# 2022 is scheduled to ‘The Year of the Camera Body’ [CR3]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 23, 2021)

> I have been told a couple of times now that 2022 is still scheduled to be “The Year of the Camera Body” from Canon. This means we should expect many new camera bodies announced this year. For the moment, it sounds like most major releases will happen in the 2nd half of 2022.
> While I haven’t been told specific models, I do have a good idea about what to expect from Canon.
> The first camera announced will be the Canon EOS R5c that I have been reporting about for quite some time. The EOS R5c is expected to be announced in mid-January of 2022.
> I also expect replacements for both the Canon EOS R and Canon EOS RP. I don’t believe either camera will get a direct replacement and instead we’ll get two new affordable full-frame cameras to fit below the Canon EOS R6.
> I also expect at least one APS-C RF mount camera to be...



Continue reading...


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 23, 2021)

2021 was the year of one camera that most people will not receive until 2022


----------



## dennishensphoto (Dec 23, 2021)

I would just want a 35, 50 and 85 f1.4


----------



## Niko Todd (Dec 23, 2021)

What about lenses?
Will there be a normal 100-400 and 70-200 IF?


----------



## keithcooper (Dec 23, 2021)

Ah well, looks like I keep using my 5Ds for work...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 23, 2021)

Niko Todd said:


> What about lenses?
> Will there be a normal 100-400 and 70-200 IF?


There’s a 100-400 non-L and a 100-500L. Neither are abnormal.

If you want an internal zooming 70-200, get the EF and adapt it. They’re not going to release an RF version until the MkII updates for the two of them that already exist, that will be a long time and the design probably will not change.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 23, 2021)

mrmagic said:


> I would just want a 35, 50 and 85 f1.4


You misspelled 35 f/1.2


----------



## mclaren777 (Dec 23, 2021)

So you're saying there's still hope for a 5DV?

I'll take it!


----------



## jeanluc (Dec 23, 2021)

It’ll be interesting to see what kind of sensor they put an R replacement. I doubt it will be the one in the R5 and the one in the R6 is quite low res compared to what’s out there. So maybe a new one, and it their new sensor fab is making Stacked, BSI sensors it could be very interesting.


----------



## keithcooper (Dec 23, 2021)

mclaren777 said:


> So you're saying there's still hope for a 5DV?
> 
> I'll take it!


I've seen nothing suggesting that DSLRs are anything but past announcements.
But yes, there is always hope... ;-)


----------



## VegasCameraGuy (Dec 23, 2021)

I'm still waiting on a higher resolution camera than my R5. Hopefully the R1 will be the camera I can lust after!


----------



## VegasCameraGuy (Dec 23, 2021)

keithcooper said:


> I've seen nothing suggesting that DSLRs are anything but past announcements.
> But yes, there is always hope... ;-)


Like the VHS recorder and the telephone with a cord attached, they are history.


----------



## 2Cents (Dec 23, 2021)

VegasCameraGuy said:


> Like the VHS recorder and the telephone with a cord attached, they are history.


So you're saying that I shouldn't hold out for a TIVO mkii!? You're killing me smalls


----------



## 2Cents (Dec 23, 2021)

jeanluc said:


> It’ll be interesting to see what kind of sensor they put an R replacement. I doubt it will be the one in the R5 and the one in the R6 is quite low res compared to what’s out there. So maybe a new one, and it their new sensor fab is making Stacked, BSI sensors it could be very interesting.


Stacked BSI & DGO for all!


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Dec 23, 2021)

The R successor will be the most interesting for me. I love my R but I'm exciting to see whether Canon is going to keep the R with a new naming scheme in the line-up. The R6 is not for me, the R5 too expensive for a pure hobbyist/ enthusiast like me. 


I´m also wondering whether Canon will release a high-mp R5 or if they just opt to go that route with 80-100mp R1. It would at least one (or two) crazy processor.


----------



## bbasiaga (Dec 23, 2021)

jeanluc said:


> It’ll be interesting to see what kind of sensor they put an R replacement. I doubt it will be the one in the R5 and the one in the R6 is quite low res compared to what’s out there. So maybe a new one, and it their new sensor fab is making Stacked, BSI sensors it could be very interesting.


Probably a 0% chance of a stacked BSI sensor in the low end bodies. R3 and the higher end bodies are the only ones that have it now, and at much higher price points. I don't even know if that tech will filter down to the R5/6 mk 2, or wait until mk 3. To see it jump down to the entry level bodies would be a huge shocker. They are also generally built for speed, which is not something the R and RP are built for. So it would seem a waste to put such a sensor in a body that can't use it, and/or drive the price of that body up significantly when you are trying to aim for entry level. 

I'm sure it will be something new though, and probably better than the 5d and 6d type sensors in the original R and RP. 

Brian


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Dec 23, 2021)

jeanluc said:


> It’ll be interesting to see what kind of sensor they put an R replacement. (...) So maybe a new one, and it their new sensor fab is making Stacked, BSI sensors it could be very interesting.


I highly doubt Canon will develop a new sensor for a/ or two lower cost model(s). Heck, the R got the sensor from the 5D mk IV, the RP has the 6D Mk II sensor. I therefore figure the R replacement will use the same sensor, but it'll get a slight upgrade to 32 mp or maybe 34 mp. Next camera to maybe feature BSI are the R5/ 6 mkii and the R1, if it doesn't get an even better sensor.


----------



## bbasiaga (Dec 23, 2021)

BTW....I really want to see what the R1 looks like. I've got this crazy idea to save up for a couple of years and grab one, despite not really needing anything of that caliber.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 23, 2021)

Niko Todd said:


> ...Will there be a normal 100-400 and 70-200 IF?


No


----------



## Chaitanya (Dec 23, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> 2021 was the year of one camera that most people will not receive until 2022


who knows what 2023 will turn into.


----------



## entoman (Dec 23, 2021)

45MP is plenty for me. A decent upgrade "R5Mkii" and/or a pro-grade 33MP APS "R7" would be where I'm looking to go next.

But I really wish 2022 would be "Year of the RF Lenses" - there are still a few "missing" from the range.
How about a nice compact 180mm or 150mm F5.6 AF 1:1 macro for starters?
Or a birding/safari 150-600mm F4-6.3 zoom?

... and some non-extending zooms for those that like them?


----------



## unfocused (Dec 23, 2021)

I do hope they offer an updated R. The camera doesn't get much respect on this forum, but it performs well above its price point. Unfortunately, I don't know how they upgrade it without undercutting the R6. 

It looks like the great APS-C debate will continue on this forum for awhile.

Now that I have the R3 in hand, I think it makes sense for Canon to wait for professional feedback before they release the R1. My guess is that they will want to have a second generation of the eye-control autofocus ready before they release the R1. Eye and face detection could also be improved, especially so that it better detects Black subjects.


----------



## entoman (Dec 23, 2021)

keithcooper said:


> I've seen nothing suggesting that DSLRs are anything but past announcements.
> But yes, there is always hope... ;-)


Pentax will help you out. I'm quite tempted to add a Pentax K3 Mkiii to run alongside my Canon gear, for the sheer pleasure of using one. The cameras are pretty much bullet-proof, and just about any lens you could want is available in K mount.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 23, 2021)

entoman said:


> But I really wish 2022 would be "Year of the RF Lenses" - there are still a few "missing" from the range.
> How about a nice compact 180mm or 150mm F5.6 AF 1:1 macro for starters?
> Or a birding/safari 150-600mm F4-6.3 zoom?
> 
> ... and some non-extending zooms for those that like them?


I imagine there will be more RF lenses coming next year, but I would also expect that most will be from the "roadmap" rather than the "rainbow unicorn" category.


----------



## sanj (Dec 23, 2021)

RF 25mm 1.2 L (I will live with 1.4)


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Dec 23, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



Maybe *edit* the main post title to add the *"be"* which you included in your post intro (*"to be"*), because at first glance it seemed awkward unless going into the discussion.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Dec 23, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I don't know how they upgrade it without undercutting the R6.


R successor upgrades that won't hurt R6 sales:
- similiar sensor like the R with a slight bump (32 MP) or a completely new 24 MP sensor without BSI (I don't believe in a new sensor though) 
- 8-10 FPS with mechanical shutter and focusing abilities
- 10-12 FPS with electronical shutter
- uncropped 4k 30FPS (I don´t care, but the internet does...)
- no Touch Bar (I use it but could live without it)

and to really differentiate from the R6:
- no IBIS
- no 4K 60FPS
- single card slot

The point where gets really tricky is the focusing abilities of the R successor. On the one hand, Canon needs to differentiate the R successor and the R6, on the other hand they are in danger to "unnecessarily cripple" the camera in its focusing abilities. I won't even try to take a guess here, because I have no clue how I'd handle this issue.


----------



## tcphoto (Dec 23, 2021)

I anticipate my 2022 will be another year of lean budgets unless my clients feel comfortable shooting again.


----------



## melgross (Dec 23, 2021)

As far as the chip shortage goes, TSMC stated a couple of months ago that it should be back on schedule around mid 2022. Hopefully, that will apply to most of the major producers.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Dec 23, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I do hope they offer an updated R. The camera doesn't get much respect on this forum, but it performs well above its price point.


I´ll seond that opinion. The R has a great value but there is still so much negativity out there about this camera. I figure this mainly still comes from its release. People were disappointed in not getting a truly pro camera. Furthermore, a lot of feature were taken from the 5D IV and so people started comparing those cameras. The"Touch Bar" fiasco and cropped 4k really took care of the camera never getting a fair chance and being reviewed for it is. There recently was a quiet interesting review about the R on thephoblographer. I think people should really reconsider what they think about this camera in terms of what the successor will/ could offer. imho, a R successor with the right improvements could a be huge seller for Canon. 









Is the Canon EOS R Still a Good Camera? It's a Pleasant Surprise!


The Canon EOS R is still a pretty incredible camera even years after its introduction. It's still more capable than many newer cameras.




www.thephoblographer.com


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 23, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I do hope they offer an updated R. The camera doesn't get much respect on this forum, but it performs well above its price point. Unfortunately, I don't know how they upgrade it without undercutting the R6.[..]


I would love an updated RP, its small size if great for bringing it along, but it really needs better AF.


----------



## melgross (Dec 23, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I highly doubt Canon will develop a new sensor for a/ or two lower cost model(s). Heck, the R got the sensor from the 5D mk IV, the RP has the 6D Mk II sensor. I therefore figure the R replacement will use the same sensor, but it'll get a slight upgrade to 32 mp or maybe 34 mp. Next camera to maybe feature BSI are the R5/ 6 mkii and the R1, if it doesn't get an even better sensor.


If it gets a resolution upgrade, then it’s a different sensor. Whether the underlying technologies are changed to the ones Canon is using in its new models is something else. I would imagine that they would want to get as much as possible on those, as quickly as they can since they solved the problems that had them behind for so many years.

it’s a point of competitiveness. They want to sell as many of all their models as they can. Sony is now the one to beat. And we can be sure that they are dead in the center of Canon’s sights.


----------



## slclick (Dec 23, 2021)

It's easy to see the R6 sensor being reused (after all it's a 1D Mklll sensor and it carries far more cache and ability than the old 18mp low end reused sensor)

Single card slot and less to no weather sealing. There's your R8/9


----------



## navastronia (Dec 23, 2021)

I hope for an RP update so that I can pick up another RP body on the cheap, as they close out stock. I don't love the camera, but it's certainly good enough for the work I do, and no one is buying me an R3, so here we are


----------



## entoman (Dec 23, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I imagine there will be more RF lenses coming next year, but I would also expect that most will be from the "roadmap" rather than the "rainbow unicorn" category.


Very true, but I can dream.
It's my birthday today, so the very least that Canon could do would be to announce the 180mm F5.6 stabilised macro or 150-600mm zoom that I yearn for...


----------



## LSXPhotog (Dec 23, 2021)

Competition is THICK right, but it would be really cool if Canon released a sort of "M50 of the EOS R world" next. An affordable camera that appeals to a lot of people, but makes for a terrific and simple video camera. Right now the EOS R could be seen as that, but it doesn't check off all the boxes I'm looking for - especially in 4K. If they made a decent 4K camera with IBIS in a small, lightweight body priced around $1100-1300 it would be mighty impressive. DON'T recycle the RP or R sensor!!

I don't think the market will accept another camera from Canon without IBIS, but I don't think Canon will adhere to that ideology with its next affordable cameras. It will probably reserve IBIS as a feature for higher tier cameras.

Heck, it would just be nice to see Aperture Priority added to video mode on the R6! But that's apparently too much to ask for, sadly.


----------



## Jordan23 (Dec 23, 2021)

slclick said:


> It's easy to see the R6 sensor being reused (after all it's a 1D Mklll sensor and it carries far more cache and ability than the old 18mp low end reused sensor)
> 
> Single card slot and less to no weather sealing. There's your R8/9


It would make sense to reuse th R6 sensor in a new entry level camera, plenty performance for entry level, and with a quite usable ES.
I wouldn't be surprised if the R6 mk2 gets the R3 sensor some time after the R1 hits the market.


----------



## Daner (Dec 23, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> R successor upgrades that won't hurt R6 sales:
> - similiar sensor like the R with a slight bump (32 MP) or a completely new 24 MP sensor without BSI (I don't believe in a new sensor though)
> - 8-10 FPS with mechanical shutter and focusing abilities
> - 10-12 FPS with electronical shutter
> ...



I switched from the R to the R6. Based on my experience with both, I'd think that they could use the same sensor as the R and the same Digic X processor as the R3, R5, and R6. The shutter can be a step down (slower and cheaper) from the R5/6, but the focusing and the IBIS should be included. Probably good to also keep all of the video modes that the R has that are lacking on the R6. Single card slot, and the same controls and dials as the R6. Fewer FPS in both mechanical and electronic shutter modes, a single card slot, and an older (but higher resolution) sensor than the R6 would be differentiation enough, but the improved focusing, IBIS, and better controls would be incentive enough for an upgrade.


----------



## John Wilde (Dec 23, 2021)

A new vlogging M, along the lines of the Sony ZV-E10 would make sense. The M50 sells too well to kill off the entire M line.
​


----------



## -pekr- (Dec 23, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> There’s a 100-400 non-L and a 100-500L. Neither are abnormal.
> 
> If you want an internal focusing 70-200, get the EF and adapt it. They’re not going to release an RF version until the MkII updates for the two of them that already exist, that will be a long time and the design probably will not change.



We own 70-200 f/2.8 and I don't like design at all. Canon did much more consistent (at least in comparison to other RF lens design) work with the f/4 version. I hope next f/2.8 interation changes that. Why the ring order on those two lens is reversed, escapes my mind.


----------



## -pekr- (Dec 23, 2021)

I hope Canon brings in some rangefinder like camera, like M6 II is. Sony did it with A7C, Nikon with its Df camera. Come on, Canon.


----------



## Juangrande (Dec 23, 2021)

dennishensphoto said:


> I would just want a 35, 50 and 85 f1.4


1.2


----------



## Juangrande (Dec 23, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> You misspelled 35 f/1.2


I’m really anticipating a 35 1.2 myself. I use a 35 a lot for environmental and editorial style portrait work and I’m quite curious about what improvements I can get in depth of field separation on my subjects. Even if it’s minimal I’ll take what I can get.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 23, 2021)

-pekr- said:


> We own 70-200 f/2.8 and I don't like design at all. Canon did much more consistent (at least in comparison to other RF lens design) work with the f/4 version. I hope next f/2.8 interation changes that. Why the ring order on those two lens is reversed, escapes my mind.


I suspect it’s the optical design. The EF 70-300L had ‘reversed’ focus and zoom ring positions because it had a floating rear focusing group to improve sharpness at close focus distances.

It doesn’t bother me, the focus/zoom/control ring positions are the same on the RF 70-200/2.8L and RF 100-500L so for me black lenses are one set of controls and white are another.


----------



## Juangrande (Dec 23, 2021)

melgross said:


> As far as the chip shortage goes, TSMC stated a couple of months ago that it should be back on schedule around mid 2022. Hopefully, that will apply to most of the major producers.


“TSMC”?


----------



## ColorBlindBat (Dec 23, 2021)

Juangrande said:


> “TSMC”?


Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturering Company.


----------



## Juangrande (Dec 23, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> There’s a 100-400 non-L and a 100-500L. Neither are abnormal.
> 
> If you want an internal zooming 70-200, get the EF and adapt it. They’re not going to release an RF version until the MkII updates for the two of them that already exist, that will be a long time and the design probably will not change.


----------



## AccipiterQ (Dec 23, 2021)

R7...hook it to my veeeins


----------



## BBarn (Dec 23, 2021)

I wouldn't count on too much. Less than 10 months ago the rumor was Canon was going to make a massive splash with a new camera and many many lenses in 2021. We did get the R3, but only 4 new mainstream RF lenses, a dual fisheye, and 2 tele RFs that were seemingly simple modifications of existing EF lens designs.

The world remains panicked over SARS Cov2 test results so 2022 may be only a little better than 2021 as far and new product introductions. And if Canon is focused on releasing three or so new camera bodies, that may mean only a few new lenses.


----------



## PhotoGenerous (Dec 23, 2021)

I don't know anything about specifics of sensor technology, so don't know what should and shouldn't be expected in that regard. But what I would guess is important to the random person in an R successor is that camera gets the better eye detection and tracking we've seen in the R5/6. I also full expect it will lose the touch bar, but what that means for the replacement controls I'm not sure. I feel like Canon would reserve the joystick for the R6 and above. The megapixels will be fine whatever Canon chooses for it. Single card slot and not much, if any, weather sealing are also safe bets. 

I also wonder if the name will be as simple as calling it the R Mark II, or if they'll change it to something else.

As for lenses, I just want to see those autofocus Tilt-Shift lenses in action.


----------



## miljan (Dec 23, 2021)

maybe canon could look up to sony and release 24, 35, 50, 85 in 1.4 with compact size and with pro focus and build.
that's something sorely missing at the moment.
there is glaring hole between 1.2 and 1.8/2.0 versions of the lenses.
1.2 too heavy and big and unwieldy and 1.8/2.0 too slow to focus and light build quality.
something i think most wedding photographers would more than welcome.


----------



## blindsleep (Dec 23, 2021)

No. DSLR is done.


----------



## guillettoaparicio (Dec 23, 2021)

Do you think the new RP will have the R5 and R6 AF ? I mean animals eye detection


----------



## InchMetric (Dec 23, 2021)

Finderless minimal full frame RF. For an adjunct to the R5. Which I’d like to see upgraded with an R3 body.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 23, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> Any opinion on whether a mostly-still photog should just get the R5c when it comes out? Is it merely going to be more expensive and a few mm thicker for the cooling? Or is it somehow going to suck enough that you really don't want it unless you're heavily using the video?


If you are a mostly-still photographer, why would you choose a cinema model over the R5?


----------



## Twinix (Dec 23, 2021)

@Canon Rumors Guy Do you know anything more about the cinema line except for the r5c? C50? C200 ii?


----------



## Mmm Toast (Dec 23, 2021)

Woah woah woah, what do you mean an EOS R replacement? This is now the worlds most interesting camera rumor. Please elaborate.


----------



## Bob Howland (Dec 23, 2021)

Twinix said:


> @Canon Rumors Guy Do you know anything more about the cinema line except for the r5c? C50? C200 ii?


Consider the alternatives. I'm thinking of getting an XF605 camcorder. I already own a Vixia HF G60.


----------



## Bishop80 (Dec 23, 2021)

Just a small hint of a rumor of an R1 will have me excited.
But, a 1DX Mark IV which has expanded AF capabilities through the OVF (ie, larger area AF sensor, eye detect) would have me ecstatic!


----------



## davidhfe (Dec 23, 2021)

unfocused said:


> If you are a mostly-still photographer, why would you choose a cinema model over the R5?



It really comes down to the quoted question. If there aren't any drawbacks except a modest size increase and cost, then even occasionally video use might warrant the purchase. (As opposed to something more drastic like removing the mechanical shutter)


----------



## fasterquieter (Dec 23, 2021)

I wonder if we’ll get anything in the $500 range next year. I’d love a cheap extra body for times I don’t want to stress about losing or damaging my R6.


----------



## Twinix (Dec 23, 2021)

Bob Howland said:


> Consider the alternatives. I'm thinking of getting an XF605 camcorder. I already own a Vixia HF G60.


I already have the XA50. Next for me will bee the R6 (will buy it when I actually need it, now I got a different job with gear provided) and then a cinema camera with SDI, ND, bigger sensor than 1", preferably full size XLR etc. It could be the C70, but if Canon comes up with something along the lines of a C200 ii/FX6 I will go for that. Currently using a C300 ii at work.


----------



## sanj (Dec 24, 2021)

-pekr- said:


> I hope Canon brings in some rangefinder like camera, like M6 II is. Sony did it with A7C, Nikon with its Df camera. Come on, Canon.


I would love that. But it will not happen... :-(


----------



## splatrabbit (Dec 24, 2021)

Canon doesn't need more R camera bodies, they need more RF lenses.


----------



## bergstrom (Dec 24, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> I would love an updated RP, its small size if great for bringing it along, but it really needs better AF.



I don't mind it being bigger, but get the hell rid of that God Damn crap battery.


----------



## bergstrom (Dec 24, 2021)

Really hope we get other companies coming in next year with RF lens to compete with the extortionately priced canon ones.


----------



## bergstrom (Dec 24, 2021)

fasterquieter said:


> I wonder if we’ll get anything in the $500 range next year. I’d love a cheap extra body for times I don’t want to stress about losing or damaging my R6.



or it locking up


----------



## vjlex (Dec 24, 2021)

splatrabbit said:


> Canon doesn't need more R camera bodies, they need more RF lenses.


I disagree. There is much more room for R bodies. Five bodies (3 of which are over $2000) doesn't give us that many options. EF lenses on the other hand are still as good today as they were yesterday and adaptable to R bodies. Don't get me wrong, I look forward to more RF lens options, but I think there is a good foundation there already.


----------



## esglord (Dec 24, 2021)

I demand the R and R6s’ first born


----------



## PhotoGenerous (Dec 24, 2021)

Reading the post again, R5C and R1 are not for me. I was focusing on everyone's R replacement comments, but I totally skipped over that _both_ the R _and_ the RP are getting new versions. Now that I have an R5 and R6, I'm a bit more interested in seeing how small of a body they can go with a full frame sensor. Especially now that there are a bunch of the smaller STM primes out now and not just giant L lenses.

And if they're going to put out two cheaper end R full frame bodies, I think that gives a higher chance that the APS-C body is the R7 and not the beginning of the R Rebel line.


----------



## Chig (Dec 24, 2021)

PhotoGenerous said:


> Reading the post again, R5C and R1 are not for me. I was focusing on everyone's R replacement comments, but I totally skipped over that _both_ the R _and_ the RP are getting new versions. Now that I have an R5 and R6, I'm a bit more interested in seeing how small they can go with a full frame sensor. And if they're going to put out two cheaper end R full frame bodies, I think that gives a higher chance that tee APS-C body is the R7 and not the beginning of the R Rebel line.


Can't see any point in making budget consumer "Rebel" cameras anymore as they've been replaced by smartphones (which are actually better for everyday snapshots anyway)
Only professional and enthusiast cameras still sell reasonably well now


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 24, 2021)

Chig said:


> Can't see any point in making budget consumer "Rebel" cameras anymore as they've been replaced by smartphones (which are actually better for everyday snapshots anyway)
> Only professional and enthusiast cameras still sell reasonably well now


If that’s true, why do Canon’s entry level Rebel/Kiss DSLR and MILC kits remain at the top of the best-seller lists?

The question is rhetorical, of course. Your statements are contradicted by the facts. If you can’t see the point in making camera lines that continue to sell very well, you’re blind to reality.


----------



## PhotoGenerous (Dec 24, 2021)

Chig said:


> Can't see any point in making budget consumer "Rebel" cameras anymore as they've been replaced by smartphones (which are actually better for everyday snapshots anyway)
> Only professional and enthusiast cameras still sell reasonably well now


I don't know enough about how much parts cost for the sensor sizes and how that leads to total body cost. That would be the main reason, if something like that is needed to get a full range of body prices. But if it doesn't make all that much of a difference, then yeah I don't know what the point would be.

Unless, (more manufacturing things I don't know) if they also want to go for smallest body size possible to test the waters about dropping the M line so they can stick to just the one mount.


----------



## mxwphoto (Dec 24, 2021)

I doubt there will be a true R direct replacement - if you add ibis and a proper 4k non crop it will essentially be R6. So Canon either cannibalize their R6 sales for a lower priced R camera or they jack up R price to be R6 equivalent, both which do not make sense. I do think a R6 minus viewfinder and single card slot and 4k 30fps only priced around $1899 may be more plausible. Maybe call it the R6Lt or R6p or something.

I am also a bit stumped as to how they will refresh the RP for a mk ii version as it usually doesn't make sense to develop a new sensor just to be used on the lowest end market, so the only one available would be off of the R6 aka 1DX iii sensor, unless if they are willing to stick the R sensor in there and have entry level cam have about 50% more resolution than the R6 at less than half the price.


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 24, 2021)

mxwphoto said:


> [..]
> I am also a bit stumped as to how they will refresh the RP for a mk ii version as it usually doesn't make sense to develop a new sensor just to be used on the lowest end market, so the only one available would be off of the R6 aka 1DX iii sensor, unless if they are willing to stick the R sensor in there and have entry level cam have about 50% more resolution than the R6 at less than half the price.


Using the R6/1DxIII sensor in the RP-II would be a huge improvement. I shot the 1DxIII and RP side-by-side and the 1DxIII pictures had a lot more fine detail and much less noise when taking pictures of dragonflies at dawn, even with less megapixels than the RP.
I hope that using the same sensor across 3 or more models would make it cheaper to produce which would keep the RP-II and the same price as the original RP.


----------



## entoman (Dec 24, 2021)

Chig said:


> Can't see any point in making budget consumer "Rebel" cameras anymore as they've been replaced by smartphones (which are actually better for everyday snapshots anyway)
> Only professional and enthusiast cameras still sell reasonably well now


Really? Really? Rebel budget DSLRs are among the most popular and best-selling cameras on the market. Tens of thousands of them continue to be sold to novices who use them *in addition* to their smartphones, due to their much greater versatility, great image quality and affordable prices. And there are plenty of serious amateurs (and probably some pros) who use them as backup bodies to their main camera.

I wouldn't be the tiniest bit surprised if the new 2022 releases included a couple of DSLRs - a Rebel and possibly even an upgrade to the 90D, which is still an extremely popular camera. There are a huge number of photographers who still much prefer a DLSR to a MILC.


----------



## Hector1970 (Dec 24, 2021)

entoman said:


> Really? Really? Rebel budget DSLRs are among the most popular and best-selling cameras on the market. Tens of thousands of them continue to be sold to novices who use them *in addition* to their smartphones, due to their much greater versatility, great image quality and affordable prices. And there are plenty of serious amateurs (and probably some pros) who use them as backup bodies to their main camera.
> 
> I wouldn't be the tiniest bit surprised if the new 2022 releases included a couple of DSLRs - a Rebel and possibly even an upgrade to the 90D, which is still an extremely popular camera. There are a huge number of photographers who still much prefer a DLSR to a MILC.


I completely agree budget DSLR's will be around for a while yet. I'm sure Canon can continue to make small tweaks to make it a new model (but probably not much better than a previous model but at least a new issue date and model number). There is also all this EF glass lying around to be purchased second hand which is still quite excellent, a new DSLR and old EF glass is a potent combination. 
I'm not sure though there is a huge number of photographers who prefer a DSLR to a MILC per say. It probably depends on their experience with a MILC. A MILC has alot of advantages but the quality of the view finder is key. Newer ones are quite excellent. Silent shutter and seeing what the exposure actually is are huge advantages with MILC, maybe you have to use a DSLR to see what you are missing.


----------



## entoman (Dec 24, 2021)

Hector1970 said:


> I'm not sure though there is a huge number of photographers who prefer a DSLR to a MILC per say. It probably depends on their experience with a MILC. A MILC has alot of advantages but the quality of the view finder is key. Newer ones are quite excellent. Silent shutter and seeing what the exposure actually is are huge advantages with MILC, maybe you have to use a DSLR to see what you are missing.


Speaking just for myself, I've owned many DSLRs and the viewfinders on many of the APS-C modes have been abysmal, like looking at a dark window at the end of a tunnel. But the same can be said of the EVFs in many budget MILCs - often small, coarse, contrasty and generally unpleasant. I actually think that the "WYSIWYG" aspects of EVFs is overrated. For me, the real advantages of MILCs lie in the faster and more accurate AF and tracking systems.

Currently I have a 5DMkiv and an R5. Although the R5 has many advantages over the DSLR (quieter, lighter, faster, better sensor, more precise AF etc), I still very much prefer the optical viewfinder on my 5DMkiv. I love the fact that the viewfinder works the same way as my own eyes - seeing light levels as they exist in reality. To me it's a bit like comparing the experience of looking through a window, to looking at a TV screen. I also love the way that an optical viewfinder is always "on" - I can raise the camera to my eye and it's instantly available, whereas with even the best MILCs there is a brief time lag before the EVF springs into life.

The truth is that each type of camera has a different "feel", and while most people nowadays seem to prefer an EVF, there are many who just feel much more comfortable with an optical viewfinder. It's also equally true that the viewfinder experience with either DSLR or MILC varies considerably according to how much you spend - Rebel viewfinders are pretty awful compared e.g. to those on a 5DMkiv or 1DXiii.


----------



## bergstrom (Dec 24, 2021)

First thing to do with theR P2 or maybe RX is rip out that Goddam lp-e17 and stick in a Lp-e6. Make the body bigger if you have to and a silent shutter


----------



## slclick (Dec 24, 2021)

Higher quality evf is what sold me on my R6. Using an Oly m43 Pen F was a cute but all in all horrid experience, next up was the M5 which had a good ergonomic feel and pleasant menu system albeit Powershot based not EOS style. However the evf still wasn't matured enough at that point for me to leave my 5D3. The R6 is nearly perfect and the sensor blows my mind as well.


----------



## mxwphoto (Dec 24, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> Using the R6/1DxIII sensor in the RP-II would be a huge improvement. I shot the 1DxIII and RP side-by-side and the 1DxIII pictures had a lot more fine detail and much less noise when taking pictures of dragonflies at dawn, even with less megapixels than the RP.
> I hope that using the same sensor across 3 or more models would make it cheaper to produce which would keep the RP-II and the same price as the original RP.



That's the thing though, 1DX iii came out in 2020 with this new sensor and it is a $6500 camera. It is already quite surprising that Canon was willing to use it in a $2500 camera just 6mo later (to grab milc marketshare no doubt, which worked to great effect). If they stick the same sensor on a sub $1000 camera just 2 years after release I think it will jade a lot of old 'loyal pros' who bought the 1DX iii and kill its value.

Having said that though, if they did use it as a RP mk ii sensor and priced it at sub $1000, that would be an autobuy as a second body for me.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 24, 2021)

mxwphoto said:


> That's the thing though, 1DX iii came out in 2020 with this new sensor and it is a $6500 camera. It is already quite surprising that Canon was willing to use it in a $2500 camera just 6mo later (to grab milc marketshare no doubt, which worked to great effect). If they stick the same sensor on a sub $1000 camera just 2 years after release I think it will jade a lot of old 'loyal pros' who bought the 1DX iii and kill its value.
> 
> Having said that though, if they did use it as a RP mk ii sensor and priced it at sub $1000, that would be an autobuy as a second body for me.


That just sounds like you aren’t a 1 series user. The sensor isn’t everything, processors make a huge difference to output and cost. AF, build quality, durability, etc are the hallmarks of the 1 series and they can all be reduced or eliminated to reduce costs.


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 24, 2021)

mxwphoto said:


> That's the thing though, 1DX iii came out in 2020 with this new sensor and it is a $6500 camera. It is already quite surprising that Canon was willing to use it in a $2500 camera just 6mo later (to grab milc marketshare no doubt, which worked to great effect). If they stick the same sensor on a sub $1000 camera just 2 years after release I think it will jade a lot of old 'loyal pros' who bought the 1DX iii and kill its value.
> 
> Having said that though, if they did use it as a RP mk ii sensor and priced it at sub $1000, that would be an autobuy as a second body for me.


There is very little difference in any sensor since they all (except for the RP ) have the newer architecture. Despite the outcries on forums and Youtube reviewers, using older sensors going back to the 5DIV generation would give almost identical results as a brand new sensor. The 1DX III is $6500 and it has nothing to do with the sensor.


----------



## mxwphoto (Dec 24, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> That just sounds like you aren’t a 1 series user. The sensor isn’t everything, processors make a huge difference to output and cost. AF, build quality, durability, etc are the hallmarks of the 1 series and they can all be reduced or eliminated to reduce costs.


Correct, I am a R6 user. I agree that many other factors work together to differentiate the 1D series, but the difference in pricing is just too stark to be using the heart of 1DX iii in entry level camera. Now that there is no longer separate AF modules, it is all about algorithm and processor. Canon's next RP ii won't continue to use Digic 8, so with a Digic X the AF will be brought up to R6 standards as it would be cheaper to copy paste algorithms than to intentionally write and test additional code to cripple the AF. RP getting that sensor and AF would be like Ferrari sticking the engine and transmission of their 812 in a tiny car and selling it for $50k.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 24, 2021)

mxwphoto said:


> Correct, I am a R6 user. I agree that many other factors work together to differentiate the 1D series, but the difference in pricing is just too stark to be using the heart of 1DX iii in entry level camera. Now that there is no longer separate AF modules, it is all about algorithm and processor. Canon's next RP ii won't continue to use Digic 8, so with a Digic X the AF will be brought up to R6 standards as it would be cheaper to copy paste algorithms than to intentionally write and test additional code to cripple the AF. RP getting that sensor and AF would be like Ferrari sticking the engine and transmission of their 812 in a tiny car and selling it for $50k.


Although Canon use the “same” sensor in the 1DXIII and R6 there is certainly at least one difference and that it the AA filter. I guess it’s possible for Canon to use the “same” sensor in a RPII, but if the likes of the architecture and micro lenses are changed / cheapened does that make it the same sensor ? I guess if you are Canon’s marketing department the answer is ‘yes’ and if you’re Sporgon the answer’s ‘no’.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 24, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> First thing to do with theR P2 or maybe RX is rip out that Goddam lp-e17 and stick in a Lp-e6. Make the body bigger if you have to and a silent shutter


I disagree. True the RP is the current budget FF but it is still one of the smallest and lightest FF cameras. It’s due to the latter specs that I bought one. (Those that know me on CR will now be smirking in the knowledge that it’s really the former spec). The larger battery would increase the size and weight of the camera; I’d rather have the smaller camera and a spare battery or two and budget that into the initial purchase cost.
It’s the same situation with the G1XIII; that camera’s battery is dire but it does mean that camera is small enough to genuinely fit in a coat pocket. The original G1X would not. But you have to accept that you need spare batteries.


----------



## Chig (Dec 24, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Still hoping for an R7 with BSI stacked sensor to replace my 7Dii , I'm tempted to buy an R5 instead as it's very good for bird photography (and a vast improvement over my 7Dii) but the rolling shutter is off putting when I see the very similar (but much more expensive) Sony A1 and Nikon Z9 with the improved sensors which eliminate this and I'd be pretty frustrated if the R7 came out after I bought an R5 but losing hope of Canon ever making my dream camera

Ideally from my point of view _(my dream camera but not very likely Canon will make it)_ an R7 would be based on the R3 body with new aps-c BSI stacked sensor and priced about the same as the R5 or a bit higher (even similar price to the R3 would be tempting at least for me as it would be the ultimate birding camera)

Far more likely the R7 would be based on the R6 with again new aps-c BSI stacked sensor and priced similarly to the R6 or perhaps slightly less.

An eventual R5 mark ii with an updated BSI stacked sensor would be great too but I suspect we'll be waiting 'till about 2024 for that

Another cool possibility would be an R2 based on the R3 with a full frame 50mp BSI stacked sensor which would be great for wildlife and especially birding , a lot of people are hoping the R1 will be speced like this but I doubt that Canon will go high resolution on their flagship replacement for the 1DXiii sports body. An R2 based on the R3 would be relatively cheap to develop and manufacture though and not upset the Pro sports market.

A line up of 3 cameras sharing the R3 body architecture would make sense I think:

R1 : very much successor to 1DX line with modest resolution of 24-30mp , much improved focus acquisition and uber tough body and freakish speed with dual digic X processors and twin CFe card slots and launch date 2024 with pricing about $6,500-7,000 USD
R2 : wildlife/landscape high resolution of about 50-60mp and very similar otherwise to the R3 and pricing similar to R3
R3 : pro/enthusiast sports camera and testbed for R1.
Lots of possibilities and it'll be interesting to see what Canon chooses to develop


----------



## John Wilde (Dec 24, 2021)

Chig said:


> Can't see any point in making budget consumer "Rebel" cameras anymore as they've been replaced by smartphones (which are actually better for everyday snapshots anyway)


In unit sales, Canon's mirrorless Rebel (M50) is their best selling mirrorless camera.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 24, 2021)

Chig said:


> Can't see any point in making budget consumer "Rebel" cameras anymore as they've been replaced by smartphones (which are actually better for everyday snapshots anyway)
> Only professional and enthusiast cameras still sell reasonably well now


I'm not going to pile on. Others have pointed out that Rebels and M series still sell quite well. But, I do agree that the handwriting is on the wall for low end interchangeable lens digital cameras and I think Canon (along with other camera companies) are well aware of where the market is headed. In fact I've said as much in other threads. 

I doubt they will disappear, but I also don't expect Canon to make any major investments in the sector. All camera companies are chasing the enthusiast market today (The professional market has also been fading for the past several years). The market for Rebels and M series is shrinking. It may never disappear, but it certainly isn't where Canon is investing their R&D dollars, which is a good signal of where they think the market is headed. Canon may see a niche for compact APS-C bodies like the M series and may transition the remaining amateur interchangeable lens camera market to M and low-cost R bodies. 

They will continue to make Rebels for the time being, but it isn't where the investment is going.

Long-term though, I don't know what camera manufacturers do, as the enthusiast market skews older and it may also die out eventually (at a minimum the replacement rate doesn't seem sufficient to offset the mortality rate).


----------



## esglord (Dec 25, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> I disagree. True the RP is the current budget FF but it is still one of the smallest and lightest FF cameras. It’s due to the latter specs that I bought one. (Those that know me on CR will now be smirking in the knowledge that it’s really the former spec). The larger battery would increase the size and weight of the camera; I’d rather have the smaller camera and a spare battery or two and budget that into the initial purchase cost.
> It’s the same situation with the G1XIII; that camera’s battery is dire but it does mean that camera is small enough to genuinely fit in a coat pocket. The original G1X would not. But you have to accept that you need spare batteries.


I also just carry two spare batteries, and it’s no big deal. That said, for me, the camera is actually a bit too small or more accurately too short, so I leave an L bracket on it at all times to give my pinky somewhere to rest. I’d take a bigger size to get better battery life. Still very happy with the camera. Only jealous of the DPAF II on R6 and R5


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 25, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I'm not going to pile on. Others have pointed out that Rebels and M series still sell quite well. But, I do agree that the handwriting is on the wall for low end interchangeable lens digital cameras and I think Canon (along with other camera companies) are well aware of where the market is headed. In fact I've said as much in other threads.
> 
> I doubt they will disappear, but I also don't expect Canon to make any major investments in the sector. All camera companies are chasing the enthusiast market today (The professional market has also been fading for the past several years). The market for Rebels and M series is shrinking. It may never disappear, but it certainly isn't where Canon is investing their R&D dollars, which is a good signal of where they think the market is headed. Canon may see a niche for compact APS-C bodies like the M series and may transition the remaining amateur interchangeable lens camera market to M and low-cost R bodies.
> 
> ...


I agree that the investment dollars are definitely in the higher-end products. But as far as long term strategy - I think camera companies are pretty much screwed. As far as economics are concerned, I think it is not even long term, but medium term where camera companies need to realize that to survive, they will have to drastically cut back on R&D spending. DSLRs had already reached a point where there was little that could be done to improve the cameras from one generation to the next, but luckily for the camera companies, mirrorless gave them an opportunity to make advances in FPS, AF with eye, vehicle and other tracking abilities, and a few other things. But how much farther can they go without further advances being more about hype than actual improvements? If birders are already getting 80-90% of shots in focus, and sports shooters are getting 30 FPS with buffers that don't fill up, it seems like todays generation of cameras will quickly (within perhaps one more generation) reach a point where the vast majority of photographers will be happy with what they have and won't upgrade until they *need* to. That, of course, is what the camera business was all about before digital. You bought a camera as a tool and used it until it needed to be replaced. Much like the computer business is today where we are now long past is the time where you felt the need to upgrade a home computer because newer models were faster and more efficient and there were real improvements. The computer I have today (not being a computer geek) is essentially the same as the computer I had 2 computer ago (10 to 15 or more years ago?) aside from having a larger hard drive. I get a new computer now when the old one starts having real issues and needs repair. 

As sales continue to plummet, camera companies (I believe) will be forced into the same business model or will go under. Each new generation of camera will be only very marginally improved (if at all) and will be aimed at new customers - not up-graders. Far less R&D money will need to be spent. It might be 5 to 10 years between generations. That would work...except...The YouTubers, the forum dwellers, the online reviewers and influencers would kill any company that tries it. The marketing fallout would be disastrous. (Or maybe not...Canon's M50 II was roasted online for being a very minimal upgrade, but consumers don't seem to mind, but I think the enthusiast market would be outraged.) Look how companies get ridiculed today if they use a 4 year old sensor, even when that sensor performs just as well as a newer sensor. 

Camera companies will be in a real bind - a bind they may already be feeling when it comes to improving their products with each generation or facing the online wrath. Since sensors have not really improved in a number of years, we now see companies adding a little noise reduction to their RAW files so they "appear" to be improving. Companies hype a certain number of FPS, but in the fine print you find out there are numerous caveats, such as battery life, only certain lenses, etc. Canon, who I believe historically has been reluctant to play that game, now seems to have realized that they have to join the "hype" party to compete with Sony - the leaders of Spec hype for many years now. Sony has understood that bigger numbers mean bigger publicity and better reviews, regardless of actual performance. One recent example is EVF resolution. I've seen a few reviewers faulting the Nikon Z9 for having a lower resolution than Sony (the A1, I would imagine without looking it up). And yet, I've now seen multiple photographers who have experienced both cameras say that the EVF of the NIkon Z9 is better. Most likely, because Nikon is using better glass in their EVF. In my brief experience with Sony, their EVFs were definitely inferior. But as long as the "number" of dots is higher, they seem to win the spec (and hype) battle - and that's where it counts in today's sound bite, YouTube review world. So, the question will be, how can a company survive the spec wars, when the amount of R&D money necessary to continue to try improve products that are already mature will drive them out of business. Don't have an answer to that.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 25, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> I agree that the investment dollars are definitely in the higher-end products. But as far as long term strategy - I think camera companies are pretty much screwed. As far as economics are concerned, I think it is not even long term, but medium term where camera companies need to realize that to survive, they will have to drastically cut back on R&D spending. DSLRs had already reached a point where there was little that could be done to improve the cameras from one generation to the next, but luckily for the camera companies, mirrorless gave them an opportunity to make advances in FPS, AF with eye, vehicle and other tracking abilities, and a few other things. But how much farther can they go without further advances being more about hype than actual improvements? If birders are already getting 80-90% of shots in focus, and sports shooters are getting 30 FPS with buffers that don't fill up, it seems like todays generation of cameras will quickly (within perhaps one more generation) reach a point where the vast majority of photographers will be happy with what they have and won't upgrade until they *need* to. That, of course, is what the camera business was all about before digital. You bought a camera as a tool and used it until it needed to be replaced. Much like the computer business is today where we are now long past is the time where you felt the need to upgrade a home computer because newer models were faster and more efficient and there were real improvements. The computer I have today (not being a computer geek) is essentially the same as the computer I had 2 computer ago (10 to 15 or more years ago?) aside from having a larger hard drive. I get a new computer now when the old one starts having real issues and needs repair.
> 
> As sales continue to plummet, camera companies (I believe) will be forced into the same business model or will go under. Each new generation of camera will be only very marginally improved (if at all) and will be aimed at new customers - not up-graders. Far less R&D money will need to be spent. It might be 5 to 10 years between generations. That would work...except...The YouTubers, the forum dwellers, the online reviewers and influencers would kill any company that tries it. The marketing fallout would be disastrous. (Or maybe not...Canon's M50 II was roasted online for being a very minimal upgrade, but consumers don't seem to mind, but I think the enthusiast market would be outraged.) Look how companies get ridiculed today if they use a 4 year old sensor, even when that sensor performs just as well as a newer sensor.
> 
> Camera companies will be in a real bind - a bind they may already be feeling when it comes to improving their products with each generation or facing the online wrath. Since sensors have not really improved in a number of years, we now see companies adding a little noise reduction to their RAW files so they "appear" to be improving. Companies hype a certain number of FPS, but in the fine print you find out there are numerous caveats, such as battery life, only certain lenses, etc. Canon, who I believe historically has been reluctant to play that game, now seems to have realized that they have to join the "hype" party to compete with Sony - the leaders of Spec hype for many years now. Sony has understood that bigger numbers mean bigger publicity and better reviews, regardless of actual performance. One recent example is EVF resolution. I've seen a few reviewers faulting the Nikon Z9 for having a lower resolution than Sony (the A1, I would imagine without looking it up). And yet, I've now seen multiple photographers who have experienced both cameras say that the EVF of the NIkon Z9 is better. Most likely, because Nikon is using better glass in their EVF. In my brief experience with Sony, their EVFs were definitely inferior. But as long as the "number" of dots is higher, they seem to win the spec (and hype) battle - and that's where it counts in today's sound bite, YouTube review world. So, the question will be, how can a company survive the spec wars, when the amount of R&D money necessary to continue to try improve products that are already mature will drive them out of business. Don't have an answer to that.


Well said. You raise an interesting point about reviewers that I hadn't thought about. An entire eco system has been created that relies heavily on an unending stream of new products. Not sure what those folks will do as the improvements from one generation to another become more marginal and are stretched out for longer cycles. 

Years ago, Thom Hogan wrote some columns about the "last camera," essentially arguing that the quality of cameras had reached a point where most people didn't need to upgrade. Still, that was like 8-10 years ago and the upgrades keep coming and people keep buying. 

Companies do seem very good at introducing new features that become "must haves." (Eye Control autofocus anyone?) I'm as bad as anyone in terms of buying into the desire to upgrade. But, a bigger threat may be the aging out of the market. I don't think there is any question that the enthusiast market skews older and, as the saying goes, in the long run we will all be dead. 

For several years I've argued that the market is headed back to the old film days, where cameras lasted at least 10 years and lenses much longer. The cycles might not be quite that long, but I suspect maturing technology and aging customers will catch up to the manufacturers and to the people who are making their living off the continuous introduction of new products.

Thanks for the thoughtful comments.


----------



## Jethro (Dec 25, 2021)

As is often pointed out, the Rebel series and M series bodies will continue for as long as they are profitable - and they seem to continue to be so. I think the upcoming lower-$ R series bodies (and also the APSC 'R7') will be an insight into the future. It's hard to see (I agree) any significant investment in the APSC DSLRs or M series going forward, so assuming that introductory and mid-range ILCs remain profitable, they will have to be transitioned into the R series. But over what time period? If people keep buying Rebels or Ms (especially in kits with 1 / 2 lenses) the way they seem to at the moment, there is no reason to move those lines on, from Canon's point of view. People moving 'up' from smartphones will still see a big jump in IQ with ILCs and even kit lenses. But, yes, surely at some point there will be a convergence of the mounts.


----------



## PhotoGenerous (Dec 25, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> So, the question will be, how can a company survive the spec wars, when the amount of R&D money necessary to continue to try improve products that are already mature will drive them out of business. Don't have an answer to that.



I feel like that current answer was stuff that Canon has been doing for years that is always touted in those reviews. From DPAF to eye-autofocus R5/R6, Canon reviews are always praising how good Canon's autofocus features are top of the line. Focusing on video as well as photography despite all the outcry from online photographers about paying "extra" for features that keep the consumer base wider are part of that answer, and features that they'll "never" use. (Way too many photographers on reddit would raise hell when articulating screens were introduced and touch screens, and how features like those better stay in the Rebel cameras only and not come to their 6D, 5D, 1D cameras. That just never made any sense to me.)

Making almost all non-L RF primes 1:2 macro lenses so people aren't confused why their phones can take close up photos but their new cameras can't eliminates some confusion and frustration. So good job there continuing to reduce minimum focus distance. Making all those lenses have smooth STM motors for video, and the new cameras treat autofocus different when in photo mode vs video mode help keep the cameras relevant to more people.

Canon's set up with the full range of body price points and quality/feature set, with the cheaper end getting yearly releases and the more "professional" you go the less frequent the release (but more expensive), seemed like a good strategy. And that's probably why they want this year to be the year of the body. The lenses are there, they need to fill out the body price point range now.

Looking at the long view of Canon's release history, it seems like they've clearly known where they wanted to go and at what speed, and were always thinking several steps ahead.

One thing I think they could do better at for the lower end consumer is do a better job at making photos easier to share and do a better job advertising it. When I went to a Christmas gathering with friends, I was happy to let everyone take group photos with their phones because they want to then immediately mass text/share it with everyone. That's what low end consumers want.

Back to some praise, while most consumers might never know why shutter speed mode is called Tv, Canon does at least have nice little one or two page tutorials and reminders when switching modes on M6II to explain what the modes do. Improvements like that to lower the barrier in using more camera features is a great thing.


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 25, 2021)

PhotoGenerous said:


> [..]One thing I think they could do better at for the lower end consumer is do a better job at making photos easier to share and do a better job advertising it. When I went to a Christmas gathering with friends, I was happy to let everyone take group photos with their phones because they want to then immediately mass text/share it with everyone. That's what low end consumers want. [..]


Not just low end consumers, I would appreciate faster sharing as well. The Camera Connect app has improved a lot and recent Canon bodies handle wifi a lot better, but it still takes way too many steps to get a picture on to a phone. 
I would love to see something that behaves like apples Airdrop: press ‘share’ during image review and you get a list of devices you can send the picture to, select the device and done!


----------



## puffo25 (Dec 25, 2021)

Hello, I own a R5 and very happy with it. I do documentary and street people portraits, events, street life, landscape, travel, astrophotography (including northen lights, strar trails and milky way). I have several RF lenses and I feel that often a second camera body will be handy. So I am not sure which one to get? An R6 (maybe better for low light/night photography) or wait for the R7 or R5s? I do NOT need a bigger file size than current R5's 45 megapixels (maybe smaller is better for certain photo genre as reported above) and so not sure btw the R7, R5 and R6 which one might the right choice. Any help appreciated.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 25, 2021)

puffo25 said:


> Hello, I own a R5 and very happy with it. I do documentary and street people portraits, events, street life, landscape, travel, astrophotography (including northen lights, strar trails and milky way). I have several RF lenses and I feel that often a second camera body will be handy. So I am not sure which one to get? An R6 (maybe better for low light/night photography) or wait for the R7 or R5s? I do NOT need a bigger file size than current R5's 45 megapixels (maybe smaller is better for certain photo genre as reported above) and so not sure btw the R7, R5 and R6 which one might the right choice. Any help appreciated.


I bought the R6 to accompany my R5. It's competitively priced, has the same great AF as the R5 but just at lower Mpx. The sensor itself is a good one.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Dec 25, 2021)

Niko Todd said:


> What about lenses?
> Will there be a normal 100-400 and 70-200 IF?



The "normal" 100-400 is the 100-500!


----------



## AlanF (Dec 25, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> The "normal" 100-400 is the 100-500!


No, it's the RF 100-400!


----------



## bergstrom (Dec 25, 2021)

Just saw this review of R3 and wow, Canon might want a firmware update where they remove that eye directed focusing, yikes and maybe take $1000 off the price. No point charging for things that don't really work.


----------



## MartinVLC (Dec 25, 2021)

EOS R8

I would like to share my dubious speculations about an upcoming EOS R successor that I would call EOS R8 and how it will be differentiated from the R6 and the original R.

Price: 1799 USD / 1899 EUR

So about 700-800.- less than the official R6 price, but only about 300.- less than the R6 market price by the time the R8 comes out.

Sensor: Worst case they keep the sensor from the EOS R, but I hope for a new one. (DR + ISO measured like DXO)

MP: 30-34 (R6: 20, R: 30)

DR: 14-14,5 (R6: 14.3, R: 13.5)

ISO: 3000 (R6: 3400, R: 2800)

FPS w/ Servo AF: 8 (R6: 20, R: 5)

IBIS: 5 stops (R6: 7 stops, R: none)

AF: Dual Pixel 2 (R6: DP2, R: DP1)

EVF: 2.1 MP (R6: 3.69, R: 3.69)

Card slots: 1 SD (R6: 2 SD, R: 1 SD)

Video: 4K 30 (R6: 4K 60, R: 4K 30)

Body built quality (weather sealing, materials) slightly lower than R6, ergonomics like R6.

I´m not sure about the card slots, if it will get 1 or 2 and the less capable IBIS only makes sense if it would mean a cost advantage otherwise it would get the same IBIS as the R6.

Major advantage R8 over R6: 30-34 MP instead of 20 MP

Major advantage R6 over R8: 20 FPS instead of 8 FPS, (maybe) the second card slot, more video options

Minor advantage R6 over R8: Built quality, slightly better low light performance, better EVF, (maybe) better IBIS



That should be enough differentiation to justify the price difference.

What do you think?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 25, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> Just saw this review of R3 and wow, Canon might want a firmware update where they remove that eye directed focusing, yikes and maybe take $1000 off the price. No point charging for things that don't really work.


Tony Northrup cannot be relied upon for any sort of technical evaluation.

Personally, eye control AF works very well for me. Do you find it not functioning properly on your R3? Or do you not own an R3 and are simply gullible enough to believe all the misinfotainment served up on YouTube?


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 25, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> Just saw this review of R3 and wow, Canon might want a firmware update where they remove that eye directed focusing, yikes and maybe take $1000 off the price. No point charging for things that don't really work.


Gosh I had to laugh at this post! I've seen numerous reviewers who have tried the eye-directed auto focus, most like it - some thing it will be a game changer - and yes, some think it still needs some improvement. I didn't watch the review posted, but when I saw it was the Northrups, I was not surprised that the end result was negative and the verdict was that "it didn't work." When real photographers use it - it apparently works and works pretty well.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 25, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> Just saw this review of R3 and wow, Canon might want a firmware update where they remove that eye directed focusing, yikes and maybe take $1000 off the price. No point charging for things that don't really work.


You must have watched a different review than the one you linked to. 

Review was generally positive. My take away was that the R3's features are best for those it is aimed at: sports and action photographers. For wildlife and birds, the R5 is a better choice. I don't disagree with that sentiment. They found a slight advantage to Sony's autofocus. I don't use Sony so I can't fairly comment, but it's not like they suggested Sony was great and Canon was terrible.

As far as eye-control, they were generally positive, but pointed out that it is not perfect, which it is not. They did not say it didn't work and in fact were pretty complimentary of it under certain conditions. They are clearly not sports shooters and that was evident in the review. Their "sports" test was an entertaining but amateurish exercise that demonstrated nothing. I was embarrassed for them in the sense that they clearly have no idea about shooting sports.

Knowing that Tony is a Sony guy and taking that into account, I can't really be overly critical of the review's conclusions. Everyone has their biases and clearly he prefers Sony, but didn't pan the R3. I did have to laugh at his repeated comments about his "unbiased" review. Any reviewer who claims to be unbiased automatically loses me. If you are really unbiased, you shouldn't have to tell people who are unbiased.


----------



## bergstrom (Dec 25, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tony Northrup cannot be relied upon for any sort of technical evaluation.
> 
> Personally, eye control AF works very well for me. Do you find it not functioning properly on your R3? Or do you not own an R3 and are simply gullible enough to believe all the misinfotainment served up on YouTube?


well that would make you gullible too, wouldn't it? It worked for you doesn't mean it works for all.


----------



## Jethro (Dec 25, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> well that would make you gullible too, wouldn't it? It worked for you doesn't mean it works for all.


... and a single review which is less than 100% positive probably doesn't justify Canon making "a firmware update where they remove that eye directed focusing, yikes and maybe take $1000 off the price". I'm sure there will be firmware updates, all of them improving the feature further. Until then, my impression is that the overwhelming majority of users like it, and would prefer it to stay.

Otherwise, guess what, you don't have to use it!! There are numnerous other AF functions! Revelation.


----------



## entoman (Dec 25, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> Just saw this review of R3 and wow, Canon might want a firmware update where they remove that eye directed focusing, yikes and maybe take $1000 off the price. No point charging for things that don't really work.


Interesting, and not entirely unexpected. I did a similar but rather less thorough experiment, comparing my R5 with EF 100-400mm against an a9ii with FE 200-600mm G and found that the Sony was much better at recognising and locking onto birds in flight. Using the RF100-500mm would have been a fairer comparison admittedly.

The truth, I think, is that Canon are still very much at the experimental stage with the current generation of RF cameras. We saw this clearly with the overheating issues of the R5 when shooting 8K, and now we are seeing it with the eye-control and subject-recognition in the R3.

The AF systems of the R5 and R3 are infinitely better than anything Canon produced previously, and they'll improve further with firmware updates, and even more when the next generation of RF cameras appears. But no-one wants to wait another 2-3 years if they can get better performance right now with another brand.

Most people on this site will be existing Canon users and many will have a lot invested in Canon glass. Most of us also probably greatly prefer Canon ergonomics. So we'll just have to be patient and in the meantime screw the best results we can out of our existing gear. I photograph wildlife for pleasure, not for profit, but if I was a pro I probably would have switched to Sony a couple of years ago, and learned to deal with the less than ideal ergonomics.


----------



## entoman (Dec 25, 2021)

Jethro said:


> ... and a single review which is less than 100% positive probably doesn't justify Canon making "a firmware update where they remove that eye directed focusing, yikes and maybe take $1000 off the price". I'm sure there will be firmware updates, all of them improving the feature further. Until then, my impression is that the overwhelming majority of users like it, and would prefer it to stay.
> 
> Otherwise, guess what, you don't have to use it!! There are numnerous other AF functions! Revelation.


For human subjects I think I'd leave the eye-control on. For birds and wildlife I'd turn it off and use the AF controller or the joystick. Most of the time I'd just keep the AF spot in the middle of the frame, move the camera so that the AF spot is over the subject, and then leave the camera to track it around the frame.

My experience with R5 and a9ii indicate that the Sony is better at tracking subjects. I haven't used the R3 or the a1, but if finances permitted (sadly they don't) I'd switch to a Sony a1 and Sony G glass.

I love my Canon gear, but brand loyalty, for its own sake, is a fools game when there are better options available.

Merry Xmas!


----------



## entoman (Dec 25, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tony Northrup cannot be relied upon for any sort of technical evaluation.


That's true, the Northrups are not professional sports or wildlife photographers. But they probably come close to being representative of the typical non-pros who I imagine will represent the bulk of R3 purchasers. So while far from perfect, the review may indicate the sort of problems with calibration, subject acquisition and tracking that amateurs will encounter.

Undoubtedly the R3 is a fine camera, and for some people it will work really well. Others won't be so lucky. I think we have to put brand loyalty aside, and accept that Sony are still ahead of the game when it comes to AF acquisition and tracking.

The R5 and R3 are certainly "good enough" for most people, but I think Sony have a margin that is significant enough to warrant switching, for people who can afford it, and who are willing to accept compromises elsewhere, such as ergonomics.


----------



## Jethro (Dec 25, 2021)

entoman said:


> For human subjects I think I'd leave the eye-control on. For birds and wildlife I'd turn it off and use the AF controller or the joystick. Most of the time I'd just keep the AF spot in the middle of the frame, move the camera so that the AF spot is over the subject, and then leave the camera to track it around the frame.
> 
> My experience with R5 and a9ii indicate that the Sony is better at tracking subjects. I haven't used the R3 or the a1, but if finances permitted (sadly they don't) I'd switch to a Sony a1 and Sony G glass.
> 
> ...


I haven't used the R3 either, but the experiences of most (not all) reviewers and posters on here, are that it is game-changing. That enthusiasm changes a little based on (apparently) eye colour and spectacles use, but many/most say that with some effort to set it up properly, it becomes second nature to them. 

Will it (or anything else) be perfect in its first iteration? Of course not, but it's hard to sit back when people call for it to be expunged from the firmware because the Northrop's didn't like it!

And a merry Xmas to you!


----------



## entoman (Dec 26, 2021)

Jethro said:


> I haven't used the R3 either, but the experiences of most (not all) reviewers and posters on here, are that it is game-changing. That enthusiasm changes a little based on (apparently) eye colour and spectacles use, but many/most say that with some effort to set it up properly, it becomes second nature to them.
> 
> Will it (or anything else) be perfect in its first iteration? Of course not, but it's hard to sit back when people call for it to be expunged from the firmware because the Northrop's didn't like it!
> 
> And a merry Xmas to you!


I agree that Czardoom's post was a bit over the top.

The AF systems of most recent cameras such as a9ii, a1, R5, R3 and Z9 are incredible and allow us to do things that were near-impossible in the past. Who could have imagined a few years ago that a camera could track the eyes of a bird in flight at 30fps?

I also agree that the eye-control *concept* of the R3 is game-changing, and it will probably be adopted by other brands. But some reviewers (not just the Northrups) have said that the eye-control needs a lot of calibration for different shooting conditions, and different users, and personally I think it would be unwise to leap in and buy one without first hiring one for a couple of weeks to see how well it worked for *me* and the subject matter, lenses and lighting conditions that I commonly encounter.

It's clearly silly to rely on the comments from a single user or a single reviewer, but after seeing several reviews I get the overall impression that the a1 would be a wiser choice for wildlife photography, although the R3 would probably be my choice for sports photography, as it seems to be very good at allowing the user to choose the right set of eyes when several faces are in the frame.

For now, I'm sticking with my R5. If I suddenly became rich, I'd likely switch to Sony a1. I think Canons are more *enjoyable* to use, but if I was a pro wildlife shooter and needed to maximise my keeper rate, the a1 would be my choice.


----------



## PhotoGenerous (Dec 26, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Knowing that Tony is a Sony guy and taking that into account, I can't really be overly critical of the review's conclusions. Everyone has their biases and clearly he prefers Sony, but didn't pan the R3. I did have to laugh at his repeated comments about his "unbiased" review. Any reviewer who claims to be unbiased automatically loses me. If you are really unbiased, you shouldn't have to tell people who are unbiased.


In defense of your one criticism in an otherwise defense of the Northrups, I'm pretty sure by unbiased he just means the same thing Christopher Frost means when he says, paraphrased "As always, this is an independent review." A review based on their actual thoughts and not content paid for by the manufacturer to alter the review to be more positive.

(But for as specific Tony Northrup can be about definitions, using unbiased in that way isn't the most precise.)


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 26, 2021)

entoman said:


> That's true, the Northrups are not professional sports or wildlife photographers. But they probably come close to being representative of the typical non-pros who I imagine will represent the bulk of R3 purchasers. So while far from perfect, the review may indicate the sort of problems with calibration, subject acquisition and tracking that amateurs will encounter.
> 
> Undoubtedly the R3 is a fine camera, and for some people it will work really well. Others won't be so lucky. I think we have to put brand loyalty aside, and accept that Sony are still ahead of the game when it comes to AF acquisition and tracking.
> 
> The R5 and R3 are certainly "good enough" for most people, but I think Sony have a margin that is significant enough to warrant switching, for people who can afford it, and who are willing to accept compromises elsewhere, such as ergonomics.


It seems a bit odd, in my opinion, for you to conclude the Northrups are "representative of the typical non-pros" who you imagine will represent the bulk of R3 purchasers? Since this camera is clearly a sports and action camera, I would have to guess that the bulk of purchasers will be sports and action photographers. 

As for accepting that Sony is still ahead of the game when it comes to AF acquisition, I have only seen two YouTube reviewers who have tested them side-by-side (Dustin Abbott and Jared Polin) and neither one thought that Sony was ahead of the game when it came to the AF system. Both reveiwers praised both cameras AF and found little to differentiate them. Abbott preferred the look inside the Canon viewfinder, but seemed to find little difference in AF acquisition. Polin thought the Canon did a better job of keeping AF on the eyes where the Sony was only on the head, but found the results to be essentially equal. He concludes, "that Canon may have - not only met, but - surpassed Sony in some ways when it comes to their Auto Focus." I have not seen any reviewer or photographer (not saying that there aren't any) who says Sony has a "margin that is significant enough to warrant switching" as you conclude. As far as I know, neither Abbott or Polin has any brand loyalty to Canon (Polin definitely not).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 26, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> well that would make you gullible too, wouldn't it? It worked for you doesn't mean it works for all.


I’m not the one suggesting Canon remove a feature and cut the price based on one YouTube video and most likely no personal experience. That’s you.

Oh, and please tell me where I claimed it works for everyone. I started that statement with the word, “Personally.” If you don’t know what that means, look it up.


----------



## entoman (Dec 26, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> It seems a bit odd, in my opinion, for you to conclude the Northrups are "representative of the typical non-pros" who you imagine will represent the bulk of R3 purchasers? Since this camera is clearly a sports and action camera, I would have to guess that the bulk of purchasers will be sports and action photographers.
> 
> As for accepting that Sony is still ahead of the game when it comes to AF acquisition, I have only seen two YouTube reviewers who have tested them side-by-side (Dustin Abbott and Jared Polin) and neither one thought that Sony was ahead of the game when it came to the AF system. Both reveiwers praised both cameras AF and found little to differentiate them. Abbott preferred the look inside the Canon viewfinder, but seemed to find little difference in AF acquisition. Polin thought the Canon did a better job of keeping AF on the eyes where the Sony was only on the head, but found the results to be essentially equal. He concludes, "that Canon may have - not only met, but - surpassed Sony in some ways when it comes to their Auto Focus." I have not seen any reviewer or photographer (not saying that there aren't any) who says Sony has a "margin that is significant enough to warrant switching" as you conclude. As far as I know, neither Abbott or Polin has any brand loyalty to Canon (Polin definitely not).


The point I was trying to make, admittedly not very clearly , is that I think most R3 purchasers will be amateurs - yes, they'll be sports/action enthusiasts, but mostly not professionals. It's always important to read and watch as many reviews as possible, and to seek out reviews by pros and specialists where relevant, but I do think the Northrups have picked up some valid points that will affect a lot of users.

I've read and watched lots of reviews of the R3. All have generally been very positive, but most have drawn attention to the need to recalibrate the camera for different shooting scenarios and lighting conditions. Canon themselves freely admit this and accordingly they provide an option to save about half a dozen sets of calibrations. All of this indicates to me that the system works for some people, some of the time, but still needs a lot of development. It won't be truly useful until it reaches the stage where it can be fully relied upon in multiple scenarios without the need to recalibrate frequently.

As for the Sony a1, I'm no great fan of Sony cameras and I've been using Canons for 11 years, but I don't believe in letting "brand loyalty" cloud my vision. I just want the best tool for the job. For some users the R3 *will* be the best tool for the job, but for various reasons I think the Sony a1 would be a better choice for *me*, as a wildlife photographer. The Sony a9ii which I've used, is better at acquiring, locking on and tracking birds in flight than my R5. I'm a good wildlife photographer but I still want all the help I can get. I haven't used an R3 or an a1, and I wouldn't buy either without having hired them first and tested their suitability for my own usage. But my gut feeling is that the a1 would be more efficient for my usage. It's also lighter, has a significant megapixel advantage, and better battery life, all of which would be more valuable to *me* than a potentially unreliable eye-control point selection.


----------



## Fischer (Dec 26, 2021)

keithcooper said:


> Ah well, looks like I keep using my 5Ds for work...


The high MPIX "R" seems so elusive. At least R3 tech indicates we can now have it with fast shutter speeds and a large buffer.


----------



## SteveC (Dec 26, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> First thing to do with theR P2 or maybe RX is rip out that Goddam lp-e17 and stick in a Lp-e6. Make the body bigger if you have to and a silent shutter



On the contrary, one of the things that endeared me to the RP was that very "Goddam" battery. It meant when I bought it I would NOT have to buy a bunch of spare batteries, because I already have a few LP-E17s. That made it much more appealing as an (ultimately intended) backup camera. (Note: This was before I had my R5, before I had that I owned no LP-E6NHs or whatever the new one is called, and yes I bought a spare for that...which I'm happy to do for a non-backup camera.)


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Dec 26, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tony Northrup cannot be relied upon for any sort of technical evaluation.
> 
> Personally, eye control AF works very well for me. Do you find it not functioning properly on your R3? Or do you not own an R3 and are simply gullible enough to believe all the misinfotainment served up on YouTube?


TN = entertainment, sometimes with sensationalism that I don't care for.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 26, 2021)

Bishop80 said:


> Just a small hint of a rumor of an R1 will have me excited.
> But, a 1DX Mark IV which has expanded AF capabilities through the OVF (ie, larger area AF sensor, eye detect) would have me ecstatic!


IDX Mark IV would only need a stacked sensor to get me excited.
Exposure-only IBIS would also be a big plus.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 26, 2021)

John Wilde said:


> In unit sales, Canon's mirrorless Rebel (M50) is their best selling mirrorless camera.


The Rebel SL3 sells even more.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 26, 2021)

Bishop80 said:


> Just a small hint of a rumor of an R1 will have me excited.
> But, a 1DX Mark IV which has expanded AF capabilities through the OVF (ie, larger area AF sensor, eye detect) would have me ecstatic!





EOS 4 Life said:


> IDX Mark IV would only need a stacked sensor to get me excited.
> Exposure-only IBIS would also be a big plus.


Even if a 1Dx IV were to materialize, it is two years too early. Although I doubt we will ever see a Mark IV.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 26, 2021)

John Wilde said:


> In unit sales, Canon's mirrorless Rebel (M50) is their best selling mirrorless camera.





EOS 4 Life said:


> The Rebel SL3 sells even more.


Can you please cite sources. I did not know Canon released sales numbers for individual models.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 26, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> Just saw this review of R3 and wow, Canon might want a firmware update where they remove that eye directed focusing, yikes and maybe take $1000 off the price. No point charging for things that don't really work.


I have an R3 and the eye autofocus works perfectly.
The Northrups on the other hand ....


----------



## AEWest (Dec 27, 2021)

Bishop80 said:


> Just a small hint of a rumor of an R1 will have me excited.
> But, a 1DX Mark IV which has expanded AF capabilities through the OVF (ie, larger area AF sensor, eye detect) would have me ecstatic!


I can't imagine any R&D money being spent on EF camera development. That wouldn't help sell any RF lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 27, 2021)

AEWest said:


> I can't imagine any R&D money being spent on EF camera development. That wouldn't help sell any RF lenses.


DSLRs comprise over 40% of the ILC market. Only Canon and Nikon make DSLRs, and Canon’s market share is somewhere over triple Nikon’s, so most of the DSLRs being sold are Canon.

So what you’re saying is that you can’t imagine Canon making any development investment what is probably ~30% of the total ILC market. Are you sure that makes sense?


----------



## unfocused (Dec 27, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I have an R3 and the eye autofocus works perfectly.


Can you please share your settings and technique. I find the eye control autofocus helpful but would never say it is perfect. I’d love to learn what others are doing, especially as it relates to sports and action.


----------



## entoman (Dec 27, 2021)

SteveC said:


> On the contrary, one of the things that endeared me to the RP was that very "Goddam" battery. It meant when I bought it I would NOT have to buy a bunch of spare batteries, because I already have a few LP-E17s. That made it much more appealing as an (ultimately intended) backup camera. (Note: This was before I had my R5, before I had that I owned no LP-E6NHs or whatever the new one is called, and yes I bought a spare for that...which I'm happy to do for a non-backup camera.)


I've got a whole pile of LP-E6 series batteries for my R5, having used them for years in my DSLRs. To me it makes sense to have a single battery format that fits all of the cameras in Canon's DSLR and RF line up. But people worry too much about batteries - I can recharge my R5 directly via the same Samsung charger and USB cable that I use for my phone, either from the car, or a powerpack, or from any mains supply outlet on the planet. Might be worth checking if you can do this with your RP...


----------



## entoman (Dec 27, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Only Canon and Nikon make DSLRs....,


Nope, you forgot about Pentax.

The K1 Mkii is still in production.
... and the excellent K3 Mkiii is only 9 months old.

Both are fine cameras.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 27, 2021)

entoman said:


> I've got a whole pile of LP-E6 series batteries for my R5, having used them for years in my DSLRs...


How well do the older LP-E6 batteries work? I've been stocking up on LP-E6 NH because of concerns about the performance of my older LP-E6 N batteries.


----------



## entoman (Dec 27, 2021)

unfocused said:


> How well do the older LP-E6 batteries work? I've been stocking up on LP-E6 NH because of concerns about the performance of my older LP-E6 N batteries.


The old LP-E6 batteries work absolutely fine in my R5. I haven't done a frame-count to test the difference between LP-E6 and LP-E6NH, but I can't say I've noticed any difference - I can make either last for a full day's shooting (up to 1000 shots), and some of my old LP-E6 batteries are 2-3 years old and have been recharged hundreds of times. The main difference I've noted is simply that the LP-E6NH batteries recharge noticeably faster.

I recently returned from a 9 day trip photographing butterflies in Kenya, using my R5 and EF 180mm macro throughout. I always fully recharge my batteries the night before. Some days I had an LP-E6 in the camera, other days an LP-E6NH. I always carry a spare, but I don't recall ever having to swap batteries part way through the day on this trip. Daily frame counts varied between 200-1000, with a total of 4500 shots taken over 9 days. Shutter mode was EFCS. I always shoot in short bursts, as I bracket my exposures. Everything on the camera is setup for minimum battery consumption, although it isn't in "ECO" mode.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 27, 2021)

unfocused said:


> How well do the older LP-E6 batteries work? I've been stocking up on LP-E6 NH because of concerns about the performance of my older LP-E6 N batteries.


This explains it https://camnostic.com/2021/02/powering-the-eos-r5/ The old LP-E6 N have the same capacity but won't deliver the same high speed performance in mechanical shutter for as long. Canon claims the NH have 14% more capacity.


----------



## SteveC (Dec 27, 2021)

entoman said:


> I've got a whole pile of LP-E6 series batteries for my R5, having used them for years in my DSLRs. To me it makes sense to have a single battery format that fits all of the cameras in Canon's DSLR and RF line up. But people worry too much about batteries - I can recharge my R5 directly via the same Samsung charger and USB cable that I use for my phone, either from the car, or a powerpack, or from any mains supply outlet on the planet. Might be worth checking if you can do this with your RP...



Really, no need. The charger works fine, and my spares are fully charged before I go anywhere I might need them. If I drain a battery I'm not going to use the camera as a charger while I'm walking around shooting on the next battery.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 27, 2021)

entoman said:


> Nope, you forgot about Pentax.
> 
> The K1 Mkii is still in production.
> ... and the excellent K3 Mkiii is only 9 months old.
> ...


Fair enough. But Pentax doesn’t sell enough cameras to make even a small dent in market share.


----------



## entoman (Dec 27, 2021)

AlanF said:


> This explains it https://camnostic.com/2021/02/powering-the-eos-r5/ The old LP-E6 N have the same capacity but won't deliver the same high speed performance in mechanical shutter for as long. Canon claims the NH have 14% more capacity.


Very interesting article, thanks for the link.


----------



## slclick (Dec 27, 2021)

I'm still using an LP-E6 from 2012. Works great in my R6.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 27, 2021)

slclick said:


> I'm still using an LP-E6 from 2012. Works great in my R6.


Is it still on green bars? All of my very old ones are on red.


----------



## slclick (Dec 27, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Is it still on green bars? All of my very old ones are on red.


My canon charger from the 5d3 charges it to a green light. Various charger LED arrays vary I guess.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 27, 2021)

slclick said:


> My canon charger from the 5d3 charges it to a green light. Various charger LED arrays vary I guess.


I think @AlanF means the battery health status displayed in battery info (on the camera).


----------



## AlanF (Dec 27, 2021)

slclick said:


> My canon charger from the 5d3 charges it to a green light. Various charger LED arrays vary I guess.


The Battery info. in the menu (Yellow submenu with the spanner icon) tells you the battery recharge performance by using green and red bars. 3 green bars when relatively new, dropping to 2 then 1 and finally red. My LP-E6 Ns are all red.


----------



## Chig (Dec 27, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Can you please share your settings and technique. I find the eye control autofocus helpful but would never say it is perfect. I’d love to learn what others are doing, especially as it relates to sports and action.


I have an eos 30v film camera with their original "eye controlled" auto focus and I found using a large Hoodman eyecup made it work better because it held your eye in a more consistent position. Here's the eyecup on a digital camera


Canon make an accessory eyecup:
ER-hE Eyecup​This would possibly help with the R3 but oddly it's ridiculously oversize which would block access to the rear screen


----------



## AEWest (Dec 28, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> DSLRs comprise over 40% of the ILC market. Only Canon and Nikon make DSLRs, and Canon’s market share is somewhere over triple Nikon’s, so most of the DSLRs being sold are Canon.
> 
> So what you’re saying is that you can’t imagine Canon making any development investment what is probably ~30% of the total ILC market. Are you sure that makes sense?


Actually Pentax makes DSLRs and maybe some some day soon they will be the only DSLR manufacturer.

What doesn't make sense is for a maufacturer to have two lines of full frame lens mounts competing with each other for the same market. Sony abandoned their DSLR mount and I fully expect Canon and Nikon to do the same - I have seen no indication that either company is continuing to develop their DSLR lines.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 28, 2021)

AEWest said:


> Sony abandoned their DSLR mount and I fully expect Canon and Nikon to do the same - I have seen no indication that either company is continuing to develop their DSLR lines.


Sony abandoned DSLRs because they were unable to compete successfully in that market.

I do think we’ll see more DSLRs from Canon, but only in the Rebel/Kiss/xxxD line. I also expect continued development of the M line.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Dec 29, 2021)

AlanF said:


> No, it's the RF 100-400!



No, the RF 100-400 is a new category, affordable/plastic lens. The 100-500 is the actual EF 100-400 replacement. Same build quality, image quality and L designation.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> No, the RF 100-400 is a new category, affordable/plastic lens.


It’s the RF version of the EF 70-300 non-L.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 29, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> It’s the RF version of the EF 70-300 non-L.


Quite right. The RF 100-400mm is no less normal than the EF 100-400mm L. And, logically speaking, it is more "normal" because the 100-400mm L is by definition special as it has a red ring and is white to show it is "superior".


----------



## Chig (Dec 29, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> No, the RF 100-400 is a new category, affordable/plastic lens. The 100-500 is the actual EF 100-400 replacement. Same build quality, image quality and L designation.


Not _quite_ the same build quality as the EF version with more plastic which makes it lighter (which I prefer) and the odd limitation of restricted zoom range with extenders (which really irritates me as it makes it far less versatile for no reason) but very similar otherwise and slightly better overall performance.
Sadly in many markets such as New Zealand it's nearly twice the price so a lot of people choose to use the adapted EF as a result


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Dec 29, 2021)

Chig said:


> Not _quite_ the same build quality as the EF version with more plastic which makes it lighter (which I prefer) and the odd limitation of restricted zoom range with extenders (which really irritates me as it makes it far less versatile for no reason) but very similar otherwise and slightly better overall performance.
> Sadly in many markets such as New Zealand it's nearly twice the price so a lot of people choose to use the adapted EF as a result



I don't like the TC limitation either or the massively hiked price vs the EF version but we can all agree that is in fact the EF 100-400 replacement.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 29, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> No, the RF 100-400 is a new category, affordable/plastic lens. The 100-500 is the actual EF 100-400 replacement. Same build quality, image quality and L designation.





neuroanatomist said:


> It’s the RF version of the EF 70-300 non-L.


No. Because the 70-300 non-L lenses were not particularly good lenses. The 100-400 is a decent lens with good sharpness. I guess you could argue it fills a similar niche if you ignore image quality. It might be better to compare it to the EF-S 55-250. An inexpensive lens that delivered decent image quality at a low price.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2021)

unfocused said:


> No. Because the 70-300 non-L lenses were not particularly good lenses. The 100-400 is a decent lens with good sharpness. I guess you could argue it fills a similar niche if you ignore image quality. It might be better to compare it to the EF-S 55-250. An inexpensive lens that delivered decent image quality at a low price.


Spiritual successor, then.


----------



## slclick (Dec 29, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Spiritual successor, then.


I have found, as have many others, that this is a remarkable lens. Small, light, just as good at 400 as the Mk 1 100-400L. Canon has never offered such quality at 400 before at a price most can afford. I have had the Mk2, the Tammy, the Siggy. The Canon RF beats both 3rd party versions in all aspects. Ok, maybe not all, it doesn't come with A HOOD.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 29, 2021)

slclick said:


> I have found, as have many others, that this is a remarkable lens. Small, light, just as good at 400 as the Mk 1 100-400L. Canon has never offered such quality at 400 before at a price most can afford. I have had the Mk2, the Tammy, the Siggy. The Canon RF beats both 3rd party versions in all aspects. Ok, maybe not all, it doesn't come with A HOOD.


It takes the same hood as the 70-300 so there are plenty of knock-off hoods costing just a few $/£. I found like you that my copy of the R beats the Tammy and Sigma, and my Mk 1 was soft.


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 30, 2021)

unfocused said:


> No. Because the 70-300 non-L lenses were not particularly good lenses. The 100-400 is a decent lens with good sharpness. I guess you could argue it fills a similar niche if you ignore image quality. It might be better to compare it to the EF-S 55-250. An inexpensive lens that delivered decent image quality at a low price.


Not sure if your experience was with the Mark I version of the 70-300 non-L, but the Mark II version is a really fine lens. Dustin Abbott did a review and compared it with the 70-300 L, and found little or no difference in sharpness. My experience with the lens is similar - and in fact the 70-300 II non-L was sharper cropped to the same size photo at 300mm as my Sigma 100-400mm at 400mm. I consider it a real "steal" among the non-L lenses for those looking for cheaper alternatives.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 30, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> Not sure if your experience was with the Mark I version of the 70-300 non-L, but the Mark II version is a really fine lens. Dustin Abbott did a review and compared it with the 70-300 L, and found little or no difference in sharpness. My experience with the lens is similar - and in fact the 70-300 II non-L was sharper cropped to the same size photo at 300mm as my Sigma 100-400mm at 400mm. I consider it a real "steal" among the non-L lenses for those looking for cheaper alternatives.


I think one of the things that differentiates the L-series lenses from consumer grade lenses is quality control. Copy variation occurs for all of them, but it’s less common and less extreme for the high end lenses.

Bryan (TDP) reviewed the EF 70-300 II non-L and found it fairly soft and no better than the MkI version. Dustin found it as good as the 70-300L. That’s copy variation at work, it really plays hell with interpreting the findings of reviewers who evaluate only a single copy of a lens.

When I was writing the review for the EF-M 18-150mm for TDP, I found my copy to be much sharper than Bryan‘s ISO 12233 testing suggested. He tested a second copy and found it to be significantly sharper than the one he originally tested. Copy variation again.

When buying a lens, especially a non-L lens, I really recommend testing it thoroughly before the end of the return window.


----------



## slclick (Dec 30, 2021)

AlanF said:


> It takes the same hood as the 70-300 so there are plenty of knock-off hoods costing just a few $/£. I found like you that my copy of the R beats the Tammy and Sigma, and my Mk 1 was soft.


I've got one in a box somewhere!


----------



## Czardoom (Jan 4, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I think one of the things that differentiates the L-series lenses from consumer grade lenses is quality control. Copy variation occurs for all of them, but it’s less common and less extreme for the high end lenses.
> 
> Bryan (TDP) reviewed the EF 70-300 II non-L and found it fairly soft and no better than the MkI version. Dustin found it as good as the 70-300L. That’s copy variation at work, it really plays hell with interpreting the findings of reviewers who evaluate only a single copy of a lens.
> 
> ...


I agree completely, that the L-lenses (or higher end lenses regardless of brand) will be more consistently good. That being said, over the years I have owned or rented 3 copies of the 70-300 II (non-L) and they have all been very close to as sharp as the L version. And, yes, I always try to buy lenses from a place or seller (on Ebay or similar) that accepts returns and definitely agree with your recommendation to do so.


----------



## slclick (Jan 4, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> I agree completely, that the L-lenses (or higher end lenses regardless of brand) will be more consistently good. That being said, over the years I have owned or rented 3 copies of the 70-300 II (non-L) and they have all been very close to as sharp as the L version. And, yes, I always try to buy lenses from a place or seller (on Ebay or similar) that accepts returns and definitely agree with your recommendation to do so.


I'm curious if you owned the 70-300L? Sharpness (as most know) is only one aspect of a lens' character and the 70-300L renders gorgeously. The non L is sharp but for me, it ended there. The LatCA and axial CA were very pronounced as well. The distance scale LCD...just one more thing to go wrong? Didn't like mushy sunstars at f/16 either. 

So, do I compare it to the RF 100-400? Hell no, different league. Similar construction but it ends there.


----------



## AndrewJ19312926 (Jan 27, 2022)

My guess is, if they remove the EVF you would still be able to add one like on the m6/m6ii


----------



## BBarn (Feb 16, 2022)

Though new camera bodies will be beneficial, I hope it doesn't slow the release of RF lenses. At some point, the (relatively) low number of available RF lenses will begin to hurt camera sales since a limited lens selection will reduce the appeal of investing in the system. Many purchasers of new cameras simply don't want to adapt old lenses (or they have none). Third party lenses would probably help, but I'm not sure that's in the near-term cards.


----------

