# The Canon EOS R8 will be announced at CP+ in February



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 27, 2022)

One of Canon’s next camera bodies will be announced ahead of CP+ in February. The new camera will be the Canon EOS R8 and it will obviously sit between the Canon EOS R7 and Canon EOS R10. We have been told a couple of times that the EOS R8 will take on a bit of

See full article...


----------



## Chaitanya (Dec 27, 2022)

So yet another FSI sensored camera(while competition(Fuji) has been offering BSI sensors in sub $1000 cameras for years at this point), also Canon needs to launch better crop lenses for RF mount(55-250mm, macro, and ultra wide zoom). Current RF 16mm and 50mm 1.8 are good primes for RF-S but both zooms are underwhelming at best.


----------



## miric (Dec 27, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> So yet another FSI sensored camera(while competition(Fuji) has been offering BSI sensors in sub $1000 cameras for years at this point), also Canon needs to launch better crop lenses for RF mount(55-250mm, macro, and ultra wide zoom). Current RF 16mm and 50mm 1.8 are good primes for RF-S but both zooms are underwhelming at best.


Could you demonstrate samples that reveal a profit and a significant difference in terms of IQ from a BSI sensor compared to a FSI one?


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 27, 2022)

miric said:


> Could you demonstrate samples that reveal a profit and a significant difference in terms of IQ from a BSI sensor compared to a FSI one?


BSI performs better on the meaningless checklist test.


----------



## miric (Dec 27, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> BSI performs better on the meaningless checklist test.


I really like to see that better performance.


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 27, 2022)

The R8 sounds very interesting to me! I'm still looking around for a camera to replace my M6II as a second body for my R5. I tried an R7 for a week and found it both too large when using the RF16mm and too small when using the RF100-500L. The R10 would be a good fit, but for €1000 it needs to have IBIS.

So I hope the R8 drops the token EVF, adds IBIS *and* gets all the nifty software features from the R6II, like native UVC webcam support and 'detect only' AF in video. And keep the R10 price point


----------



## Kit. (Dec 27, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> BSI


"Bullshit integrated"?


----------



## AlanF (Dec 27, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> The R8 sounds very interesting to me! I'm still looking around for a camera to replace my M6II as a second body for my R5. I tried an R7 for a week and found it both too large when using the RF16mm and too small when using the RF100-500L. The R10 would be a good fit, but for €1000 it needs to have IBIS.
> 
> So I hope the R8 drops the token EVF, adds IBIS *and* gets all the nifty software features from the R6II, like native UVC webcam support and 'detect only' AF in video. And keep the R10 price point


I use the R7 routinely with the RF 100-500mm, and don't find the R7 too small. So, the size and ergonomics are personal. The R10 has several problems for me as a back-up for the R5: the different batteries, especially the R10's being smaller; the lack of a protective shutter when changing lenses or putting on extenders; and a very slow read-out time of 40ms for a 24 Mpx sensor, even slower than the 31ms for the 32 Mpx R7, leading to rolling shutter. As a stand-alone small body, the R10 would fine, especially with small IS lenses that don't require changing often. The same could apply even more so to an R8 of the form you suggest.


----------



## miric (Dec 27, 2022)

This looks like the case "BSI for BSI". Very similar to X-Trans in "Fjudzii" cameras. They say it's cool but cannot argue why. Drawbacks only. I used to think BSI was cool but then it appeared I was confused with BSI and stacked sensor technology. So I treat BSI as a BS feature until I'll see real significant advantages. @Chaitanya where are you?


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Dec 27, 2022)

Ohhhh no, 

I’m still hoping for an R successor and do believe there’s room for at least one full frame body underneath the R6mkii. 

Also, if the RP gets a FF successor, an R8 APS-C will totally mess up canons naming scheme. 

Also, what differences would justify another APS-C model between R7 and R10???? To me, it makes no sense… 

All in all, I’m not convinced at all. Let’s wait and see what February brings


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Dec 27, 2022)

Also,

How about releasing some more RF-s lenses before pushing another APS-C camera body? Two lenses is a joke, even worse when you’re considering there’s a third crop camera soon.


----------



## Phil995511 (Dec 27, 2022)

The fact that Canon is abandoning customers with EF-format cameras in favor of RF-format and ceasing to offer new EF lenses and bodies makes me regret trusting them and buying an EOS 5D Mark III.

I don't like the RF series LCD viewfinders which are bad for the eyes. I will not change either my equipment which cost me a fortune to adopt the range without RF mirror. I will abandon Canon, as they sadly abandoned me. And for this reason I will certainly never buy the Canon brand, which from my point of view abused the trust I had in them ;-(


----------



## micm77 (Dec 27, 2022)

miric said:


> Could you demonstrate samples that reveal a profit and a significant difference in terms of IQ from a BSI sensor compared to a FSI one?


It certainly helps marketing to have bsi , may well be only small improvements over fsi. I’m not sure about Fuji using it widely for years


----------



## peters (Dec 27, 2022)

New flippy screen would be great - like the Sony a7s got. A screen that can be flipped with (full size) HDMI and usb cables plugged in would be great  Especialy for the R5 II a well.


----------



## eosuser1234 (Dec 27, 2022)

Let's hope this camera will have the tech discussed in patent 2018-101080.


----------



## tonblom (Dec 27, 2022)

Phil995511 said:


> The fact that Canon is abandoning customers with EF-format cameras in favor of RF-format and ceasing to offer new EF lenses and bodies makes me regret trusting them and buying an EOS 5D Mark III.
> 
> I don't like the RF series LCD viewfinders which are bad for the eyes. I will not change either my equipment which cost me a fortune to adopt the range without RF mirror. I will abandon Canon, as they sadly abandoned me. And for this reason I will certainly never buy the Canon brand, which from my point of view abused the trust I had in them ;-(


How old is the EOS 5D Mark III? First release March 2012! I hope you don't have any apple hardware they abandoned, because you would certainly NOT buy any apple products anymore.

How is this relevant for an EOS R8 announcement?

Also EF lenses will be cheaper second hand and will work on an RF body without downsides, compared to other brands. Canon has a complete portfolio of EF lenses and I cannot imagine a specific EF lens they should develop to complete that.

EVF Canon R5:
OLED
High Res
High refresh rate
low brightness
Yes, a screen sends out light waves, but not any different from "real" light from a mirror. In an EVF you see the picture stopped down where an OVF is fully opened and thus straining the eye a little bit more. You cannot state they are LCD, or bad for the eyes without relevant links or proof. It's your argument and because of that I will not provide you with any proof of the opposite.

I'm old and would get eye strain from my 5D mark IV, because of constant focussing from close to far, which seams to be a lot less of a problem with my R5. But this is personal. And yes, I felt more of a photographer with my 5D, but that 5R is so quick and the focus so good, I feel like a tool just holding up the camera.


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 27, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I use the R7 routinely with the RF 100-500mm, and don't find the R7 too small. So, the size and ergonomics are personal. The R10 has several problems for me as a back-up for the R5: the different batteries, especially the R10's being smaller; the lack of a protective shutter when changing lenses or putting on extenders; and a very slow read-out time of 40ms for a 24 Mpx sensor, even slower than the 31ms for the 32 Mpx R7, leading to rolling shutter. As a stand-alone small body, the R10 would fine, especially with small IS lenses that don't require changing often. The same could apply even more so to an R8 of the form you suggest.


I have a lot of spare LP-E12 (M) and LP-E17 (M6II) batteries, so that isn't a big issue for me. I hadn't realized that the R10 lacked the protective shutter, I really like that on the R5. I've only had to dry-brush off a single speck in the past 2 years. The RP needed cleaning almost weekly, till I switched to the filter adapter.

As for the size thing, I find that I like to have my pinky completely on the grip (e.g. R5) or comfortably under it (e.g. M6II). The RP and R7 were in the range where it didn't fit completely under it and it started rubbing. The RP has the most excellent EG-E1 mini-grip, that made it very easy to switch between a camera fit for the 100-500 and a much smaller body for the RF50 STM to stuff in a large-ish coat pocket. I'd probably go for the RF16 nowadays.

I searched around for EG-E1 equivalents for the R7 and found one that I could quickly and cheaply get before the rental body arrived. I 3D printed this: https://www.printables.com/model/312874-canon-eos-r7-grip-manfrotto-200pl-and-screw and it made my pinky much more comfortable:


With one or 2 more iterations and shortening a 1/4-20 screw this would be at the level of a proper EG-E1. But in the end it came down to: Do I really want to spend €1500 on a replacement for the M6II, when it won't actually replace it, but turn into a 3rd body to bring?
I did enjoy using the R7, but at the end of the macro season it tipped into GAS territory. Maybe next spring, after all the rumoured announcements, the R7 does turn out to be the 'best' replacement for the M6II and I'll see if I find it worth buying. The R5 is such a good camera that anything I'd get as a 2nd body pales in comparison


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 27, 2022)

miric said:


> This looks like the case "BSI for BSI". Very similar to X-Trans in "Fjudzii" cameras. They say it's cool but cannot argue why. Drawbacks only. I used to think BSI was cool but then it appeared I was confused with BSI and stacked sensor technology. So I treat BSI as a BS feature until I'll see real significant advantages. @Chaitanya where are you?


I don't have any actual experience with x-trans, but I think the main letdown is 3rd party support. Both Adobe and DxO struggle to assign enough people-hours to adopt their processing magic to x-trans. So if you don't want to use the Fuji provided software, you won't be getting the (supposed) benefits from x-trans.
Which in practice results in, as you said, 'Drawbacks only'.

I'm glad that the lack of 3rd party support for the DPRAW feature in Canon bodies doesn't impact image quality like x-trans does. But it still a huge letdown that in this age of machine learning and automagic masking no one seems interested in the depth-map that DPRAW gives you for free.


----------



## Chaitanya (Dec 27, 2022)

miric said:


> This looks like the case "BSI for BSI". Very similar to X-Trans in "Fjudzii" cameras. They say it's cool but cannot argue why. Drawbacks only. I used to think BSI was cool but then it appeared I was confused with BSI and stacked sensor technology. So I treat BSI as a BS feature until I'll see real significant advantages. @Chaitanya where are you?


I had to remove a snake(Russell's viper) from a house in my neighbourhood, here is comparison between Xt30(3 year old camera) vs R7(with a "new" sensor according to Canon)(when it comes to APS-C systems Sony and Nikon both are in same boat as Canon i.e. they treat these cameras like unwanted Step child(though Sony has built up few lenses for the system over the years while they keep the best tech for their FF bodies)). Having BSI sensor certainly improves IQ compared to Front side illuminated sensor. Stacked sensors are different to BSI(and it seems they certainly are more expensive to produce currently) and they seem to be more suited for applications which require faster read speeds(sports/wildlife oriented cameras this generation around all have stacked BSI sensors).




Edit: Just for comparison added 90D into comparison with R7 and XT30.


----------



## entoman (Dec 27, 2022)

peters said:


> New flippy screen would be great - like the Sony a7s got. A screen that can be flipped with (full size) HDMI and usb cables plugged in would be great  Especialy for the R5 II a well.



The standard flippy screen is a pain in the ass because a) it isn't on-axis with the lens, which makes visually tracking subjects much harder b) I find it awkward wrapping my hands under and behind it when using it at waist level, c) it obstructs any attached cables when flipped out.

A tilting screen is a pain in the ass because a) it can't be reversed to protect the screen, b) it's useless for vertical compositions.

So, I really hope Canon come to their senses, and follow the fine examples set by Panasonic, Fujifilm and Sony, by fitting a *hybrid* tilting/flippy screen to *all* future bodies.

But Canon can be very slow and reluctant to take onboard advances made by other brands, so I'm *not* holding my breath...


----------



## AlanF (Dec 27, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> The R5 is such a good camera that anything I'd get as a 2nd body pales in comparison


I sometimes think that the best back-up for the R5 is another R5! It really is a class act. I do like the R7, however, and with the RF 100-400 is what I grab when I go out for a walk. But, for more demanding activities it is the R5.


----------



## entoman (Dec 27, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> The R5 is such a good camera that anything I'd get as a 2nd body pales in comparison


Yep, that's why I haven't added a second RF body yet.

The R7 is nice, but the differing ergonomics are undesirable when switching back and forth between R7 and my R5.
The R6ii is great, but a second (used) R5 would cost about the same, and be more versatile.

But it seems daft to have 2 identical bodies, when the second one would serve mostly as an emergency backup.
So most likely I'll eventually end up with a R5 Mkii, and retain the R5 as backup.


----------



## Marlow (Dec 27, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> So yet another FSI sensored camera(while competition(Fuji) has been offering BSI sensors in sub $1000 cameras for years at this point)


Canon clearly has demonstrated, that they can design FSI sensors, that totally outperform BSI sensors (see the Canon R6 Mk II for example).

There is no clear advantage between BSI and FSI !!

You need to stop confusing BSI and stacked BSI sensors !!

Yes, stacked BSI sensors like in the EOS R3 have clear advantages, but if you do not need a stacked sensor, then you don't need BSI nor will you get any particular advantage from BSI.

/M


----------



## entoman (Dec 27, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I sometimes think that the best back-up for the R5 is another R5! It really is a class act. I do like the R7, however, and with the RF 100-400 is what I grab when I go out for a walk. But, for more demanding activities it is the R5.


I'm finding (to my surprise) that the RF100-400mm is surprising good for "near macro" photography.

I've just returned from a butterfly photography trip to West Papua, and found the zoom much more useful than my RF 100mm macro, simply because it allows a much greater working distance from nervous insects.

It focuses down to about half life-size, which with the 45MP of the R5 is ample even for small lycaenid butterflies. The AF is still fast and accurate at F8 in the dim light of the rainforest interior, and the stabilisation is good enough to allow a good percentage of shots taken at 400mm, 1/125 @ F8 to be pin sharp and full of detail. It does entail stretching the ISO up to 3200 or 4000, but with Topaz DeNoise AI it isn't much of a problem to get sharp, clean, noise-free images


----------



## photophil (Dec 27, 2022)

entoman said:


> I'm finding (to my surprise) that the RF100-400mm is surprising good for "near macro" photography.
> 
> I've just returned from a butterfly photography trip to West Papua, and found the zoom much more useful than my RF 100mm macro, simply because it allows a much greater working distance from nervous insects.
> 
> It focuses down to about half life-size, which with the 45MP of the R5 is ample even for small lycaenid butterflies. The AF is still fast and accurate at F8 in the dim light of the rainforest interior, and the stabilisation is good enough to allow a good percentage of shots taken at 400mm, 1/125 @ F8 to be pin sharp and full of detail. It does entail stretching the ISO up to 3200 or 4000, but with Topaz DeNoise AI it isn't much of a problem to get sharp, clean, noise-free images


The Raynox DCR250 works well on the RF100-400 too, at least at 400mm where it produces >3:1 magnification and IQ is decent, at least on the 20mpx R6 sensor. Below 400 there is severe vignetting though.

This is the combination I take with me when I cannot make up my mind whether I want to shoot only macro or only 'regular' wildlife.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Dec 27, 2022)

Personally I don't care if R8 is an APS-C or fullframe camera. I don't expect R8 to be a camera I want no matter what.

_But_ I just wonder if being an APS-C camera is part of the rumour, or if it is just guessing from CR? Reading post, it sounds like that part is just speculations/guessing?

I could easily imagine an R8 being a fullframe camera and closest thing to a "replacement" for the EOS R. And in that case probably with 30+ megapixels.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 27, 2022)

Phil995511 said:


> The fact that Canon is abandoning customers with EF-format cameras in favor of RF-format and ceasing to offer new EF lenses and bodies makes me regret trusting them and buying an EOS 5D Mark III.
> 
> I don't like the RF series LCD viewfinders which are bad for the eyes. I will not change either my equipment which cost me a fortune to adopt the range without RF mirror. I will abandon Canon, as they sadly abandoned me. And for this reason I will certainly never buy the Canon brand, which from my point of view abused the trust I had in them ;-(


What brand will you buy, then? Maybe you’ve missed that the industry has mostly switched to mirrorless.

The bigger question is what are you doing here on the internet? It’s a modern sort of place. Why don’t you grab some foolscap and a fountain pen and write a letter to a friend? Or just relax and watch some TV…be sure to adjust the rabbit ears when you get up to change the channel.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 27, 2022)

entoman said:


> I'm finding (to my surprise) that the RF100-400mm is surprising good for "near macro" photography.
> 
> I've just returned from a butterfly photography trip to West Papua, and found the zoom much more useful than my RF 100mm macro, simply because it allows a much greater working distance from nervous insects.
> 
> It focuses down to about half life-size, which with the 45MP of the R5 is ample even for small lycaenid butterflies. The AF is still fast and accurate at F8 in the dim light of the rainforest interior, and the stabilisation is good enough to allow a good percentage of shots taken at 400mm, 1/125 @ F8 to be pin sharp and full of detail. It does entail stretching the ISO up to 3200 or 4000, but with Topaz DeNoise AI it isn't much of a problem to get sharp, clean, noise-free images


I've noticed you have been quiet and guessed you have been on one of your jaunts - lucky man! I've been using both the RF 100-400mm and RF 100-500 for near macro. Put the RF 2x on the RF 100-500mm and it's even more macro. That TC works very well close up, unlike the EF 2xTCIII on the EF 100-400mm which I found soft at very close distances.


----------



## john1970 (Dec 27, 2022)

Phil995511 said:


> The fact that Canon is abandoning customers with EF-format cameras in favor of RF-format and ceasing to offer new EF lenses and bodies makes me regret trusting them and buying an EOS 5D Mark III.
> 
> I don't like the RF series LCD viewfinders which are bad for the eyes. I will not change either my equipment which cost me a fortune to adopt the range without RF mirror. I will abandon Canon, as they sadly abandoned me. And for this reason I will certainly never buy the Canon brand, which from my point of view abused the trust I had in them ;-(


Just FYI every major FF DSLR manufacturer is abandoning R&D for DSLR and embracing mirrorless cameras as the future. The EF mount was introduced in 1987 and new lenses for the EF mount were released as late as Dec 2018. Having a mount in production for three decades is a very long time. Do release that all EF glass is fully compatible with adapters to any EOS R mirrorless camera.


----------



## entoman (Dec 27, 2022)

Phil995511 said:


> The fact that Canon is abandoning customers with EF-format cameras in favor of RF-format and ceasing to offer new EF lenses and bodies makes me regret trusting them and buying an EOS 5D Mark III.
> 
> I don't like the RF series LCD viewfinders which are bad for the eyes. I will not change either my equipment which cost me a fortune to adopt the range without RF mirror. I will abandon Canon, as they sadly abandoned me. And for this reason I will certainly never buy the Canon brand, which from my point of view abused the trust I had in them ;-(


Canon isn't abandoning customers by switching to mirrorless - the entire industry with the exception of Pentax switched to mirrorless some years ago. Canon, like all businesses, exists to keep its employees in work, and to make money for its shareholders, and that means they have to meet the demands of their customers, the vast majority of which decided long ago that mirrorless enables better specified cameras.

It can take a while to adapt to an EVF - I used Canon and Nikon DSLRs for many years and I found it awkward to adapt at first, but after a couple of months you get used to the different way of seeing things, and EVFs do not cause eye problems, at least not any more so than squinting to look through binoculars, telescopes or DSLR viewfinders.

So instead of going into a sulk and cursing Canon, perhaps you should sell your grampohone and your horse and cart, and move to the future, which offers a great deal more benefit than you seem willing to acknowledge.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 27, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> I had to remove a snake(Russell's viper) from a house in my neighbourhood, here is comparison between Xt30(3 year old camera) vs R7(with a "new" sensor according to Canon)(when it comes to APS-C systems Sony and Nikon both are in same boat as Canon i.e. they treat these cameras like unwanted Step child(though Sony has built up few lenses for the system over the years while they keep the best tech for their FF bodies)). Having BSI sensor certainly improves IQ compared to Front side illuminated sensor. Stacked sensors are different to BSI(and it seems they certainly are more expensive to produce currently) and they seem to be more suited for applications which require faster read speeds(sports/wildlife oriented cameras this generation around all have stacked BSI sensors).
> View attachment 206905
> 
> 
> ...


There's something odd about the Fuji-XT30 having such a good DR vs iso plot. It actually sticks out like a sore thumb. Here are the XT-30 vs the R7 and Sony A1 and 7RM4 in APS-C mode. The two Sony state-of-the-art BSI sensors are essentially the same as the FSI R7 (and also the R5 in APS-C mode). Either Fuji has a breakthrough in the quantum efficiency of its sensor so it is greater than 1, or perhaps their quoted isos are out - Bill Claff points out he uses the manufacturers isos and not the measured ones. Anyway, the Canon FSI sensors have the same DR as the Sony BSI.


----------



## john1970 (Dec 27, 2022)

WRT the Canon R8, I do not see a market for a APS-C camera between the R10 ($979 MSRP) vs. R7 ($1499 MSRP). With that said, Canon must have market research that suggests otherwise.


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 27, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> I had to remove a snake(Russell's viper) from a house in my neighbourhood, here is comparison between Xt30(3 year old camera) vs R7(with a "new" sensor according to Canon)[...]


The R7 uses the same sensor as the M6II/90D, which is over 3 years old now. I couldn't find any differences between the M6II and R7 CR3s when shooting them side by side. There is a huuuuuge difference in the AF software between those 2 cameras.


----------



## entoman (Dec 27, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I've noticed you have been quiet and guessed you have been on one of your jaunts - lucky man! I've been using both the RF 100-400mm and RF 100-500 for near macro. Put the RF 2x on the RF 100-500mm and it's even more macro. That TC works very well close up, unlike the EF 2xTCIII on the EF 100-400mm which I found soft at very close distances.


Hi Alan, yes I'm sure that the RF2x on the RF100-500mm would provide even sharper shots and a bit more macro, but the primary reason why I bought the RF100-400mm in the first place (aside from your recommendation) was to keep the size and weight minimal. Travelling in West Papua involved a lot of domestic flights on small aircraft with limited luggage allowances. Even more importantly, it's pretty tiring for a 72 year old to hike for hours at a time through sweltering humid rainforest even with an RF100-400mm attached, and carrying my relatively heavy RF100-500mm would have been quite challenging. This is a _Hypochrysops_ species, photographed at Fak Fak, 400mm, 1/180, F11, ISO 1000.


----------



## Kit. (Dec 27, 2022)

Phil995511 said:


> The fact that Canon is abandoning customers with EF-format cameras in favor of RF-format and ceasing to offer new EF lenses and bodies makes me regret trusting them and buying an EOS 5D Mark III.


That's nothing! I trusted them and bought an EOS 5D Mark II.

(Which is still working as a webcam, by the way)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 27, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> One of Canon’s next camera bodies will be announced ahead of CP+ in February.


CP+ is aimed at video. To me, that suggests the R8 will be a vlogging-type camera. I wonder if the ‘bit of a different form factor and will have a new kind of flippy screen’ are relative to other R cameras, e.g. the R8 will be like the M6 II with a screen that flips up instead of out (or better up _or_ out) and no built-in EVF hump to block the screen when flipped up. 

Same 24 MP sensor as the R10 but with IBIS. I think there’s definitely pricing room between the R10 and R7 for another APS-C body. 

I fully admit that my own desires are influencing this prediction. A small, light EVF-less body with an RF mount would be a great travel pairing for my R3.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 27, 2022)

entoman said:


> Hi Alan, yes I'm sure that the RF2x on the RF100-500mm would provide even sharper shots and a bit more macro, but the primary reason why I bought the RF100-400mm in the first place (aside from your recommendation) was to keep the size and weight minimal. Travelling in West Papua involved a lot of domestic flights on small aircraft with limited luggage allowances. Even more importantly, it's pretty tiring for a 72 year old to hike for hours at a time through sweltering humid rainforest even with an RF100-400mm attached, and carrying my relatively heavy RF100-500mm would have been quite challenging. This is a _Hypochrysops_ species, photographed at Fak Fak, 400mm, 1/180, F11, ISO 1000.
> 
> View attachment 206909


I am even older than you! I can still easily manage the RF 100-500 but maybe I should consider taking instead a 2nd RF 100-400mm on the R5 for me as well on the R7 for my wife on ourbig birding trip next March. It makes travel easier. I certainly would if the prime objective was insects.


----------



## miric (Dec 27, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> I had to remove a snake(Russell's viper) from a house in my neighbourhood


I really hope you're OK.



Chaitanya said:


> here is comparison between Xt30(3 year old camera) vs R7(with a "new" sensor according to Canon)
> ...
> Having BSI sensor certainly improves IQ compared to Front side illuminated sensor.


Well, diagrams, diagrams, and no real images side by side. Certainly but not significantly as I can see. Anyway, I can keep calm I don't have to worry about BSI unless I will adopt rangefinder lenses. I finally recalled a thing where BSI really matters compared to FSI — reducing color shift and frame edge smearing with them.



Chaitanya said:


> Stacked sensors are different to BSI(and it seems they certainly are more expensive to produce currently) and they seem to be more suited for applications which require faster read speeds(sports/wildlife oriented cameras this generation around all have stacked BSI sensors).


I realize that. My confuse was over recently.


----------



## Chaitanya (Dec 27, 2022)

AlanF said:


> There's something odd about the Fuji-XT30 having such a good DR vs iso plot. It actually sticks out like a sore thumb. Here are the XT-30 vs the R7 and Sony A1 and 7RM4 in APS-C mode. The two Sony state-of-the-art BSI sensors are essentially the same as the FSI R7 (and also the R5 in APS-C mode). Either Fuji has a breakthrough in the quantum efficiency of its sensor so it is greater than 1, or perhaps their quoted isos are out - Bill Claff points out he uses the manufacturers isos and not the measured ones. Anyway, the Canon FSI sensors have the same DR as the Sony BSI.
> 
> View attachment 206907


That A74 is certainly a oddity, as its barely better than A73 and above ISO800 it lags a little behind its predecessor. Fuji XH2 and XT30 almost have similar performance at lower ISO, it certainly seems like Fuji had something with XT30.




neuroanatomist said:


> CP+ is aimed at video. To me, that suggests the R8 will be a vlogging-type camera. I wonder if the ‘bit of a different form factor and will have a new kind of flippy screen’ are relative to other R cameras, e.g. the R8 will be like the M6 II with a screen that flips up instead of out (or better up _or_ out) and no built-in EVF hump to block the screen when flipped up.
> 
> Same 24 MP sensor as the R10 but with IBIS. I think there’s definitely pricing room between the R10 and R7 for another APS-C body.
> 
> I fully admit that my own desires are influencing this prediction. A small, light EVF-less body with an RF mount would be a great travel pairing for my R3.


Competitor to Sony ZV and Nikon Z30 but with excellent DPAF.


koenkooi said:


> The R7 uses the same sensor as the M6II/90D, which is over 3 years old now. I couldn't find any differences between the M6II and R7 CR3s when shooting them side by side. There is a huuuuuge difference in the AF software between those 2 cameras.


AF improvements are thanks to new CPU(Digic-X) being employed by R7, also Canon reps were telling press that sensor in R7 is brand "new" and hasn't been used before.


miric said:


> I really hope you're OK.


I am fine, I usually get rescue calls and these days I dont go out farther than 1km of my house to rescue animals(in old days I would have travelled 40-50kms for rescue calls).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 27, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> AF improvements are thanks to new CPU(Digic-X) being employed by R7, also Canon reps were telling press that sensor in R7 is brand "new" and hasn't been used before.


Sure, but for example a tweak of 1-2 nm in the spectral transmission curves of the CFA is all that’s needed to make a sensor ‘new, never before used’ while still being a recycled sensor for all practical purposes.


----------



## mpb001 (Dec 27, 2022)

I don’t really see much point to all
these RF crop sensor cameras with the same 24 mm sensor. There is an R7 (32MP) and R10. So it seems logical that an R8 would at least add IBIS and better spec than an R10. I guess we’ll see shortly. I was hoping to see an upgrade to the R or RP.


----------



## entoman (Dec 27, 2022)

Stig Nygaard said:


> Personally I don't care if R8 is an APS-C or fullframe camera. I don't expect R8 to be a camera I want no matter what.
> 
> _But_ I just wonder if being an APS-C camera is part of the rumour, or if it is just guessing from CR? Reading post, it sounds like that part is just speculations/guessing?
> 
> I could easily imagine an R8 being a fullframe camera and closest thing to a "replacement" for the EOS R. And in that case probably with 30+ megapixels.


That would depend on whether CR is guessing that it will be called the "R8" or whether that name has been confirmed. If indeed it is called "R8" then it will sit between two currently existing APS-C cameras, i.e. R7 and R10, so it's extremely unlikely that it would be anything other than another APS-C model. What Canon is most lacking in its current range is a cheap vlogging camera, IMO that is what an "R8" would be.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 27, 2022)

entoman said:


> What Canon is most lacking in its current range is a cheap vlogging camera, IMO that is what an "R8" would be.


If it sits between the R10 and R7 in price, I’d expect feature benefits like IBIS.

The R10 is reportedly pretty good for video, but the crop for 4K60 along with the extra crop needed for electronic stabilization exposes another thing lacking from the lineup – a small, light UWA zoom for RF-S. I hope that means we see the M11-22 re-housed in an RF-S barrel announced alongside the R8.


----------



## entoman (Dec 27, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> If it sits between the R10 and R7 in price, I’d expect feature benefits like IBIS.
> 
> The R10 is reportedly pretty good for video, but the crop for 4K60 along with the extra crop needed for electronic stabilization exposes another thing lacking from the lineup – a small, light UWA zoom for RF-S. I hope that means we see the M11-22 re-housed in an RF-S barrel announced alongside the R8.


IBIS would be nice, but if it is an "R8" and is a vlogging camera, I'm not sure that Canon would consider IBIS to be essential, and they might omit it to keep the price competitive.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 27, 2022)

miric said:


> This looks like the case "BSI for BSI". Very similar to X-Trans in "Fjudzii" cameras. They say it's cool but cannot argue why. Drawbacks only. I used to think BSI was cool but then it appeared I was confused with BSI and stacked sensor technology. So I treat BSI as a BS feature until I'll see real significant advantages. @Chaitanya where are you?


It has advantages on very small (phone size) sensors.


----------



## fabiorossi (Dec 27, 2022)

Wow, almost 2023 and people still are confusing IQ with DR and noise....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 27, 2022)

entoman said:


> IBIS would be nice, but if it is an "R8" and is a vlogging camera, I'm not sure that Canon would consider IBIS to be essential, and they might omit it to keep the price competitive.


Thus my statement, “*IF* it sits between the R10 and R7 in price, I’d expect feature benefits like IBIS.” The Nikon Z30 and Sony ZV-E10 are both cheaper than the R10. But if it is going to be cheaper than the R10, I’d expect it to be named the R50 or R100.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 27, 2022)

fabiorossi said:


> Wow, almost 2023 and people still are confusing IQ with DR and noise....


Some people are perpetually confused, about a great many things.


----------



## Juangrande (Dec 27, 2022)

Phil995511 said:


> The fact that Canon is abandoning customers with EF-format cameras in favor of RF-format and ceasing to offer new EF lenses and bodies makes me regret trusting them and buying an EOS 5D Mark III.
> 
> I don't like the RF series LCD viewfinders which are bad for the eyes. I will not change either my equipment which cost me a fortune to adopt the range without RF mirror. I will abandon Canon, as they sadly abandoned me. And for this reason I will certainly never buy the Canon brand, which from my point of view abused the trust I had in them ;-(


I’m still pissed they went all in on digital and stopped supporting legacy cameras. When was the last time we got a firmware update for the T90?


----------



## Bob Howland (Dec 27, 2022)

If the R8 is a vlogging camera, then Canon had better introduce some vlogging lenses: 15 f/2, 22 f/2 and 11-22 zoom. Which makes me wonder why Canon didn't make an M camera the best vlogging camera in existence. It could be slightly smaller than a comparable R mount camera.


----------



## entoman (Dec 27, 2022)

fabiorossi said:


> Wow, almost 2023 and people still are confusing IQ with DR and noise....


You'll have to clarify that. Dynamic range and noise are major elements of image quality, as are colour gamut, sharpness, freedom from artefacts and aberrations etc. IQ can't be measured, as it is affected also by personal preferences regarding bokeh, colour purity and numerous other factors.


----------



## sanj (Dec 27, 2022)

Phil995511 said:


> The fact that Canon is abandoning customers with EF-format cameras in favor of RF-format and ceasing to offer new EF lenses and bodies makes me regret trusting them and buying an EOS 5D Mark III.
> 
> I don't like the RF series LCD viewfinders which are bad for the eyes. I will not change either my equipment which cost me a fortune to adopt the range without RF mirror. I will abandon Canon, as they sadly abandoned me. And for this reason I will certainly never buy the Canon brand, which from my point of view abused the trust I had in them ;-(


It is fruitful to update with advancements in technology. How else will we get better cameras/lenses/laptops/phones etc?


----------



## sanj (Dec 27, 2022)

entoman said:


> Hi Alan, yes I'm sure that the RF2x on the RF100-500mm would provide even sharper shots and a bit more macro, but the primary reason why I bought the RF100-400mm in the first place (aside from your recommendation) was to keep the size and weight minimal. Travelling in West Papua involved a lot of domestic flights on small aircraft with limited luggage allowances. Even more importantly, it's pretty tiring for a 72 year old to hike for hours at a time through sweltering humid rainforest even with an RF100-400mm attached, and carrying my relatively heavy RF100-500mm would have been quite challenging. This is a _Hypochrysops_ species, photographed at Fak Fak, 400mm, 1/180, F11, ISO 1000.
> 
> View attachment 206909


Wow photo!!!!


----------



## sanj (Dec 27, 2022)

So. There IS a market for APSC.


neuroanatomist said:


> What brand will you buy, then? Maybe you’ve missed that the industry has mostly switched to mirrorless.
> 
> The bigger question is what are you doing here on the internet? It’s a modern sort of place. Why don’t you grab some foolscap and a fountain pen and write a letter to a friend? Or just relax and watch some TV…be sure to adjust the rabbit ears when you get up to change the channel.


Yes, the internet is great. It makes people like you hide behind a screen and perpetually post rude comments. And this comment coming from YOU is funny as you were so against mirrorless until Canon launched mirrorless cameras. I realize that my comment here is rude but you deserve it.


----------



## Skux (Dec 27, 2022)

Well if it's an RF-S vlogging camera I hope to see an RF-S vlogging lens.


----------



## HikeBike (Dec 27, 2022)

Phil995511 said:


> The fact that Canon is abandoning customers with EF-format cameras in favor of RF-format and ceasing to offer new EF lenses and bodies makes me regret trusting them and buying an EOS 5D Mark III.
> 
> I don't like the RF series LCD viewfinders which are bad for the eyes. I will not change either my equipment which cost me a fortune to adopt the range without RF mirror. I will abandon Canon, as they sadly abandoned me. And for this reason I will certainly never buy the Canon brand, which from my point of view abused the trust I had in them ;-(


This is not rational. The 5D Mk III was released a decade ago. You purchased an item which met your requirements, and will continue to do so in the same manner it has since you purchased it. You are still able to purchase just about every EF lens ever made on the secondary market.

The EF mount was announced in 1987. 1987!!! That means Canon employed this lens mount for 30+ years before releasing the RF mount. This was not some short-lived tech which was changed solely for the sake of change or as a money-grab. Continuing to utilize the EF mount would have impeded Canon's ability to compete in the marketplace.

You can switch to another manufacturer, such as Sony or Nikon, but do so understanding that they also have changed their lens mounts in the past, and will do so again at some point in the future.


----------



## BurningPlatform (Dec 27, 2022)

Rather than having R10 internals, I tend to think the R8 will be a stripped down R7, without weather sealing, dual card slot and EVF. I think it will have IBIS, though, and the R7 sensor.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Dec 27, 2022)

mpb001 said:


> I don’t really see much point to all
> these RF crop sensor cameras with the same 24 mm sensor. There is an R7 (32MP) and R10. So it seems logical that an R8 would at least add IBIS and better spec than an R10. I guess we’ll see shortly. I was hoping to see an upgrade to the R or RP.


Canon can do a lot to differentiate models having the same sensor. Recall that the 7D, 60D, and 550D/Rebel T2i all had the same 18 MP sensor.

Maybe this will be the long-rumored R body with M form factor? A lot of M fans have been hoping.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 27, 2022)

sanj said:


> So. There IS a market for APSC.
> Yes, the internet is great. It makes people like you hide behind a screen and perpetually post rude comments. And this comment coming from YOU is funny as you were so against mirrorless until Canon launched mirrorless cameras. I realize that my comment here is rude but you deserve it.


When have I stated or implied that there is no market for APS-C cameras, or APS-C mirrorless cameras? I don't see why I would, I am well aware that APS-C cameras far outsell FF cameras and have all along. If you are referring to my incorrect belief that there would not be an APS-C EOS R, the reason for that certainly wasn't a lack of market for it, but rather that Canon was very successful in that segment with the EOS M line. You can be rude if you prefer, it's not atypical for you and certainly doesn't bother me. But please try to get your facts straight, or what you think may be righteous rudeness just comes off as asinine and petulant.

Yes, I was skeptical about mirrorless 10-12 years ago. MILCs have changed a lot since then. In those days, the AF capabilities of DSLRs were demonstrably better than those of MILCs, and EVFs were low resolution and slow to refresh. Those deficits made MILCs far less suitable than DSLRs for shooting fast-moving subjects, which were and are much of what I shoot. Only in the last few years have MILCs progressed sufficiently in those areas to surpass DSLRs. Actually, whether today's best EVFs surpass OVFs is debatable; IMO they do not from an optical perspective, but the additional capabilities (particularly the R3's exposure + DoF simulation mode) outweigh the reduced optical representation. 

Times change, I try to change with them. That's why I bought an EOS M nearly a decade ago. Then an M2, then an M6, then an R, then an R3, then an M6II.

Have a happy new year!


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Dec 27, 2022)

miric said:


> Could you demonstrate samples that reveal a profit and a significant difference in terms of IQ from a BSI sensor compared to a FSI one?





EOS 4 Life said:


> BSI performs better on the meaningless checklist test.


My understanding is that BSI sensors can have faster readout speeds, resulting in less rolling shutter with ES.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 27, 2022)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> My understanding is that BSI sensors can have faster readout speeds, resulting in less rolling shutter with ES.


Your understanding is not consistent with facts. Stacked sensors have faster readout speeds. BSI, not so much.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Dec 27, 2022)

Canon should announce a few APS-C lenses first. Having 2 dark zooms is not enough.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Dec 27, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Also,
> 
> How about releasing some more RF-s lenses before pushing another APS-C camera body? Two lenses is a joke, even worse when you’re considering there’s a third crop camera soon.



And not even 2 really different lenses, just 2 standard zooms, one being longer at the longer end. And recently seen a review on the 16mm on the R7 and looks like it's pretty weak.


----------



## clearlyed (Dec 28, 2022)

Phil995511 said:


> The fact that Canon is abandoning customers with EF-format cameras in favor of RF-format and ceasing to offer new EF lenses and bodies makes me regret trusting them and buying an EOS 5D Mark III.
> 
> I don't like the RF series LCD viewfinders which are bad for the eyes. I will not change either my equipment which cost me a fortune to adopt the range without RF mirror. I will abandon Canon, as they sadly abandoned me. And for this reason I will certainly never buy the Canon brand, which from my point of view abused the trust I had in them ;-(


unfortunately I'm not sure switching to another brand will save you many as you will have to adopt that new mount with new lenses. nor do I think you will find many other bands offering anything but mirrorless cameras. if you are happy with you cameras and lenses why upgrade anyway. but you want to upgrade I'm afraid you Amy only be left with the option of switching all your gear to a completely different brand (that will also be mirrorless) or stick with non and use their RF to EF adapter which is absolutely exceptional and proof that they thought through how to keep the EF glasss alive for an entirely new generational of gear.


----------



## bergstrom (Dec 28, 2022)

Oh for the love of God, c'mon Canon, update the RP


----------



## sanj (Dec 28, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> When have I stated or implied that there is no market for APS-C cameras, or APS-C mirrorless cameras? I don't see why I would, I am well aware that APS-C cameras far outsell FF cameras and have all along. If you are referring to my incorrect belief that there would not be an APS-C EOS R, the reason for that certainly wasn't a lack of market for it, but rather that Canon was very successful in that segment with the EOS M line. You can be rude if you prefer, it's not atypical for you and certainly doesn't bother me. But please try to get your facts straight, or what you think may be righteous rudeness just comes off as asinine and petulant.
> 
> Yes, I was skeptical about mirrorless 10-12 years ago. MILCs have changed a lot since then. In those days, the AF capabilities of DSLRs were demonstrably better than those of MILCs, and EVFs were low resolution and slow to refresh. Those deficits made MILCs far less suitable than DSLRs for shooting fast-moving subjects, which were and are much of what I shoot. Only in the last few years have MILCs progressed sufficiently in those areas to surpass DSLRs. Actually, whether today's best EVFs surpass OVFs is debatable; IMO they do not from an optical perspective, but the additional capabilities (particularly the R3's exposure + DoF simulation mode) outweigh the reduced optical representation.
> 
> ...


Happy New Year Neuro.


----------



## UlfricStormcloak (Dec 28, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Ohhhh no,
> 
> I’m still hoping for an R successor and do believe there’s room for at least one full frame body underneath the R6mkii.
> 
> ...


Who needs small and capable ff camera days, right? Everyone wants to have their pinky on the right place.


----------



## brent1395 (Dec 28, 2022)

And hopefully they are also releasing several small F1.4 prime lenses priced under $500 so they can compete with their own M mount cameras? Lol of course they won't. So of course I can't buy into RF-S, because I would be guaranteed to take worse pictures than I do with the M6II due to the abysmal lens lineup and lack of 3rd party options.


----------



## pzyber (Dec 28, 2022)

Juangrande said:


> I’m still pissed they went all in on digital and stopped supporting legacy cameras. When was the last time we got a firmware update for the T90?


They still offered repair of my 1V though as late as this autumn. They couldn't fix the issue so they got me a replacement one instead. That is what I call service and I'm very happy I chose to use Canon cameras and lenses.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Dec 28, 2022)

So no high-megapixel version of the R5 again. Sad.


----------



## -pekr- (Dec 28, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> CP+ is aimed at video. To me, that suggests the R8 will be a vlogging-type camera. I wonder if the ‘bit of a different form factor and will have a new kind of flippy screen’ are relative to other R cameras, e.g. the R8 will be like the M6 II with a screen that flips up instead of out (or better up _or_ out) and no built-in EVF hump to block the screen when flipped up.
> 
> Same 24 MP sensor as the R10 but with IBIS. I think there’s definitely pricing room between the R10 and R7 for another APS-C body.
> 
> I fully admit that my own desires are influencing this prediction. A small, light EVF-less body with an RF mount would be a great travel pairing for my R3.



Such camera form factor would be nice to have. It just needs to be FF, not APS-C. If Sony can do it with A7c, Canon should be able to do it as well. But of course, it would most probably mean a different price level.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Dec 28, 2022)

Not sure why it would make sense to put another camera into the $500 gap between the R10 and R7. Either is has to be quite a different camera or it is the psychological trick of creating a middle step between to products which seems like a good compromise for people who would otherwise have bought the cheaper one. Then it is likely priced closer to the more expensive product though to avoid cannibalizing it. Something like $1,299 or even $1,399. 

I still hope that Canon will also bring a higher end APS-C camera and stops treating APS-C as a format for amateurs, which it is not. There are many reasons even for professionals not to go full frame. For example if you crop all the time on full frame anyway or you need a lighter package.


----------



## mb66energy (Dec 28, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> So yet another FSI sensored camera(while competition(Fuji) has been offering BSI sensors in sub $1000 cameras for years at this point), also Canon needs to launch better crop lenses for RF mount(55-250mm, macro, and ultra wide zoom). Current RF 16mm and 50mm 1.8 are good primes for RF-S but both zooms are underwhelming at best.


Maybe Canon waits if they have developped a BSI sensor with global shutter and brings that to market. BSI might be a tad more efficient due to slightly larger effective photodiode area but the main advantage might be the chance to put more electronics inside the sensor close to the cells. Maybe Canon just waits for smaller processes to reduce the heat load - IMO global shutter is a power drawing feature and a cool sensor performs always better.


----------



## entoman (Dec 28, 2022)

Quarkcharmed said:


> So no high-megapixel version of the R5 again. Sad.


45MP isn't enough?

I'd be interested to know what genres of photography you tackle that require, or would benefit from, super-high resolution. Sure, there are branches of photography where very high resolution is preferred, such as product and billboard work, digital archiving of art etc, but why would a hi-res R5 be preferred to a 100MP Fujifilm?


----------



## gruhl28 (Dec 28, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> BSI performs better on the meaningless checklist test.


BSI has better low light performance, because the electronics don’t block light getting to the actual light detector. Astronomy cameras started switching to BSI quite a few years ago.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 28, 2022)

gruhl28 said:


> BSI has better low light performance, because the electronics don’t block light getting to the actual light detector. Astronomy cameras started switching to BSI quite a few years ago.


For modern sensors of the relatively large sizes under discussion here (APS-C and FF), the increased sensitivity is minimal at best. For example, the FSI Canon R5 and R6II have essentially the same noise floor and sensitivity as the BSI Sony a7-4 and a7RV.

It’s a different story comparing FSI vs BSI for smartphone sensors. But we aren’t.


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 28, 2022)

entoman said:


> 45MP isn't enough?
> 
> I'd be interested to know what genres of photography you tackle that require, or would benefit from, super-high resolution. Sure, there are branches of photography where very high resolution is preferred, such as product and billboard work, digital archiving of art etc, but why would a hi-res R5 be preferred to a 100MP Fujifilm?


Focus stacking macro shots at f/2.8-f/4 would benefit from a higher resolution. Practically speaking I could (and do!) use the M6II for small subjects, but the R5 makes it much easier with the higher fps and more recent software.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 28, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Not sure why it would make sense to put another camera into the $500 gap between the R10 and R7. … Then it is likely priced closer to the more expensive product though to avoid cannibalizing it. Something like $1,299 or even $1,399.


Cannibalization is a fallacy. Pricing is driven by projected unit sales and targeted ROI (which is based on development and production costs). If someone buys an R8 instead of an R7, Canon still makes revenue and profit, and quite likely if the margin on an R8 is half that of an R7, it’s because Canon expects to sell twice as many R8 units over the life cycle. 

The real goal for Canon here is to get those in the huge installed base of xxxD and xxD owners to buy an R# body, whatever the # (and thus buy RF lenses, as well). Offering more choices at the lower end of the R-series price range is a good way to accomplish that goal.


----------



## webphoto (Dec 28, 2022)

I hope R8 will be a replacement for M mount. For street photography, it is very helpful having a good and small camera that doesn’t catch too much attention.


----------



## John Wilde (Dec 28, 2022)

"Different form factor" could mean retro-camera styling like Fujifilm and Nikon Z fc.


----------



## John Wilde (Dec 28, 2022)

Phil995511 said:


> The fact that Canon is abandoning customers with EF-format cameras in favor of RF-format and ceasing to offer new EF lenses and bodies makes me regret trusting them and buying an EOS 5D Mark III.


EF-M is the future. Oh, wait...


----------



## sanj (Dec 28, 2022)

Phil995511 said:


> The fact that Canon is abandoning customers with EF-format cameras in favor of RF-format and ceasing to offer new EF lenses and bodies makes me regret trusting them and buying an EOS 5D Mark III.
> 
> I don't like the RF series LCD viewfinders which are bad for the eyes. I will not change either my equipment which cost me a fortune to adopt the range without RF mirror. I will abandon Canon, as they sadly abandoned me. And for this reason I will certainly never buy the Canon brand, which from my point of view abused the trust I had in them ;-(


I am curious. Where do you find the Mark III and the lenses, flashes etc lacking? What is it that you want to do where you find the EF lacking?


----------



## sanj (Dec 28, 2022)

John Wilde said:


> "Different form factor" could mean retro-camera styling like Fujifilm and Nikon Z fc.


How I wish! But, alas...


----------



## Docofthewild (Dec 28, 2022)

This rumor just seems a bit confused to me. Past rumors have indicated the next two aps-c cameras would be the R50 and R100. It would seem crazy to me to have a blogging camera with a single digit moniker unless it is basically a R7 minus evf but with a blog style flip screen. If it is truly the R10 sensor, that camera seems better named the R50 as was previously rumored. 

Releasing a R8 with an aps-c sensor would all but kill any hope of a R or RP replacement as well. I would be shocked if the R8 wasn’t full frame but it wouldn’t be the first time. It is also what I hope for though after investing in the small f4 RF zooms as a full frame travel kit, I am hoping for a smaller FF body at some point to replace my RP. But you don’t always get what you want.


----------



## entoman (Dec 28, 2022)

Docofthewild said:


> This rumor just seems a bit confused to me. Past rumors have indicated the next two aps-c cameras would be the R50 and R100. It would seem crazy to me to have a blogging camera with a single digit moniker unless it is basically a R7 minus evf but with a blog style flip screen. If it is truly the R10 sensor, that camera seems better named the R50 as was previously rumored.
> 
> Releasing a R8 with an aps-c sensor would all but kill any hope of a R or RP replacement as well. I would be shocked if the R8 wasn’t full frame but it wouldn’t be the first time. It is also what I hope for though after investing in the small f4 RF zooms as a full frame travel kit, I am hoping for a smaller FF body at some point to replace my RP. But you don’t always get what you want.


I'll be quite surprised if Canon knock out an R replacement. The "upgrade" replacement would by definition have to offer features lacking in the original R, notably an improved sensor, major improvements in AF, and above all IBIS. So basically it would be an R6ii but with a circa 33MP FF sensor. Sounds fine, but with the R5 and R6 series already in existence, what on Earth could they call it - R Five-and-a-half?

Likewise, I'll be surprised of the RP is replaced. Its place as the affordable novice model has already been snapped up by the crop-sensor R10, which is in many ways a better camera, and possibly beats the RP in image quality.

The "missing" model in the RF range is the affordable vlogging-orientated camera, and that I think is what the so-called "R8" is very likely to be. The R8 moniker is probably just a bit of CR guesswork, it could well be called something else entirely... All we really know, is that there will be a new body launched in February, and that it won't be an "R5s" or a "R1".


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 28, 2022)

I, too am confused by the idea that the R8 is an APS-C camera. I think it is possible that 2 cameras have been blended into one rumor. A differrent form factor vlogging camera seems far more likely to be a rumored R50 or R100. The R8 might be the rumored RP/R replacement. I would be shocked if Canon does not come out with a lower priced FF camera. Without having any actual stats, but watching the Amazon best seller lists over the years, it seems lower priced cameras of whatever category will sell more than higher priced cameras. For Canon customers looking to venture into full frame for the first time, or those who feel their RPs are in need of replacing, asking them to move into a $2500 camera range is wishful thinking, in my opinion. Nikon has the Z5 - often sold at around $1000 and the Z6 II, which comes in at under $2000 - so would be very surprised if Canon does not offer something (at least one camera, perhaps 2) to cover that price point in FF.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Dec 28, 2022)

entoman said:


> I'll be quite surprised if Canon knock out an R replacement.
> 
> Likewise, I'll be surprised of the RP is replaced.
> 
> The "missing" model in the RF range is the affordable vlogging-orientated camera,


I strongly disagree regarding the full-frame entry models. There is a need for them and I believe Canon intends to keep them.

First of all, Canon started selling a „cheap“ FF model and Nikon felt the need to release one as well. Sony keeps older models as cheap models in their line-up as well. Would canon really start selling cheaper ff models, state they’re thinking about releasing a sub 1.000 $ model and stop the line while they sell (very) well? I don’t think so… 

Furthermore, RP/ R and potential successor(s) are the missing link in order to attract enthusiasts to eventually buy higher end lenses. An R/ RP gives one the opportunity to start out with affordable lenses such as 16mm/ 35mm and 50mm. Later, those customers might add an L lense or two. And if everything goes well (according to Canon) they might upgrade to an R6 for example. 

Then, the lenses: if there really shouldn’t be an RP/ R successor(s), why did they release the RF 15-30mm? On a crop camera it would be an equivalent 23-48mm. That is already covered with an RFs 18-45mm which actually is wider and cheaper. Therefore, the 15-30mm must be intended for FF use. I don’t believe it was designed and intended for R6/R5 customers. Thex most likely will grab one of the F2.8/ F4 zooms with weather sealing etc. Further, I believe the RF 16mm, 24-105mm F4-7.1, RF 24-240mm are all designated lenses for full-frame entry level users. 

Canon has to replace the xxxx/ xxx rebels EF customers because SP basically replaced those models for a lot of users. One possibility is a cheap entry full level camera and the other opportunity is to cater to a fairly new customer group, in this case the Vloggers. 

Therefore, I do believe Canon will release both camera models: at least one cheap(er) FF and probably two vlogger oriented models. R8 should be FF and the vlogger cams will get different names. Maybe they will inherit the xxx digits.


----------



## Bad Photographer (Dec 28, 2022)

John Wilde said:


> "Different form factor" could mean retro-camera styling like Fujifilm and Nikon Z fc.


Canon execs have said they are not interested in retro styling, they prefer to concentrate on ergonomics. But... all things can change


----------



## osakawayne (Dec 28, 2022)

Kit. said:


> "Bullshit integrated"?


My understanding is that BSI is a great benefit when dealing with smaller sensors, as there is less wiring obscuring the pixel sensors and more light can get in, so you get better low light with BSI on say an iphone camera. With full frame, BSI doesn't appear to make much difference, as the sensor and light gathering is relatively huge already. APS-C may have a slight advantage, but there are so many other things I care about for my camera like ease of use, software, ergonomics and glass, that I think it ranks low for what people should care about when making a decision.


----------



## entoman (Dec 28, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Then, the lenses: if there really shouldn’t be an RP/ R successor(s), why did they release the RF 15-30mm? On a crop camera it would be an equivalent 23-48mm. That is already covered with an RFs 18-45mm which actually is wider and cheaper. Therefore, the 15-30mm must be intended for FF use. I don’t believe it was designed and intended for R6/R5 customers.


Of course the 15-30mm is designed for FF cameras. But why do you believe it is only intended for R/RP customers? That's crazy. Just because someone owns an R5/R6 it doesn't mean they'll only buy L glass. Optically the "budget" RF lenses are more than good enough for most people - the RF100-400mm for example produces extremely sharp photos on my R5, with nicer bokeh than the RF100-500mm, and is a fraction of the cost and weight. Not everyone needs their lenses to be weatherproof or built to withstand a beating. I think you might be surprised how many owners of R5/R6 buy budget lenses such as the 15-30mm, 100-400mm, 600mm F11 and 800mm F11. They's also be buying cheap Tamron and Sigma lenses if they were available in RF mount.


----------



## entoman (Dec 28, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I strongly disagree regarding the full-frame entry models. There is a need for them and I believe Canon intends to keep them.


Many people also thought that there was a need for a 7DMkiii to compete with the Nikon D500.
Many people thought there was a need for a hi-performance FF DSLR above the 5DMkiv, to compete with the Nikon D850.
Neither camera ever appeared.

Many people thought the M series should never have been abandoned.
Yet Canon is only producing RF mount cameras now.

Some people think there is a "need" for a new FF successor to the R
Some people think there is a "need" for a FF successor to the RP.

Yet thus far, there is no sign of either. I genuinely wish you luck, but don't hold your breath.


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 28, 2022)

Bad Photographer said:


> Canon execs have said they are not interested in retro styling, they prefer to concentrate on ergonomics. But... all things can change


I can only express hope that Canon don't sacrifice their great ergonomics on the altar of style.
Part of Canon's success is due to ergonomics!


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Dec 28, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Not sure why it would make sense to put another camera into the $500 gap between the R10 and R7. Either is has to be quite a different camera or it is the psychological trick of creating a middle step between to products which seems like a good compromise for people who would otherwise have bought the cheaper one. Then it is likely priced closer to the more expensive product though to avoid cannibalizing it. Something like $1,299 or even $1,399.
> 
> I still hope that Canon will also bring a higher end APS-C camera and stops treating APS-C as a format for amateurs, which it is not. There are many reasons even for professionals not to go full frame. For example if you crop all the time on full frame anyway or you need a lighter package.



Canon will always treat APS-C as a format for amateurs. They only ever release a few variable dark zooms and 1 or 2 non weather sealed primes. The same happened with EF-S and EF-M. RF-S won't be any different. The only exception was maybe the 17-55 2.8.


----------



## sanj (Dec 28, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Canon will always treat APS-C as a format for amateurs. They only ever release a few variable dark zooms and 1 or 2 non weather sealed primes. The same happened with EF-S and EF-M. RF-S won't be any different. The only exception was maybe the 17-55 2.8.


Amateurs? I do not think so. Cost effective, yes. APSC cameras take MANY many AMAZING photos. Full frame or crop, it is not the camera, it is the photographer.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 28, 2022)

sanj said:


> Amateurs? I do not think so. Cost effective, yes. APSC cameras take MANY many AMAZING photos. Full frame or crop, it is not the camera, it is the photographer.


While I agree with the sentiment, the post wasn’t how the cameras are used or by who, but how _Canon_ treats/considers APS-C cameras. 

In various geographies, Canon has labeled just the integrated-grip bodies or those plus the 5-series cameras as ‘professional’, but has not so-labeled any of their APS-C models.


----------



## davidespinosa (Dec 28, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> I hadn't realized that the R10 lacked the protective shutter, I really like that on the R5. I've only had to dry-brush off a single speck in the past 2 years. The RP needed cleaning almost weekly, till I switched to the filter adapter.


What's the "filter adapter" ? How does it help keep the sensor clean ?
Thanks...
(I'm not arguing -- I'm a newbie trying to learn)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 28, 2022)

davidespinosa said:


> What's the "filter adapter" ? How does it help keep the sensor clean ?
> Thanks...
> (I'm not arguing -- I'm a newbie trying to learn)


Presumably the EF-RF adapter with the drop-in filter. Available with either a CPL or a variable ND, the other drop-in filter can be purchased separately. There’s a clear drop-in filter that would also help keep the sensor clean during EF lens changes.


----------



## steepjay (Dec 28, 2022)

entoman said:


> Canon isn't abandoning customers by switching to mirrorless - the entire industry with the exception of Pentax switched to mirrorless some years ago. Canon, like all businesses, exists to keep its employees in work, and to make money for its shareholders, and that means they have to meet the demands of their customers, the vast majority of which decided long ago that mirrorless enables better specified cameras.
> 
> It can take a while to adapt to an EVF - I used Canon and Nikon DSLRs for many years and I found it awkward to adapt at first, but after a couple of months you get used to the different way of seeing things, and EVFs do not cause eye problems, at least not any more so than squinting to look through binoculars, telescopes or DSLR viewfinders.
> 
> So instead of going into a sulk and cursing Canon, perhaps you should sell your grampohone and your horse and cart, and move to the future, which offers a great deal more benefit than you seem willing to acknowledge.



LOL I was going to suggest Phil make the jump to Pentax...


----------



## steepjay (Dec 28, 2022)

Phil995511 said:


> The fact that Canon is abandoning customers with EF-format cameras in favor of RF-format and ceasing to offer new EF lenses and bodies makes me regret trusting them and buying an EOS 5D Mark III.
> 
> I don't like the RF series LCD viewfinders which are bad for the eyes. I will not change either my equipment which cost me a fortune to adopt the range without RF mirror. I will abandon Canon, as they sadly abandoned me. And for this reason I will certainly never buy the Canon brand, which from my point of view abused the trust I had in them ;-(


LOL based on your list of gear, Pentax is going to be thrilled when you join the tens of people rocking their brand! 

Thanks for the laugh.


----------



## SnowMiku (Dec 29, 2022)

Phil995511 said:


> The fact that Canon is abandoning customers with EF-format cameras in favor of RF-format and ceasing to offer new EF lenses and bodies makes me regret trusting them and buying an EOS 5D Mark III.
> 
> I don't like the RF series LCD viewfinders which are bad for the eyes. I will not change either my equipment which cost me a fortune to adopt the range without RF mirror. I will abandon Canon, as they sadly abandoned me. And for this reason I will certainly never buy the Canon brand, which from my point of view abused the trust I had in them ;-(



The 5D III got released a decade ago, if you purchased it at around the release date you have gotten good use out of it. If it dies you could always buy another used 5D III or even a new 6D II or 5D IV or if you switch to RF there is the EF-RF adapter which works with all of your EF lenses.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Dec 29, 2022)

entoman said:


> 45MP isn't enough?
> 
> I'd be interested to know what genres of photography you tackle that require, or would benefit from, super-high resolution. Sure, there are branches of photography where very high resolution is preferred, such as product and billboard work, digital archiving of art etc, but why would a hi-res R5 be preferred to a 100MP Fujifilm?


I tackle landscape photography. The high-res R5 was rumoured to have a better dynamic range and be around 80Mp, not 100Mp. Fujifilm GFX has a too limited range of lenses.
80Mp might be a bit too much but still better than 45Mp.


----------



## Skux (Dec 29, 2022)

If it has IBIS, uncropped 4k60fps, no EVF, a screen that can both flip up like the M6II and out like the R5, and dual card slots it might make sense as a midrange video/vlogging camera. But as I said before they'll need a wide angle vlogging lens to support it.


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 29, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Also,
> How about releasing some more RF-s lenses before pushing another APS-C camera body? Two lenses is a joke, even worse when you’re considering there’s a third crop camera soon.


All EF/EF-S/RF/RF-S lenses work on the R mount APS-C bodies. There is no need for longer RF-S lenses as the existing ones cover that focal range sufficiently. You can adapt the existing EF-S wide angle lenses now if you want to.

The missing RF-S native lenses are wide angle. Repackaging the better EF-M lenses would address this missing piece.


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 29, 2022)

davidespinosa said:


> What's the "filter adapter" ? How does it help keep the sensor clean ?
> Thanks...
> (I'm not arguing -- I'm a newbie trying to learn)


That adapter is an EF-RF adapter with a filter slot builtin, I have a clear and circular polarizing filters I can put in there. When changing lenses, the filter acts as a barrier for dirt and dust.

This is a picture of the adapter with the clear filter taken partially out of the slot. It took a while to get it to reflect the lights so you can see there's actual glass there, it is a very good clear filter


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Dec 29, 2022)

With DLSRs clear glass in a filter adapter was needed, because glass has another density than air and if you simply replaced the filter with air in times when you don't need one, the optical formula would change slightly. That still is the case with mirrorless cameras of course, but I wonder if mirrorless cameras could compensate that. At least for the autofocus it should be possible to compensate that. Maybe not that easy for the lens profiles that are built into the camera or into software. 

You will notice that the adapter with a filter has a slightly different length than the one without a filter to compensate for the glass that is replacing the air. That's why there always is glass in the adapter, even if you do not need a filter. That's a downside you should consider when buying a filter adapter.


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 29, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> [...]
> You will notice that the adapter with a filter has a slightly different length than the one without a filter to compensate for the glass that is replacing the air. That's why there always is glass in the adapter, even if you do not need a filter. That's a downside you should consider when buying a filter adapter.


Even if you didn't need to account for the (lack of) extra glass, the hole in the side is huge! It lets in lots of stray light and dirt.

Getting the CPL adapter and the extra clear filter was expensive, I very keenly felt the extra "RF tax" on that  But having a CPL that I can mount *behind* the MP-E65mm showed a clear improvement in image quality and not having to get a 72mm filter for the 180L made it worth it. Not having to clean the RP sensor was an added benefit.


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 29, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> That adapter is an EF-RF adapter with a filter slot builtin, I have a clear and circular polarizing filters I can put in there. When changing lenses, the filter acts as a barrier for dirt and dust.
> 
> This is a picture of the adapter with the clear filter taken partially out of the slot. It took a while to get it to reflect the lights so you can see there's actual glass there, it is a very good clear filter
> 
> View attachment 206937


Convinced, I'll get one.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 29, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> I hadn't realized that the R10 lacked the protective shutter


The R10 is not weather sealed.
A protective shutter would not prevent very much.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 29, 2022)

steepjay said:


> LOL I was going to suggest Phil make the jump to Pentax...


Pentax is about ten years behind Canon and Nikon.
I would not switch unless those were discontinued.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 29, 2022)

Skux said:


> a screen that can both flip up like the M6II and out like the R5,


I would love to see that but I am curious as to what the would be.
There would need to be no built-in EVF in the way for it to flip up the same.
I will 100% buy it if Canon can pull it off (literally).


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 29, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> Getting the CPL adapter and the extra clear filter was expensive,


There are cheaper 3rd party versions of both.
Meike seems like the best bet right now.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Dec 29, 2022)

I don't understand the purpose of a camera "between the R7 and R10". There is only $500 there, and the features are well-separated already, while not being a universe apart. Rather, they would seemingly need a body above the R7 (DX R5ish) or below the R10 (viewfinder-less M replacement). I suppose an R7ish spec with no viewfinder and a couple of new things such as the screen mentioned is "in-between" but again why?


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 29, 2022)

Juangrande said:


> I’m still pissed they went all in on digital and stopped supporting legacy cameras. When was the last time we got a firmware update for the T90?


Well at least you can update the sensor in the T90 quite readily !


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 29, 2022)

Quarkcharmed said:


> So no high-megapixel version of the R5 again. Sad.


I thought the R5 was high megapixel.


----------



## Bob Howland (Dec 29, 2022)

Sporgon said:


> Well at least you can update the sensor in the T90 quite readily !


But the high ISO image quality and noise levels are really bad.


----------



## Deepboy (Dec 29, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> I hadn't realized that the R10 lacked the protective shutter



I just bought an R10 as backup to my R6 and I wasn't happy about this lack; but then I think I understand why they did it.

I think first, lot of R10 user will mount the kit lens when purchasing and most likely will never change it, probably they maybe don't even have a second lens; so dust on sensor wouldn't be such a problem (and they probably wouldn't even notice the dust in pictures).

Second and much more important, the shutter curtains are way, WAY, WAAAAAYYY more delicate then the sensor itself, and Canon decided that a "not-so-pro-typical-R10-user" would most likely be less careful and delicate compared to a more advanced/pro user, and they could damage the shutter curtains easily; so they decided to leave the sensor exposed because it wouldn't be damaged if touched.

Me as a professional, shooting SLR's since 1999, every time i switch the lens on my R6 I'm SOOO careful, because there's the shutter exposed, and there's even not the mirror box, so the shutter is really, REALLY close to the lens mount, and touching and damaging wouldn't be so difficult for someone less caring then me (or simply the amateur user who, and it's not a crime, don't known how delicate those curtains are).

So I think I understand why they didn't included it; would be nice if they implement via firmware (leaving it disabled by default), and if you activate the shutter closure on turn off, show a message clearly explain that could be dangerous and that the user will take all responsibility when handling the camera without the lens.


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 29, 2022)

Deepboy said:


> I just bought an R10 as backup to my R6 and I wasn't happy about this lack; but then I think I understand why they did it.
> 
> I think first, lot of R10 user will mount the kit lens when purchasing and most likely will never change it, probably they maybe don't even have a second lens; so dust on sensor wouldn't be such a problem (and they probably wouldn't even notice the dust in pictures).
> 
> ...


That is exactly what I think and want as well


----------



## entoman (Dec 29, 2022)

twoheadedboy said:


> I don't understand the purpose of a camera "between the R7 and R10". There is only $500 there, and the features are well-separated already, while not being a universe apart. Rather, they would seemingly need a body above the R7 (DX R5ish) or below the R10 (viewfinder-less M replacement). I suppose an R7ish spec with no viewfinder and a couple of new things such as the screen mentioned is "in-between" but again why?


I agree that there may be sufficient demand/need for a model below the R10 that doesn't have an EVF, as many smartphone-reared novices these days are used to composing their photos on a screen at arm's length.

It's (IMO) a bloody ridiculous way to hold a camera though - increased camera-shake, reflections on the screen, and an effectively smaller image to view (compared to the magnified view in an EVF, which occupies a large percentage of your field of vision).

Yep, I'm sounding old, and I am


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 29, 2022)

entoman said:


> I agree that there may be sufficient demand/need for a model below the R10 that doesn't have an EVF, as many smartphone-reared novices these days are used to composing their photos on a screen at arm's length.
> 
> It's (IMO) a bloody ridiculous way to hold a camera though - increased camera-shake, reflections on the screen, and an effectively smaller image to view (compared to the magnified view in an EVF, which occupies a large percentage of your field of vision).
> 
> Yep, I'm sounding old, and I am


It does help with getting the camera at eye level with my kids, without having to make old man noises while bending my knees


----------



## AlanF (Dec 29, 2022)

Deepboy said:


> I just bought an R10 as backup to my R6 and I wasn't happy about this lack; but then I think I understand why they did it.
> 
> I think first, lot of R10 user will mount the kit lens when purchasing and most likely will never change it, probably they maybe don't even have a second lens; so dust on sensor wouldn't be such a problem (and they probably wouldn't even notice the dust in pictures).
> 
> ...


I am not a pro, but I estimate I have changed in the field the lens (usually by taking TCs on and off) on my R5 and R7 well over a 1000 times with my fingers and thumb getting nowhere the shutter. Without that closing shutter, I would have been having to clean my sensors regularly. So, if your guess is correct, then the R10 is not aimed at the likes of me or careful pros like you.


----------



## Deepboy (Dec 29, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I am not a pro, but I estimate I have changed in the field the lens (usually by taking TCs on and off) on my R5 and R7 well over a 1000 times with my fingers and thumb getting nowhere the shutter. Without that closing shutter, I would have been having to clean my sensors regularly. So, if your guess is correct, then the R10 is not aimed at the likes of me or careful pros like you.



My post was not something "pro are better, any other no", i just guessed what Canon engineers COULD have guessed on their side, which is imho something like "what would be more dangerous for the average user of the R10? Sensor dust or touching and bending the shutter? Hell, average user would probably change lens half dozen times per year at best, and would never see sensor dust; menwhile, what if the guy touches the shutter? Does he know how delicate are those curtains? No way we're letting them have the shutter closing when the camera is off, that's too dangerous".

They don't make "pro or not pro argument" either, they just make the argument "how prevent the average user to unintentionally break the camera", and I think they guessed that way abut the R10, simply as that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2022)

Deepboy said:


> I just bought an R10 as backup to my R6 and I wasn't happy about this lack; but then I think I understand why they did it.
> 
> I think first, lot of R10 user will mount the kit lens when purchasing and most likely will never change it, probably they maybe don't even have a second lens; so dust on sensor wouldn't be such a problem (and they probably wouldn't even notice the dust in pictures).
> 
> ...


Sorry, but I don’t get it. Just keep your fingers out of the big hole in the middle of the camera. It’s not difficult. Generally the only people who stick fingers in things without thought of consequences are toddlers. So unless you’re saying that’s the R10 market, I’m not following your logic.

Having said that, I do agree than many if not most R10 buyers will just stick the kit lens on and leave it there, especially since there’s no 2-lens kit option (yet).


----------



## entoman (Dec 29, 2022)

Deepboy said:


> My post was not something "pro are better, any other no", i just guessed what Canon engineers COULD have guessed on their side, which is imho something like "what would be more dangerous for the average user of the R10? Sensor dust or touching and bending the shutter? Hell, average user would probably change lens half dozen times per year at best, and would never see sensor dust; menwhile, what if the guy touches the shutter? Does he know how delicate are those curtains? No way we're letting them have the shutter closing when the camera is off, that's too dangerous".
> 
> They don't make "pro or not pro argument" either, they just make the argument "how prevent the average user to unintentionally break the camera", and I think they guessed that way abut the R10, simply as that.


I'm a retired pro, now a hobbyist. In the days when I used DSLRs (actually I still do, occasionally), I never for a single second worried about dust getting on the sensor, and never worried about accidentally poking the mirror, even though I'd sometimes swap lenses several times a day, and sometimes in dusty conditions.

When I switched to mirrorless 3 years ago, one of my concerns was getting dust on the sensor, so I always close the curtains when changing lenses. But I freely admit that I sometimes feel a little nervous about damaging the shutter, if I'm changing lenses in a moving vehicle (e.g. on safari) or if I'm changing lenses one-handed when using the other hand to steady myself when clambering about in difficult terrain (rainforests, rockfaces etc). For me, ideally I'd have 2 or 3 identical bodies, each fitted with a different lens, that would rarely be removed - but that wouldn't be practical or economically viable!

I'd guess that your belief that R10 buyers probably only change lenses quite rarely is correct, and I agree that Canon may well have considered that inexperienced buyers of R10 could accidentally damage the shutter when doing so. Perhaps the best option would be to allow the user to decide (as with most other Canon models), but to have "shutter open when changing lenses" as the default setting.


----------



## Deepboy (Dec 29, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sorry, but I don’t get it. Just keep your fingers out of the big hole in the middle of the camera. It’s not difficult. Generally the only people who stick fingers in things without thought of consequences are toddlers. So unless you’re saying that’s the R10 market, I’m not following your logic.



Man, probably 50% of the R10 users doesn't even know what a "shutter" is, let alone what "curtains" are and how fragile they are; not everybody is here on a Canon forum, with knowledge of how cameras are built and works. We are not the "average user".
I'm just saying, Canon thought "how we can prevent inexperienced people to break the camera?", and they came with "if they touch the shutter they break it, if they touch the sensor nothing happens except fingerprints, so we don't let them see, and touch, the shutter", and they went with it. Period.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying (after ten years of working in a big company that manufacture medical devices, namely equipments used by hospital professionals and not by the general public) that companies design and manufacture their items to be "stupid-proof", to the point of often disabling or not implementing useful functions just to avoid someone misusing them.
If i would be a Canon engineer (I'm not an engineer; i was the sales director in the company I was working for, but I had a voice when deciding which features where to be offered in the equipments) I would have done the exact same choice for the R10: "in the doubt, better them not to be able to touch those curtains". Better safe then sorry, Canon wants things to work and people to be happy, not a bunch of camera to be returned to service assistance, just to be later called in forums "the company whose shutter breaks easily at first touch".


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Dec 29, 2022)

entoman said:


> Many people also thought that there was a need for a 7DMkiii to compete with the Nikon D500.
> Many people thought there was a need for a hi-performance FF DSLR above the 5DMkiv, to compete with the Nikon D850.
> Neither camera ever appeared.


Wasn’t that at the time in which Canon was already developing the R system and R&D had shifted to R bodies and lenses? I’m sure there would have been an answer from Canon if the DSLR had endured a few more years.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Dec 29, 2022)

entoman said:


> Some people think there is a "need" for a new FF successor to the R
> Some people think there is a "need" for a FF successor to the RP.


Here´s is why I strongly believe Canon will introduce a new FF model underneath the R6mk ii, which in my opinion will be (a) successor(s) to the RP/ R: 

Nikon has the z5 which sells at around 1.000 € in Germany. Nikonrumors had several posts last year with rumors filled about the possible Z5 mk ii specs. Pretty sure, this camera will be released in 2023…

Sony has the A7mk iii (sells for around 1.600 - 1.700 €) and the A7 mk iii (sells for less than 1.000 € now). 

If Canon should really decide not to replace the R/ RP then they would basically leave the sales to Nikon and Sony in an upcoming area where a lot of sales actually take place. The Sony models e.g. rank in amazon sales list for cameras in Germany #7 & #17. In 2022, the mkiii actually outsold every Canon rebel to make the list… 

https://www.amazon.de/gp/bestsellers/photo/571862/ref=zg_bs_pg_1?ie=UTF8&pg=1 

Of course, Amazon does not reflect all camera sales in Germany, but it is available data which people actually use to get a generell overview and maybe base a sales decision on. Furthermore, it shows that cheap full frame models are needed and sell well. If I find more time, I'll to research more data...

So, Nikon FF cameras would start at around 1.000 € 
Sony FF cameras at less than 1.000 € 
Canon FF would start at 2.899 € with the R6mkii if the RP/R are discontinued/ not replaced.

That’s absolutely not a favorable gap for Canon…

Furthermore, the R had a huge price drop during the black friday sales end of November. There sold at 1.299 € instead of 1.899 €. I personally thought there getting rid of their last stock… Yesterday, I went to Foto-Erhardt in Osnabrück. They had several R in their shelves. When I asked about them, the salesmen said that his boss thought they’d sell like crazy over black friday/ cyber week but a lot of customers opted not to get an R because it is outdated… 

If you put all pieces together, there is a need for a cheap FF canon camera model. Furthermore, Canon always react to sales numbers and the competition and not our wishlist (as many in this forum always state): both clearly state imho that a R/ RP successor is needed….

I know you don’t believe in a FF replacement for the R/RP, but I do. If Canon doesn’t come up with till 2024, then I’ll have to figure things out for me. I’m not going to buy the R6/ R6mkii or R5 at full retail. A used R5 when the R5mkii hits the shelves might be possible, otherwise I would have to think of a different solution for my needs.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Dec 29, 2022)

entoman said:


> Yet thus far, there is no sign of either. I genuinely wish you luck, but don't hold your breath.


Well, if we're being honest here: 
There is no sign of the R1, R5 high res and there was absolutely no indication the R6mkii was coming till a few days before it got announced so that doesn't mean anything concerning a R/ RP successor. Furthermore, a RP/R won't need as much field testing as Canon does with their high-end models (maybe they don't even field test, I don't know...) so there are fewer "sources" to report to CR or other sites... 

Anyway, lately Canon has become very good of not letting us what they're up to. Or the rumor sites have done a bad job in figuring it out. 
The roadmap posted on CR in 2020 was very precise, therefore I'd suspect Canon somehow wanted to let people know without being held accountable for it. (Yes, companies do that). Now they've obviously changed their policy. The roadmap is not being updated, the UWA lenses which apparently are coming seem like wild guesses and nobody can really make sense of the ongoing rumors. 

In my honest guess: we will see an RP/ R successor BEFORE we see the R1!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2022)

Deepboy said:


> Man, probably 50% of the R10 users doesn't even know what a "shutter" is, let alone what "curtains" are and how fragile they are; not everybody is here on a Canon forum, with knowledge of how cameras are built and works. We are not the "average user".
> I'm just saying, Canon thought "how we can prevent inexperienced people to break the camera?", and they came with "if they touch the shutter they break it, if they touch the sensor nothing happens except fingerprints, so we don't let them see, and touch, the shutter", and they went with it. Period.
> 
> I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying (after ten years of working in a big company that manufacture medical devices, namely equipments used by hospital professionals and not by the general public) that companies design and manufacture their items to be "stupid-proof", to the point of often disabling or not implementing useful functions just to avoid someone misusing them.
> If i would be a Canon engineer (I'm not an engineer; i was the sales director in the company I was working for, but I had a voice when deciding which features where to be offered in the equipments) I would have done the exact same choice for the R10: "in the doubt, better them not to be able to touch those curtains". Better safe then sorry, Canon wants things to work and people to be happy, not a bunch of camera to be returned to service assistance, just to be later called in forums "the company whose shutter breaks easily at first touch".


Perhaps I should have said, I understand your logic but I don’t agree with it. I think it’s a rare user of electronics who’d think it logical to stick their fingers in the ‘box’, whether that box is a camera or a toaster. By reverse but similar logic, one could argue that by leaving out that plain black curtain, people would be more likely to touch the bare sensor, “Ooooo…shiny!!”

As I said, it makes sense that most R10 users won’t change lenses much if ever. More logical that Canon decided that meant it was reasonable to omit the protective shutter to lower production cost (and thus increase margin).


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Dec 29, 2022)

entoman said:


> Of course the 15-30mm is designed for FF cameras. But why do you believe it is only intended for R/RP customers? That's crazy. Just because someone owns an R5/R6 it doesn't mean they'll only buy L glass. Optically the "budget" RF lenses are more than good enough for most people - the RF100-400mm for example produces extremely sharp photos on my R5, with nicer bokeh than the RF100-500mm, and is a fraction of the cost and weight. Not everyone needs their lenses to be weatherproof or built to withstand a beating. I think you might be surprised how many owners of R5/R6 buy budget lenses such as the 15-30mm, 100-400mm, 600mm F11 and 800mm F11. They's also be buying cheap Tamron and Sigma lenses if they were available in RF mount.


Ok, that's true. I got to admit. It also works the other way round, I once saw somebody with a 1300d (whatever the rebel name is) with an EF 100-400mm II L lense... but that's usually not the norm. 

Let me phrase it in a different way: 
Do you believe Canon would have designed and starting selling the RF 15-30mm IF they didn't have an R/ RP based customers? 
I don't believe they would have done that because R5/6 customers are obviously willing to spend more money on cameras and lenses and therefore the UWA L zooms PLUS the EF versions would have been enough to satisfy those customers. There are some lenses which actually cater the needs of entry full-frame level cameras perfectly and I doubt Canon would have poured so R&D in to and then get rid of the full-frame entry level cameras. If later pro/ enthusiasts or people who are willing to spend money buy them, they'd be fine with it. Also, as I have heard in Germany several times: a lot of pros buy the best lenses available to be their "workhorses" and budget lenses for small needs or just for fun (for leisure photography...). The RF 15-30mm would fit this category perfectly... 

But, time will tell. 
PS: with the 600mm/ 800mm I believe Canon actually had enthusiasts/pros in mind... those are such lightweight lenses, perfect for traveling with "long ones" or getting a second long tele lenses next to one of your big whites. I also guess that's why they were released with the R5 and R6.


----------



## Deepboy (Dec 29, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Perhaps I should have said, I understand your logic but I don’t agree with it.
> 
> As I said, it makes sense that most R10 users won’t change lenses much if ever. More logical that Canon decided that meant it was reasonable to omit the protective shutter to lower production cost (and thus increase margin).



I don't agree with my logic as well ahah I've got an R10 and i really would have loved that shutter protection! (Actually, the R10 took place, as backup, of an M6 Mk II, that you know well as I see it in your signature; I was tired of dealing with two different mounts, to the point of losing over 8mpx in the process, but working with 20mpx of R6 as main, 24mpx for a backup are enough for the job).

But I don't think it was production cost; that would have been if they omitted shutterblades alltogether, manufacturing an electronic-shutter-only camera. It's just a firmware difference, I don't see any possible margin in omitting the shutter closing when turning off, apart of course from people going to R7 just to have the feature, which is possible but I don't know how many people buy an R7 over an R10 just for the shutter protection alone.

To tell you more, I'm in a "fight" with Canon service (I'm CPS, they at least have to fake listening to me) because of a function of the R10 (regarding AF method assigning to a button) which is available, camera does it (so it's in the firware), but it's buried so deep that even the 900 pages manual won't contemplate it (I actually had to explain it myself to the italian Canon service, they at first answered me "that's not possibile, camera doesn't do that", then to say "man, how could you find that thing working that way, we knew nothing about that being there"), and I'm arguing that that's dumb, it's basically a bug and they should ask the Japanese firmware guys to fix the thing according to my directions...they answered in the end "we will surely pass your valuable suggestion", which basically means "yeah yeah good boy, now shut the f*ck off and let us do our job, which is not taking suggestions from customers, we're not really interested in making our products better", which basically confirm my theory of "don't overcomplicate things for customers and make stuff dumb-proof to the cost of not progressing with functionality".


----------



## AlanF (Dec 29, 2022)

entoman said:


> But I freely admit that I sometimes feel a little nervous about damaging the shutter, if I'm changing lenses in a moving vehicle (e.g. on safari) or if I'm changing lenses one-handed when using the other hand to steady myself when clambering about in difficult terrain (rainforests, rockfaces etc). For me, ideally I'd have 2 or 3 identical bodies, each fitted with a different lens, that would rarely be removed - but that wouldn't be practical or economically viable!


May I suggest you don't change lenses when clambering on rock faces - we would miss your contributions to CR.


----------



## Skux (Dec 29, 2022)

"There's no space in the lineup for a camera between $1000 and $1500"

Guys, this is the company that simultaneously sells:

- three EF-M cameras
- two APS-C RF cameras
- five full-frame RF cameras (six if you count the original R6)
- three APS-C EF cameras (five if you include the EOS 2000D and 4000D)
- three full-frame EF cameras
- some smaller sensor cameras that I can't keep track of

Canon will find space because they want to sell you cameras.


----------



## bbasiaga (Dec 29, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> With DLSRs clear glass in a filter adapter was needed, because glass has another density than air and if you simply replaced the filter with air in times when you don't need one, the optical formula would change slightly. That still is the case with mirrorless cameras of course, but I wonder if mirrorless cameras could compensate that. At least for the autofocus it should be possible to compensate that. Maybe not that easy for the lens profiles that are built into the camera or into software.
> 
> You will notice that the adapter with a filter has a slightly different length than the one without a filter to compensate for the glass that is replacing the air. That's why there always is glass in the adapter, even if you do not need a filter. That's a downside you should consider when buying a filter adapter.


I think it will be lens by lens whether it can compensate. For sure the ML system can a accommodate focus shift since it focuses on the sensor itself. BUt whether the lens has enough travel past infinity is based on the lens. Some have hard stops directly at infinity, particularly MF lenses. Some AF lenses may not have enough extra travel past infinity. Just depends on the lens. But if there is enough travel though the ML system should be able to focus it. 


Brian


----------



## entoman (Dec 29, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Well, if we're being honest here:
> There is no sign of the R1, R5 high res and there was absolutely no indication the R6mkii was coming till a few days before it got announced so that doesn't mean anything concerning a R/ RP successor. Furthermore, a RP/R won't need as much field testing as Canon does with their high-end models (maybe they don't even field test, I don't know...) so there are fewer "sources" to report to CR or other sites...
> 
> Anyway, lately Canon has become very good of not letting us what they're up to. Or the rumor sites have done a bad job in figuring it out.
> ...


I don't expect Canon to launch the mythical "R1" until 2025, if ever. The R3 seems to satisfy the needs of most event and press photographers who use the Canon system. Canon can't, or won't, compete in price with the Nikon Z9, so it seems pretty pointless at this time to launch an "R1".

Same goes for the "R5s" - I just don't think there is sufficient demand. The 45MP of the bog standard R5 is more than enough for 99% of Canon users, and while Canon could produce a 100MP-ish sensor, I think wise folk who genuinely need/want super-resolution are more likely to be tempted by a Fujifilm anyway.

You are right about the way Canon doesn't reveal its cards until the last moment - none of us actually know what they are up to, almost everything that gets "rumoured" here is pure speculation/wishlists combined with logical deduction.

Good luck with your quest for an R replacement, but I just can't see it. It would have to have IBIS and a better sensor to become an upgrade, and the R6/R6ii fit that bill. Of course they could introduce a "downgrade" in the form of an "R" with an older sensor, they do rather like to over-extend the lifetime of their sensors. But would it be worth buying?

Some kind of sub-$1000 body (possibly including a kit lens) is inevitable, but I don't think it will bear much similarity to the good ol' RP. More likely to be a vlogging contraption without an EVF..


----------



## entoman (Dec 29, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Let me phrase it in a different way:
> Do you believe Canon would have designed and starting selling the RF 15-30mm IF they didn't have an R/ RP based customers?


Well, yes I do. The 85mm macro, 600mm F11, 800mm F11 and 100-400mm certainly weren't designed exclusively or even primarily for R/RP users, they were designed as affordable high quality compact lenses, for users of *any* RF mount camera. I see many R5 and R6 birders here in the UK who have 600mm/800mm F11 on R6 and R5 bodies, and there are plenty of R5/R6 users snapping up the excellent 100-400mm. I'll grant you that the 24-240mm was probably designed for R/RP users though. I've seen very few 15-30mm lenses in use yet on any body, so it's difficult to know what bodies they are put on.

FWIW, I use the R5 and I've got a wide mix of glass including T/S-E 24mm, RF100-400mm, RF100-500mm, RF100mm macro, RF 24-105mm and RF 800mm F11. Few R5/6 owners can afford a 600mm F4 or a 800mm F5.6...

I think it's fairly common for users to have a mix of EF-adapted glass, and both L and non-L RF glass.

I think I've laboured my opinion long enough now (probably too long) so I'll just wish you luck and hope that the R/RP successor of your dreams becomes reality.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2022)

Deepboy said:


> But I don't think it was production cost; that would have been if they omitted shutterblades alltogether, manufacturing an electronic-shutter-only camera. It's just a firmware difference, I don't see any possible margin in omitting the shutter closing when turning off...


Good point, I wasn't aware the R10 has a mechanical shutter.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Dec 29, 2022)

Sporgon said:


> I thought the R5 was high megapixel.


I thought so too.


----------



## Deepboy (Dec 29, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Good point, I wasn't aware the R10 has a mechanical shutter.



Oh, ok, that changes all! 

I had given for granted that we were talking about a firmware castration (also because other people already agreed with me that "Canon should add the shutter closure in future firmware for R10"), because, to my knowledge (plese someone correct me if I'm wrong), there never has been any digital Canon ILC that omits the mechanical shutter, so I took for granted that everybody here is aware that all canon DSLR/Mirrorless (D, M, R series) have a mech shutter (at least to date).


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 30, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> As I said, it makes sense that most R10 users won’t change lenses much if ever. More logical that Canon decided that meant it was reasonable to omit the protective shutter to lower production cost (and thus increase margin).


Magic Lantern have demonstrated that they are able to program the RP to close the shutter when the camera is switched off. (I’m not sure if ML program is commercially available for the RP though and I’m not a fan of ML anyway).
The principle of closing the shutter over the sensor on a MILC is an interesting move by Canon; I like the concept from a ‘keep dust off the sensor’ principle, but I do wonder; those shutter curtains are incredibly delicate, on a 5DS you can make them flutter with a normal camera hand blower, and is why you mustn’t use aerosol powered air. I’d say the shutter curtains are more vulnerable than the sensor surface, and not just in the case of someone sticking their finger into the camera. For example if changing lenses in wet weather would a drop of water on the sensor have less detrimental effect (and easier to remove) than water on the shutter curtain ? 
Dropping the shutter when the camera is off is clearly a simple thing to do if ML’s efforts are anything to go by; it’s interesting that neither Nikon or Sony offer this.


----------



## Deepboy (Dec 30, 2022)

Sporgon said:


> those shutter curtains are incredibly delicate, on a 5DS you can make them flutter with a normal camera hand blower, and is why you mustn’t use aerosol powered air. I’d say the shutter curtains are more vulnerable than the sensor surface, and not just in the case of someone sticking their finger into the camera



Yeah, that's what I was thinking; and in Canon they surely did the same reasoning, so they probably decided to leave the shutter exposed only on the higher range of cameras.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 30, 2022)

Sporgon said:


> Magic Lantern have demonstrated that they are able to program the RP to close the shutter when the camera is switched off. (I’m not sure if ML program is commercially available for the RP though and I’m not a fan of ML anyway).
> The principle of closing the shutter over the sensor on a MILC is an interesting move by Canon; I like the concept from a ‘keep dust off the sensor’ principle, but I do wonder; those shutter curtains are incredibly delicate, on a 5DS you can make them flutter with a normal camera hand blower, and is why you mustn’t use aerosol powered air. I’d say the shutter curtains are more vulnerable than the sensor surface, and not just in the case of someone sticking their finger into the camera. For example if changing lenses in wet weather would a drop of water on the sensor have less detrimental effect (and easier to remove) than water on the shutter curtain ?
> Dropping the shutter when the camera is off is clearly a simple thing to do if ML’s efforts are anything to go by; it’s interesting that neither Nikon or Sony offer this.


Writing from memory, I recall that the Z9 does have a special guard-shutter, not connected with exposure. The arguments that Canon might have deliberately omitted the closing function as a safety feature are cogent. I have never had problems with dust on sensors with DSLRs as I treated them like a bacteriologist handling Petri dishes - open surfaces always facing down as far as possible and avoiding drafts.


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Dec 30, 2022)

Deepboy said:


> Oh, ok, that changes all!
> 
> I had given for granted that we were talking about a firmware castration (also because other people already agreed with me that "Canon should add the shutter closure in future firmware for R10"), because, to my knowledge (plese someone correct me if I'm wrong), there never has been any digital Canon ILC that omits the mechanical shutter, so I took for granted that everybody here is aware that all canon DSLR/Mirrorless (D, M, R series) have a mech shutter (at least to date).


Reading all this conversation about R10 and shutter, I would ask some more questions :
- Could the lack of IBIS on R10 be a part of Canon's decision (maybe considering the sensor "cage" is less fragile, making the sensor easier to clean without risk, or at least they may have balanced the risk on shutter vs the one on sensor) ?
- are shutters different in built quality from one camera to another and so, more or less prone to be "ruined" by manipulations?


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 30, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I have never had problems with dust on sensors with DSLRs as I treated them like a bacteriologist handling Petri dishes - open surfaces always facing down as far as possible and avoiding drafts.


Did you never own the original 5D Alan ? At f/16 the sensor used to look like a teenager’s face with a bad dose of acne.
An anecdotal point on sensor dust from personal experience: I mainly use primes now and change lenses a great deal, often in circumstances when perhaps I shouldn’t, yet I have very little dust issues now compared with when I used zoom lenses that physically extended , such as the 24-105 / 24-70 etc. From my experience I’d suggest that these types of zoom create more potential for dust on the sensor than changing lenses.


----------



## Deepboy (Dec 30, 2022)

Pierre Lagarde said:


> Reading all this conversation about R10 and shutter, I would ask some more questions :
> - Could the lack of IBIS on R10 be a part of Canon's decision (maybe considering the sensor "cage" is less fragile, making the sensor easier to clean without risk, or at least they may have balanced the risk on shutter vs the one on sensor) ?
> - are shutters different in built quality from one camera to another and so, more or less prone to be "ruined" by manipulations?



- No, sensor with IS shouldn't be more fragile
- Built quality is different from the perspective of duration (100k shots vs 150k, or 300k...more the camera is "pro", more the shutter will endure before crashing), but not from the "fragility to the touch" perspective; in that regards they're all really, and equally, fragile


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 30, 2022)

Pierre Lagarde said:


> at least they may have balanced the risk on shutter vs the one on sensor) ?
> - are shutters different in built quality from one camera to another and so, more or less prone to be "ruined" by manipulations?


Shutters do vary in their weight and strength, yes. The Canon 5DS / Sr ‘s are paper thin and I’ve seen pictures of ones that have been bent and damaged by someone using an aerosol air jet on them. 
Judging by the sound of the shutters on the RP I assume they’re made from steel plate.


----------



## entoman (Dec 30, 2022)

Sporgon said:


> Shutters do vary in their weight and strength, yes. The Canon 5DS / Sr ‘s are paper thin and I’ve seen pictures of ones that have been bent and damaged by someone using an aerosol air jet on them.
> Judging by the sound of the shutters on the RP I assume they’re made from steel plate.


Yes, if Canon ever launch a RP replacement, the upgrade needs a quieter shutter!


----------



## Bob Howland (Dec 30, 2022)

Sporgon said:


> Did you never own the original 5D Alan ? At f/16 the sensor used to look like a teenager’s face with a bad dose of acne.


I did and you're right!! My 5D3 has no problem whatsoever with dust .


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Dec 30, 2022)

Deepboy said:


> - No, sensor with IS shouldn't be more fragile
> - Built quality is different from the perspective of duration (100k shots vs 150k, or 300k...more the camera is "pro", more the shutter will endure before crashing), but not from the "fragility to the touch" perspective; in that regards they're all really, and equally, fragile


IMHO "should" is the right verb. I'm still convinced that adding some potentially "floating" mechanism to a sensor cage, even if parked, can only add weakness to the whole thing. At least, it adds parts that can be damaged and may be more complicated for beginners (which goes your way of thinking, I guess). I found this at Lenrental on the subject : 
"Cameras with in-body image stabilization have a mode that allows demobilization which makes cleaning easier. It is of utmost importance to make sure this is activated before cleaning the sensor. Not doing so can damage the stabilization mechanism which will require the camera to be sent back to the manufacturer."
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/04/guide-to-cleaning-your-camera-sensor/

About duration : aren't more durable shutters a whole sturdier ? That would sound logical.


----------



## Deepboy (Dec 30, 2022)

Pierre Lagarde said:


> IMHO "should" is the right verb. I'm still convinced that adding some potentially "floating" mechanism to a sensor cage, even if parked, can only add weakness to the whole thing. At least, it adds parts that can be damaged and may be more complicated for beginners (which goes your way of thinking, I guess). I found this at Lenrental on the subject :
> "Cameras with in-body image stabilization have a mode that allows demobilization which makes cleaning easier. It is of utmost importance to make sure this is activated before cleaning the sensor. Not doing so can damage the stabilization mechanism which will require the camera to be sent back to the manufacturer."
> https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/04/guide-to-cleaning-your-camera-sensor/
> 
> About duration : aren't more durable shutters a whole sturdier ? That would sound logical.



About the R10, apart from possible fragility of the IBIS when cleaning, I think it's just a reasonable market segmentation; if R10 had IBIS, the R7 would sound much closer in specs and less desirable.
For me a R7 is more desirable for 1- IBIS 2- cLOG (only if you're an avid video shooter) 3- better battery 4- double slot (would be pressing only for wedding photographers), with IBIS being the most interesting of the four.
If R10 had IBIS, either you shoot weddings (double slot) or you do more video then photo (cLOG); any other situation, I wouldn't see why spend 50% more for the R7, even with the better battery, as you now can charge and operate cameras via USB-C power delivery.
(and actually, R10's second dial on top, compared to R7's second dial around the joystick, is actually more desirable; being an R6 shooter, I definitely prefer R10's control's layout, which is REALLY close to an R6).

Duration; on pro cameras the shutter operating motor is stronger and more durable, but actually (someone was already talking about 5DR's shutter being really thin) would be logic that the better shutter has lighter curtains (for example, being able to shoot at 1/8000s vs the 1/4000s of low tier bodies) to be faster and more precise, so I wouldn't be surprised if a pro camera has a more delicate shutter when manipulating it.


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Dec 30, 2022)

Deepboy said:


> About the R10, apart from possible fragility of the IBIS when cleaning, I think it's just a reasonable market segmentation; if R10 had IBIS, the R7 would sound much closer in specs and less desirable.
> For me a R7 is more desirable for 1- IBIS 2- cLOG (only if you're an avid video shooter) 3- better battery 4- double slot (would be pressing only for wedding photographers), with IBIS being the most interesting of the four.
> If R10 had IBIS, either you shoot weddings (double slot) or you do more video then photo (cLOG); any other situation, I wouldn't see why spend 50% more for the R7, even with the better battery, as you now can charge and operate cameras via USB-C power delivery.
> (and actually, R10's second dial on top, compared to R7's second dial around the joystick, is actually more desirable; being an R6 shooter, I definitely prefer R10's control's layout, which is REALLY close to an R6).
> ...


That sounds fair. For the rest, I wasn't discussing of segmentation and personal preferences, but I do get yours.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 30, 2022)

Sporgon said:


> Did you never own the original 5D Alan ? At f/16 the sensor used to look like a teenager’s face with a bad dose of acne.
> An anecdotal point on sensor dust from personal experience: I mainly use primes now and change lenses a great deal, often in circumstances when perhaps I shouldn’t, yet I have very little dust issues now compared with when I used zoom lenses that physically extended , such as the 24-105 / 24-70 etc. From my experience I’d suggest that these types of zoom create more potential for dust on the sensor than changing lenses.


300D, 450D, 7D, 7DII, 5DIII, 5DIV, 90D and 5DSR, but not the original 5D. Never changed lenses with the 300D and 450D, and since then my bodies had good shake clean. The mythical dust-pump activity of the original EF 100-400mm didn't seem to affect the 7D - mind you, my copy was so soft it would have done an analogue skin smooth of an acned teenager.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 30, 2022)

Sporgon said:


> Shutters do vary in their weight and strength, yes. The Canon 5DS / Sr ‘s are paper thin and I’ve seen pictures of ones that have been bent and damaged by someone using an aerosol air jet on them.
> Judging by the sound of the shutters on the RP I assume they’re made from steel plate.


Interesting - Canon worked hard to minimise shutter shock on those.


----------



## Deepboy (Dec 30, 2022)

Pierre Lagarde said:


> That sounds fair. For the rest, I wasn't discussing of segmentation and personal preferences, but I do get yours.



I talked about segmentations just to argue that the missing IBIS on R10 wasn't certanly due to a possibile fragility of the system when used by the average user, contrary to the shutter curtains which are easier to damage then the IBIS on the sensor, and so the non-closing shutter was probably a practical choice from Canon rather then market segmentation


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Dec 30, 2022)

Deepboy said:


> I talked about segmentations just to argue that the missing IBIS on R10 wasn't certanly due to a possibile fragility of the system when used by the average user, contrary to the shutter curtains which are easier to damage then the IBIS on the sensor, and so the non-closing shutter was probably a practical choice from Canon rather then market segmentation


Well, I never wrote (or may I say mean) that the missing IBIS on R10 was due to a possible fragility of the system when used by average users (to me it's just cheaper without it if we're looking for a reason). I asked about the fact that this missing IBIS could be a one more reason (in addition to the reasons you gave that I agree with) for having less the necessity of having the ability to close the shutter... that's quite different.
Maybe I wasn't clear (english is not my mother tongue).


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 30, 2022)

entoman said:


> I think wise folk who genuinely need/want super-resolution are more likely to be tempted by a Fujifilm anyway


I heard people say the same thing about RF mount APS-C cameras but here we are.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 30, 2022)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I thought so too.


High megapixel for an R5.
80-100 MP.
The only way I do not see it happening is if the R5 II has 60 MP.
Canon will not just sit back and let Sony have more megapixels when competing with the R5 and R6.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 30, 2022)

Deepboy said:


> I talked about segmentations just to argue that the missing IBIS on R10


It is my belief that IBIS was left out of the R10 to make it both smaller and cheaper.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 30, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I have never had problems with dust on sensors with DSLRs


A DSLR has a mirror for protection


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 30, 2022)

Pierre Lagarde said:


> Could the lack of IBIS on R10 be a part of Canon's decision (maybe considering the sensor "cage" is less fragile, making the sensor easier to clean without risk, or at least they may have balanced the risk on shutter vs the one on sensor) ?


Actually, someone pointed out to me that IBIS takes a lot of power and the R10 has a tiny battery.


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Dec 30, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Actually, someone pointed out to me that IBIS takes a lot of power and the R10 has a tiny battery.


I see that the way I wrote my question lead to misunderstanding... see my post #154.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 30, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> A DSLR has a mirror for protection


See @Sporgon comments on the 5D.


----------



## Deepboy (Dec 30, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Actually, someone pointed out to me that IBIS takes a lot of power and the R10 has a tiny battery.



Yeah, I never thought about it, but it makes totally sense; the battery is REALLY crap!

With the R6 in can squeeze al least double (900/1000 using the viewfinder) of the CIPA rated shots, while with the R10 I'm just around (250/280 shots using viewfinder) the CIPA ratings.

Probably with IBIS the R10 wouldn't feature more then 200 shots is real life, and without the existence of a vertical grip, you really are changing batteries very often; I can shoot an entire wedding day on R6 with a single LP-E6, but i would need at least three LP-E17 to to the same with the R10.


----------



## Jethro (Dec 30, 2022)

Deepboy said:


> Yeah, I never thought about it, but it makes totally sense; the battery is REALLY crap!
> 
> With the R6 in can squeeze al least double (900/1000 using the viewfinder) of the CIPA rated shots, while with the R10 I'm just around (250/280 shots using viewfinder) the CIPA ratings.
> 
> Probably with IBIS the R10 wouldn't feature more then 200 shots is real life, and without the existence of a vertical grip, you really are changing batteries very often; I can shoot an entire wedding day on R6 with a single LP-E6, but i would need at least three LP-E17 to to the same with the R10.


As has been pointed out, the R10 is aimed at being much smaller / lighter - for comparison it is 382g (429g with card and battery) as compared to the R7 (530 g (612g with card and LP-E6 battery)) or the R6 (598 g (680 g with card and battery)), and the battery reflects that, even before IBIS starts chewing it up. In any case I'm not sure it's an obvious choice to shoot a wedding.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 31, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> I had to remove a snake(Russell's viper) from a house in my neighbourhood, here is comparison between Xt30(3 year old camera) vs R7(with a "new" sensor according to Canon)(when it comes to APS-C systems Sony and Nikon both are in same boat as Canon i.e. they treat these cameras like unwanted Step child(though Sony has built up few lenses for the system over the years while they keep the best tech for their FF bodies)). Having BSI sensor certainly improves IQ compared to Front side illuminated sensor. Stacked sensors are different to BSI(and it seems they certainly are more expensive to produce currently) and they seem to be more suited for applications which require faster read speeds(sports/wildlife oriented cameras this generation around all have stacked BSI sensors).
> View attachment 206905
> 
> 
> ...



The difference can be fully accounted for by the difference in size between a 1.5X APS-C sensor and a 1.6X APS-C sensor. The Canon APS-C sensors have roughly 90% the surface area of the 1.5X sensors. (332 mm² vs 369 mm²).


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 31, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> A DSLR has a mirror for protection



The mirror is a two edged sword. When it flips up and down it fans air inside the light box that moves dust around, so dust that originally lands near the front of the light box or on the mirror can eventually wind up on the sensor stack due to the mirror flipping up and down.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 31, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Sony has the A7mk iii (sells for around 1.600 - 1.700 €) and the A7 mk iii (sells for less than 1.000 € now).



What's the difference between the A7mk iii which sells for around 1.600-1.700 € and the A7 mk iii which sells for less than 1.000 € now?


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 31, 2022)

Sporgon said:


> Did you never own the original 5D Alan ? At f/16 the sensor used to look like a teenager’s face with a bad dose of acne.
> An anecdotal point on sensor dust from personal experience: I mainly use primes now and change lenses a great deal, often in circumstances when perhaps I shouldn’t, yet I have very little dust issues now compared with when I used zoom lenses that physically extended , such as the 24-105 / 24-70 etc. From my experience I’d suggest that these types of zoom create more potential for dust on the sensor than changing lenses.



I've never had to manually clean an APS-C sensor while shooting at least one-third of a million frames with them, mostly sports/action.

But the last time I used anything besides either an EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II or a Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OSM | Sports on an APS-C body was in 2011. Neither lens changes external volume when zooming, and I rarely change either lens when in the field.

I've had to clean all of my FF sensors a few times even though I tend to shoot far fewer frames per year with them.

I do tend to change lenses much more often on the FF bodies, and more frequently in the field. Two of my most used lenses on the FF bodies are the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS and the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L, both of which change volume significantly as they are zoomed to different focal lengths. When using primes, mostly an EF 35mm f/2 IS, EF 50mm f/1.4, EF 85mm f/1.8, and EF 135mm f/2 L, I tend to change them even more often than the zooms. The 50mm changes volume as the focus position changes, the others do not.

So it's hard for me to tell if it's the higher frequency of lens changes in less than ideal environments or if it is the use of zoom lenses that change volume significantly as they are zoomed that allow more dust to wind up on the front of the sensor stack.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Dec 31, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> What's the difference between the A7mk iii which sells for around 1.600-1.700 € and the A7 mk iii which sells for less than 1.000 € now?


Higher ISO 
better continuous AF 
higher FPS 
4k video
For full comparison feel free to look here:

https://cameradecision.com/compare/Sony-Alpha-A7-III-vs-Sony-Alpha-A7-II 

Compared to the RP the A7mk ii looks like a better/ more attractive option with only the missing 4k as a letdown... but that's just comparing the specs sheets, not my experience from using both cameras...


----------



## koenkooi (Jan 1, 2023)

CP+ is 23-26 Feb, so that's almost 2 months from now instead of the 1 month I was hoping for. Maybe "ahead of CP+" could be February 1st


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jan 1, 2023)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Compared to the RP the A7mk ii looks like a better/ more attractive option with only the missing 4k as a letdown... but that's just comparing the specs sheets, not my experience from using both cameras...


It does not show up in the specs but the a7 II kind of sucks.
This is not Sony hate.
The a7 III and a7 IV are perfectly fine.


----------



## Czardoom (Jan 1, 2023)

EOS 4 Life said:


> It does not show up in the specs but the a7 II kind of sucks.
> This is not Sony hate.
> The a7 III and a7 IV are perfectly fine.


Totally agree. It took until the 3rd generation for Sony to fix all that was wrong with the first 2 generations of the A7. I bought one to replace my 6D at the time and luckily it took almost no time to realize that the only thing Sony had to brag about was the sensor. I still remember taking it out that first day and looking through the EVF and then reaching up to remove my sunglasses....only I wasn't wearing any. Camera underexposed by 1.5 to 2 stops, ergonomics were (and alas still are) awful. Color was bad, JPGs were bad, well, I think you get the drift.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 2, 2023)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Higher ISO
> better continuous AF
> higher FPS
> 4k video
> ...



That's the difference between the α7 II and α7 III. Your original comment was comparing the "A7mk III" to the "A7 mk III".


----------



## Birdshooter (Jan 2, 2023)

tonblom said:


> How old is the EOS 5D Mark III? First release March 2012! I hope you don't have any apple hardware they abandoned, because you would certainly NOT buy any apple products anymore.
> 
> How is this relevant for an EOS R8 announcement?
> 
> ...


----------



## SnowMiku (Jan 2, 2023)

I would like to see an RP successor with the original R6 sensor and the R10 focusing system. It would have a low mechanical FPS, no continuous FPS for the electronic shutter and lower video capabilities, the R10 battery and I wouldn't care if it had the 30min recording limit but it must have an EVF. I wonder if there would be a market for a camera like this?


----------



## chong67 (Jan 2, 2023)

SnowMiku said:


> I would like to see an RP successor with the original R6 sensor and the R10 focusing system. It would have a low mechanical FPS, no continuous FPS for the electronic shutter and lower video capabilities, the R10 battery and I wouldn't care if it had the 30min recording limit but it must have an EVF. I wonder if there would be a market for a camera like this?



Yes I too want to see a RP successor with a smaller body.


----------



## koenkooi (Jan 2, 2023)

SnowMiku said:


> I would like to see an RP successor with the original R6 sensor and the R10 focusing system. It would have a low mechanical FPS, no continuous FPS for the electronic shutter and lower video capabilities, the R10 battery and I wouldn't care if it had the 30min recording limit but it must have an EVF. I wonder if there would be a market for a camera like this?


Why do you want Canon to actively limit the capabilities? So far they’ve not artificially limited the fps on any R body, it would be a shame if they started doing that.


----------



## Deepboy (Jan 2, 2023)

koenkooi said:


> Why do you want Canon to actively limit the capabilities? So far they’ve not artificially limited the fps on any R body, it would be a shame if they started doing that.



Because they maybe will be offering, due to marketing segmentation, a castrated camera for a lower price, and lower prices are good?
Not everyone needs fast fps; actually, I shoot digital since the 10D (thru 20D, 550D, 100D, 60D, 5D, 5DII, 6D, now R6 and R10, so I had a few...) and I don't recall EVER moving the drive from single shot (apart from self timer/remote when needed), I probably never took a burst in my entire life.
In the past I knew the dot pitch of the single photo sensor of my cameras, but I don't know which is the frame rate of my actual and past cameras, it's just a specification I don't register in my brain even if I read it because is totally useless to me.

So, if Canon would release an RP successor *with locked 1fps*, the R6 sensor (but even the "old" R 30mpx sensor is totally fine for me), but with processor, AF and video capabilities of the R6/R10 (even 4k50p crop is fine, as long as there's full DPAF on all video res/framerates), for the same price of an RP (around 1000€/$), I'll sell my R6 and buy one RP II immediately; there are people, I'll do my example, who feels the R6 is already an overkill for them, I'll gladly renounce to double slot and high frame rates (if any frame rate!) for a smaller and cheaper camera, if AF and video are on par with today standards (and in fact, as backup to R6, for the same price I got an R10, not an RP).

If they release a castrated camera there's no one forcing you to buy it, you'll wait for the next, or switch to another brand that offers you what you need for the price you like


----------



## Kit. (Jan 2, 2023)

Deepboy said:


> Because they maybe will be offering, due to marketing segmentation, a castrated camera for a lower price, and lower prices are good?


Lower prices are bad for Canon.



Deepboy said:


> So, if Canon would release an RP successor *with locked 1fps*, the R6 sensor (but even the "old" R 30mpx sensor is totally fine for me), but with processor, AF and video capabilities of the R6/R10 (even 4k50p crop is fine, as long as there's full DPAF on all video res/framerates), for the same price of an RP (around 1000€/$), I'll sell my R6 and buy one RP II immediately;


Which means that instead of selling a camera for $2K to the potential buyer of your used R6, Canon will sell a camera for $1K to you.

Why would Canon want that?


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 2, 2023)

SnowMiku said:


> I would like to see an RP successor with the original R6 sensor and the R10 focusing system. It would have a low mechanical FPS, no continuous FPS for the electronic shutter and lower video capabilities, the R10 battery and I wouldn't care if it had the 30min recording limit but it must have an EVF. I wonder if there would be a market for a camera like this?


I don’t think Canon would reduce the mp in their base FF model as at that level of the market, generally, it could be perceived as a downgrade. However like you I too would love an RP with the R6 sensor. My guess would be that the next incarnation of the R ‘Popular’ would get the sensor from the 5DIV / R, and a very fine one it is too.


----------



## SnowMiku (Jan 3, 2023)

koenkooi said:


> Why do you want Canon to actively limit the capabilities? So far they’ve not artificially limited the fps on any R body, it would be a shame if they started doing that.


I was just thinking market segmentation for an entry level FF, and I'm trying to be realistic about the features. I personally wouldn't care if they made the electronic shutter single mode only and maybe 3-5 FPS mechanical. It wouldn't effect the mid range/high end FF models.



Sporgon said:


> I don’t think Canon would reduce the mp in their base FF model as at that level of the market, generally, it could be perceived as a downgrade. However like you I too would love an RP with the R6 sensor. My guess would be that the next incarnation of the R ‘Popular’ would get the sensor from the 5DIV / R, and a very fine one it is too.



I was thinking the same thing that the market would most likely perceive the R6 20MP vs RP 26MP as a downgrade


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jan 3, 2023)

Kit. said:


> Lower prices are bad for Canon.


Not necessarily.
If Canon sells significantly more at a lower price then they will make more money.


----------



## Kit. (Jan 3, 2023)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Not necessarily.
> If Canon sells significantly more at a lower price then they will make more money.


Not necessarily.
If Canon sells "at a lower price" at loss, they will actually lose money.

In the particular discussed case, Canon would sell exactly the same number of units, of almost the same hardware (except for the second SD card slot, IBIS, shutter, and a couple of controls), but for $1000 less.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jan 3, 2023)

Kit. said:


> Not necessarily.
> If Canon sells "at a lower price" at loss, they will actually lose money.
> 
> In the particular discussed case, Canon would sell exactly the same number of units, of almost the same hardware (except for the second SD card slot, IBIS, shutter, and a couple of controls), but for $1000 less.


Do a search on "Price Elasticity", "Price Elasticity of Demand" and "Price Elasticity of Supply".


----------



## Kit. (Jan 3, 2023)

Bob Howland said:


> Do a search on "Price Elasticity", "Price Elasticity of Demand" and "Price Elasticity of Supply".


Care to elaborate? What news about price elasticity am I supposed to find these days?


----------



## John Wilde (Jan 3, 2023)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Not necessarily.
> If Canon sells significantly more at a lower price then they will make more money.


That's not the approach that Canon is taking.

"As for operating profit, an increase in the proportion of sales attributable to the highly profitable EOS R system of mirrorless cameras and lenses, increased profitability [operating profit percentage] to 18.0%."

- Canon financial document


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jan 3, 2023)

John Wilde said:


> That's not the approach that Canon is taking.
> 
> "As for operating profit, an increase in the proportion of sales attributable to the highly profitable EOS R system of mirrorless cameras and lenses, increased profitability [operating profit percentage] to 18.0%."
> 
> - Canon financial document


Canon still sells The Rebel T7 and T100 for less than $400 USD including a kit lens.
Rumors of an R50 and R100 point to a similar approach in the future.
Sure the R6, R5, and R3 sold well, but Canon never stopped selling the RP and then added the R7 and R10.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jan 3, 2023)

Kit. said:


> If Canon sells "at a lower price" at loss, they will actually lose money.


If Canon sells at a higher price at a loss then they will also lose money.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jan 4, 2023)

EOS 4 Life said:


> If Canon sells at a higher price at a loss then they will also lose money.


Selling "at a higher price at a loss" implies that the profit above RE (Recurring expenses) at a lower sales volume is insufficient to recover the NRE (Non-recurring expenses) required to make the first one, things like the R&D, cost of setting up the production area and rollout expenses.

Selling at a lower price at a loss implies the same thing except that the profit per each unit is lower while the sales volume is higher. That's where price elasticity comes in. (See my previous post in this thread. I'm not going to explain it.) The price _must not_ be less than the RE.


----------



## Jethro (Jan 4, 2023)

Bob Howland said:


> Selling "at a higher price at a loss" implies that the profit above RE (Recurring expenses) at a lower sales volume is insufficient to recover the NRE (Non-recurring expenses) required to make the first one, things like the R&D, cost of setting up the production area and rollout expenses.
> 
> Selling at a lower price at a loss implies the same thing except that the profit per each unit is lower while the sales volume is higher. That's where price elasticity comes in. (See my previous post in this thread. I'm not going to explain it.) The price _must not_ be less than the RE.


You're right, but there can be complications. Some manufacturers will sell articles at (or even below) RE (or whatever measure they use), on the basis that they are going to make their profit on continuing related sales. 

An example is some motor vehicles, which are relatively cheap to buy, but come with contracts for over-priced servicing using overpriced 'original' spare parts. Lower price printers are another example - where the printer itself is ridiculously underpriced but will really only work properly (without eg constant nagging reminders) with overpriced 'original' toners / inks. I think they call this 'cross elasticity', where the price of one article (eg the lower than expected price of the printer) has an effect (+ve) on sales of a related article (overpriced toner). The related product (ink) then is considered 'price inelastic' because an increase in price won't have much effect on the demand from tied-in buyers of the original good (printer)!

To what extent this applies to camera makers I'm not sure. You could say that Canon (as an example) is keeping a pretty firm hold on the production and sale of RF mount lenses, ie in not allowing open access to connecting software, so they could theoretically sell R bodies relatively cheaply on the basis they expect to make up the foregone profit on relatively overpriced lenses. Speculation, obviously ...


----------



## entoman (Jan 4, 2023)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Canon still sells The Rebel T7 and T100 for less than $400 USD including a kit lens.
> Rumors of an R50 and R100 point to a similar approach in the future.
> Sure the R6, R5, and R3 sold well, but Canon never stopped selling the RP and then added the R7 and R10.


Canon have themselves stated in interviews that they will be concentrating in future on high-end, high-profit products, but as you imply, it ain't as simple as that. It's absolutely vital that they continue to attract *new* customers, i.e. novices, and that means they have no choice but to also produce budget models *and* budget lenses. I suspect that most, if not all of the budget models (below R10) will be designed and targeted for the vlogging sector. So a whole lot more inane "content" is assured.


----------



## mpmark (Jan 5, 2023)

What on earth is the point of a Camera between an R7 and an R10? How many nearly the same cameras do you need? Focus on an R1 already. not this 5% difference budget cameras.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 5, 2023)

mpmark said:


> What on earth is the point of a Camera between an R7 and an R10? How many nearly the same cameras do you need? Focus on an R1 already. not this 5% difference budget cameras.


You mean the 5% budget difference for cameras that cost 1/10th of what the R1 will cost, but will sell hundreds of times more units? It’s ok that you don’t know much about Canon’s revenue sources. Canon knows where to place their R&D priorities.


----------



## Jethro (Jan 6, 2023)

mpmark said:


> What on earth is the point of a Camera between an R7 and an R10? How many nearly the same cameras do you need? Focus on an R1 already. not this 5% difference budget cameras.


Well, one point might be that it is rumoured to be an M6 II replacement, with a noticeably different 'form factor' to the R7 and R10. Those Canon users who have been used to the smaller M mount-sized bodies will probably be very pleased if that turns out to be true. Those waiting for an R1 are, mostly, having a great time using the very capable R3.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 6, 2023)

Jethro said:


> Well, one point might be that it is rumoured to be an M6 II replacement, with a noticeably different 'form factor' to the R7 and R10. Those Canon users who have been used to the smaller M mount-sized bodies will probably be very pleased if that turns out to be true. Those waiting for an R1 are, mostly, having a great time using the very capable R3.


Both of those points describe me. 

Meanwhile, as we wait for news of an R8 or an R1, this forum remains a wellspring of amusement when individuals like @mpmark think they know more about making and selling cameras than the company that’s led the ILC market for 20 years.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 6, 2023)

I realize that I am not a typical Canon customer, but I really had hoped that with the RP Canon was going to concentrate on low-cost full frame bodies. In the film days it was so simple: every SLR (except for a few specialized models) followed the 35mm (full frame) format. No confusion over lenses, crop factors, etc. etc. 

I actually thought that when Canon created the RP they were opening the door to once again standardize the format. APS-C made sense when sensor production was prohibitively expensive, but is that really the case today? Perhaps it is just impossible to get a full frame body down to the sales price of an APS-C body, but I can't help thinking they could get close.

I'm not even convinced that size is an issue. Anyone who owned a full frame SLR knows how much smaller they were than today's supersized bodies. And, those were bodies that had to leave room for film cassettes and take up reels, along with having a reflex mirror. Given how much computing power is packed into your typical I-phone there should be plenty of room for electronics in a small full frame body. 

With the new RF-S lenses Canon is once again creating a two-tiered system that will confuse new buyers and leave them with lenses that, if they ever move to a full frame body, will produce images of significantly reduced resolution. 

I know Canon has decided to go a different direction and I know they understand the market better than I do, but I still wish they would have taken the opportunity with the R system to keep it simple.


----------



## Jethro (Jan 6, 2023)

unfocused said:


> With the new RF-S lenses Canon is once again creating a two-tiered system that will confuse new buyers and leave them with lenses that, if they ever move to a full frame body, will produce images of significantly reduced resolution.
> 
> I know Canon has decided to go a different direction and I know they understand the market better than I do, but I still wish they would have taken the opportunity with the R system to keep it simple.


I'm not sure we know in a final sense where Canon are heading with these bodies. The RP (and the R) are looking like one-off transitional bodies to start the process of moving users away from FF DSLRs. It looks like we'll end up with R6/R5/R3/R1 for FF (ranked from lower $s) and R7/R8/R10 in APS-C (ranked from highest $s), but who knows whether there are plans for 1 or more other bodies (FF or APS-C) aimed at the lower $ range, as they phase out the XXD, XXXD and M series over time? 

I'd personally love to see a more direct RP replacement (and I think there were rumours a while back of a lower $ FF), but the recent multiple APS-C bodies may signal it won't happen.

I take your point on the RF-S lenses as well, although some of the FF lenses look as if they were co-designed to fit well on the APS-C bodies (including with 1.6 magnification).


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jan 6, 2023)

Jethro said:


> Those waiting for an R1 are, mostly, having a great time using the very capable R3.


Either that or the R5 with a battery grip


----------



## entoman (Jan 6, 2023)

unfocused said:


> APS-C made sense when sensor production was prohibitively expensive, but is that really the case today?


I only currently own FF gear, but I believe there is a strong case for producing APS-C bodies. They are cheaper than equivalent FF bodies, and have a major advantage in "reach", which is invaluable to sports and wildlife photographers. If you don't need the extra reach, you still have the advantage of being able to use lighter, cheaper lenses to get the same angle of view (compared to FF).

As camera and sensor technology progresses, I actually think there will ultimately be a move *away* from FF and back to smaller formats. Olympus/OM Systems have shown that even M43 can produce professional results, and can more easily incorporate techniques such as hand-held pixel-shift with moving subjects, that rely on fast bursts and in-camera merging, in conjunction with "AI".


----------



## esspy2 (Jan 7, 2023)

Really hoping the R8 comes with an A7RV screen, but it’s probably the Fuji style 2-axis screen 

Also hoping for the 1.62 or 1.84 million dot screens


----------



## Czardoom (Jan 7, 2023)

entoman said:


> I only currently own FF gear, but I believe there is a strong case for producing APS-C bodies. They are cheaper than equivalent FF bodies, and have a major advantage in "reach", which is invaluable to sports and wildlife photographers. If you don't need the extra reach, you still have the advantage of being able to use lighter, cheaper lenses to get the same angle of view (compared to FF).
> 
> As camera and sensor technology progresses, I actually think there will ultimately be a move *away* from FF and back to smaller formats. Olympus/OM Systems have shown that even M43 can produce professional results, and can more easily incorporate techniques such as hand-held pixel-shift with moving subjects, that rely on fast bursts and in-camera merging, in conjunction with "AI".


There is clearly a push by Canon, Sony, Nikon to get people into Full Frame. And internet and YouTube influencers have certainly pushed the FF agenda for years now, in some cases clearly biased and clearly doing there best to kill certain crop sensor lines and even Micro Four Thirds in general. And yet, crop sensor cameras have always outsold FF by a wide margin. That margin seems to be narrowing - and my guess the main reason is because of that internet influence, as the younger generation especially seems prone to getting virtually all their information online. But as a photographer for over 40 years and almost 20 years now with digital equipment, I find that I use the crop bodies far more than FF and find crop to be far more versatile, in many cases due to the very things you mention. Personally, I think that without all the FF hype on the internet and YouTube, crop cameras would be gaining in popularity, especially as their major shorcoming - the additional noise - becomes almost a total non-factor with software such as Topaz and DXO PureRaw2. Sure, portrait and studio shooters and those needing thin DOF will always be better off using FF, but crop has more advantages, in my opinion.


----------



## koenkooi (Jan 7, 2023)

Czardoom said:


> There is clearly a push by Canon, Sony, Nikon to get people into Full Frame. And internet and YouTube influencers have certainly pushed the FF agenda for years now, in some cases clearly biased and clearly doing there best to kill certain crop sensor lines and even Micro Four Thirds in general. And yet, crop sensor cameras have always outsold FF by a wide margin. That margin seems to be narrowing - and my guess the main reason is because of that internet influence, as the younger generation especially seems prone to getting virtually all their information online. But as a photographer for over 40 years and almost 20 years now with digital equipment, I find that I use the crop bodies far more than FF and find crop to be far more versatile, in many cases due to the very things you mention. Personally, I think that without all the FF hype on the internet and YouTube, crop cameras would be gaining in popularity, especially as their major shorcoming - the additional noise - becomes almost a total non-factor with software such as Topaz and DXO PureRaw2. Sure, portrait and studio shooters and those needing thin DOF will always be better off using FF, but crop has more advantages, in my opinion.


I mostly agree with you. The main reason that I wanted to go from APS-C to FF was to fit larger insects (e.g. wasps) in the frame with the MP-E65mm. Going from 7D+M50 to RP+M6II gave me a lot of flexibility and I could mix the cameras and bodies if I wanted to. But now that I have replaced more and more EF lenses with RF variants, and seeing how far ahead the R5 is to the M6II, I find myself looking for a smaller R body. It being APS-C or FF doesn't really matter, I've come to appreciate how wide you can go on FF with the RF16 and using the 100-500 on a small-ish body wouldn't happen a lot.

So for me it's more about body size and form factor, less about sensor size. And after renting an R7: the auto-level feature using IBIS saves me a lot of horizon straightening in post


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 7, 2023)

Czardoom said:


> There is clearly a push by Canon, Sony, Nikon to get people into Full Frame. And internet and YouTube influencers have certainly pushed the FF agenda for years now, in some cases clearly biased and clearly doing their best to kill certain crop sensor lines and even Micro Four Thirds in general. And yet, crop sensor cameras have always outsold FF by a wide margin. That margin seems to be narrowing - and my guess the main reason is because of that internet influence, as the younger generation especially seems prone to getting virtually all their information online.


Full frame bodies and lenses seem to have a higher margin, so moving people from APS-C to FF means more profit for the manufacturer. 

APS-C cameras have always outsold FF cameras, simply because they’re cheaper. I think what’s driving the ‘shift’ to FF is really an extension of the replacement of low end of the camera market with smartphones. Years ago, phones weren’t ‘real cameras’ and those who wanted to take pictures bought a P&S. The upgrade from that was an APS-C DSLR. 

Today, phones are real cameras (albeit needing more post-processing, but that’s automatic), and the smartphones people are buying cost more than entry-level ILC kits, reducing the demand for APS-C bodies both from an imaging and a budget standpoint. 

Fewer people are buying entry-level ILCs, so the relative proportion of FF cameras sold is increasing. 



Czardoom said:


> But as a photographer for over 40 years and almost 20 years now with digital equipment, I find that I use the crop bodies far more than FF and find crop to be far more versatile, in many cases due to the very things you mention.


For me, it’s still about using the best tool for the job. For example, when shooting architecture the narrower FoV of a crop sensor wouldn’t work for me — there isn’t an 11mm TS-E lens for crop sensors.


----------



## entoman (Jan 7, 2023)

Czardoom said:


> There is clearly a push by Canon, Sony, Nikon to get people into Full Frame. And internet and YouTube influencers have certainly pushed the FF agenda for years now, in some cases clearly biased and clearly doing there best to kill certain crop sensor lines and even Micro Four Thirds in general. And yet, crop sensor cameras have always outsold FF by a wide margin. That margin seems to be narrowing - and my guess the main reason is because of that internet influence, as the younger generation especially seems prone to getting virtually all their information online. But as a photographer for over 40 years and almost 20 years now with digital equipment, I find that I use the crop bodies far more than FF and find crop to be far more versatile, in many cases due to the very things you mention. Personally, I think that without all the FF hype on the internet and YouTube, crop cameras would be gaining in popularity, especially as their major shorcoming - the additional noise - becomes almost a total non-factor with software such as Topaz and DXO PureRaw2. Sure, portrait and studio shooters and those needing thin DOF will always be better off using FF, but crop has more advantages, in my opinion.


Camera manufacturers will always need something "new and different" to market. They need to convince potential customers that whatever they currently have isn't good enough anymore. Full frame DSLRs provided the necessary hype for a few years, along with the quest for ever-increasing sensor resolution, video, and IBIS. All of these now incorporated into mirrorless FF bodies featuring a change of lens mount, that enables them to sell a whole new set of lenses as well as bodies.

But once a certain point is reached, people tend to ask themselves whether there is any point in upgrading to another basically similar design of camera. After all, our existing cameras are technologically more capable than the photographers behind them. So sooner or later, Canon etc will have to create another completely different line of cameras, and will have to convince us that they offer real benefits over what we currently use.

Once we reach the point (5 years?) where hand-held pixel shift for moving subjects is truly usable, smaller formats won't be at a disadvantage, and their positive aspects such as portability and their greater suitability for computational photography will be promoted by the marketing folk, and we'll all be craving for APS-C and M43. There will still be a demand for FF, but IMO the bulk of buyers will be using smaller formats in 5 years.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 7, 2023)

entoman said:


> There will still be a demand for FF, but IMO the bulk of buyers will be using smaller formats in 5 years.


Huh?!? 

The ‘bulk of buyers’ have used smaller formats for as long as digital cameras have been around. Even ignoring the P&S/bridge segmemt (which was larger than the ILC segment until recently), crop cameras comprised 90% of the ILC market until the last couple of years, over which it has shifted to ~85%.


----------



## entoman (Jan 7, 2023)

neuroanatomist said:


> Huh?!?
> 
> The ‘bulk of buyers’ have used smaller formats for as long as digital cameras have been around. Even ignoring the P&S/bridge segmemt (which was larger than the ILC segment until recently), crop cameras comprised 90% of the ILC market until the last couple of years, over which it has shifted to ~85%.


Indeed, I didn't phrase that very well .

What I was trying to say was that I think the bulk of *current FF users* will switch back to smaller formats in 5 years time. By then APS-C will probably have reached 50MP, and AI firmware, in conjunction with merging of bursts, will have virtually eliminated noise and generally improved IQ to a level that matches the best of today's FF cameras.

Of course, there will still be new FF and MF cameras made in 5 years time, but they will I think their usage will be mainly restricted to professionals and those with specialised interests.


----------



## Czardoom (Jan 7, 2023)

neuroanatomist said:


> ....
> 
> For me, it’s still about using the best tool for the job. For example, when shooting architecture the narrower FoV of a crop sensor wouldn’t work for me — there isn’t an 11mm TS-E lens for crop sensors.


And that's how it should be for everyone - they should get the camera that best suits there needs, not the camera that gets the most hype or that has the most YouTubers gushing over how great it is.


----------



## entoman (Jan 7, 2023)

Czardoom said:


> And that's how it should be for everyone - they should get the camera that best suits there needs, not the camera that gets the most hype or that has the most YouTubers gushing over how great it is.


The problem is that not everyone knows what camera best suits their needs:

Experienced photographers have usually used several cameras/lenses and have learned what they need and what they don't need. They also generally visit sites like dpreview, imaging resource etc, and consequently gain a pretty good insight into what's on offer, and choose their gear accordingly.

Novices on the other hand lack the experience or knowledge to understand what gear best suits their needs, and live in a youtube dominated world where people lack the patience to read written reviews and can't even be bothered to download and read instruction manuals. Many of them will ask a "photographer friend" for advice, but that advice is often biased towards the brand the photographer uses.

The best way to advise novices is to ask them exactly what type of subjects they want to photograph, how much they want to spend, and then give them a shortlist of models from various brands, and suggest that they visit a store and try out each of them in turn to see which model feels most comfortable and enjoyable to use.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 7, 2023)

entoman said:


> Indeed, I didn't phrase that very well .
> 
> What I was trying to say was that I think the bulk of *current FF users* will switch back to smaller formats in 5 years time. By then APS-C will probably have reached 50MP, and AI firmware, in conjunction with merging of bursts, will have virtually eliminated noise and generally improved IQ to a level that matches the best of today's FF cameras.
> 
> Of course, there will still be new FF and MF cameras made in 5 years time, but they will I think their usage will be mainly restricted to professionals and those with specialised interests.


Five years seems optimistic for a seismic shift. It's little more than one generation within a line.


----------



## entoman (Jan 7, 2023)

scyrene said:


> Five years seems optimistic for a seismic shift. It's little more than one generation within a line.


Quite possibly, I did consider 10 years as an alternative, but we already have a 40MP APS-C sensor from Fujifilm, and some quite advanced computational photography happening with Olympus/OM Systems, which is why I plumped for "5 years?".

Also, I think that the popularity of lenses such as the RF100-400mm, RF600mm F11 etc clearly show that many people are fed up with heavy gear, and will increasingly turn to smaller formats. The R7 may well prove to be Canon's biggest selling camera... let's see where things stand in a year's time.

Have you noticed that the OM Systems OM-1 actually took 2nd place in the Imaging Resource Reader's Choice Camera of the Year 2022?

I think that's quite a strong indication of where things will be heading.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 7, 2023)

entoman said:


> Quite possibly, I did consider 10 years as an alternative, but we already have a 40MP APS-C sensor from Fujifilm, and some quite advanced computational photography happening with Olympus/OM Systems, which is why I plumped for "5 years?".
> 
> Also, I think that the popularity of lenses such as the RF100-400mm, RF600mm F11 etc clearly show that many people are fed up with heavy gear, and will increasingly turn to smaller formats. The R7 may well prove to be Canon's biggest selling camera... let's see where things stand in a year's time.
> 
> ...


I don't know much about other brands tbh. But broadly I don't imagine current FF users will migrate to smaller formats in large numbers, they tend to be wedded to the larger sensor whether it's objectively better for what they do or not, and the progression in people's heads is from smaller to larger. Personally I _am_ considering an R7 as a secondary body but smaller than APS-C sensors don't attract me not least because Canon doesn't do them in the EF/RF system.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 7, 2023)

Just a few counter points to consider.


entoman said:


> Camera manufacturers will always need something "new and different" to market. They need to convince potential customers that whatever they currently have isn't good enough anymore.


That's true.


entoman said:


> Full frame DSLRs provided the necessary hype for a few years, along with the quest for ever-increasing sensor resolution, video, and IBIS. All of these now incorporated into mirrorless FF bodies featuring a change of lens mount, that enables them to sell a whole new set of lenses as well as bodies.


I'm not sure this is "hype." There are real advantages and uses for higher resolution, video and IBIS. They aren't pretend features as the word "hype" implies.


entoman said:


> ...sooner or later, Canon etc will have to create another completely different line of cameras, and will have to convince us that they offer real benefits over what we currently use.


Over 60+ years the only "completely different line of cameras" that have earned widespread acceptance I can think of are digital vs film and now mirrorless vs. SLR. But in both cases, I would question how "completely different" they are than the cameras that came before them. I also question whether these were "created" simply to sell more cameras, as you seem to be implying. Rather, it seems like they were evolutionary changes resulting from changes in available technology. An "organic" change as opposed to one simply to sell new cameras.


entoman said:


> Once we reach the point (5 years?) where hand-held pixel shift for moving subjects is truly usable, smaller formats won't be at a disadvantage, and their positive aspects such as portability and their greater suitability for computational photography will be promoted by the marketing folk, and we'll all be craving for APS-C and M43. There will still be a demand for FF, but IMO the bulk of buyers will be using smaller formats in 5 years.


That's one possibility, but I'm not sure I'm as confident as you are. What advantage would pixel shift/computational photography have for most enthusiasts. I am just one person, but for me, I enjoy the challenge of capturing a good image on my own, not through computer manipulation. Of course, I love improvements in autofocus, low-light sensitivity, etc., but having a computer "fix" my out-of-focus or blurred images might take some of the fun out of photography.


entoman said:


> What I was trying to say was that I think the bulk of *current FF users* will switch back to smaller formats in 5 years time. By then APS-C will probably have reached 50MP, and AI firmware, in conjunction with merging of bursts, will have virtually eliminated noise and generally improved IQ to a level that matches the best of today's FF cameras.


For me, if full frame cameras reach into the 60-70 mp range, I don't think I'd have any interest in APS-C. I loved my 7DII at the time, but I don't have any interest in the R7, Mostly because I prefer the better autofocus and versatility of the R5. The problem with extreme crops that a 50mp APS-C camera offers is that there is a diminishing return because autofocus systems just aren't capable of accurately hitting the ideal focus point the further you get away from the subject. Perhaps that will change, but I'm not sure.


entoman said:


> Novices on the other hand lack the experience or knowledge to understand what gear best suits their needs, and live in a youtube dominated world where people lack the patience to read written reviews and can't even be bothered to download and read instruction manuals. Many of them will ask a "photographer friend" for advice, but that advice is often biased towards the brand the photographer uses.


There are very few novices buying $2,000 plus lens and camera combinations as their first purchase. Most people start with an iPhone and then, if they get interested and can afford it, they progress up the ladder. That is a very small percentage of photographers and is likely to remain so.


entoman said:


> The best way to advise novices is to ask them exactly what type of subjects they want to photograph, how much they want to spend, and then give them a shortlist of models from various brands, and suggest that they visit a store and try out each of them in turn to see which model feels most comfortable and enjoyable to use.


Where are they going to find a store to test these out at. Even Best Buy barely has any cameras anymore and brick and mortar stores are near impossible to find outside of major cities. Even Chicago barely has any camera stores anymore.


entoman said:


> Also, I think that the popularity of lenses such as the RF100-400mm, RF600mm F11 etc clearly show that many people are fed up with heavy gear, and will increasingly turn to smaller formats. The R7 may well prove to be Canon's biggest selling camera... let's see where things stand in a year's time.
> Have you noticed that the OM Systems OM-1 actually took 2nd place in the Imaging Resource Reader's Choice Camera of the Year 2022?
> 
> I think that's quite a strong indication of where things will be heading.


I would be willing to take your bet on the R7.

You may be correct about the desire for smaller gear, but I think that is more a function of the aging-out of the enthusiast base, rather than a reflection of new photographers. At some point, it gets too hard to carry the heavy gear.

Also, how do you know the popularity of the lenses you mentioned is because of the size and weight and not the significant cost savings. I suspect most people buying the 800 mm f11 are buying it because they could never afford the big white version.

Which also raises another point. The size and weight of the camera body is negligible in comparison to lenses for those shooting wildlife and birds. And, while crop sensors can allow the use of smaller lenses, I think most enthusiasts will still opt for the longest lens they can afford. The 100-500 on an R7 would give me more reach, but it's not going to make the combination significantly lighter or smaller.

Finally, since the older enthusiast base is also the market that has the most disposable income, they are more willing to pay for experiences that will get them closer to their preferred subjects and these "trips of a lifetime" offer a powerful incentive to carry the best equipment possible, since the cost of the equipment amortized over several trips is small compared to the cost of the travel.

I don't disagree with many of your points, but I don't think it is as clear-cut and simple as you believe.


----------



## entoman (Jan 8, 2023)

unfocused said:


> Over 60+ years the only "completely different line of cameras" that have earned widespread acceptance I can think of are digital vs film and now mirrorless vs. SLR. But in both cases, I would question how "completely different" they are than the cameras that came before them.


We could debate what constitutes a "completely different" type of camera, but I can think of several that you haven't listed, including twin-lens reflex, rangefinder, polaroid, SLR, DSLR, bridge, MILC and smartphone. I agree that these new designs are the result of evolution and new technology. I wasn't suggesting that the sole purpose of their creation was to sell new cameras, rather that their creation provides manufacturers with enormously valuable marketing material and prevents stagnation of sales.



unfocused said:


> What advantage would pixel shift/computational photography have for most enthusiasts.


Handheld pixel-shift with moving subjects, will when fully developed enable smaller sensors to provide higher resolutions without artefacts caused by movement. AI-assisted merging of short bursts can increase DR and drastically reduce noise. AI can pick out the sharpest images in a series. It can also pick out the sharpest elements in each of a series of images and merge them into a single shot, either for focus bracketing or to eliminate unwanted movement blur. The technology we are seeing now is just the tip of the iceberg. Whether or not you enjoy using the technology is a personal choice, but it will be valuable to a huge number of photographers.



unfocused said:


> There are very few novices buying $2,000 plus lens and camera combinations as their first purchase. Most people start with an iPhone and then, if they get interested and can afford it, they progress up the ladder. That is a very small percentage of photographers and is likely to remain so.


I agree but why did you choose that figure? There is no reason why AI tech has to be confined to $2000+ cameras, it's just software, and will find its way into sub-$1000 novice cameras, just as it already exists in affordable smartphones.


unfocused said:


> Where are they going to find a store to test these out at. Even Best Buy barely has any cameras anymore and brick and mortar stores are near impossible to find outside of major cities. Even Chicago barely has any camera stores anymore.


People demand low prices and like the convenience of ordering online. The price we pay is that it has driven many retailers out of business and it's increasingly difficult to find a store where we can "play" with cameras prior to purchase. Much depends on where we live. In the UK it's still quite easy to find camera stores - most people can find one within about 20 miles of home. Another option is for photographer friends to meet and provide opportunities to handle and discuss the merits/drawbacks of their various brands/models.



unfocused said:


> Also, how do you know the popularity of the lenses you mentioned is because of the size and weight and not the significant cost savings. I suspect most people buying the 800 mm f11 are buying it because they could never afford the big white version.


I don't think people buy the "budget" RF lenses purely for the cost savings. If the 800mm F11 was twice the weight but the same price, I wouldn't have bought it. Same goes for the RF 100-400mm. If it weighed twice as much and was the same price, it would sell in much lower numbers. These lenses are bought due to Canon having produced lenses with a near-perfect balance of affordability, performance and portability.


unfocused said:


> The size and weight of the camera body is negligible in comparison to lenses for those shooting wildlife and birds. And, while crop sensors can allow the use of smaller lenses, I think most enthusiasts will still opt for the longest lens they can afford. The 100-500 on an R7 would give me more reach, but it's not going to make the combination significantly lighter or smaller.


I don't think it's the size and weight of the body that makes people buy APS-C. The prime motivation for many is probably the lower price. For sports and wildlife photographers the prime motivation is probably the crop factor, which gives them extra reach for less money and less weight.

Anyway, thanks for an interesting discussion.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jan 8, 2023)

entoman said:


> Quite possibly, I did consider 10 years as an alternative, but we already have a 40MP APS-C sensor from Fujifilm, and some quite advanced computational photography happening with Olympus/OM Systems, which is why I plumped for "5 years?".
> 
> Also, I think that the popularity of lenses such as the RF100-400mm, RF600mm F11 etc clearly show that many people are fed up with heavy gear, and will increasingly turn to smaller formats. The R7 may well prove to be Canon's biggest selling camera... let's see where things stand in a year's time.
> 
> ...


Canon would love us to pay $6K for APS-C cameras.
The market just does not see a perceived value in that.
Fuji is trying to push APS-C upmarket and people were hoping Canon would do that with the R7.

The OM-1 is actually a downmarket retreat from the EM1X that did not sell until Olympus drastically lowered the price.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jan 8, 2023)

entoman said:


> There is no reason why AI tech has to be confined to $2000+ cameras, it's just software


No, it requires an FPU.


----------



## entoman (Jan 8, 2023)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Fuji is trying to push APS-C upmarket and people were hoping Canon would do that with the R7.


It's true that a lot of people were screaming for an RF mount APS-C built to the durability standards of the 7DMkii. I think that while a few were disappointed that the R7 is "just" a prosumer model, almost everyone was very pleasantly surprised at the specification, performance and value.

It's possible that Canon, being a conservative company, is testing the *current* market for APS-C by initially releasing budget models (R7, R10), and that they may release a pro-build APS-C later, but of course that will only happen *IF* they deem there is sufficient demand, and at the moment I don't think that demand exists.

Olympus got it wrong with the EM1X - the whole point of Oly for most people was the portability. You refer to the OM1 as a downmarket retreat from the EM1X, but I see it as a significantly improved version of the E M1 Mkiii. The OM1 is an amazingly capable camera, and I hope and believe that OM Systems will launch an even better model, with a higher resolution sensor and more advanced AI capabilities within 2-3 years.


----------



## Bob Howland (Monday at 2:40 AM)

EOS 4 Life said:


> The OM-1 is actually a downmarket retreat from the EM1X that did not sell until Olympus drastically lowered the price.


Downmarket retreat? What does the E-M1X do that the OM-1 with the HLD-10 battery pack doesn't do better? When I was considering buying an OM-1, I couldn't figure out why the E-M1X even existed. Maybe there are a lot of people who think that a "professional" camera has to look like that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Monday at 3:30 AM)

Bob Howland said:


> When I was considering buying an OM-1, I couldn't figure out why the E-M1X even existed. Maybe there are a lot of people who think that a "professional" camera has to look like that.


I couldn’t care less how a ‘professional’ camera looks. I care how the camera I’m using feels in my hand and balances with a lens attached. That’s why I prefer 1-series bodies, and why I didn’t switch to a MILC for my primary camera until the R3 came out.


----------



## entoman (Monday at 11:33 AM)

neuroanatomist said:


> I couldn’t care less how a ‘professional’ camera looks. I care how the camera I’m using feels in my hand and balances with a lens attached. That’s why I prefer 1-series bodies, and why I didn’t switch to a MILC for my primary camera until the R3 came out.


Like other aspects of ergonomics, vertical grips are very much a matter of personal preference. I've used a 1Dxii and agree that it handles extremely well, but I found the weight excessive. I also had a bolt-on grip on my 6D, which for me was a better solution. For general wildlife photography, when using a grip I find cameras are better balanced and easier to steer with a long lens attached. But for insect photography, a smaller camera is easier to poke into foliage, and enables the lens to be at ground level.

I haven't yet bought a grip for my R5, mainly because I think the accessory is overpriced (GBP 419 in the UK, with a cashback of GBP 40 available). AFAIK there are no third party options. I always shoot in landscape format (it seems more natural to me, as human eyes are arranged horizontally!), so the purpose of a grip would be to obtain extra battery life, and improved handling when using long lenses.


----------



## Del Paso (Monday at 11:57 AM)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Canon would love us to pay $6K for APS-C cameras.
> The market just does not see a perceived value in that.
> Fuji is trying to push APS-C upmarket and people were hoping Canon would do that with the R7.
> 
> The OM-1 is actually a downmarket retreat from the EM1X that did not sell until Olympus drastically lowered the price.


No matter where you look at, the OM 1 has been improved in almost every feature compared to the heavy and bulky EM1X.
It offers some characteristics I'd like to see in a Canon, for instance tripod-less high resolution shot mode (50 MP), or, on a tripod, 80 ! MP.
The EM1X has actually become the downmarket model.
The OM 1 is the first Olympus I feel like buying.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Monday at 12:04 PM)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Canon would love us to pay $6K for APS-C cameras.
> The market just does not see a perceived value in that.
> Fuji is trying to push APS-C upmarket and people were hoping Canon would do that with the R7.
> 
> The OM-1 is actually a downmarket retreat from the EM1X that did not sell until Olympus drastically lowered the price.


Starting with the 7D and continuing with the 7DII, people on this forum claimed an ‘ASP-C 1D X’ would be a very popular camera. 

Yet another way in which it’s obvious that many people don’t understand the ILC market. 

But it’s also true that Fuji and OM aren’t Canon. Smaller companies often try to make products the market leader doesn’t, precisely because the market leader doesn’t.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Monday at 2:49 PM)

Chaitanya said:


> So yet another FSI sensored camera(while competition(Fuji) has been offering BSI sensors in sub $1000 cameras for years at this point), also Canon needs to launch better crop lenses for RF mount(55-250mm, macro, and ultra wide zoom). Current RF 16mm and 50mm 1.8 are good primes for RF-S but both zooms are underwhelming at best.


Any switch from FSI to BSI sensors won't improve your photography, I guess - it wouldn't help me much at least, maybe a nearly negligible bit less noise, that's it. Lot of this tech talk is purely driven by marketing.


----------



## koenkooi (Monday at 3:14 PM)

justaCanonuser said:


> Any switch from FSI to BSI sensors won't improve your photography, I guess - it wouldn't help me much at least, maybe a nearly negligible bit less noise, that's it. Lot of this tech talk is purely driven by marketing.


I think most people harping on BSI are confusing it with a stacked sensor. Or they are the same DRones we saw a few years ago, telling us about the dynamic range lord and saviour called Exmor.


----------



## amorse (Monday at 3:45 PM)

neuroanatomist said:


> Starting with the 7D and continuing with the 7DII, people on this forum claimed an ‘ASP-C 1D X’ would be a very popular camera.
> 
> Yet another way in which it’s obvious that many people don’t understand the ILC market.
> 
> But it’s also true that Fuji and OM aren’t Canon. Smaller companies often try to make products the market leader doesn’t, precisely because the market leader doesn’t.


Agreed - this is one of my assumptions as to why Canon has kept the RF mount autofocus protocols under a bit of control - they don't want some of those smaller manufacturers making lenses that Canon hasn't yet prioritized on RF. Canon is still building out the RF mount offerings and having Sigma/Tamron swoop in and deliver a lens Canon has plans to make gives the smaller manufacturers an advantage. I half expect Canon to open the mount after they feel they've covered all their bases.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Monday at 3:49 PM)

amorse said:


> I half expect Canon to open the mount after they feel they've covered all their bases.


I don't expect that, at all. What would be the benefit to Canon, the company that dominates the market, in opening themselves up to competition on a product line they have stated is a large revenue driver for them?


----------



## koenkooi (Monday at 4:05 PM)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don't expect that, at all. What would be the benefit to Canon, the company that dominates the market, in opening themselves up to competition on a product line they have stated is a large revenue driver for them?


If the perceived backlash is big enough to impact sales to make upper management nervous. That is a lot of assumptions stacked on top of each other (maybe even back side illuminated assumptions), so I'm not going to try guessing how likely that is.

Other places in the interwebs are pointing at the most recent Yodobashi numbers that show Canon has disappeared from the top 10 sales list, but that's a single vendor in a single country, etc. I'm very curious about other vendors and countries to see if Yodobashi is indeed an outlier.


----------



## entoman (Monday at 4:26 PM)

amorse said:


> Agreed - this is one of my assumptions as to why Canon has kept the RF mount autofocus protocols under a bit of control - they don't want some of those smaller manufacturers making lenses that Canon hasn't yet prioritized on RF. Canon is still building out the RF mount offerings and having Sigma/Tamron swoop in and deliver a lens Canon has plans to make gives the smaller manufacturers an advantage. I half expect Canon to open the mount after they feel they've covered all their bases.


I'll be highly surprised if Canon ever licences the RF mount - it just doesn't make economic sense, when you currently have the market to yourself, and are selling stacks of RF lenses, to make it easy for third parties to steal sales from you. Particularly as Canon probably makes a lot more money from selling lenses than from selling bodies. I don't think the unavailability of third party AF lenses has much impact on the sales of RF cameras either, as Canon covers *most* people's needs/wants already.

Sigma (and to a lesser extent Tamron, who have an agreement regarding Nikon Z mount) will be working hard to reverse engineer for RF, but the longer it takes, the harder it will be for them to compete with Canon's own lenses, because the line is expanding all the time, leaving Sigma etc with only a handful of specialised optics to cover. Many of the latter, particularly macro and shift lenses, are already covered by Laowa, who have no issues with RF protocols because all their glass is manual focus.


----------



## amorse (Monday at 4:44 PM)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don't expect that, at all. What would be the benefit to Canon, the company that dominates the market, in opening themselves up to competition on a product line they have stated is a large revenue driver for them?


Well, considering that the EF mount wasn't closed to those manufacturers, Canon has previously shown willingness to let other manufacturers engage. I would think the benefit changes over time. Today, there is benefit to Canon to keep it closed because having another manufacturer release something Canon plans to release eventually will give those other manufacturers a competitive advantage and impact Canon's long-term revenue. For instance, if Sigma bolts on an RF mount to their 14mm 1.8 before Canon releases a 14mm in RF, yes, people who may have bought the RF version may buy the Sigma instead because it's available today and Canon's version doesn't yet exist. Competition here is impacted by being first to market.

Once Canon has rounded out their offerings on RF, the benefit may change to make opening the mount more favourable. Competing with Canon wouldn't be about being first to market with a product, but rather finding niches where they can find some success because Canon hasn't filled the niche - whether by being a lens that is a low volume speciality product, or lower cost/quality option. If a secondary manufacturer wants to release a lens that Canon doesn't believe will be profitable enough to warrant manufacturing, it's a benefit to the system to have someone else do it - more lenses available, Canon wasn't planning on selling that product anyway, reduces some of the noise about the closed ecosystem, wins for everyone.


----------



## Bob Howland (Monday at 5:00 PM)

amorse said:


> Well, considering that the EF mount wasn't closed to those manufacturers, Canon has previously shown willingness to let other manufacturers engage.


Sigma reverse-engineered the EF protocol, initially doing it badly. They had to go back and fix the defective lenses, and their reputation took a hit. My guess is that is why the Sigma CEO is reluctant to reverse-engineer the Z and R mount protocols.


----------



## Sporgon (Monday at 5:32 PM)

amorse said:


> Well, considering that the EF mount wasn't closed to those manufacturers, Canon has previously shown willingness to let other manufacturers engage. I would think the benefit changes over time.


You always had to take your chances with third party AF on the EF mount. Even when they had got it pretty reliable with centre point and ‘one shot’, the AF was pretty (downright?) unreliable with outer points or Servo. For myself that’s why I mostly chose Canon lenses, and if others are like me it puts a brake on how many people will choose third party over Canon.
However the mirrorless RF mount appears to change all that; my third party EF lenses that I do have work flawlessly on RF via the EF to RF adapter. So if I was Canon I’d be very concerned that my new mount allows consumers to purchase cheaper, third party lenses with impunity, whereas the old dslr EF offered a fair degree of protection from flawless third party operation.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Monday at 5:38 PM)

amorse said:


> Well, considering that the EF mount wasn't closed to those manufacturers, Canon has previously shown willingness to let other manufacturers engage.


As @Bob Howland indicated, that is not true.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Monday at 5:42 PM)

Bob Howland said:


> Downmarket retreat? What does the E-M1X do that the OM-1 with the HLD-10 battery pack doesn't do better?


Downmarket has nothing to do with a camera's abilities.
The OM-1 is priced significantly less than the original release price EM1X.
The R10 has more features than the 1DC.


----------



## Bob Howland (Monday at 10:13 PM)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Downmarket has nothing to do with a camera's abilities.
> The OM-1 is priced significantly less than the original release price EM1X.
> The R10 has more features than the 1DC.


Then exactly what is a "downmarket retreat"? Telling us what it isn't doesn't help much.


----------



## eosuser1234 (Tuesday at 5:32 AM)

Patents expire after 17 or so years. So unless other companies want to pay up, they can just wait, or go ahead and make and get sued like Samyang did.


----------



## Del Paso (Tuesday at 11:48 AM)

koenkooi said:


> I mostly agree with you. The main reason that I wanted to go from APS-C to FF was to fit larger insects (e.g. wasps) in the frame with the MP-E65mm. Going from 7D+M50 to RP+M6II gave me a lot of flexibility and I could mix the cameras and bodies if I wanted to. But now that I have replaced more and more EF lenses with RF variants, and seeing how far ahead the R5 is to the M6II, I find myself looking for a smaller R body. It being APS-C or FF doesn't really matter, I've come to appreciate how wide you can go on FF with the RF16 and using the 100-500 on a small-ish body wouldn't happen a lot.
> 
> So for me it's more about body size and form factor, less about sensor size. And after renting an R7: the auto-level feature using IBIS saves me a lot of horizon straightening in post


That's exactly one major reason why I love FF bodies, the larger body size. Having largish hands, I couldn't even get used to the RP or Soni's A7 series. So, small bodies, for many certainly an advantage, are for me a reason not to buy.
Yet, I was interested in the EOS R7, for the reach APS/C offers. But the lack of a battery grip killed this camera for me.
De gustus...


----------



## AlanF (Tuesday at 12:14 PM)

Del Paso said:


> That's exactly one major reason why I love FF bodies, the larger body size. Having largish hands, I couldn't even get used to the RP or Soni's A7 series. So, small bodies, for many certainly an advantage, are for me a reason not to buy.
> Yet, I was interested in the EOS R7, for the reach APS/C offers. But the lack of a battery grip killed this camera for me.
> De gustus...


In addition, keeping up with BIF is much easier with a 60% wider field of view with FF - some of my b est shots have had the bird at the edge of the frame as I was desperately trying to pan it.


----------



## scyrene (Tuesday at 12:50 PM)

AlanF said:


> In addition, keeping up with BIF is much easier with a 60% wider field of view with FF - some of my b est shots have had the bird at the edge of the frame as I was desperately trying to pan it.


Couldn't you balance that out by using a shorter focal length on a smaller sensor?


----------



## koenkooi (Tuesday at 1:32 PM)

Del Paso said:


> That's exactly one major reason why I love FF bodies, the larger body size. Having largish hands, I couldn't even get used to the RP or Soni's A7 series. So, small bodies, for many certainly an advantage, are for me a reason not to buy.
> Yet, I was interested in the EOS R7, for the reach APS/C offers. But the lack of a battery grip killed this camera for me.
> De gustus...


For the RP I needed the EG-E1 to make it nice to hold, and I have average sized hands for my 6" height. I'm not fond of bodies that keep the L shaped formfactor of their more expensive cousins, but shrink it down to finger-pinching proportions. On the RP you run out of space for your fingers when using the RF85L, I wonder what the 28-70 would do.

The original M combined with the glue-on franiec 'grip' was very comfortable to hold and use plus you could even dangle it from the tips of your fingers without dropping it. I really hope that the rumoured tiny R body is small in a smart way like the M and not tiny in a clicked-scale-in-CAD way like the M50.
The M50 was really horrible, it added a front grip that was too small to securely hold and at the same time too large to give your fingers space between the grip and lens. But I have to admit that even the M50 felt better than some of the other brands I handled since then, only Nikon and Canon seem to have employed designers familiar with actual hands.


----------



## AlanF (Tuesday at 1:34 PM)

scyrene said:


> Couldn't you balance that out by using a shorter focal length on a smaller sensor?


You could use the same shorter length lens on a high resolution FF sensor and still have the 60% wider field of view. For that reason, I preferred the 50 Mpx 5DSR, which crops to 20 Mpx APS-C, over my 20 Mpx 7DII and retain the same pixel density. I take out the R5 rather than R7 for BIF every time because not only has it better AF, the wider fov is more important than the lower pixel density for me. It also makes a difference when using primes: the 5DSR and 400mm DO II gave me the same resolution as the 400mm on the 7DII but the equivalent of a fov of a 250mm. For static shots and the high quality zoom lenses available, the fov is much less important and the APS-C is usually more than good enough.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Tuesday at 1:36 PM)

Bob Howland said:


> Then exactly what is a "downmarket retreat"? Telling us what it isn't doesn't help much.


It means the new flagship is at a lower price point than the old flagship.


----------



## Del Paso (Tuesday at 2:35 PM)

EOS 4 Life said:


> It means the new flagship is at a lower price point than the old flagship.


I think what confuses-irritates us is the use of "retreat". Along with "downmarket" it simply sounds like "inferior".


----------



## Sporgon (Tuesday at 5:23 PM)

koenkooi said:


> For the RP I needed the EG-E1 to make it nice to hold, and I have average sized hands for my 6" height.


I agree that with the EG-E1 the RP is a very comfortable camera to hold. I think the smaller battery must help here, allowing a less bulky grip.


----------



## scyrene (Tuesday at 5:29 PM)

AlanF said:


> You could use the same shorter length lens on a high resolution FF sensor and still have the 60% wider field of view. For that reason, I preferred the 50 Mpx 5DSR, which crops to 20 Mpx APS-C, over my 20 Mpx 7DII and retain the same pixel density. I take out the R5 rather than R7 for BIF every time because not only has it better AF, the wider fov is more important than the lower pixel density for me. It also makes a difference when using primes: the 5DSR and 400mm DO II gave me the same resolution as the 400mm on the 7DII but the equivalent of a fov of a 250mm. For static shots and the high quality zoom lenses available, the fov is much less important and the APS-C is usually more than good enough.


I was just trying to establish, citing a wider FOV as a reason to use FF for eg BIF isn't an intrinsic benefit as you could always use a wider lens on a smaller sensor to get precisely the same result. 5DsR vs 7DII is fair enough, but no FF body has the pixel density of the R7, so it's a harder call to make. And while better AF on current Canon FF versus APS-C bodies is obviously relevant in practice, in principle it's beside the point when discussing potential objective benefits of different formats (as an APS-C or smaller sensor body could be paired with the highest level of AF, should a manufacturer choose to do so).


----------



## AlanF (Tuesday at 7:19 PM)

scyrene said:


> I was just trying to establish, citing a wider FOV as a reason to use FF for eg BIF isn't an intrinsic benefit as you could always use a wider lens on a smaller sensor to get precisely the same result. 5DsR vs 7DII is fair enough, but no FF body has the pixel density of the R7, so it's a harder call to make. And while better AF on current Canon FF versus APS-C bodies is obviously relevant in practice, in principle it's beside the point when discussing potential objective benefits of different formats (as an APS-C or smaller sensor body could be paired with the highest level of AF, should a manufacturer choose to do so).


The relative resolutions of APS-C and FF do, of course, depend on their number of Mpx. But, even comparing the 45 Mpx R5 and the 32 Mpx R7, there is still a fov advantage to the R5 at the same resolution. For example, a shorter 370mm lens on an R7 gives the same number of pixels per duck as a 500mm lens on an R5. But, the field of view of 370mm on the R7 is that of a 590mm on the R5, giving the R5 a non-negligible 18% advantage in fov.

The odds are that Canon will come out with an FF of about 88 Mpx, the same pixel density of the R7, just like they did for the 5DS vs 7DII, and we will then be back to the 60% fov advantage of the FF vs APS-C.


----------



## scyrene (Wednesday at 2:48 PM)

AlanF said:


> The relative resolutions of APS-C and FF do, of course, depend on their number of Mpx. But, even comparing the 45 Mpx R5 and the 32 Mpx R7, there is still a fov advantage to the R5 at the same resolution. For example, a shorter 370mm lens on an R7 gives the same number of pixels per duck as a 500mm lens on an R5. But, the field of view of 370mm on the R7 is that of a 590mm on the R5, giving the R5 a non-negligible 18% advantage in fov.
> 
> The odds are that Canon will come out with an FF of about 88 Mpx, the same pixel density of the R7, just like they did for the 5DS vs 7DII, and we will then be back to the 60% fov advantage of the FF vs APS-C.


That's fair  The geek in me does hope they release a substantially higher resolution body, even though I'd likely never be able to afford it.


----------



## AlanF (Wednesday at 5:25 PM)

scyrene said:


> That's fair  The geek in me does hope they release a substantially higher resolution body, even though I'd likely never be able to afford it.


It's price, I'm afraid. Canon can, I think, can always fabricate an FF sensor with the same pixel pitch as an APS-C but it will cost more and take longer to read out data, unless maybe if it's global.


----------



## gruhl28 (Wednesday at 6:41 PM)

neuroanatomist said:


> For modern sensors of the relatively large sizes under discussion here (APS-C and FF), the increased sensitivity is minimal at best. For example, the FSI Canon R5 and R6II have essentially the same noise floor and sensitivity as the BSI Sony a7-4 and a7RV.
> 
> It’s a different story comparing FSI vs BSI for smartphone sensors. But we aren’t.


I guess the difference between FSI and BSI depends on pixel size, is that correct? That’s an interesting point that I had not thought about.

I mentioned astronomy cameras, not smartphone sensors. The astronomy cameras don’t use small smartphone sensors and often have large pixels, and yet they switched to BSI years ago.


----------



## Deepboy (Wednesday at 7:00 PM)

entoman said:


> AFAIK there are no third party options.


There are a couple of chinese BG-R10 alternatives for less then 100€/$; in Italy i found the second one on Amazon, so fast shipping and no customs problems; I'm sure the grip can also be found on Amazon US/UK.



https://it.aliexpress.com/item/1005004945201940.html





https://it.aliexpress.com/item/1005004881533086.html


----------



## neuroanatomist (Wednesday at 8:12 PM)

gruhl28 said:


> I guess the difference between FSI and BSI depends on pixel size, is that correct? That’s an interesting point that I had not thought about.
> 
> I mentioned astronomy cameras, not smartphone sensors. The astronomy cameras don’t use small smartphone sensors and often have large pixels, and yet they switched to BSI years ago.


One of the main reasons sensor manufacturers developed BSI was to enable smaller pixel sizes for small, high MP sensors. But BSI pixels of equal size have lower read noise and higher QE, so for low light applications it makes sense to use BSI (especially in combination with cooling – scientific cameras have also been taking that approach for many years).


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Thursday at 9:43 AM)

AlanF said:


> The odds are that Canon will come out with an FF of about 88 Mpx, the same pixel density of the R7, just like they did for the 5DS vs 7DII, and we will then be back to the 60% fov advantage of the FF vs APS-C.


Assuming the R7 II will not be 40 MP.
Canon had bragging rights up until the X-H2 and X-T5.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Thursday at 9:48 AM)

AlanF said:


> Canon can, I think, can always fabricate an FF sensor with the same pixel pitch as an APS-C but it will cost more and take longer to read out data, unless maybe if it's global.


Canon readout is still much faster than the competition when it comes to rolling shutter.
I would not expect it to be much slower than the a7R V.
A stacked R1 S would be pretty amazing.
I would not expect any kind of global shutter.


----------



## AlanF (Thursday at 10:23 AM)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Canon readout is still much faster than the competition when it comes to rolling shutter.
> I would not expect it to be much slower than the a7R V.
> A stacked R1 S would be pretty amazing.
> I would not expect any kind of global shutter.


I would expect any upgrade of the R5 to have a much faster read out than the A7RV. The Sony has very slow readout at 62.5 ms, which is 4x slower than the current R5. Even if Canon doubled the read out time time on doubling the Mpx of the R5 sensor, it would still be half the time of the A7R5.


----------



## AlanF (Thursday at 10:30 AM)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Assuming the R7 II will not be 40 MP.
> Canon had bragging rights up until the X-H2 and X-T5.


An increase from 32 to 40 Mpx for an R7II would increase its resolution by only 12% whereas an increase of 45 to 88 Mpx for an R5II would increase its resolution by 40% and there would be only a teeny weeny crop factor advantage of an R7II over an R5II in terms of resolution.


----------



## Czardoom (Thursday at 12:22 PM)

AlanF said:


> An increase from 32 to 40 Mpx for an R7II would increase its resolution by only 12% whereas an increase of 45 to 88 Mpx for an R5II would increase its resolution by 40% and there would be only a teeny weeny crop factor advantage of an R7II over an R5II in terms of resolution.


Any increase in MP for an R7 or any crop sensor camera will have diminishing returns, in my opinion. That 12% is purely theoretical, as I know you understand, but many don't. I had the chance to shoot both the R7 and R10. While in no way a scientific or thorough comparison, I did compare identical shots with both cameras and shooting hand held, there was often no discernable difference between the 24 MP and the 32MP shots. Zooming to 100% showed a slight resolution edge to the R7 less than 50% of the time, in other cases had to zoom even more and in some cases it didn't matter how much I zoomed. On a tripod the results might certainly have been different, but hand holding, as well as diffraction setting in, are the great equalizers when it comes to high MP sensors.


----------



## AlanF (Thursday at 12:36 PM)

Czardoom said:


> Any increase in MP for an R7 or any crop sensor camera will have diminishing returns, in my opinion. That 12% is purely theoretical, as I know you understand, but many don't. I had the chance to shoot both the R7 and R10. While in no way a scientific or thorough comparison, I did compare identical shots with both cameras and shooting hand held, there was often no discernable difference between the 24 MP and the 32MP shots. Zooming to 100% showed a slight resolution edge to the R7 less than 50% of the time, in other cases had to zoom even more and in some cases it didn't matter how much I zoomed. On a tripod the results might certainly have been different, but hand holding, as well as diffraction setting in, are the great equalizers when it comes to high MP sensors.


I agree with you, as you do know. Under ideal conditions of decent light and low iso and using a sharp wider telephoto lens, like the 400mm f/4 DO II, you do see a lot of the 32 Mpx of the R7/90D/MII, but as you go to narrower lenses (or less sharp), there is little gain over a 20 Mpx APS-C sensor or the 45 Mpx R5. I am loathe to spell this out every time, but it should be said, like the the comment elsewhere that 800mm on the R7 is like 1280mm on the R5 should be contradicted.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Friday at 11:15 AM)

AlanF said:


> An increase from 32 to 40 Mpx for an R7II would increase its resolution by only 12% whereas an increase of 45 to 88 Mpx for an R5II would increase its resolution by 40% and there would be only a teeny weeny crop factor advantage of an R7II over an R5II in terms of resolution.


I believe most people are expecting the R5 S to be 80+ MP.
I do not expect the R5 II to be more than 60 MP.


----------



## AlanF (Friday at 11:47 AM)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I believe most people are expecting the R5 S to be 80+ MP.
> I do not expect the R5 II to be more than 60 MP.


The previous "S", the 50 Mpx 5DS had 67% more pixels than the next highest 5D, the 5D IV, giving a noticeable ~30% increase in resolution. An 88 Mpx R5 S would give a 20% increase over a 60 Mpx R5 II under ideal circumstances of low iso and wide lenses as we are really getting into diminishing returms from diffraction and noise lowering resolution. So, with all the possibilities of increasing resolution from pixel shift and other technologies, I wonder if their would be much demand for an R5 S over an R5 II?


----------



## koenkooi (Friday at 12:28 PM)

AlanF said:


> The previous "S", the 50 Mpx 5DS had 67% more pixels than the next highest 5D, the 5D IV, giving a noticeable ~30% increase in resolution. An 88 Mpx R5 S would give a 20% increase over a 60 Mpx R5 II under ideal circumstances of low iso and wide lenses as we are really getting into diminishing returms from diffraction and noise lowering resolution. So, with all the possibilities of increasing resolution from pixel shift and other technologies, I wonder if their would be much demand for an R5 S over an R5 II?


I wonder how much buying power the part of the internet that keeps saying they want "an R5, but for still photos". _Those_ people would like megapixels and won't let reality get in their way.


----------



## unfocused (Friday at 7:05 PM)

koenkooi said:


> I wonder how much buying power the part of the internet that keeps saying they want "an R5, but for still photos". _Those_ people would like megapixels and won't let reality get in their way.


I’m not sure what you are referring to here. Using an R5 for stills and desiring ever more megapixels are not synonymous.


----------



## unfocused (Friday at 7:12 PM)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I believe most people are expecting the R5 S to be 80+ MP.
> I do not expect the R5 II to be more than 60 MP.


That’s what I hope for. A modest increase in resolution. I’m more interested in autofocus improvements as well as low light performance than in a high megapixel count.


----------



## koenkooi (Friday at 7:56 PM)

unfocused said:


> I’m not sure what you are referring to here. Using an R5 for stills and desiring ever more megapixels are not synonymous.


I was referring to the people saying they don’t like the R5 because it’s too video centric and want a version that is for stills.


----------



## koenkooi (Friday at 8:01 PM)

unfocused said:


> That’s what I hope for. A modest increase in resolution. I’m more interested in autofocus improvements as well as low light performance than in a high megapixel count.


Canon could do another M50II move and release the R5 with the R6II firmware as the R5II. 
I think that will be a much better camera, but it would feel like a lazy cash grab.


----------



## scyrene (Friday at 10:35 PM)

AlanF said:


> The previous "S", the 50 Mpx 5DS had 67% more pixels than the next highest 5D, the 5D IV, giving a noticeable ~30% increase in resolution. An 88 Mpx R5 S would give a 20% increase over a 60 Mpx R5 II under ideal circumstances of low iso and wide lenses as we are really getting into diminishing returms from diffraction and noise lowering resolution. So, with all the possibilities of increasing resolution from pixel shift and other technologies, I wonder if their would be much demand for an R5 S over an R5 II?


Another choice could be, keeping the same resolution or bumping it just modestly for the R5II, but using a more modern architecture like the R3, and keeping the older style sensor but a higher res (eg ~80MP) for an R5S. But in reality I agree it's harder to differentiate them the higher everything goes.


----------



## Jethro (Friday at 11:48 PM)

It might also depend on what the plans are for the R1, which has been rumoured as high MP, and which would help to differentiate it from the R3. If that's true, would they really _need_ a high MP R5S in the line as well?


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Yesterday at 11:14 AM)

koenkooi said:


> I wonder how much buying power the part of the internet that keeps saying they want "an R5, but for still photos". _Those_ people would like megapixels and won't let reality get in their way.


For still subjects then sure.
I expect the R5 II to be 40 FPS in photo mode just like the R6 II currently is.
I would be surprised if an R5 S is even 20 FPS like the R5.
Plus I would expect the R5 II to have a deeper buffer.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Yesterday at 11:18 AM)

scyrene said:


> Another choice could be, keeping the same resolution or bumping it just modestly for the R5II, but using a more modern architecture like the R3, and keeping the older style sensor but a higher res (eg ~80MP) for an R5S.


Not a bad idea but where would that leave the R1?
Maybe R5 II 45 MP stacked, R5 S 80+ MP, and R1 60 MP stacked.


----------



## AlanF (Yesterday at 12:12 PM)

koenkooi said:


> Canon could do another M50II move and release the R5 with the R6II firmware as the R5II.
> I think that will be a much better camera, but it would feel like a lazy cash grab.


For me, it would be only a marginally better camera if it's just firmware. The R6 II does have hardware upgrades over the R6, like a more efficient processor.


----------



## gruhl28 (Yesterday at 1:59 PM)

neuroanatomist said:


> One of the main reasons sensor manufacturers developed BSI was to enable smaller pixel sizes for small, high MP sensors. But BSI pixels of equal size have lower read noise and higher QE, so for low light applications it makes sense to use BSI (especially in combination with cooling – scientific cameras have also been taking that approach for many years).


So even for full-frame, a high megapixel sensor with smaller pixels would benefit from BSI, right?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Yesterday at 4:26 PM)

gruhl28 said:


> So even for full-frame, a high megapixel sensor with smaller pixels would benefit from BSI, right?


Depends on what you mean by benefit. With a FF sensor in the 60-80 MP range, noise with FSI at ISO 100 might be like ISO 95 with BSI, or noise at ISO 6400 might be like ISO 6100 with BSI. Is that a meaningful benefit? Perhaps in specific applications, such as shooting tiny, white dots on a field of black, that very minor difference might be of meaningful benefit. But for every day photography I believe the difference, while _technically_ a benefit, is functionally and practically irrelevant.

Meaningful benefit from BSI becomes evident with pixel sizes smaller than about 2 µm, for FF sensors that means over 200 MP. With today’s full frame cameras, BSI is a marketing tool.


----------

