less light sensitivity) or have better micro lenses to funnel light around the blocking circuitry. I don't know if they use refractive microlenses or diffractive ones. Your linked article refers to using diffractive microlenses to get a spot with a diameter as small as 4 um (microns). A probable ~90MP sensor will have around 11.6K x 7.7K pixels, with each pixel being 36mm / 11.6K = 3.1 microns. So their 4 um spot is too big to be of any use. To make matters worse, their use of DP (dual pixel) focusing means each pixel is somehow divided into 2 sensors (left & right) so that you now have (I assume) a 1.55 x 3.1 micron half-pixel sensing area. As you approach the sensor edges & corners, the light hitting those pixels has an off-center average of incidence which will vary depending on the f# of the lens, so any design to adjust the microlenses towards the edges will have to guess which f# to design for, making matters worse. So I don't know what kind of magic they will use to make this work with a FSI design, but they already have done some pretty good magic as they've had to solve this on their 45MP sensor already.

If they surprise everyone and come out with a BSI design for their ~90MP sensor then it will make these issues easier, but they still have to have R,G,B filters as well as left-right lensing for their DP design. So they still have angle of incidence issues as you approach the edges of the sensor. One technique they could do is to use QP (qual pixel) design and then interpolate each quarter pixel in a 2x2 Bayer array as a "pixel" so that their marketing declares they have 2x2 x 2x2 = 16 pixels instead of 4 pixels. Then they'd have a 22.5MP QP sensor which they claim as a 90MP sensor since their software would interpolate the final image as 90MP. That would actually make it easier to produce, but result in more interpolation artifacts than one would expect in a normal 90MP Bayer array.

Despite all this, my guess is that they are going to just use their existing technology to double the number of pixels, but use a 1.4x times smaller lithography manufacturing so that it works as good as it happens to work and call it a day.

But all this doesn't touch on my main question I asked, which is how much of the image trouble you see as you approach the edge of the sensor is caused by the lens itself, and not the sensor or its microlenses. We know the resolution of lenses drops appreciably as you reach the edges and I would guess that this is the main cause of the drop in performance you are seeing and has less to do with the microlenses structure. So I would expect the ~90MP sensor to have the same ratio of loss of resolution towards the edges as you have now.


----------



## lbeck (Nov 17, 2020)

I feel that list is too much. IMO they simply need a 1DX replacement for the RF mount and a APS-C replacement. Once they have those two models they should stop and focus on Mark II versions of each, and more lenses.


----------



## GadgetDave (Nov 17, 2020)

I'm surprised nobody has pointed this out yet - if you read the article:
A new entry-level camera to replace the EOS RP


> This camera will be cheaper than the current EOS RP camera body.
> A second body above the EOS RP replacement
> There will be a big price gap between the EOS RP replacement and the EOS R6 at $2499. I have been told a second camera will fit between these two bodies. It won’t be an “EOS R Mark II”.


And you think about the current/legacy DSLR line, doesn't it equate to:
New entry level camera = "Rebel Rx"
New "above RP replacement" camera = "xxR" (i.e. xxD) line
New "APS C" = "R7"?
etc. etc.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 17, 2020)

lbeck said:


> I feel that list is too much. IMO they simply need a 1DX replacement for the RF mount and a APS-C replacement. Once they have those two models they should stop and focus on Mark II versions of each, and more lenses.



I disagree. R1, R5, R5s, R6, RP replacement and "above RP" make up six cameras. Counting the "APS-C" rumored camera (R7 or not) there'd be seven cameras, which all of them cater to a specific customer branch. RP is essential in acquiring customers for the RF mount since there is no comparable Xxd line. The gap between the RP and R6 would be too huge, so many customers would never upgrade (or worse for Canon: chose a different company), which is why a "above RP level" is absolutely needed. I don't think one needs to argue for a R1, R5, R5s, R6...
The only camera I might consider "not essentially needed" would be an APS-C (the m-line sells!) or R7 (like the in-camera cropping idea people mentioned in this forum). But it seems to me that there are several people would order a R7 in a heartbeat.

More people with an RF mount camera, which ever of this seven models, means more lense sales and later they'll upgrade because they invested in the R-Mount. Therefore, I'd even say more camera models are certainly possible such as a video-centric hybrid shooter (R5c rumor?). If they use bodies/ parts throughout several models new cameras aren't that expensive to develop.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Nov 17, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> ...
> But all this doesn't touch on my main question I asked, which is how much of the image trouble you see as you approach the edge of the sensor is caused by the lens itself, and not the sensor or its microlenses. We know the resolution of lenses drops appreciably as you reach the edges and I would guess that this is the main cause of the drop in performance you are seeing and has less to do with the microlenses structure. So I would expect the ~90MP sensor to have the same ratio of loss of resolution towards the edges as you have now.



I didn't answer because I don't have any way of knowing. I do know that currently the L-class lens IQ at the corners is acceptable at 1:1 on the R5, but it breaks down severely (for the L zooms like the 15-35) or noticeably (RF 50 f/1.2) at 2:1 zoom. 2:1 zoom on the R5 to me is an indicator of what I may see on a 90mp sensor if there are no changes to the sensor tech or if like you say the IQ is set in stone based on the lens design.

Another possibility is the R5s/R5sR gets a global shutter like the R1 is rumored to have. Not sure if that would help or not.


----------



## Twinix (Nov 17, 2020)

cognitivefilms said:


> How does the naming work with the C-series. Would a C50 be a step down from C70, or up?


Down. From the rumors we have it seems like it get’s the C200 sensor.


----------



## nchoh (Nov 17, 2020)

lbeck said:


> I feel that list is too much. IMO they simply need a 1DX replacement for the RF mount and a APS-C replacement. Once they have those two models they should stop and focus on Mark II versions of each, and more lenses.


Perhaps you think that it is easier to develop the Mark II version the develop the in between models? I don't think that there is much difference and in some sense, developing the Mark II models is more difficult. A Mark II model would imply the same buttons, but that something else would need to improve. The sensor? That's much more investment than body changes, if I am not wrong.

Furthermore, the value preposition is not there when there is such a huge price gaps in their lineup. For example designing an R camera cheaper than the RP means that they are extending their market space. Filling the gaps also means that Canon makes their product line more extensive, thus putting them in a better position versus the competition. As well, Canon needs to sell more R cameras to sell more R lenses. Filling out the line on every price point would make the buying decision easier for the consumer with a fixed budget.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 17, 2020)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I disagree. R1, R5, R5s, R6, RP replacement and "above RP" make up six cameras. Counting the "APS-C" rumored camera (R7 or not) there'd be seven cameras, which all of them cater to a specific customer branch. RP is essential in acquiring customers for the RF mount since there is no comparable Xxd line. The gap between the RP and R6 would be too huge, so many customers would never upgrade (or worse for Canon: chose a different company), which is why a "above RP level" is absolutely needed. I don't think one needs to argue for a R1, R5, R5s, R6...
> The only camera I might consider "not essentially needed" would be an APS-C (the m-line sells!) or R7 (like the in-camera cropping idea people mentioned in this forum). But it seems to me that there are several people would order a R7 in a heartbeat.
> 
> More people with an RF mount camera, which ever of this seven models, means more lense sales and later they'll upgrade because they invested in the R-Mount. Therefore, I'd even say more camera models are certainly possible such as a video-centric hybrid shooter (R5c rumor?). If they use bodies/ parts throughout several models new cameras aren't that expensive to develop.



And to my mind there's a significant gap between the R5 and R6, which will never be built because there's no gap in the numbering scheme for such a camera to fit into. I'm thinking of an R-like resolution but with R6 features (which would likely necessitate a new sensor), about 30-35 MP, with dual SD slots. I would have bought that in preference to the R5.


----------



## nchoh (Nov 17, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> If Canon were thinking things through, the EF-M mount would have been the diameter of the current RF and use the bus of the current RF and the RF mount would be that EF-M mount, and the M cameras would BE the small-sensor R cameras and all able to take all the RF glass.
> 
> There was just no reason I see, except for engineered-in non-comparability, for the RF flange to be 20mm when the EF-M was 18mm. And no great reason for the EF-M to be as narrow as it is; they could have made the cameras and lenses the same size with a much bigger mount. Only the lens caps would really have been bigger.


They say hindsight is 20/20. But this is not even that. IIRC, the M series was under the P+S team (division, whatever). They wanted a small and cheap ILC to expand their line, so the M was born.


----------



## esglord (Nov 17, 2020)

Was hoping for EOS R mkII with DPAF II, joystick instead of touch bar, focus bracketing and slightly faster fps burst, but who knows, maybe this in-between camera could still be that. Probably would have IBIS and a new sensor, justifying a new name. Anyway, if it doesn't happen, I'll buy an R6 in a couple years when cheaper. Seems like they could just save development dollars on an RP replacement and just slowly reduce the price on the existing RP to keep selling it. It's a good camera.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 17, 2020)

SteveC said:


> And to my mind there's a significant gap between the R5 and R6, which will never be built because there's no gap in the numbering scheme for such a camera to fit into. I'm thinking of an R-like resolution but with R6 features (which would likely necessitate a new sensor), about 30-35 MP, with dual SD slots. I would have bought that in preference to the R5.



I´d preorder a camera with similar specs in a heartbeat! I like the R6 ergonomics and fps but I'm worried that the resolution when in crop mode is just too low. 30-35mp would be very, very tempting.


----------



## ColinJR (Nov 17, 2020)

This might sound nuts, but I really wonder if they could put a larger sensor in the high-res body, not unlike APS-H was to APS-C. It would put Canon a lot closer to Fujifilm's GFX line than they ever could with "regular" full frame... 

On a body in-between the entry-level RP replacement and R6 (not counting an APS-C model), I struggle to see the niche. Maybe they'll make something that's a different body style, like the Sony A7C? That could be cool...


----------



## AEWest (Nov 17, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> That EOS R replacement is interesting. I wonder if it will get dual card slots. I kind of doubt it. I think they'll keep that a differentiator for the R6. But it will probably have a higher MP sensor with lower frame rates. Ugh that'd be a tough decision as far as what to upgrade to coming from a 5D3.
> 
> -Brian


My optimal camera would be a 32 mp camera with slower frame rate than R6, but with a joystick unlike the R and of course IBIS.


----------



## wanderer23 (Nov 17, 2020)

A c90 that can do more than just filter down from c500 would be amazing... Would be nice to see faster frame rates , or dual native iso


----------



## WANABENDER (Nov 17, 2020)

The "r5s" is what I am waiting on. I want to compare this to the gfx system, If i can get close to gfx 100 performance with a 50s/r price tag then canon will get my money


----------



## H. Jones (Nov 17, 2020)

wanderer23 said:


> A c90 that can do more than just filter down from c500 would be amazing... Would be nice to see faster frame rates , or dual native iso


I'd honestly like to see a C90 be basically the same specs as the R5 but with internal fans, built-in ND, large heat sink, BP-A batteries, and XLR or mini-XLR outputs. I can't imagine there's too many reasons why they couldn't make and sell such a camera for 16,000 like the current C500 Mark II, considering the R5 is only $3,900.


----------



## navastronia (Nov 17, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> I don't disagree and I would personally love IBIS, but part of what makes me think that the R1 could ditch IBIS is if it has a global shutter, Canon could brag that they have a pro camera with 0 moving parts, which would be a huge flex for the pro market where one could imagine getting literally 100 million photos out of the camera before something non-mechanical wears out. That would be a big statement piece for a pro body, and I think Canon could go for that in the first generation, before they include IBIS in a mark II.



I agree that would be a tremendous, and I would also take that tradeoff if it came to it. B and H (the store) says in their article about global and rolling shutter that a rolling shutter "will have less noise and a wider dynamic range while generating less heat," and that a global shutter developed to compete in these respects would be dramatically more expensive to produce -- not more dramatically, I hope, than could fit in a $6,995 Canon body


----------



## keithcooper (Nov 17, 2020)

lbeck said:


> I feel that list is too much. IMO they simply need a 1DX replacement for the RF mount and a APS-C replacement. Once they have those two models they should stop and focus on Mark II versions of each, and more lenses.


That's fine for someone with an R5 in their 'list' - I tried one and am still waiting for something to replace my 5Ds - the CR list looks just fine by me ;-)


----------



## H. Jones (Nov 17, 2020)

You know, considering the tiny ND filter mechanism Canon fit into the C70... is it crazy to think some day Canon could include the ND filters in a stills camera? A 5DS replacement with similar 8 stops of built-in ND filters would be incredible for portraits and high resolution landscape long exposures. Just a random, passing thought here, I know it would increase the price by a good bit, but it definitely doesn't seem to impact size on the C70.


----------



## Kit. (Nov 17, 2020)

SteveC said:


> And to my mind there's a significant gap between the R5 and R6, which will never be built because there's no gap in the numbering scheme for such a camera to fit into. I'm thinking of an R-like resolution but with R6 features (which would likely necessitate a new sensor), about 30-35 MP, with dual SD slots. I would have bought that in preference to the R5.


R6s?


----------



## usern4cr (Nov 17, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> I didn't answer because I don't have any way of knowing. I do know that currently the L-class lens IQ at the corners is acceptable at 1:1 on the R5, but it breaks down severely (for the L zooms like the 15-35) or noticeably (RF 50 f/1.2) at 2:1 zoom. 2:1 zoom on the R5 to me is an indicator of what I may see on a 90mp sensor if there are no changes to the sensor tech or if like you say the IQ is set in stone based on the lens design.
> 
> Another possibility is the R5s/R5sR gets a global shutter like the R1 is rumored to have. Not sure if that would help or not.


You mention the IQ breaking down severly for the 15-35L zoom. You do know (I hope) that the image circle of that lens, for some aperture & zoom combinations, happens to be a bit smaller in diameter than what it should be to more properly illuminate the sensor all the way to the corner. That is a serious vignetting issue for that lens, and I'm told that it's a common (corner only) problem for very wide angle zoom lenses in general. Less illumination results in lower IQ when compensated to expected brightness. They could have designed that lens with a slightly larger image circle in general to avoid this problem, but they chose not to for some reason. Again, that's a purely lens issue and not a sensor issue.

Also, I understand what 1:1 viewing means, but I don't know what 2:1 zoom means to you. Do you mean every original pixel is duplicated 4 times or do you mean that interpolation of some sort is used to enlarge the 1:1 image to 2 times the width & height? If so, I guess that you should use a 1.41 : 1 zoom to show you what it would look like if the lens resolution was less than what's needed to properly fill 90MP.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 17, 2020)

navastronia said:


> I agree that would be a tremendous, and I would also take that tradeoff if it came to it. B and H (the store) says in their article about global and rolling shutter that a rolling shutter "will have less noise and a wider dynamic range while generating less heat," and that a global shutter developed to compete in these respects would be dramatically more expensive to produce -- not more dramatically, I hope, than could fit in a $6,995 Canon body



Oh they can put one in a $6,995 body. But it might only be a few thousand pixels....


----------



## highdesertmesa (Nov 17, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> You mention the IQ breaking down severly for the 15-35L zoom. You do know (I hope) that the image circle of that lens, for some aperture & zoom combinations, happens to be a bit smaller in diameter than what it should be to more properly illuminate the sensor all the way to the corner. That is a serious vignetting issue for that lens, and I'm told that it's a common (corner only) problem for very wide angle zoom lenses in general. Less illumination results in lower IQ when compensated to expected brightness. They could have designed that lens with a slightly larger image circle in general to avoid this problem, but they chose not to for some reason. Again, that's a purely lens issue and not a sensor issue.
> 
> Also, I understand what 1:1 viewing means, but I don't know what 2:1 zoom means to you. Do you mean every original pixel is duplicated 4 times or do you mean that interpolation of some sort is used to enlarge the 1:1 image to 2 times the width & height? If so, I guess that you should use a 1.41 : 1 zoom to show you what it would look like if the lens resolution was less than what's needed to properly fill 90MP.



For the RF f/2.8 trinity, it seems like they designed for maximum compactness and somewhat have ignored the growing demands of their sensor resolutions. But in fairness, I don't think corner-peeping landscape shooters were their target market for these. The good thing about the 15-35, though, is it is much better at 15mm than it is at 35, so for me, it's really a 15-24 with a bonus 24-35. I think the longer range of going from 16mm for EF to 15mm for RF was harder on the image circle than was anything else. No free lunch as they say.

2:1 zoom is 2:1 zoom. Photoshop translation for that would be viewing the image at 200%. Certainly I could resize the image to 90mp in something like Topaz to get a better approximation.

But back to the 15-35, I think you're discounting sensor design too much, placing too much blame on the lens design. I say that because the corner performance of this lens at all focal lengths is actually *better* on the R5 than it is on the R. On the R, 15mm corners at infinity are super soft, and IQ at MFD at 35mm is almost laughable. Both those conditions are night and day better on the R5. Both So Canon did *something* to the sensor design (or to the coatings on the UV/IR cut filter) between the R and R5 that has helped improve IQ. I suppose if they continue these improvements as they scale up to 90mp, we may have nothing to be concerned with.


----------



## Sorosuub (Nov 17, 2020)

SteveC said:


> And to my mind there's a significant gap between the R5 and R6, which will never be built because there's no gap in the numbering scheme for such a camera to fit into. I'm thinking of an R-like resolution but with R6 features (which would likely necessitate a new sensor), about 30-35 MP, with dual SD slots. I would have bought that in preference to the R5.



Agreed, I was hoping that this niche would be filled by the EOS R MK II. Sadly I think I have to get an R5 now.


----------



## slclick (Nov 17, 2020)

Ahh, the "If I were in charge..." posts are flowing. 

Ricockulous but I guess laughter is the best medicine during a pandemic.


----------



## usern4cr (Nov 17, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> For the RF f/2.8 trinity, it seems like they designed for maximum compactness and somewhat have ignored the growing demands of their sensor resolutions. But in fairness, I don't think corner-peeping landscape shooters were their target market for these. The good thing about the 15-35, though, is it is much better at 15mm than it is at 35, so for me, it's really a 15-24 with a bonus 24-35. I think the longer range of going from 16mm for EF to 15mm for RF was harder on the image circle than was anything else. No free lunch as they say.
> 
> 2:1 zoom is 2:1 zoom. Photoshop translation for that would be viewing the image at 200%. Certainly I could resize the image to 90mp in something like Topaz to get a better approximation.
> 
> But back to the 15-35, I think you're discounting sensor design too much, placing too much blame on the lens design. I say that because the corner performance of this lens at all focal lengths is actually *better* on the R5 than it is on the R. On the R, 15mm corners at infinity are super soft, and IQ at MFD at 35mm is almost laughable. Both those conditions are night and day better on the R5. Both So Canon did *something* to the sensor design (or to the coatings on the UV/IR cut filter) between the R and R5 that has helped improve IQ. I suppose if they continue these improvements as they scale up to 90mp, we may have nothing to be concerned with.


First, I'd like to say that I own the RF 15-35 f2.8L and am extremely happy with it. I don't sweat the corners IQ after they're compensated for in post.

Second, you're the first person I've heard say that the R5 sensor makes any lens behave substantially better than the R sensor (other than just more pixels). I appreciate you mentioning it (thanks!). Is this true if you take photos on a tripod for a non-moving subject? (to remove any issues from using IBIS or not). I wonder if your R has an issue with flange depth being slightly off, or some other orientation issue for the particular R you have? Have you seen the same problem with other R bodies? I have to say I'm really surprised to hear this, but at least I'm happy that the R5 (which I own) is the one that's much better!


----------



## gmon750 (Nov 17, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> I had the same issues with my Ikelite housing. Moving from the 5Diii to the 5Div was a bigger improvement overall. More pixels, faster AF/fps etc was very useful underwater. Buying the 5Div second hand was not too expensive and I ended up selling it for more than I paid when I went to the R5
> I did find that the knob for changing from still to video and back wasn't ideal on the 5Diii but did work fine on the 5Div so there were minor changes to the body shape.
> I jumped to the R5 housing as there isn't much else I would want in a body. Speed, AF, pixels, high ISO, video etc are good enough to keep me going for a long time to come even if a replacement body is somehow better in the future.
> Selling second hand housings is not simple during this travel-restricted time but the flexibility to handle 5Diii/iv/SR is an advantage over other options. I am not sure what the lifespan of a housing should be... 5-8 years at least I guess. Hard to imagine that a R5ii will have a revolutionary jump in specs even in 4 years time so I will be happy to keep mine for a long time to come.



Yeah...My concern is that the future R5M2 will be physically different than today's R5, so whatever housing used today won't work. An example is Sony refreshing their cameras far faster than Canon used to with their dSLR's. It has me hesitating to push the button. I think Canon will introduce an R5M2 in two years and not four. I'm considering buying the 5DM4 as it's rather cheap and will give me that extra time to wait.


----------



## TAF (Nov 18, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> I had the same issues with my Ikelite housing. Moving from the 5Diii to the 5Div was a bigger improvement overall. More pixels, faster AF/fps etc was very useful underwater. Buying the 5Div second hand was not too expensive and I ended up selling it for more than I paid when I went to the R5
> I did find that the knob for changing from still to video and back wasn't ideal on the 5Diii but did work fine on the 5Div so there were minor changes to the body shape.
> I jumped to the R5 housing as there isn't much else I would want in a body. Speed, AF, pixels, high ISO, video etc are good enough to keep me going for a long time to come even if a replacement body is somehow better in the future.
> Selling second hand housings is not simple during this travel-restricted time but the flexibility to handle 5Diii/iv/SR is an advantage over other options. I am not sure what the lifespan of a housing should be... 5-8 years at least I guess. Hard to imagine that a R5ii will have a revolutionary jump in specs even in 4 years time so I will be happy to keep mine for a long time to come.



The lifespan of the Ikelite housing is virtually limitless. Keep up with the maintenance of the o-rings and seals, and it should outlast the camera.

I sold my Ikelite with the Rollei 35 film camera I had (which was at least 40 years old) a couple of years ago. It still worked perfectly.

And I still have (someplace; I moved and haven't unpacked) the housing for my Rollei TLR. That's pushing 60 years old.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 18, 2020)

TAF said:


> The lifespan of the Ikelite housing is virtually limitless. Keep up with the maintenance of the o-rings and seals, and it should outlast the camera.
> 
> I sold my Ikelite with the Rollei 35 film camera I had (which was at least 40 years old) a couple of years ago. It still worked perfectly.
> 
> And I still have (someplace; I moved and haven't unpacked) the housing for my Rollei TLR. That's pushing 60 years old.


I’ve seen more than a few Ikelite housing backs crack where the clasps go through the perspex.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 18, 2020)

gmon750 said:


> Yeah...My concern is that the future R5M2 will be physically different than today's R5, so whatever housing used today won't work. An example is Sony refreshing their cameras far faster than Canon used to with their dSLR's. It has me hesitating to push the button. I think Canon will introduce an R5M2 in two years and not four. I'm considering buying the 5DM4 as it's rather cheap and will give me that extra time to wait.


Twas an expensive year for me so far  
If you can afford it, I believe that you should jump into RF. I am constantly amazed by the difference from my 5Div.
I don't think that you can rely on Canon keeping the same form factor/button locations for R5ii. Each of the R bodies has been different. They dropped the touch bar (useless underwater anyway) in the R5. The joystick is great but my housing can't use it either. 
A R5ii body may be different simply to have better thermal performance which is really the only thing that the R5 could be improved on IMHO (besides remapping the Rate button)
Sometimes, you need to bite the bullet with known information.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 18, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> I’ve seen more than a few Ikelite housing backs crack where the clasps go through the perspex.


Was that with the older 4 lock system or the newer DL (or smaller DLM) system? I have been really happy with the build quality in my 5D housing and R5 housing for many years now but I am not a full time /professional user.
If I was, then I would probably go for a Nauticam setup... the Leica of housings


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 18, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> Was that with the older 4 lock system or the newer DL (or smaller DLM) system? I have been really happy with the build quality in my 5D housing and R5 housing for many years now but I am not a full time /professional user.
> If I was, then I would probably go for a Nauticam setup... the Leica of housings


I believe the older ones, but I never paid much attention. Yes the Nauticam setups can add up especially when you put $1,500 eyepieces on them etc etc. though personally I have always found the Subal housings to be my favorites, they always seem that bit better form fitting and ‘tighter’.

Though I haven’t had a dive housing in quite a while, my most recent housings have been SPL and Aquatech Delphin surf housings, they give me the depth I am interested in but more importantly the durability.


----------



## Chig (Nov 18, 2020)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Just hope the APS-C model is every bit a 7D3 and doesn’t skimp on the features.
> 
> There is a HUGE market for a 7D3!!


Yes and hope it's not a tiny little toy camera either as 7D users want to use with big telephotos


----------



## Chig (Nov 18, 2020)

Bahrd said:


> If it is going to be a 7D counterpart, which lenses its users are interested in?


I'm a typical 7D user and I'm not interested in small lenses , I use big EF telephoto L lenses only and would want to use big RF ones eventually too.
The whole point of these cameras is using the crop sensor for more reach not a compact system


----------



## Chig (Nov 18, 2020)

tigers media said:


> cheaper Rp version will def mean the end of APSC line for sure. time to start saving for the move be a great time to get cheap R bodies and RP bodies ! Any chance they will finally switch to usb-c ssd storage ?


Why ?
7D users prefer aps-c for more reach with big whites , we don't care about cheap FF and happy to pay a premium for a decent 7D ii replacement R7


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 18, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> I believe the older ones, but I never paid much attention. Yes the Nauticam setups can add up especially when you put $1,500 eyepieces on them etc etc. though personally I have always found the Subal housings to be my favorites, they always seem that bit better form fitting and ‘tighter’.
> 
> Though I haven’t had a dive housing in quite a while, my most recent housings have been SPL and Aquatech Delphin surf housings, they give me the depth I am interested in but more importantly the durability.


I did a surf photography course with Phil Thurston, Sean Scott, Warren Keelan and Phil Gallagher from Aquatech a couple of years ago. Nice guys all round and nice gear as well. The bigger dive housings weren't as practical for surf.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Nov 18, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> First, I'd like to say that I own the RF 15-35 f2.8L and am extremely happy with it. I don't sweat the corners IQ after they're compensated for in post.
> 
> Second, you're the first person I've heard say that the R5 sensor makes any lens behave substantially better than the R sensor (other than just more pixels). I appreciate you mentioning it (thanks!). Is this true if you take photos on a tripod for a non-moving subject? (to remove any issues from using IBIS or not). I wonder if your R has an issue with flange depth being slightly off, or some other orientation issue for the particular R you have? Have you seen the same problem with other R bodies? I have to say I'm really surprised to hear this, but at least I'm happy that the R5 (which I own) is the one that's much better!



I thought it could be the IBIS, too, but then my RF 70-200 2.8 and RF 50 1.2 should also look better on the R5, but they don't. Maybe IBIS is helping with handheld rotational movement that shows up more at 15mm.

On the R5 versus R:
15mm corners @ infinity – sharper
35mm corners @ infinity – about the same
35mm entire image @ MFD wide open – much sharper and the soft haze is gone

How is the 35/MFD/2.8 performance on your 15-35 on the R5?


----------



## tigers media (Nov 18, 2020)

Chig said:


> Why ?
> 7D users prefer aps-c for more reach with big whites , we don't care about cheap FF and happy to pay a premium for a decent 7D ii replacement R7


i'm no animal shooter but my M50 has terrible low light noise , even my best images when you go to blow up get built in noise surely a nice F/F would be better for your image quality ? or doesn't it matter with the animal side , excuse my ignorance.


----------



## Skux (Nov 18, 2020)

An APS-C body needs APS-C lenses, otherwise the only people who will care about the body will be sports and wildlife shooters who are happy to mount big telephoto lenses. Canon had better bring a compact and reasonably-priced standard zoom, pancake, and a wide angle if they want all the other kinds of photographers and content creators to choose them over Sony or Fuji.


----------



## Joules (Nov 18, 2020)

SteveC said:


> And to my mind there's a significant gap between the R5 and R6, which will never be built because there's no gap in the numbering scheme for such a camera to fit into.


I've been wondering about that too. Would they do a R6s at 45 MP (to recycle the R5 sensor) or 30 MP (develop a new one) and R5s at 90 MP? Each ~1000 $ more expensive than the non-s models, but otherwise very similar especially in terms of build quality?


----------



## Joules (Nov 18, 2020)

tigers media said:


> i'm no animal shooter but my M50 has terrible low light noise , even my best images when you go to blow up get built in noise surely a nice F/F would be better for your image quality ? or doesn't it matter with the animal side , excuse my ignorance.


If you can't get closer to the animal or afforder a bigger lens, you won't see an IQ difference between FF and APS-C, as you have to crop to the same framing anyway. If you don't have to crop the FF image, because you are so close or using such a long big white, FF will be just over one stop less noisy.


----------



## Chig (Nov 18, 2020)

tigers media said:


> i'm no animal shooter but my M50 has terrible low light noise , even my best images when you go to blow up get built in noise surely a nice F/F would be better for your image quality ? or doesn't it matter with the animal side , excuse my ignorance.


Well if you shoot full frame , you have to crop anyway and you get even more noise .
With wildlife especially small birds we're constantly pushing the limits using high shutter speeds , small apertures (which is necessary to get the whole bird in focus) and never having quite enough reach
You have a choice:

 either use a crop sensor and fairly expensive lenses like EF100-400 ii or RF100-500 plus T.C.s 
or (if you're very rich) use FF and insanely expensive Great Whites like the EF600 f/4 plus T.C.s
Even if I spend more on a really expensive crop sensor camera it works out much cheaper than a budget priced FF because the lenses are the biggest cost


----------



## Chig (Nov 18, 2020)

Skux said:


> An APS-C body needs APS-C lenses, otherwise the only people who will care about the body will be sports and wildlife shooters who are happy to mount big telephoto lenses. Canon had better bring a compact and reasonably-priced standard zoom, pancake, and a wide angle if they want all the other kinds of photographers and content creators to choose them over Sony or Fuji.


But they already have excellent M mount cameras and lenses for this , the RF aps-c camera is (I hope) a specialised camera to replace the 7Dmark ii for us wildlife/sports nutters and we _don't want wide angle lenses !_


----------



## Chig (Nov 18, 2020)

Joules said:


> If you can't get closer to the animal or afforder a bigger lens, you won't see an IQ difference between FF and APS-C, as you have to crop to the same framing anyway. If you don't have to crop the FF image, because you are so close or using such a long big white, FF will be just over one stop less noisy.


Yeah , but we pretty much always have to crop and the cropped FF has lower pixel density than aps-c ; for example the R5 cropped has 17mp versus the 90D aps-c sensor is 32mp which is twice as much pixels
Also an aps-c camera and a moderately priced L telephoto is much cheaper than a FF camera and a Great white L lens


----------



## justaCanonuser (Nov 18, 2020)

Fischer said:


> Been waiting for that high MPIX mirrorless IBIS Canon for years now. Just do it!!!


Will image the hairs in people's noses much crispier than before -- @ F ≤ 2.8


----------



## Fischer (Nov 18, 2020)

justaCanonuser said:


> Will image the hairs in people's noses much crispier than before -- @ F ≤ 2.8


Still shooting 4 mpix? No. 

Thought so. Why not if you worry about detail?


----------



## Maru (Nov 18, 2020)

Well ..its clear...Me and others need a 7Dmkiii mirrorless version or 5dmkv mirrorless version {as DSLR is now extinct} ...we need all features like IBIS , Dual card, decent burst rate, rugged body, all buttons, excellent touch screen, excellent EVF , excellent dynamic range ....but don't want to pay more than current 5dmkIV price of 2499 USD... 

We like it or not..its not happening guys.. get over it


----------



## usern4cr (Nov 18, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> I thought it could be the IBIS, too, but then my RF 70-200 2.8 and RF 50 1.2 should also look better on the R5, but they don't. Maybe IBIS is helping with handheld rotational movement that shows up more at 15mm.
> 
> On the R5 versus R:
> 15mm corners @ infinity – sharper
> ...


While I've loved using my RF 15-35 f2.8L, I'll admit I'm new to using any lens wider than 24mm and so I'm just happy to explore the new horizons the wider view gives me. I haven't tried to take images at MFD yet and I haven't been trying to critically analyze the edge & corner performance. I suppose I could try some tests and get back to you on it, but I don't have an R body to compare it with.

So your RF 50 1.2 & RF 70-200 2.8 look the same on the R and R5? That would indicate to me that your R is working as expected and there's no big difference in sensor technology regarding how they work with RF lenses. If you're handholding your RF 15-35 2.8L then I would expect the R lack of IBIS could be a major factor causing trouble, since lens IS can't correct for some of the modes of image shake, such as rotation while the IBIS can cover those in addition to improving all the other ones. I would suggest that you don't make any tests handheld and only test with a tripod and non-moving subject.

I would assume that the angle of incidence of the light hitting the sensor edges is getting very extreme as you get wider and wider views, such a 15mm or possibly at MFD (I'm just guessing there) and thus that might indeed show there is an effect of the microlens & sensor construction between the R and R5 for severe off-center angle of incidence. To better test that theory, I'd suggest you find someone else with an R body to test your 15-35 lens on to see if it has the same effect (only towards extreme wide angles) with all your RF lenses.

(ps - it's soooo nice to have calm discussions again)


----------



## usern4cr (Nov 18, 2020)

justaCanonuser said:


> Will image the hairs in people's noses much crispier than before -- @ F ≤ 2.8


When taking a portrait of my wife, I sometimes try to impress her with the new camera by telling her something like "Wow, it's so sharp, even your nosehairs are in perfect detail!"  --- She's not impressed!


----------



## LesC (Nov 18, 2020)

I'm wondering what the specs of the '*A second body above the EOS RP replacement' *will be? How will they make it cheaper than the R6; can't have a FF sensor less than 20MP I guess so what will they remove? Only one card slot? Will they make any more mirrorless cameras without IBIS??

I'd been hoping for an EOS RMKII but if this is not it, I'll have to go for the R5. Shame the R6 is only 20MP, if it had the same 30MP sensor as the EOS R I'd have got it.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Nov 18, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> While I've loved using my RF 15-35 f2.8L, I'll admit I'm new to using any lens wider than 24mm and so I'm just happy to explore the new horizons the wider view gives me. I haven't tried to take images at MFD yet and I haven't been trying to critically analyze the edge & corner performance. I suppose I could try some tests and get back to you on it, but I don't have an R body to compare it with.
> 
> So your RF 50 1.2 & RF 70-200 2.8 look the same on the R and R5? That would indicate to me that your R is working as expected and there's no big difference in sensor technology regarding how they work with RF lenses. If you're handholding your RF 15-35 2.8L then I would expect the R lack of IBIS could be a major factor causing trouble, since lens IS can't correct for some of the modes of image shake, such as rotation while the IBIS can cover those in addition to improving all the other ones. I would suggest that you don't make any tests handheld and only test with a tripod and non-moving subject.
> 
> ...



Calm discussions are great 

What I meant regarding the 70-200 and 50 on the R5 vs R was that I didn't see any improvement – but I do see the imperfections that were there on the R become amplified on the R5. That's not to say their performance on the R5 is any worse, but I am better able see the imperfections on the higher res sensor because I'm looking more closely at the image at 1:1 magnification on the R5 than I am on the R at 1:1.

The 15-35, I almost returned it when I was using it on my R. I'm glad I kept it and tried it on the R5. I do think they may have changed the microlens design on the R5 so that it improves corner performance for extreme wide angles, but I don't have the testing acumen to prove it. I'll have to leave that to the brick-wall tripod testers out there (for which I am thankful, I don't say that in a derogatory manner).

*If there are any optical physics gurus in the audience:* does sensor stabilization have a more dramatic effect in the corners for extreme wide angles? I know the movement of the camera is the same between lenses, but on an extreme wide angle, the same amount of movement at the camera should result in the image blur covering a larger distance on a more distant target. So even though the IBIS correction will be the same at 15mm as it will at 50mm for the same camera movement, more of the target image passes across the same corner of the image at 15mm versus 50mm, and that image corner will be less-detailed to begin with and blur will have a more noticeable effect. For example, if I put the same tree in the corner of my image at 50mm and 15mm, I will see more detail in the branches at 50mm than I do at 15mm. So a small amount of blur will have the same effect on both images, but since the subjects contain different levels of detail, the 15mm shot should appear less detailed when blurred, thus giving the impression that IBIS has a bigger impact on the corners the wider the angle of view.


----------



## usern4cr (Nov 18, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> Calm discussions are great
> 
> What I meant regarding the 70-200 and 50 on the R5 vs R was that I didn't see any improvement – but I do see the imperfections that were there on the R become amplified on the R5. That's not to say their performance on the R5 is any worse, but I am better able see the imperfections on the higher res sensor because I'm looking more closely at the image at 1:1 magnification on the R5 than I am on the R at 1:1.
> 
> ...


What you might be missing is this: With a very wide angle lens, there is no IBIS correction that can correct perfectly the tilting shake in the center of the sensor at the same time as the 4 corners of the sensor. That's because the image in the center moves at a different rate than at the corner, just because of the geometry. And you know the image stabilization/AF point of interest is going to be near the center of the image and not at the corner or edge. So you should expect sub-optimal IS correction towards the corners of any extreme wide angle lens. That's the reason I suggest you do your tests on a tripod with a non-moving subject to eliminate totally that issue.


----------



## Skux (Nov 18, 2020)

Chig said:


> But they already have excellent M mount cameras and lenses for this , the RF aps-c camera is (I hope) a specialised camera to replace the 7Dmark ii for us wildlife/sports nutters and we _don't want wide angle lenses !_



Then if they want to stick with M they'd better implement competitive video features like oversampled 4k and IBIS. I love my M6 Mark II for birding but it just can't match the other brands for APS-C video.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 18, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> When taking a portrait of my wife, I sometimes try to impress her with the new camera by telling her something like "Wow, it's so sharp, even your nosehairs are in perfect detail!"  --- She's not impressed!



Pro tip: Never tell her that her platinum jewelry matches her hair no matter how true it is.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Nov 18, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> What you are missing is this: With a very wide angle lens, there is no IBIS correction that can correct perfectly the tilting shake in the center of the sensor at the same time as the 4 corners of the sensor. That's because the image in the center moves at a different rate than at the corner, just because of the geometry. And you know the image stabilization/AF point of interest is going to be near the center of the image and not at the corner or edge. So you should expect sub-optimal IS correction towards the corners of any extreme wide angle lens. That's the reason I suggest you do your tests on a tripod with a non-moving subject to eliminate totally that issue.



So are you saying that IBIS will make the corners _increasingly worse_ as the focal length gets wider? Or are you saying it will still make them better, just not as much as it's improving the center? I want to make sure I'm tracking with you here.


----------



## usern4cr (Nov 18, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> So are you saying that IBIS will make the corners _increasingly worse_ as the focal length gets wider? Or are you saying it will still make them better, just not as much as it's improving the center? I want to make sure I'm tracking with you here.


While I'm no expert on this (or on many other things I talk about  ), I wouldn't think that IBIS would make the corners any worse than they would have been (due to handhold shake) without it. But when Canon says they're getting some extremely high #stops of dual IS (which I often have seen measured by 3 or so less stops when user tested) I would strongly assume that it is measured in the center of the sensor, while the corners of the sensor for an extreme wide angle view would be still be improved, but by much less than the center.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Nov 18, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> While I'm no expert on this (or on many other things I talk about  ), I wouldn't think that IBIS would make the corners any worse than they would have been (due to handhold shake) without it. But when Canon says they're getting some extremely high #stops of dual IS (which I often have seen measured by 3 or so less stops when user tested) I would strongly assume that it is measured in the center of the sensor, while the corners of the sensor for an extreme wide angle view would be still be improved, but by much less than the center.



I just took some shots on the Ra (don't have my R any more) and R5 with the 15-35 @ f/5.6 and 15mm – elbows braced on a fence to limit handheld movement. On the R5, I did IBIS on and off – didn't seem to make any difference either way when reviewing them at actual size magnification in the EVF. Will need to get the images into Capture One to see how they look against each other.


----------



## David the street guy (Nov 18, 2020)

DJPatte said:


> After using my R5's a couple of months I actually DO think they can and will improve the auto focus quite a bit.
> Better equipment pushes the borders for what we are trying to achieve and I’m constantly throwing myself into situations where the eye and face detection isn’t sufficient - horse and bicycle riders with helmets AND goggles, far away in a messy forest for example. Half of my framing time can consist in trying to tap in the focus and then, when it kicks in it might take one or half of a second of reframing, and in a split second, the subject is gone. Did I get it? Sure. Am I satisfied? No, I missed a lot as well.
> Some kind of complementary initial focus system is bound to come, a specially for the low light situations. And I’m really looking forward to it )



I haven't read the eight pages of comments following yours, so maybe someone already suggested it to you, but you could use the "two back button focus" technique in these kind of situations. First back button focusing brings you on focus on your subject, then you press the second one to activate eye detection and refine the focus.

I set it up and tried it on a friend's R5, it's very fast and works like a charm both on humans and animals, but I can't get it to work on my RP. 
Good luck!


----------



## usern4cr (Nov 18, 2020)

David the street guy said:


> I haven't read the eight pages of comments following yours, so maybe someone already suggested it to you, but you could use the "two back button focus" technique in these kind of situations. First back button focusing brings you on focus on your subject, then you press the second one to activate eye detection and refine the focus.
> 
> I set it up and tried it on a friend's R5, it's very fast and works like a charm both on humans and animals, but I can't get it to work on my RP.
> Good luck!


Is the R5 2nd button you mention set to "eye detection AF" or "eye detection". There are 2 choices in stills mode, but in video mode there is only the "eye detection" mode. I don't know what the difference is between them, do you?

Also I always have "eye detection" (AF menu 1) set to "Enable". So would I have to set this to "Disable" by default so that I would then press the 2nd "eye detection [AF]" button to turn it on each time? If so, would I have to do that for every single photo?

Thanks for your help!


----------



## fabao (Nov 18, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I. Don't. Care. Need. $. For. Glass. Body. Irrelevant. 4. Now.



Correct, and the R5 is still out of stock...


----------



## David the street guy (Nov 18, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Is the R5 2nd button you mention set to "eye detection AF" or "eye detection". There are 2 choices in stills mode, but in video mode there is only the "eye detection" mode. I don't know what the difference is between them, do you?



The second button is set to "eye detection AF". I only used it for stills, so no, I don't know the difference between these two modes.



usern4cr said:


> Also I always have "eye detection" (AF menu 1) set to "Enable". So would I have to set this to "Disable" by default so that I would then press the 2nd "eye detection [AF]" button to turn it on each time? If so, would I have to do that for every single photo?



That is correct. The first back button focus is for regular autofocus (using chosen AF point), the second one for eye detection autofocus. Of course, most of the times, you only press one of them, but when you want to isolate your subject in a crowd, your eye detection AF can't know who you want to photograph, so you have to chose with the first BB AF before you use eye detection AF. Same technique when you want to focus on the eyes of that otter hidden in the bushes: you know where it hides, but you have to "show it" to your AF using the first button. Then, the second button finishes the job in an instant.

It might seem complicated because I explain poorly, but after I set it up on my friends R5, it took me only a few minutes to completely get use to it.



usern4cr said:


> Thanks for your help!



Much obliged, hope I can help despite my poor use of the english language!


----------



## tigers media (Nov 19, 2020)

Fair enough, cheers for the info always good to get another point of view, Looks like they will have you covered then, for the future.


----------



## tigers media (Nov 19, 2020)

Joules said:


> If you can't get closer to the animal or afforder a bigger lens, you won't see an IQ difference between FF and APS-C, as you have to crop to the same framing anyway. If you don't have to crop the FF image, because you are so close or using such a long big white, FF will be just over one stop less noisy.


cheers mate , nice info


----------



## highdesertmesa (Nov 19, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> While I'm no expert on this (or on many other things I talk about  ), I wouldn't think that IBIS would make the corners any worse than they would have been (due to handhold shake) without it. But when Canon says they're getting some extremely high #stops of dual IS (which I often have seen measured by 3 or so less stops when user tested) I would strongly assume that it is measured in the center of the sensor, while the corners of the sensor for an extreme wide angle view would be still be improved, but by much less than the center.



Ok, so turns out you and everyone else can dismiss me saying the 15-35 wasn't as good on the R/Ra  My Ra came back from CPS repair yesterday for another issue (sensor cleaning was overly loud), and they replaced the circuit board. Corners at 15mm/infinity and 35mm/MFD/2.8 on the Ra are both sharp like the R5 now. Definitely something I am GLAD to be wrong about. Will keep the Ra now as backup and 2nd body. Thanks for the conversation, though, and for holding to the logic that it was more likely an issue with the R than an improvement with the R5 sensor design. Now I can go back to worrying about how these lenses will look on the 90mp R


----------



## CanonOregon (Nov 19, 2020)

J’s Pic said:


> I wonder what they can possibly do in the segment above the R5. More Mega pixels for landscape photography? or faster FPS for action/sports? Better low light performance...or all three.
> they could fix the overheating for 8k video, but since they have a different line for that, I doubt that will be enough.
> 
> (personally I have an R6 and the autofocus is such an improvement over the 6d...next: RF glass)


I know, and I'm coming from a 7d MkII! Autofocus, when set up right, is downright cheating!


----------



## CanonOregon (Nov 19, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> I would probably buy the APS-C model if it's a 7D3 equivalent but I don't think the market is all that large. What I wonder is whether Canon could use the same basic architecture to develop something similar for the M-mount and how well such a camera would sell.


Hmmm...I'm thinking the market is HUGE IF using a smaller sensor saves Canon a ton of money. As I understand chip development, there are many more APS-C sensors per wafer than full frame sensors.


----------



## DJPatte (Nov 19, 2020)

David the street guy said:


> I haven't read the eight pages of comments following yours, so maybe someone already suggested it to you, but you could use the "two back button focus" technique in these kind of situations. First back button focusing brings you on focus on your subject, then you press the second one to activate eye detection and refine the focus.
> 
> I set it up and tried it on a friend's R5, it's very fast and works like a charm both on humans and animals, but I can't get it to work on my RP.
> Good luck!


Me neither, but I think it has been all quiet ;D - But thanks, will def. look into that


----------



## SteveC (Nov 19, 2020)

David the street guy said:


> I haven't read the eight pages of comments following yours, so maybe someone already suggested it to you, but you could use the "two back button focus" technique in these kind of situations. First back button focusing brings you on focus on your subject, then you press the second one to activate eye detection and refine the focus.
> 
> I set it up and tried it on a friend's R5, it's very fast and works like a charm both on humans and animals, but I can't get it to work on my RP.
> Good luck!



I can pretty much confirm it doesn't work on an RP. Even after assigning the eye detection to the splat button, it won't work. But I love it on my R5.


----------



## DJPatte (Nov 19, 2020)

SteveC said:


> I can pretty much confirm it doesn't work on an RP. Even after assigning the eye detection to the splat button, it won't work. But I love it on my R5.


But does the R and RP even have Eye Detection/Focus..? Think it was introduced with the R5 and the R had "Face Detection" at most 
Or that was basically what you said yes


----------



## usern4cr (Nov 19, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> Ok, so turns out you and everyone else can dismiss me saying the 15-35 wasn't as good on the R/Ra  My Ra came back from CPS repair yesterday for another issue (sensor cleaning was overly loud), and they replaced the circuit board. Corners at 15mm/infinity and 35mm/MFD/2.8 on the Ra are both sharp like the R5 now. Definitely something I am GLAD to be wrong about. Will keep the Ra now as backup and 2nd body. Thanks for the conversation, though, and for holding to the logic that it was more likely an issue with the R than an improvement with the R5 sensor design. Now I can go back to worrying about how these lenses will look on the 90mp R


I'm glad the servicing of the Ra fixed your problem. I don't see how a new circuit board in itself could have caused that particular optical issue, unless there was a broken clip or two on the board holding down the sensor or it was otherwise misaligned. I would assume that their replacing it and reassembly caused them to make sure all clips and shimmed alignments of it (and the contained sensor) were correct. That would easily fix considerable optical errors at the corners. I've seen teardowns of Sony (and other) bodies showing broken sensor attachment clips and significant misalignment of the sensors relative to the mount. After years of using camera bodies & lenses and the inevitable bumps they get, I'm amazed that they can keep their alignment as well as they do.

I also enjoyed our conversations on this, and yes ... we can now go back to worrying about how these lenses will look on the 90(?)MP R5s


----------



## SteveC (Nov 19, 2020)

DJPatte said:


> But does the R and RP even have Eye Detection/Focus..? Think it was introduced with the R5 and the R had "Face Detection" at most
> Or that was basically what you said yes



No, you're correct. I said the wrong thing, and that is because I was confused. Thanks for the correction!


----------



## David the street guy (Nov 19, 2020)

DJPatte said:


> But does the R and RP even have Eye Detection/Focus..? Think it was introduced with the R5 and the R had "Face Detection" at most
> Or that was basically what you said yes



The RP has the eye detection autofocus, and it works pretty well on a still or slow moving subject. Forget a running kid, though! I use it a lot with portraits.


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 19, 2020)

CanonOregon said:


> Hmmm...I'm thinking the market is HUGE IF using a smaller sensor saves Canon a ton of money. As I understand chip development, there are many more APS-C sensors per wafer than full frame sensors.


How much cheaper could an RP be if it had an APS-C sensor instead of a FF sensor? Probably not much.


----------



## vscd (Nov 22, 2020)

I rather would like to see a new Canon 5D Mark V. Mirrorless is not what I want in my workflow... not yet.


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Dec 9, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> How much cheaper could an RP be if it had an APS-C sensor instead of a FF sensor? Probably not much.



literally the m50

without the RF mount


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Dec 9, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I. Don't. Care. Need. $. For. Glass. Body. Irrelevant. 4. Now.



same

Im literally using a canon t3i with stock lenses. CA is my enemy


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Dec 9, 2020)

rom said:


> I love my R. I actually don’t want the R5 or R6. So this if this is the new R “Mark II” it will be perfect



correct. the r5 has too many megapixels ( because of the low light quality ) and the r6 has too little.

if a new r camera had similar specs to the m6 mark ii id get that over anything


----------



## bergstrom (Jul 29, 2022)

any inside update on RP2?


----------

