# There are currently 3 EOS R system cameras coming in the second half of 2022 [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 27, 2022)

> Canon will continue to be aggressive with product launches throughout 2022. They don’t appear to be slowing down due to the global semiconductor shortage. I think after all of this time, Canon may have found some solutions to the problem internally and will continue to plan on the shortages to continue through most of 2022.
> There are now 3 EOS R system cameras currently on the roadmap for the second half of 2022, and a very good source has finally chimed in on what we can expect.
> There will definitely be an APS-C RF mount camera announced during 2022. While specifications and all of that are obviously not known, the source did mention it is a true hybrid camera. “Maybe a little M50 mixed with some 7D” is how it was described.
> A new entry-level full-frame RF mount camera will be announced. It will use the image sensor for the EOS R6, but nothing beyond that is known.
> Between the new entry-level...



Continue reading...


----------



## prodorshak (Jan 27, 2022)

Great. Given my low budget, hopefully now I can switch to R system while upgrading from my beloved 77D. Looks like 2022 will be better (said 2021)?!

"Hope is a dangerous thing." - Red


----------



## csibra (Jan 27, 2022)

Oh, it's so simple: no EVF/OVF no buy for me


----------



## cgc (Jan 27, 2022)

I bet for the names being:

R7 for around 32MP APS-C (great features and speed, crippled sensor and OVF nostalgia plus EVF)
R10 for the new full frame bellow R6/R5 with around 32MP (mirrorless 90D successor and R replacement)
R100 for a tiny entry-level full-frame with no EVF (mirrorless 850D successor and RP replacement)


----------



## cgc (Jan 27, 2022)

So the R5s and R1 will not come until 2023... and no APS-C glass ever, or maybe merely only a single kit lens? A single crop camera model does not deserves a entire line of crop glass...


----------



## SteveC (Jan 27, 2022)

cgc said:


> So the R5s and R1 will not come until 2023... and no APS-C glass ever, or maybe merely only a single kit lens? A single crop camera model does not deserves a entire line of crop glass...



Most of those here who want the crop sensor are using big whites anyway, unless I misread things.


----------



## fred (Jan 27, 2022)

"Between the new entry-level camera and the Canon EOS R6 will be a body with a new image sensor, but a lower pixel count than the Canon EOS R5"

I am still hoping for a less action-/video-centric RII with new ~30MP sensor, R6 ergonomics/buttons (+ shoulder display!) at $2000.


----------



## entoman (Jan 27, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Yikes, I hope that if they remove the EVF, that they only do it on the cheapest model. Viewing on a little rear screen is OK for people who just want to take snaps, but near-impossible for people shooting sports, action, wildlife or anything requiring careful composition. Heaven forbid that EVF isn't lost from any other models.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 27, 2022)

fred said:


> "Between the new entry-level camera and the Canon EOS R6 will be a body with a new image sensor, but a lower pixel count than the Canon EOS R5"
> 
> I am still hoping for a less action-/video-centric RII with new ~30MP sensor, R6 ergonomics/buttons (+ shoulder display!) at $2000.



30-35 MP would have been my "sweet spot." But I didn't want 20 more than I didn't need 45...so I got the R5 not the R6. Perhaps this new camera will be a better fit for me; it depends on what features are missing; and it will be missing some or it wouldn't be priced at an R level.


----------



## neurorx (Jan 27, 2022)

Guess it will be more time to save $. Hopefully there will be more lens offering to take my $.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 27, 2022)

SteveC said:


> Most of those here who want the crop sensor are using big whites anyway, unless I misread things.


I can see Canon having photographers mount EF-S lenses with an adapter, and if any of those that doesn't have a FF equivalent becomes popular, repackage it / make a new version for RF.


----------



## peters (Jan 27, 2022)

csibra said:


> Oh, it's so simple: no EVF/OVF no buy for me


If its an ultra compact camera like the Sigma FP, I may be interested. Maybe fullframe or APS-C. As long as its offering good quality images, I would be very interested in this for travel/hiking  EVF may be added on an acessory port, like on the Sigma FP. Which would be an interesting camera for travel, if there where some tiny pancake lenses for that fullframe sensor. Like a 50mm 1,8 pancake or a 35mm 1,8 or a 16mm f2,8 like canon offers.

If we see how tiny they can build lenses for the FF RF cameras (50mm 1,8 or the tiny 16mm f2,8) it would be very interesting to see, how small they can build lenses for an APS-C camera with the RF mount =)


----------



## vondo (Jan 27, 2022)

I'd love a small camera for underwater photography work. If that means ditching the viewfinder and APS-C, so be it. Of course, with APS-C you also need the right lenses (60ish macro for me).


----------



## melgross (Jan 27, 2022)

cgc said:


> So the R5s and R1 will not come until 2023... and no APS-C glass ever, or maybe merely only a single kit lens? A single crop camera model does not deserves a entire line of crop glass...


Well, they have to start somewhere. I would imagine that any future bodies after the first would be predicated on the popularity of that first model. If it meets Canon’s expectation in sales, and there is a demand for at least a few lenses, Canon will make them, particularly if they see enough demand for a line of APS-C bodies.

But other than for compact models, demand for APS-C has waned over the years. How much smaller can an R mount body be? The entire point of that mount was to get it as big as Canon thought practical, much bigger than really needed for APS-C.

I can see an APS-C model that looks, with a large lens on it like a lens with two small grips for the lens sticking out at the rear.


----------



## Czardoom (Jan 27, 2022)

cgc said:


> So the R5s and R1 will not come until 2023... and no APS-C glass ever, or maybe merely only a single kit lens? A single crop camera model does not deserves a entire line of crop glass...


And where you where did you come up with the idea that there might not be other R APS-C cameras in the future...and no APS-C glass?? Oh, you just made that up and then made deductions from a made up conclusion. I see you are new here. Off to a good start!


----------



## Czardoom (Jan 27, 2022)

cgc said:


> I bet for the names being:
> 
> R7 for around 32MP APS-C (great features and speed, crippled sensor and OVF nostalgia plus EVF)
> R10 for the new full frame bellow R6/R5 with around 32MP (mirrorless 90D successor and R replacement)
> R100 for a tiny entry-level full-frame with no EVF (mirrorless 850D successor and RP replacement)


"Crippled sensor"? That, I am unhappy to say, is a new one. Very creative!


----------



## Blue Zurich (Jan 27, 2022)

As always, more is always better, gotta love choices. Thanks Canon!


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Jan 27, 2022)

melgross said:


> But other than for compact models, demand for APS-C has waned over the years. How much smaller can an R mount body be? The entire point of that mount was to get it as big as Canon thought practical, much bigger than really needed for APS-C.


Exact same diameter as the EF-mount which I think have worked fine for APS-C.


----------



## John Wilde (Jan 27, 2022)

cgc said:


> R100 for a tiny entry-level full-frame with no EVF (mirrorless 850D successor and RP replacement)


That would be cool.


----------



## HikeBike (Jan 27, 2022)

I'm guessing nothing below an R7 (if there is one) will have IBIS. But we'll see.


----------



## Deleted (Jan 27, 2022)

For me, APS-C means more pixels on subject for a given focal length. I hike around a lot so if I can get the same amount of pixels on wildlife with a 100-400 on an APS-C as Ican with a 600F4 on a FF then I will always favour the smaller setup.

Macro is similar. I favour my 60mm/APS-C combo over my 100mm/FF camera. I shoot macro exclusively handheld in the wild and the heavier kit really makes my arms ache and as a result less steady. That is also one reason I don’t use my MPE-65 handheld for too long, it is a heavy beast especially extended.


----------



## chrisrmueller (Jan 27, 2022)

I would love to see an R7 that is an R5 body with a new APS-C sensor in it. I say R5 and not R6 because I really like that Mode button for convenience and the CFexpress/SD combo for high speed. Something like this in the high $1,000's would be an absolute winner.


----------



## reefroamer (Jan 27, 2022)

From my understanding, all existing Canon EF-S (APSC) lenses should work perfectly with the EF-R adapter on any R-mount crop sensor Canon bodies. That would include ultra wide angle lenses like the EF-S 10-18. I believe these EF-S lenses would fill the entire smaller APSC sensor without cropping (as happens on the full-frame R bodies). Thus, buyers of crop sensor R bodies would have plenty of crop lens choices from the get-go. Canon might develop native R mount crop lenses if they saw the demand, but users could adapt all the existing EF-S lenses to meet immediate needs. And that might be all there is to it.


----------



## chrisrmueller (Jan 27, 2022)

reefroamer said:


> From my understanding, all existing Canon EF-S (APSC) lenses should work perfectly with the EF-R adapter on any R-mount crop sensor Canon bodies. That would include ultra wide angle lenses like the EF-S 10-18. I believe these EF-S lenses would fill the entire smaller APSC sensor without cropping (as happens on the full-frame R bodies). Thus, buyers of crop sensor R bodies would have plenty of crop lens choices from the get-go. Canon might develop native R mount crop lenses if they saw the demand, but users could adapt all the existing EF-S lenses to meet immediate needs. And that might be all there is to it.


This is true. I used my Canon EF-S 10-18 and Sigma 18-35 on my R and R5 all the time; the camera intelligently auto-switches to the 1.6 crop mode in photo and video mode so the entire sensor was covered. And those focal lengths were really helpful shooting wide with the R's 4K crop.


----------



## lote82 (Jan 27, 2022)

Here we go again... "RF should be ff only" followed by "M has everything we need" in 3, 2, 1...


----------



## SteveC (Jan 27, 2022)

Antono Refa said:


> I can see Canon having photographers mount EF-S lenses with an adapter, and if any of those that doesn't have a FF equivalent becomes popular, repackage it / make a new version for RF.



This time we don't need a pseudo-different mount to prevent a -S lens from being put onto a regular RF mount, as the camera will crop down automatically. So I see no need to create a distinct RF-S mount, even if they do decide to create a crop RF lens.


----------



## entoman (Jan 27, 2022)

peters said:


> If its an ultra compact camera like the Sigma FP, I may be interested. Maybe fullframe or APS-C. As long as its offering good quality images, I would be very interested in this for travel/hiking  EVF may be added on an acessory port, like on the Sigma FP. Which would be an interesting camera for travel, if there where some tiny pancake lenses for that fullframe sensor. Like a 50mm 1,8 pancake or a 35mm 1,8 or a 16mm f2,8 like canon offers.
> 
> If we see how tiny they can build lenses for the FF RF cameras (50mm 1,8 or the tiny 16mm f2,8) it would be very interesting to see, how small they can build lenses for an APS-C camera with the RF mount =)


I don't think having an add-on EVF is a very elegant solution. For one thing, it's pretty small and quite likely to get lost. For another, it will be expensive - the EVF-DC2 for the M series cameras costs a crazy £250. It's a lot cheaper to build it into the camera in the first place, and infinitely more convenient. Perhaps if Canon are aiming for a low price *and* a tiny compact camera, they might consider a pop-up EVF - but these are generally very low magnification and not of much use (low magnification makes it hard to see details).


----------



## bbasiaga (Jan 27, 2022)

SteveC said:


> This time we don't need a pseudo-different mount to prevent a -S lens from being put onto a regular RF mount, as the camera will crop down automatically. So I see no need to create a distinct RF-S mount, even if they do decide to create a crop RF lens.


The cheaper wide lenses already available are the first APS-c lenses. Listen to me here - they don't quite cover a FF image sensor properly, and rely heavily on in-camera correction profiles at their wide angles (think 24-240, 16mm 2.8). But pop that on an APSC and you are using the center of those image circles only. They are small, lightweight and less expensive. But, unlike EF-s, they also work great on FF thanks to the computational power of the bodies now offered and provided lens corrections. We've seen patents for more that appear to use the same concept, One mount, one lens type, covering both APS-c and and FF sensors and ensuring you can upgrade to FF and use your current glass. 

-Brian


----------



## Czardoom (Jan 27, 2022)

entoman said:


> I don't think having an add-on EVF is a very elegant solution. For one thing, it's pretty small and quite likely to get lost. For another, it will be expensive - the EVF-DC2 for the M series cameras costs a crazy £250. It's a lot cheaper to build it into the camera in the first place, and infinitely more convenient. Perhaps if Canon are aiming for a low price *and* a tiny compact camera, they might consider a pop-up EVF - but these are generally very low magnification and not of much use (low magnification makes it hard to see details).


An add on EVF may not be elegant, but it will allow the camera without an EVF to be sold at that lower price point that Canon may be aiming for, while also giving those who want an EVF the chance to buy the lowest cost R camera. I briefly owned the M6 II and bought the add-on EVF and it worked great for me. I bought the add-on EVF used, so it cost me less than $250. If they offer the low cost R camera without an EVF at all - than that would be a camera I would never buy - even for 50 bucks. There's no way I can hold the camera at arm's length and take the shot along with the fact that you can't see the screen in many lighting conditions. So no EVF means no buy. Add-on EVF means potential buy.


----------



## bergstrom (Jan 27, 2022)

I want an RP2 or RX, new budget entry, WITH FAN, 
proper HDMI, 
full ULTRA 4k will do, can live without 8k,
NO recording time limit, or if there IS one, 2 hours max would be fine
24-30MP
lp-e6 battery (not the horrendous lp-e17)

I don't want it at $999 and stuff missing, I wouldn't mind paying $1500 and everyone happy with it.


----------



## Czardoom (Jan 27, 2022)

bbasiaga said:


> The cheaper wide lenses already available are the first APS-c lenses. Listen to me here - they don't quite cover a FF image sensor properly, and rely heavily on in-camera correction profiles at their wide angles (think 24-240, 16mm 2.8). But pop that on an APSC and you are using the center of those image circles only. They are small, lightweight and less expensive. But, unlike EF-s, they also work great on FF thanks to the computational power of the bodies now offered and provided lens corrections. We've seen patents for more that appear to use the same concept, One mount, one lens type, covering both APS-c and and FF sensors and ensuring you can upgrade to FF and use your current glass.
> 
> -Brian


I agree that the R system does not need specific RF-S lenses (with the possible exception of a wide angle entry), but the 24-240 is not designed for the focal lengths that a crop user will want, nor is it at the price point for entry level crop buyers. The 16mm will translate to a usable crop lens, but so far they don't have any other lenses that really fit both FF and crop focal lengths. But if Canon puts out a entry level crop camera, then all they really need is an R lens that is something like 18-55mm. That zoom range can be used by both FF and crop users, and there you have the R crop kit lens. Then, if they put out an inexpensive 70-200mm (similar build and price to the RF 24-105 non-L) they will have another lens that can easily be used for both FF and crop. Crop users who are into wildlife will be looking at the telephotos anyway, so no need to put out any lenses meant primarily for crop cameras.


----------



## Alastair Norcross (Jan 27, 2022)

entoman said:


> I don't think having an add-on EVF is a very elegant solution. For one thing, it's pretty small and quite likely to get lost. For another, it will be expensive - the EVF-DC2 for the M series cameras costs a crazy £250. It's a lot cheaper to build it into the camera in the first place, and infinitely more convenient. Perhaps if Canon are aiming for a low price *and* a tiny compact camera, they might consider a pop-up EVF - but these are generally very low magnification and not of much use (low magnification makes it hard to see details).


I have had an M6 with EVF-DC2 since 2017, and the M6II since 2019. I've never even come close to losing the EVF, which I rarely use, but always have with me, just in case. I agree that $250 (or pounds) is a lot to pay for it. I got mine bundled in a deal when I bought my M6, and it cost me $49. If Canon offered the EVF discounted in bundles with a tiny R camera, that would be a great idea. What I really love about the detachable EVF for the M6 and M6II is that it allows me to use the camera without an EVF most of the time. I only use it with longer lenses. The M6 and M6II are so wonderfully light and compact that I carry them with me far more than my R. A friend recently moved from his Nikon D800 to a Sony A7C just because of the size.


----------



## bergstrom (Jan 27, 2022)

and hopefully canon figure out whats causing these lock ups and prevent them happening again with new models.


----------



## SaP34US (Jan 27, 2022)

I hope that the entry level apsc camera should have retro design like the Nikon Z fc so that design would that of the Canon AE 1.


----------



## CanonGrunt (Jan 27, 2022)

How small could they get a crop sensor RF mount body? Say in comparison to the M5 or M6 MK II…


----------



## bbasiaga (Jan 27, 2022)

CanonGrunt said:


> How small could they get a crop sensor RF mount body? Say in comparison to the M5 or M6 MK II…


for round numbers, say a half inch taller and wider to account for the increased diameter of the RF mount vs. EF-m mount. That's assuming the screen, EVF, battery, etc stay the same as the comparison body. 

Brian


----------



## bbasiaga (Jan 27, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> I agree that the R system does not need specific RF-S lenses (with the possible exception of a wide angle entry), but the 24-240 is not designed for the focal lengths that a crop user will want, nor is it at the price point for entry level crop buyers. The 16mm will translate to a usable crop lens, but so far they don't have any other lenses that really fit both FF and crop focal lengths. But if Canon puts out a entry level crop camera, then all they really need is an R lens that is something like 18-55mm. That zoom range can be used by both FF and crop users, and there you have the R crop kit lens. Then, if they put out an inexpensive 70-200mm (similar build and price to the RF 24-105 non-L) they will have another lens that can easily be used for both FF and crop. Crop users who are into wildlife will be looking at the telephotos anyway, so no need to put out any lenses meant primarily for crop cameras.


agreed, the 24-240 is not a typical analog range when used on a crop body, but it is an example of how the lenses will be designed to be compatible with both. THere were a bunch of patents for 18-xx or xxx zooms over the past few years. We'll see one or more of them. 

Brian


----------



## mxwphoto (Jan 27, 2022)

My guess, R7 at 36mpx newly developed crop sensor with Digic 11 and IBIS, mechanical shutter, essentially a R5 or R6 but cropped, maybe 8k, 14fps mechanical. Priced $2200-2500. This would not be an entry or mid level crop camera, it would be a companion to R3 for wildlife/other long reach uses.

R successor R8 or R9 probably 20-24mpx so as to not blow out R6 on the hierarchy and R6ii will have a 34mpx sensor for 8k. Have EVF, Digic X, IBIS, no mechanical shutter, limited to 10-12fps priced around $1699.

RPii or R100 or RKiss $999 using R6 sensor with Digic X, no IBIS, no EVF, no mechanical shutter, small battery and no raw on video (lack hdmi perhaps), limited 4k, limited to 5-8fps


----------



## David - Sydney (Jan 27, 2022)

vondo said:


> I'd love a small camera for underwater photography work. If that means ditching the viewfinder and APS-C, so be it. Of course, with APS-C you also need the right lenses (60ish macro for me).


You can always adapt the EF-s lenses which include the 60mm macro. It may not be a tiny package but it would be cheap(ish).
There is no doubt that my Ikelite R5 setup can't get in very close to the action especially when using an 8" dome!


----------



## cgc (Jan 27, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> And where you where did you come up with the idea that there might not be other R APS-C cameras in the future...and no APS-C glass?? Oh, you just made that up and then made deductions from a made up conclusion. I see you are new here. Off to a good start!


Now it there will be many full frame bodies:

Previously: 1DX, 5D4, 5DS, 6D (total of 4)
Now: R-entry, R-better, R6, R5, R3, R1 (total of 6)

I'd assume that more market segmentation in full frame implies less room for crop sensors.


----------



## Jethro (Jan 27, 2022)

bbasiaga said:


> for round numbers, say a half inch taller and wider to account for the increased diameter of the RF mount vs. EF-m mount. That's assuming the screen, EVF, battery, etc stay the same as the comparison body.
> 
> Brian


If they include IBIS (as they likely would with a true R7) that would add a certain amount of extra bulk. Not sure how much though. 

I'm not sure those wanting an R7 would want it as small as possible, because they will likely want to mount some pretty big lenses. Now, in terms of (possible) future replacements for the M series, that's where the smaller bodies would have to come into their own.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jan 27, 2022)

HikeBike said:


> I'm guessing nothing below an R7 (if there is one) will have IBIS. But we'll see.


I am not sure that the R7 will have IBIS. It will mostly be targeted at telephoto users where IBIS is less effective anyway.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jan 27, 2022)

cgc said:


> So the R5s and R1 will not come until 2023... and no APS-C glass ever, or maybe merely only a single kit lens? A single crop camera model does not deserves a entire line of crop glass...


Wide angle EF-s lenses will cover the APS-C sensor without any issues but won't be the smallest/lightest solution. 
The forecasted RF 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS STM would be another option going to ~29mm full frame equivalent. It should be small and cheap (by RF standards)
I believe that there won't be a RF-s mount


----------



## cgc (Jan 27, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> "Crippled sensor"? That, I am unhappy to say, is a new one. Very creative!


Well, they could always make a FF sensor with identical pixel density (with far more resolution and same IQ at image level) for the same exact tele reach of APS-C. This just depends on how they cut the CMOS wafers.

Instead they choose to make the FF in one body (bigger pixels) and the long reach (smaller pixels) in a separate cropped body (more chances to sell both). Both sensors are "crippled" in some way from the technologically feasible high resolution single FF one.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jan 27, 2022)

It would be interesting to see a RP mark ii... probably without an EVF for size/cost and be a bridge from phone cameras to full frame.
For me, it could be a great backup body or one where I could use it for star trails overnight. A second hand RP would be another option as well.


----------



## cgc (Jan 27, 2022)

reefroamer said:


> From my understanding, all existing Canon EF-S (APSC) lenses should work perfectly with the EF-R adapter on any R-mount crop sensor Canon bodies. That would include ultra wide angle lenses like the EF-S 10-18. I believe these EF-S lenses would fill the entire smaller APSC sensor without cropping (as happens on the full-frame R bodies). Thus, buyers of crop sensor R bodies would have plenty of crop lens choices from the get-go. Canon might develop native R mount crop lenses if they saw the demand, but users could adapt all the existing EF-S lenses to meet immediate needs. And that might be all there is to it.


Many (if not most) EF and EF-S lenses are discontinued


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jan 27, 2022)

cgc said:


> I bet for the names being:
> 
> R7 for around 32MP APS-C (great features and speed, crippled sensor and OVF nostalgia plus EVF)
> R10 for the new full frame bellow R6/R5 with around 32MP (mirrorless 90D successor and R replacement)
> R100 for a tiny entry-level full-frame with no EVF (mirrorless 850D successor and RP replacement)


My guess is Canon will keep the single digit number models for full-frame models. So here it goes:

- R100 for the APS-C if it is more like a slight above entry level camera OR
- R10 for the APS-C if it's spaced like a the 80d/ 90d series

- R9 for entry level --> basically just a sensor in a camera housing 
- R8 for the new full frame below R6/5 --> R8 also shows some distance to them... 


R7 will stay reserved as a placeholder in case Canon decides to offer a truly pro APS-C model...


----------



## entoman (Jan 27, 2022)

Alastair Norcross said:


> I have had an M6 with EVF-DC2 since 2017, and the M6II since 2019. I've never even come close to losing the EVF, which I rarely use, but always have with me, just in case. I agree that $250 (or pounds) is a lot to pay for it. I got mine bundled in a deal when I bought my M6, and it cost me $49. If Canon offered the EVF discounted in bundles with a tiny R camera, that would be a great idea. What I really love about the detachable EVF for the M6 and M6II is that it allows me to use the camera without an EVF most of the time. I only use it with longer lenses. The M6 and M6II are so wonderfully light and compact that I carry them with me far more than my R. A friend recently moved from his Nikon D800 to a Sony A7C just because of the size.


If you got the EVF for $49 then I agree that it's a bargain, and I can understand the desire for a camera that fits in the pocket, for occasions when you don't want to lug a larger setup around, or for when you want to be inconspicuous.

I'm genuinely glad that it's a solution that works for you, but I'd rather pay a bit extra to get a built-in EVF, and I wouldn't under any circumstances use a rear screen for my own photography for several reasons -

I consider them too small to be usable for composition as it's not possible to adequately see details or distracting features in the background.
It's much easier to hold a camera steady when it's held against the face, than at arms length.
In bright conditions reflections on the screen make it virtually unusable.
I can't properly judge exposure via WYSIWYG when the contrast and brightness of the screen auto-adjusts to compensate for ambient light.

I'm most definitely in the "no EVF/OVF, no buy" group!


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jan 27, 2022)

cgc said:


> Now it there will be many full frame bodies:
> 
> Previously: 1DX, 5D4, 5DS, 6D (total of 4)
> Now: R-entry, R-better, R6, R5, R3, R1 (total of 6)
> ...


Absolutely agree. There won't be as many APS-C as we had for EF mount. I guess a maximum of three cameras and maybe a retro one...


----------



## David - Sydney (Jan 27, 2022)

Another option for the R7 is an APS-C sensor that has the same pixel density as a future full frame R5s. 
Using the 32mp example from 90D/M6ii then it would scale to 82mp full frame.
I think that it is possible for Canon to reuse the 2019 90D sensor in a R7. It may be 3 years old but it would be much cheaper than developing a new sensor.
14fps for M6ii vs 10fps for 7Dii, 
Higher pixel density
better video, 
flippy screen,
single vs dual card slots
lighter but probably less rugged/weather sealing
Might not have a LPE6 battery though


----------



## David - Sydney (Jan 27, 2022)

cgc said:


> Many (if not most) EF and EF-S lenses are discontinued


B&H have heaps in stock (Canon and 3rd party). The main ones will be the EF-s 10-18mm and 10-22mm otherwise EF and RF would be used.


----------



## entoman (Jan 27, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> My guess is Canon will keep the single digit number models for full-frame models. So here it goes:
> 
> - R100 for the APS-C if it is more like a slight above entry level camera OR
> - R10 for the APS-C if it's spaced like a the 80d/ 90d series
> ...


I've always found it strange that in the xxD series, a high number (90D) is more advanced (and more recent) than a low number (60D), whereas with the xD series, a high number (6D) denotes a model less advanced than a low number (1D).

It's equally odd that ALL the full frame DSLRs had single digit designations, whereas the APS-C models had single (7D), double (80D), triple (750D), and quadruple (1000D) digit designations, plus weirdo alternative names - the 850D, Kiss X10i and Rebel T8i all being exactly the same model!

As for the RF mount cameras, my undoubtedly incorrect prediction is:

Hi end models, whether APS-C or FF, will all be single-digit (R1, R3, R5, R6, R7)

Economy/beginner models will all be double digit (R10, R50 etc).


----------



## Bob Howland (Jan 27, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Wild guesses: The bottom-of-the-line camera will be as small as possible, to see if they can convince potential M-mount customers to go R mount instead and maybe, eventually kill off the M system. I'm not sure Canon has any lenses to match with it. Maybe Sigma will bail them out again. The R6 sensor is a really interesting choice.

The source's description of the APS-C body sounds really interesting. Maybe there are enough of us 7D/7D2/etc users to provoke a replacement. I'd settle for 24MP but may be in the minority in that.

I still want to know what the C300-3 and C500-2 "modules" are.


----------



## peters (Jan 27, 2022)

CanonGrunt said:


> How small could they get a crop sensor RF mount body? Say in comparison to the M5 or M6 MK II…


Given the very short flange distance and the allready impressive tiny RF lenses they recently announced - I'd say and hope "VERY small"  
Travel camera here we go =)


----------



## Bob Howland (Jan 27, 2022)

CanonGrunt said:


> How small could they get a crop sensor RF mount body? Say in comparison to the M5 or M6 MK II…


Why would the sensor have to be crop? The limiting factor is the size of the lens mount and the R-mount isn't that much larger than the M-mount. I could see M6-2 size or slightly larger, full frame.


----------



## Phenix205 (Jan 27, 2022)

Can someone help me understand the advantage of having a large RF mount for an APS-C sensor? Mounting a high end expensive RF lens on an APS-C sensor camera makes no sense to me. Many people like Fuji X mount cameras because they are compact and overall system cost, weight and size are reduced significantly. Personally I hope Canon would revitalize the M series and develop some high quality prime or zoom lenses for travel photographers, and concentrate on producing more affordable RF bodies and lenses.


----------



## Deleted (Jan 27, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> Why would the sensor have to be crop? The limiting factor is the size of the lens mount and the R-mount isn't that much larger than the M-mount. I could see M6-2 size or slightly larger, full frame.


Cost. You still get more good sensors per wafer than you would with FF. it still makes a difference. Then we have the ancillary costs, buffer memory for instance. More pixels means more memory, heat to manage with increased data throughput. You can have a more pixel dense sensor but less pixels to deal with so can limit the above costs. Then there is the ibis, the bigger sensor requires more current do drive the actuators that move it so more cost increase. It all adds up to a not insignificant amount.


----------



## Del Paso (Jan 27, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> "Crippled sensor"? That, I am unhappy to say, is a new one. Very creative!


A crippled sensor is a sensor which has been hit several times with the legendary cripple hammer.


----------



## entoman (Jan 27, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> Wild guesses: The bottom-of-the-line camera will be as small as possible, to see if they can convince potential M-mount customers to go R mount instead and maybe, eventually kill off the M system. I'm not sure Canon has any lenses to match with it. Maybe Sigma will bail them out again. The R6 sensor is a really interesting choice.
> 
> The source's description of the APS-C body sounds really interesting. Maybe there are enough of us 7D/7D2/etc users to provoke a replacement. I'd settle for 24MP but may be in the minority in that.
> 
> I still want to know the C300-3 and C500-2 "modules" are.


It wouldn't surprise me if Canon launched a couple of crop lenses for any budget crop RF cameras that they may produce.

Perhaps a pancake 28mm F2.8 for group shots, parties, scenery, street.

... and possibly a very compact retractable telezoom (80-180mm F5.6-8?).

Such a pair of lenses might, as you hint, help to convince potential M customers and smartphoners to buy into RF.


----------



## Deleted (Jan 27, 2022)

Phenix205 said:


> Can someone help me understand the advantage of having a large RF mount for an APS-C sensor? Mounting a high end expensive RF lens on an APS-C sensor camera makes no sense to me. Many people like Fuji X mount cameras because they are compact and overall system cost, weight and size are reduced significantly. Personally I hope Canon would revitalize the M series and develop some high quality prime or zoom lenses for travel photographers, and concentrate on producing more affordable RF bodies and lenses.


As per my post on the last page. I own both FF and crop cameras. When out for a long hike, I can carry a 100-400 on a crop body and still get the pixels on subject I would with a FF/600mm combo. Also means I can track fast subjects like swift handheld for a lot longer than I could with a 600 F4. For a 100-400 I do not need a tripod but for long use I would with a big 600 depending on the situation.

I also shoot macro handheld for hours. I favour crop/60mm over my ff/100mm all the time. The 60mm fits in the bag easier. More importantly it is much lighter on long sessions. As the muscles tire it is more of a struggle to keep steady so less successful shots.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jan 27, 2022)

Phenix205 said:


> Can someone help me understand the advantage of having a large RF mount for an APS-C sensor? Mounting a high end expensive RF lens on an APS-C sensor camera makes no sense to me. Many people like Fuji X mount cameras because they are compact and overall system cost, weight and size are reduced significantly. Personally I hope Canon would revitalize the M series and develop some high quality prime or zoom lenses for travel photographers, and concentrate on producing more affordable RF bodies and lenses.


Which would you rather purchase and carry around a race track for 6 hours: a FF camera with a 400 f/2.8 lens or an APS-C body with a 300 f/2.8 lens? How about trying to capture a skittish tiny bird from too great a distance, when you really need a 1200mm lens? The phrase is "focal length limited". You may have high hopes for the M-system. I certainly did at one point, but there don't seem to be enough of us to get Canon's attention. Incidentally, an M5 looks ridiculous on my Sigma 150-600 Sport zoom but it works remarkably well.


----------



## chrisrmueller (Jan 27, 2022)

Phenix205 said:


> Can someone help me understand the advantage of having a large RF mount for an APS-C sensor? Mounting a high end expensive RF lens on an APS-C sensor camera makes no sense to me. Many people like Fuji X mount cameras because they are compact and overall system cost, weight and size are reduced significantly. Personally I hope Canon would revitalize the M series and develop some high quality prime or zoom lenses for travel photographers, and concentrate on producing more affordable RF bodies and lenses.


I am thinking the advantage is on Canon's side. Like with the R5C, perhaps there is less developmental cost if they were to just take an R5 or R6 body and stick a different, cheaper APS-C sensor in it. I think it'd also let them bring it to market sooner.


----------



## BBarn (Jan 27, 2022)

All rumored before. Nothing to see here, except perhaps schedule slip to the right.


----------



## vjlex (Jan 27, 2022)

Canon Watch / asobinet reported on a patent for an 16-55mm RF-S lens. Patents aren't guarantees, but this does add more fuel to the fire. So I'm hoping for the APS-C type R body this year, maybe something like an R50- a cross between an M50, M5 level R camera. I really want to replace my M3 soon, and am on the verge of just getting the M50, but trying to hold out.


----------



## bergstrom (Jan 27, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> It would be interesting to see a RP mark ii... probably without an EVF for size/cost and be a bridge from phone cameras to full frame.
> For me, it could be a great backup body or one where I could use it for star trails overnight. A second hand RP would be another option as well.


Forget RP, huge error on canon's part.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 27, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> Which would you rather purchase and carry around a race track for 6 hours: a FF camera with a 400 f/2.8 lens or an APS-C body with a 300 f/2.8 lens? How about trying to capture a skittish tiny bird from too great a distance, when you really need a 1200mm lens? The phrase is "focal length limited".


That depends on the lighting, and even more on Canon’s decisions. In poor light, sensor size matters a lot. Canon’s action-oriented FF DSLRs always had better AF systems than their APS-C bodies. With DPAF they _could_ be on even footing, but I would bet Canon will nerf an APS-C R-series body in some way compared to the R3/R5.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 28, 2022)

bergstrom said:


> Forget RP, huge error on canon's part.


Yes, it was only the #7 best-selling ILC in Japan last month. Truly pathetic.

I mean your business acumen, not the EOS RP.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 28, 2022)

chrisrmueller said:


> I would love to see an R7 that is an R5 body with a new APS-C sensor in it. I say R5 and not R6 because I really like that Mode button for convenience and the CFexpress/SD combo for high speed. Something like this in the high $1,000's would be an absolute winner.


Absolute winner for whom? Maybe not for Canon if they sell a crop R5 for less than it costs them to make it.


----------



## Czardoom (Jan 28, 2022)

cgc said:


> Well, they could always make a FF sensor with identical pixel density (with far more resolution and same IQ at image level) for the same exact tele reach of APS-C. This just depends on how they cut the CMOS wafers.
> 
> Instead they choose to make the FF in one body (bigger pixels) and the long reach (smaller pixels) in a separate cropped body (more chances to sell both). Both sensors are "crippled" in some way from the technologically feasible high resolution single FF one.


It seems like you have joined the forum with the sole intent to bash Canon. By your reasoning, every FF sensor less than 82 MP (which would be the FF equivalent to Canon's 32mp crop sensor) is crippled. You say the crop sensor is also crippled, but if it is the 32 MP sensor that is the maximum so far, then your comment makes no sense at all.

You also seem to be assuming that if Canon made a 82 MP FF camera, then there would be no reason to make a 32 MP crop camera - everyone could just buy the FF camera and get the same "reach" in crop mode. I guess you are ignoring that the 82 MP FF camera would be far more expensive, have much larger files, therefore a much smaller buffer, too.


----------



## Czardoom (Jan 28, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> I am not sure that the R7 will have IBIS. It will mostly be targeted at telephoto users where IBIS is less effective anyway.


IBIS may be less effective at telephoto distances, but is far more important. The smallest movement of a telephoto lens creates a large movement of the subject in the frame. Luckily, all the newer telephoto lenses have IS, so in that sense, IBIS is less important.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jan 28, 2022)

bergstrom said:


> Forget RP, huge error on canon's part.


It has the 6Dii sensor in it which is fine for astro landscapes. I don't need good AF or fast fps and ISO800 is fine for colourful star trails. Manual shutter trigger and a dew heater.
The RP is amazing for the price and size. It is a class leader that no other OEM has matched.
Why is it an error?


----------



## David - Sydney (Jan 28, 2022)

Phenix205 said:


> Can someone help me understand the advantage of having a large RF mount for an APS-C sensor? Mounting a high end expensive RF lens on an APS-C sensor camera makes no sense to me. Many people like Fuji X mount cameras because they are compact and overall system cost, weight and size are reduced significantly. Personally I hope Canon would revitalize the M series and develop some high quality prime or zoom lenses for travel photographers, and concentrate on producing more affordable RF bodies and lenses.


Pixels on subject is the main reason posed and you can have a larger working distance for hand held macro ie without disturbing wildlife.
Certain cost reduction as mentioned above but it is hard to quantify these days.
The other big reason is cost for the user especially for indoor sports where a EF70-200mm/2.8 (with/without TC) is much more useful and cost effective than going for big whites.

For me the M family is all about cost and size. Releasing higher quality M zooms don't make sense when you can adapt EF/EF-s existing lenses and the system is then front heavy from a balance perspective. Higher quality primes tend to be bigger and (as far as I know) the biggest filter thread on a M lens is 55mm. Moving up in price puts it in RP territory (and RPii may be even cheaper!)


----------



## speg (Jan 28, 2022)

Ohhhh baby! It's gonna be my year! I'm a simple Rp user lusting after the R6. 

My dream is an R6 without IBIS and a single card slot (to save on cost and bulk). Will any of these be that? Time will tell!


----------



## esglord (Jan 28, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, it was only the #7 best-selling ILC in Japan last month. Truly pathetic.
> 
> I mean your business acumen, not the EOS RP.


Yep, the RP’s price got me into Canon’s system and then I gave them thousands more dollars for lenses. Sooner or later I’ll pick up an R6 or this rumored R replacement for the dpaf ii but I’m still pleased with the RP. If there had been no RP, my camera model would start with a Z.


----------



## vjlex (Jan 28, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> I believe that there won't be a RF-s mount


This is my thinking too. The R mount would mount both RF and RF-S lenses without need for an -S specific mount.


----------



## vjlex (Jan 28, 2022)

Phenix205 said:


> Can someone help me understand the advantage of having a large RF mount for an APS-C sensor? Mounting a high end expensive RF lens on an APS-C sensor camera makes no sense to me. Many people like Fuji X mount cameras because they are compact and overall system cost, weight and size are reduced significantly. Personally I hope Canon would revitalize the M series and develop some high quality prime or zoom lenses for travel photographers, and concentrate on producing more affordable RF bodies and lenses.


For me, an APS-C R-body would be a second body that offers versatility- a camera that can utilize both my RF and EF lenses, and give me a bit more reach. I like the M mount, but as my EF lenses slowly get replaced with RF, it is offering me less and less versatility.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jan 28, 2022)

vjlex said:


> This is my thinking too. The R mount would mount both RF and RF-S lenses without need for an -S specific mount.


I don't think that there will be any specific RF-s lenses. Either adapt EF-s lenses if you absolutely need wide angle or the RF 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS STM as it should be cheap and small. You could always adapt the EF11-24mm but that combination would be more unlikely.
If Canon are releasing the R7 to cater for the pixels-subject-users then wide angle is less likely to be needed and I think that RF-s lenses would be sitting in inventory if they were released at all.


----------



## Chig (Jan 28, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> I am not sure that the R7 will have IBIS. It will mostly be targeted at telephoto users where IBIS is less effective anyway.


I agree as it's of little use for action where high shutter speeds are needed anyway and this could improve heat transfer , I'd rather have twin CFe card slots and/or a stacked BSI sensor than IBIS


----------



## Chig (Jan 28, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> I don't think that there will be any specific RF-s lenses. Either adapt EF-s lenses if you absolutely need wide angle or the RF 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS STM as it should be cheap and small. You could always adapt the EF11-24mm but that combination would be more unlikely.
> If Canon are releasing the R7 to cater for the pixels-subject-users then wide angle is less likely to be needed and I think that RF-s lenses would be sitting in inventory if they were released at all.


You could also use the EF-RF speed booster with wide angle EF lenses


----------



## David - Sydney (Jan 28, 2022)

Chig said:


> I agree as it's of little use for action where high shutter speeds are needed anyway and this could improve heat transfer , I'd rather have twin CFe card slots and/or a stacked BSI sensor than IBIS


I think that it will be highly unlikely for twin slots as much as the 7D users would prefer it (with the same weather sealing).
No need for an expensive new BSI sensor with low rolling shutter when video won't be a priority and 10-14fps could be handled by an existing sensor.
I could be wrong but the pricing will dictate what the feature set will be. I think that it will be priced under the R6


----------



## Chig (Jan 28, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> I think that it will be highly unlikely for twin slots as much as the 7D users would prefer it (with the same weather sealing).
> No need for an expensive new BSI sensor with low rolling shutter when video won't be a priority and 10-14fps could be handled by an existing sensor.
> I could be wrong but the pricing will dictate what the feature set will be. I think that it will be priced under the R6


Rolling shutter is a problem for stills too with high speed action such as small fast birds or balls/bats in sports


----------



## Otara (Jan 28, 2022)

If they released a 7D2 'mini 1DX' again Id be interested. If it was an M5 update I would be, even though I cant use EF_M with it. As said above, it probably will be neither, so be interesting to see what Canon's take is, Im guessing 90Dish? Ie a good camera at a useful pricepoint but probably not what people in this forum would be wishing for.


----------



## fox40phil (Jan 28, 2022)

No R1!?! Or does that mean R1 could come in the 1st half of 22?


----------



## Chig (Jan 28, 2022)

fox40phil said:


> No R1!?! Or does that mean R1 could come in the 1st half of 22?


I predict late 2023/ early 2024 for the R1 leading up to the 2024 Paris Olympics


----------



## vjlex (Jan 28, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> I don't think that there will be any specific RF-s lenses. Either adapt EF-s lenses if you absolutely need wide angle or the RF 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS STM as it should be cheap and small. You could always adapt the EF11-24mm but that combination would be more unlikely.
> If Canon are releasing the R7 to cater for the pixels-subject-users then wide angle is less likely to be needed and I think that RF-s lenses would be sitting in inventory if they were released at all.


Personally, I'm not particularly interested in an RF-S lens, just an APS-C sensor. I only mention it because the asobinet article cited in this article mentions RF-S. I'm not sure how they arrived at it being RF-S, but it seems plausible.


----------



## vignes (Jan 28, 2022)

Canon APSC lens offer was not that great. I don't know why would someone invest on Canon EFS lens? At least the 3rd party ones were better.
Majority bought EF L lens and used it on APSC body. the only advantage was crop for more reach.
So Canon will do the same, come up with some cheap RF-S lens, bundle it and try to sell tons of it. Later get people buying RF lens.

in EF-FF, you couldn't use EF-S lens to crop but You can use crop mode in R5 to achieve the same. So, there isn't much value unless you're concern about resolution.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 28, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> ...the 24-240 is not designed for the focal lengths that a crop user will want...


Not so sure that is true.


----------



## HMC11 (Jan 28, 2022)

The rumoured new R FF cameras seem to be replacements for RP & R. By putting the 1DXIII sensor in the entry-level camera, it would be psychologically challenging to buy an R6 even if the latter have much better features and control. It could well put downward price pressure on the R6 which is good news for me . The R replacement, assuming it has a 30ish mpx would be most interesting for someone who don't really need 45mpx, and feels 20mpx limiting if heavy cropping is needed.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 28, 2022)

entoman said:


> ...I'm genuinely glad that it's a solution that works for you, but I'd rather pay a bit extra to get a built-in EVF, and I wouldn't under any circumstances use a rear screen for my own photography for several reasons...
> 
> ...I'm most definitely in the "no EVF/OVF, no buy" group!


Were you ever part of that target audience? If you are over 30, I doubt it. Don't fall into the trap of "I won't buy it, so they shouldn't make it." There are millions of people who have never used a viewfinder and wouldn't hesitate to buy a camera without one. I'm always surprised when I see someone shooting a Rebel using the rear screen, but that's just the way many people have always shot photos, even if I would never do it that way.


----------



## quiquae (Jan 28, 2022)

The APS-C body is a head scratcher when taken literally: what's the point of mixing the high-speed action specialist 7D with the soccer mom generalist M50?
I wonder if the actual message is that they'll use the same sensor to make both a 7D successor on RF, and an M50 successor on EF-M (or maybe even RF). That would make a lot more sense--this would be a good time to prop up EF-M if Canon is planning to stick with it for another few years.

I also wonder if the reference to "true hybrid" means that they'll release a 45MP APS-C sensor that can shoot 8K. That would be very convenient for the video crowd, and the rumored RF cinema lenses would provide a good excuse to release this on RF rather than EF-M, especially if they're super-35 rather than full frame.


----------



## Swerky (Jan 28, 2022)

No evf, fine as long as the camera would be compatible with the existing evf-dc2. Depending on specs, it would either be the entry level model or the one above it for me. The lenses I need exist already. Just need the cash flow.


----------



## chrisrmueller (Jan 28, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Absolute winner for whom? Maybe not for Canon if they sell a crop R5 for less than it costs them to make it.


I think it would be a winner for consumers who want that body style but not a full frame sensor.

I don’t purport to know what it would cost for Canon to make this camera, but it is my understanding that the most expensive part of the camera is the sensor. If the development in the body is already there (meaning they don’t have to build from the ground up and just adjust cooling/firmware/etc. for the smaller sensor) and they swap the expensive full frame sensor for a cheaper APS-C, it may actually be within reason to sell something like this in the high $1,000’s. I bought my 7D Mark ii new for $1,500 when the 5D Mark iii was over $3,000. If an R6 is selling for $2,500, maybe it’s feasible.

I’m not an engineer or a salesperson though, so I’m just throwing ideas out there for the sake of conversation.


----------



## 2Cents (Jan 28, 2022)

csibra said:


> Oh, it's so simple: no EVF/OVF no buy for me





csibra said:


> Oh, it's so simple: no EVF/OVF no buy for me


I am officially an old folk


----------



## David - Sydney (Jan 28, 2022)

Chig said:


> Rolling shutter is a problem for stills too with high speed action such as small fast birds or balls/bats in sports


Is the rolling shutter on the M6ii okay for action?


----------



## bergstrom (Jan 28, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, it was only the #7 best-selling ILC in Japan last month. Truly pathetic.
> 
> I mean your business acumen, not the EOS RP.



Great marketing and great sales doesn't always mean a great product.


----------



## bergstrom (Jan 28, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> It has the 6Dii sensor in it which is fine for astro landscapes. I don't need good AF or fast fps and ISO800 is fine for colourful star trails. Manual shutter trigger and a dew heater.
> The RP is amazing for the price and size. It is a class leader that no other OEM has matched.
> Why is it an error?



4k cropped, lp e17 battery.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 28, 2022)

SteveC said:


> This time we don't need a pseudo-different mount to prevent a -S lens from being put onto a regular RF mount, as the camera will crop down automatically. So I see no need to create a distinct RF-S mount, even if they do decide to create a crop RF lens.


I think customers would like to know whether they'll get the sensor's full resolution, or the camera will auto crop the image for them.


----------



## jam05 (Jan 28, 2022)

csibra said:


> Oh, it's so simple: no EVF/OVF no buy for M





entoman said:


> Yikes, I hope that if they remove the EVF, that they only do it on the cheapest model. Viewing on a little rear screen is OK for people who just want to take snaps, but near-impossible for people shooting sports, action, wildlife or anything requiring careful composition. Heaven forbid that EVF isn't lost from any other models.


The rear screen is also used for motion picture, video etc. Composition was always using the rear glass/screen long before digital cameras came on the scene anyhow. Nothing new


----------



## jam05 (Jan 28, 2022)

The rear glass, rear screen, monitor, etc. was used long before digital cameras came on the scene. If you really want to get original about it. So don't act as if composition on the rear larger display is NEW. Exactly what are digital backs?


----------



## jam05 (Jan 28, 2022)

vignes said:


> Canon APSC lens offer was not that great. I don't know why would someone invest on Canon EFS lens? At least the 3rd party ones were better.
> Majority bought EF L lens and used it on APSC body. the only advantage was crop for more reach.
> So Canon will do the same, come up with some cheap RF-S lens, bundle it and try to sell tons of it. Later get people buying RF lens.
> 
> in EF-FF, you couldn't use EF-S lens to crop but You can use crop mode in R5 to achieve the same. So, there isn't much value unless you're concern about resolution


----------



## jam05 (Jan 28, 2022)

Majority? Not. Availability. For entry level, Canon simply has a larger footprint, better price points, and larger availability than most 3rd party lenses. Remember everyone on the planet doesn't use shipping and delivery mail service. Canon cameras and lenses can be purchased on every continent and in remote locations that there is simply no presense of many modern 3rd party lenses at all.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 28, 2022)

Distinctly Average said:


> As per my post on the last page. I own both FF and crop cameras. When out for a long hike, I can carry a 100-400 on a crop body and still get the pixels on subject I would with a FF/600mm combo. Also means I can track fast subjects like swift handheld for a lot longer than I could with a 600 F4. For a 100-400 I do not need a tripod but for long use I would with a big 600 depending on the situation.
> 
> I also shoot macro handheld for hours. I favour crop/60mm over my ff/100mm all the time. The 60mm fits in the bag easier. More importantly it is much lighter on long sessions. As the muscles tire it is more of a struggle to keep steady so less successful shots.


Tracking swifts in flight is impressive!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 28, 2022)

bergstrom said:


> Great marketing and great sales doesn't always mean a great product.


Your personal dislike of something doesn’t make it an error on the manufacturer’s part. The only error here is your assumption that your opinion is shared by a meaningful number of people.


----------



## Joaquim (Jan 28, 2022)

I've been waiting for the R7 for some time now. Not investing in modern day aperture zooms simply because my older Sigma EX versions are still brilliant even if the 50-150 OS doesn't work with the Fringers on my Fuji's. As much as I cannot financially justify selling my fuji stuff and moving back to Canon, (if the R7 princess to actually be a baby R1/R3 which is what the original 7D line was modeled after) I'd still be happy if it's a really great product. Having said that, 'mix of M50' doesn't sound promising to me.


----------



## entoman (Jan 28, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Were you ever part of that target audience? If you are over 30, I doubt it. Don't fall into the trap of "I won't buy it, so they shouldn't make it." There are millions of people who have never used a viewfinder and wouldn't hesitate to buy a camera without one. I'm always surprised when I see someone shooting a Rebel using the rear screen, but that's just the way many people have always shot photos, even if I would never do it that way.


Yes I fully realise that there are millions who have never used a viewfinder, and I'd go so far as to say that I'm sure their images suffer as a result of using a camera that way. And sure, manufacturers are just responding to that demand. But I feel that manufacturers also have a *responsibility* to ensure that their products are fit for purpose. And IMO, a stills camera without a viewfinder is not fit for purpose, unless that purpose is to produce technically poor and badly composed snaps.


----------



## entoman (Jan 28, 2022)

jam05 said:


> The rear screen is also used for motion picture, video etc.


I should have clarified that I was referring to stills usage, not professional video.

I realise that "rear screens" are in many cases preferable for TV, cinema and other serious videography, mainly because the equipment is too large and unwieldy to be held at the eye.

In those examples, the screen is typically an external monitor, and a large one, with a sunshade, so my criticisms of (small) rear screens do not apply.

Drone photography also of course uses a separate screen, but in this case the screen is likely to be at least 6 inches across, making it possible to judge focus and composition properly.

The issue with rear screens on APS-C and FF cameras, is that a) the screens are too small to be usable for composition or analysis of details, b) they are used at arms length which makes it much harder to keep the camera steady, and c) reflections from ambient light make them virtually unusable in sunlight. Using an OVF or EVF solves all those issues, and leads to better photography.


----------



## entoman (Jan 28, 2022)

jam05 said:


> Composition was always using the rear glass/screen long before digital cameras came on the scene anyhow.


Yes, composition on rear screens was common in the early days of photography. It must have great fun trying to compose a dull, upside-down, reversed image on a plate camera /s.

In my days as an industrial photographer (I'm now retired, and a hobbyist wildlife photographer), I used many different types of camera, including Rolleiflex twin-lens reflexes and Hasselblad SLRs, in which composition and focusing took place on a 6x6cms waist-level screen. The image was laterally reversed, making it very difficult to follow movement, and the whole experience was awful and archaic compared to using a pentaprism OVF or a modern EVF.

Times, thankfully, have moved on since then.

IMO, the ideal viewing method for stills (and for relatively compact video cameras), is to have a tilting EVF - i.e. similar to the Leica Visoflex attachment, but integral rather than a clip-on accessory.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 28, 2022)

cgc said:


> Well, they could always make a FF sensor with identical pixel density (with far more resolution and same IQ at image level) for the same exact tele reach of APS-C. This just depends on how they cut the CMOS wafers.
> 
> Instead they choose to make the FF in one body (bigger pixels) and the long reach (smaller pixels) in a separate cropped body (more chances to sell both). Both sensors are "crippled" in some way from the technologically feasible high resolution single FF one.


Canon can make sensors with a higher resolution. We could have a long discussion on why it doesn't, the bottom line is Canon is in it to make a profit, not to sell customers the very best it can.

And, AFAIK, Nikon did the same for a long while, with FF and APS-C cameras having sensors with the same resolution.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jan 28, 2022)

Antono Refa said:


> Canon can make sensors with a higher resolution. We could have a long discussion on why it doesn't, the bottom line is Canon is in it to make a profit, not to sell customers the very best it can.
> 
> And, AFAIK, Nikon did the same for a long while, with FF and APS-C cameras having sensors with the same resolution.


A cropped sensor with fewer but smaller pixels can be read more frequently than a FF sensor with the same size pixels. The Canon 32MP APS-C sensor, scaled up to FF gives 80MP but the smaller sensor might be readable at 10 FPS. The same processing engine at 80MP could only get 4 FPS. Improving the processing engine costs money. It boils down to: speed, resolution and/or cost - choose two.

Change that last sentence to: _At any particular time,_ it boils down to: speed, resolution and/or cost - choose two.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jan 28, 2022)

I just hope the crop sensor model has:

a) a view finder
b) good in low light (tests show R5’s smaller pixels on par with R6for IQ)
c) focus bracketing 

100% buy for me if so. I’m still using an 80D.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 28, 2022)

entoman said:


> Yes I fully realise that there are millions who have never used a viewfinder, and I'd go so far as to say that I'm sure their images suffer as a result of using a camera that way. And sure, manufacturers are just responding to that demand. But I feel that manufacturers also have a *responsibility* to ensure that their products are fit for purpose. And IMO, a stills camera without a viewfinder is not fit for purpose, unless that purpose is to produce technically poor and badly composed snaps.


1. An EVF is just a screen you view in a different way. 2. Consumers at the low end (which is what we're talking about) aren't as likely to make the most of their equipment by whatever technical standards of 'quality' and composition you choose, and I doubt the way they observe the image before pressing the shutter button is the main reason for that. 3. A camera only needs to produce images that satisfy its user (or in professional circumstances, the client), and it matters not a jot whether they fail to meet other standards, however defined. 4. I doubt very much you could reliably tell whether images were composed with a viewfinder or rear screen in a blind test.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 28, 2022)

Jasonmc89 said:


> I just hope the crop sensor model has:
> 
> a) a view finder
> b) good in low light (tests show R5’s smaller pixels on par with R6for IQ)
> ...


With regard to b - the size of the sensor is the same in the R5 and R6, which is far more important for low light noise levels than the size of the pixels (unless you're viewing 1:1 which is an unfair comparison). An APS-C sensor will perform worse, though a new one may well do better than older models.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jan 28, 2022)

scyrene said:


> With regard to b - the size of the sensor is the same in the R5 and R6, which is far more important for low light noise levels than the size of the pixels (unless you're viewing 1:1 which is an unfair comparison). An APS-C sensor will perform worse, though a new one may well do better than older models.


For sure, but in a comparison video I watched, when zoomed in to over 100% the R5’s low light IQ was the same, if not better than the R6. Even though the pixels in the R6 are almost twice as big!

Surely the low light performance from a crop sensor made up of R5 pixels would be as good as the R5 would it not? 

Genuine question.. would it?

cheers


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jan 28, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> I am not sure that the R7 will have IBIS. It will mostly be targeted at telephoto users where IBIS is less effective anyway.


IBIS is pretty crucial to telephoto users…?


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jan 28, 2022)

Phenix205 said:


> Can someone help me understand the advantage of having a large RF mount for an APS-C sensor? Mounting a high end expensive RF lens on an APS-C sensor camera makes no sense to me. Many people like Fuji X mount cameras because they are compact and overall system cost, weight and size are reduced significantly. Personally I hope Canon would revitalize the M series and develop some high quality prime or zoom lenses for travel photographers, and concentrate on producing more affordable RF bodies and lenses.


All ef lenses can be used. Fast crop sensor bodies are the best for small wildlife, unless you can afford a 600mm f4. Also, once a user has an RF mount, well, then they’re trapped in the system and will likely buy more RF lenses down the line. It’s a good way for Canon to get another chunk of the market (the birders who can’t spend 20k on camera gear) using RF mount cameras.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 28, 2022)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Surely the low light performance from a crop sensor made up of R5 pixels would be as good as the R5 would it not?
> 
> Genuine question.. would it?


No. The perceived noise in an image inversely proportional to the total light gathered. A smaller sensor, whether physically smaller or only using a cropped potion of a larger sensor, gathers less light. Less light means more perceived noise.


----------



## entoman (Jan 28, 2022)

scyrene said:


> 1. An EVF is just a screen you view in a different way. 2. Consumers at the low end (which is what we're talking about) aren't as likely to make the most of their equipment by whatever technical standards of 'quality' and composition you choose, and I doubt the way they observe the image before pressing the shutter button is the main reason for that. 3. A camera only needs to produce images that satisfy its user (or in professional circumstances, the client), and it matters not a jot whether they fail to meet other standards, however defined. 4. I doubt very much you could reliably tell whether images were composed with a viewfinder or rear screen in a blind test.


Sorry but I have to disagree.

An eye-level OVF or EVF is a far more efficient way to view a scene and allows you to compose and judge focus, depth of field, bokeh and distracting background elements far better than peeking at a little screen at arm's length.

"Consumers at the low end" probably don't *care* much about the quality of their images, which are mostly keepsakes rather than efforts at "art" - many wouldn't even notice the existence of garbage in the background, poor exposure, bad focus or lousy composition. OK, that may sound elitist, but a decent OVF or EVF would *help* them to take photographs that they'd treasure, which is surely why they take photos in the first place.


----------



## vladk (Jan 28, 2022)

cgc said:


> So the R5s and R1 will not come until 2023... and no APS-C glass ever, or maybe merely only a single kit lens? A single crop camera model does not deserves a entire line of crop glass...


What made you believe there will be no APS-C glass ever? And how do you know there will be only a single APS-C camera model? 
While it can be quite possible there will be no midrange and telephoto APS-C glass for some time because the full frame RF glass line is far from completion, I am positive Canon will provide an RF alternative for at least 10-22.

I am more curious about the M line. APS-C RF most likely means it is dead.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 28, 2022)

entoman said:


> Sorry but I have to disagree.
> 
> An eye-level OVF or EVF is a far more efficient way to view a scene and allows you to compose and judge focus, depth of field, bokeh and distracting background elements far better than peeking at a little screen at arm's length.
> 
> "Consumers at the low end" probably don't *care* much about the quality of their images, which are mostly keepsakes rather than efforts at "art" - many wouldn't even notice the existence of garbage in the background, poor exposure, bad focus or lousy composition. OK, that may sound elitist, but a decent OVF or EVF would *help* them to take photographs that they'd treasure, which is surely why they take photos in the first place.


I have to disagree. What *helps* them take photographs that they'll treasure is always having a camera in their pocket. That's why smartphones are eroding the low end of the ILC market. People are far less likely to have an ILC with them to 'capture the moment'. Case in point – I took a couple of nice images of my daughter skiing last night, they were not technically perfect but they are definitely keepsakes. My thousands of dollars worth of FF cameras and lenses were at home (I actually had my M6 + M11-22 in my bag for group shots at the lodge, but I did not bring it on the lifts with me). My iPhone was in my pocket.

I'm curious, when you put your camera on a tripod and carefully compose a shot, do you use the VF or the LCD? Personally, I use the LCD. It's especially helpful for landscape shots, and architecture with my TS lenses. Being able to pick parts of the frame and check focus by zooming to 10x magnification (especially when using tilt) is far better than using an OVF, for me. Or for macro shooting, where the camera is at or near ground level – I have an Angle Finder C for my 1D X, but an articulating LCD is a far easier solution. So for me, even with efforts at "art" a rear LCD is much more helpful than a decent VF.

Of course, I would not want to track a bird in flight with my 600/4 using the rear LCD.


----------



## AJ (Jan 28, 2022)

entoman said:


> Sorry but I have to disagree.
> 
> An eye-level OVF or EVF is a far more efficient way to view a scene and allows you to compose and judge focus, depth of field, bokeh and distracting background elements far better than peeking at a little screen at arm's length.
> 
> "Consumers at the low end" probably don't *care* much about the quality of their images, which are mostly keepsakes rather than efforts at "art" - many wouldn't even notice the existence of garbage in the background, poor exposure, bad focus or lousy composition. OK, that may sound elitist, but a decent OVF or EVF would *help* them to take photographs that they'd treasure, which is surely why they take photos in the first place.


I have to agree.

I have a friend who recently bought an SLR because of the viewfinder. With a viewfinder you can make accurate compositions, judge focus, and have exposure controls at your fingertips. The reason for him buying an SLR was because of these features. My friend said he wanted a "real" camera, and if he was going to shoot using a screen he might as well use his phone. The viewfinder, then, is a big part of what sets apart a "real" camera from a phone. For him, the phone and the SLR both deliver plenty of image quality (Instagram) and it's the viewfinder that he wanted. IMO his rationale resonates with me.

For me, as an amateur, I'm happy with the quality APSC sensors deliver. I can display images on my 4k screen and print 13"x19" coffee table books that are tack-sharp. That's all I need. I don't have an 8k screen or clients who want wall-sized prints. I'd buy a low-end APSC mirrorless camera. I want the viewfinder for the reasons stated above, plus interchangeable lenses, plus manual zoom (I hate having to flip little levers and hearing a whiny little zoom motor). APSC has small, light, inexpensive lenses that deliver the quality I need.

At this point you'll tell me "Hey, AJ, it sounds like M is the way to go for you." Yes, that's 80% true, but the lens selection of the M line is limited. M has been sadly neglected and its future is up in the air. As for lens selection - in the past you could get EF glass and adapt it, but RF can't be adapted to M. A low-end APSC RF-mount camera would be the ticket for me.


----------



## amorse (Jan 28, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I have to disagree. What *helps* them take photographs that they'll treasure is always having a camera in their pocket. That's why smartphones are eroding the low end of the ILC market. People are far less likely to have an ILC with them to 'capture the moment'. Case in point – I took a couple of nice images of my daughter skiing last night, they were not technically perfect but they are definitely keepsakes. My thousands of dollars worth of FF cameras and lenses were at home (I actually had my M6 + M11-22 in my bag for group shots at the lodge, but I did not bring it on the lifts with me). My iPhone was in my pocket.
> 
> I'm curious, when you put your camera on a tripod and carefully compose a shot, do you use the VF or the LCD? Personally, I use the LCD. It's especially helpful for landscape shots, and architecture with my TS lenses. Being able to pick parts of the frame and check focus by zooming to 10x magnification (especially when using tilt) is far better than using an OVF, for me. Or for macro shooting, where the camera is at or near ground level – I have an Angle Finder C for my 1D X, but an articulating LCD is a far easier solution. So for me, even with efforts at "art" a rear LCD is much more helpful than a decent VF.
> 
> Of course, I would not want to track a bird in flight with my 600/4 using the rear LCD.


Agreed. Nearly 100% of my landscapes are shot using the LCD - 100% of them on a tripod, and even most of them when shot handheld, despite the reduced stability. I find the LCD's view easier to get a feel for composition where looking through the VF feels like seeing only a few parts of the composition at once (for me anyway). I guess the only time I really use the VF is if I'm shooting into the sun and can't see the LCD sufficiently even with full brightness.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 28, 2022)

Jasonmc89 said:


> IBIS is pretty crucial to telephoto users…?


IBIS is less effective the longer the focal length; the RF 100-500L is rated as giving 5 stops of stabilisation with ILIS and 6 combined with IBIS; for the RF 800mm f/11 officially no extra stabilisation is gained by using IBIS (it's rated at 4 stops).


----------



## scyrene (Jan 28, 2022)

entoman said:


> Sorry but I have to disagree.
> 
> An eye-level OVF or EVF is a far more efficient way to view a scene and allows you to compose and judge focus, depth of field, bokeh and distracting background elements far better than peeking at a little screen at arm's length.
> 
> "Consumers at the low end" probably don't *care* much about the quality of their images, which are mostly keepsakes rather than efforts at "art" - many wouldn't even notice the existence of garbage in the background, poor exposure, bad focus or lousy composition. OK, that may sound elitist, but a decent OVF or EVF would *help* them to take photographs that they'd treasure, which is surely why they take photos in the first place.


Why is it more efficient? Some things are objectively true: a screen is less effective in bright ambient light (especially with direct sun on it), and holding the camera against the head can be more stable, especially with bulkier lenses. But how is using the EVF more efficient? What does that even mean?

"Keepsakes" versus "art" doesn't matter. Art isn't great because it meets technical standards. Of course everyone's standards - both technical and affective - differ; regardless, my point is, if the audience for a camera body (in this hypothetical case, a cheap entry level body without an EVF) is satisfied, then it could be a sensible way for Canon to keep the price low, which is vastly more important to many potential customers than if their composition is "lousy".

PS I treasure photos because of their content, and this is by far the commonest view; as a sometime photography nerd, I also happen to appreciate technical aspects, but that puts me (and you) in the minority. My experience with lay folk is, even explaining what noise, or sharpness, or focus are is difficult and misses the point much of the time.


----------



## jam05 (Jan 28, 2022)

entoman said:


> I don't think having an add-on EVF is a very elegant solution. For one thing, it's pretty small and quite likely to get lost. For another, it will be expensive - the EVF-DC2 for the M series cameras costs a crazy £250. It's a lot cheaper to build it into the camera in the first place, and infinitely more convenient. Perhaps if Canon are aiming for a low price *and* a tiny compact camera, they might consider a pop-up EVF - but these are generally very low magnification and not of much use (low magnification makes it hard to see details).


"It's a lot cheaper to build it into the camera in the first place."
Incorrect. It's not cheaper to build it into the camera in the first place. A camera without EVF is cheaper to build than one with it. First the EVF and rear display both need display driver chips. And they will not use the same driver chip either. Second, the voltage monitor circuit eye sensor has to be programmed. This was Sony's A1 flaw with using an outdated spare parts LCD on it's new A1 that consequently caused camera blackouts and nearly four months of reprogramming and ultimately an update to solve this issue. It's not as simple as simple as merely addiing an unrelated display.


----------



## jam05 (Jan 28, 2022)

entoman said:


> Sorry but I have to disagree.
> 
> An eye-level OVF or EVF is a far more efficient way to view a scene and allows you to compose and judge focus, depth of field, bokeh and distracting background elements far better than peeking at a little screen at arm's length.
> 
> "Consumers at the low end" probably don't *care* much about the quality of their images, which are mostly keepsakes rather than efforts at "art" - many wouldn't even notice the existence of garbage in the background, poor exposure, bad focus or lousy composition. OK, that may sound elitist, but a decent OVF or EVF would *help* them to take photographs that they'd treasure, which is surely why they take photos in the first place.


All of the above may be done without an EVF. Commercial product photography is done all the time without an EVF. Ever tried using an external 4k monitor, or tethering with a 4k monitor? No EVF needed at all. An EVF is simply a Micro OLED. That's all it is. A micro display. Actually composition on a larger and brighter display with two eyes is more "efficient" than looking through an eye piece with one eye. The EVF only advantage is the brightness as compared to the poor and outdated LCDs that some camera manufacturers have been using on cameras to avoid the cost of brighter LCDs or OLEDs with higher NITs.


----------



## Rivermist (Jan 28, 2022)

fred said:


> "Between the new entry-level camera and the Canon EOS R6 will be a body with a new image sensor, but a lower pixel count than the Canon EOS R5"
> 
> I am still hoping for a less action-/video-centric RII with new ~30MP sensor, R6 ergonomics/buttons (+ shoulder display!) at $2000.


Why on earth would it cost that much (pleased don't give Canon such ideas!)? The R6 will creep down to the $2000-$2400 range, so a new Rmk2 body that is supposed be a step down and the only (new) body above a seriously-handicapped RF-Rebel-without-EVF costing maybe $600, the price point should be close to the launch price of the RP in 2019, i.e $1,399. Specs: R body, LP-E6NH battery, better 30+ MP sensor, probably no IBIS, improved EVF, support for HEIF, not too much on the video side (i.e. for photographers mainly). The body + kit lens must be below $2,000, maybe including a removable or built-in super-compact LED flash.


----------



## jam05 (Jan 28, 2022)

A brighter rear new generational LCD/OLED rear display, as long as Canon has solved the supply chain & driver chip issue and doesn't resort to using outdated old LCDs and uses the brighter touch screen ones as they have on their latest camera models. Brighter new generation LCDs and OLEDs have long since overcome the age old problem of brightness and visibility in sunlight. OLEDs and LCDs in bright sunlight are in use on many of new generational consumer devices and well as ones on the battle field. Display driver chips for them is another issue. Some camera manufacturers are still producing devices with outdated old and antique rear LCDs and wonder why their customer base is shrinking. As if that micro OLED EVF used for one eyeball is all there is available.
"It's the display stupid" says Apple and Samsung.


----------



## HMC11 (Jan 28, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> No. The perceived noise in an image inversely proportional to the total light gathered. A smaller sensor, whether physically smaller or only using a cropped potion of a larger sensor, gathers less light. Less light means more perceived noise.


Genuine confusion/clarification: Let's say I fix the position of the camera and a subject, then I take a picture of the subject with the R5. Next, I take a picture of the subject with an RF APSC camera from the same position as the R5, and that this APSC camera uses the same R5 sensor but 'crop' to APSC specs (ie. about 18mpx). Wouldn't the amount of light falling on the APSC be the same as that falling on the area of the FF sensor that covers the same area as the APSC? Wouldn't the actual noise would then be the same? If by perceived noise, you meant comparing the two images at the same physical size, then the APSC image, having to 'scale' up to the same physical size, would look noisier. I might not have explained well, so please bear with me.


----------



## Deleted (Jan 28, 2022)

scyrene said:


> Tracking swifts in flight is impressive!


It is a lot of fun. Often spend summer evenings at one of the local reservoirs shooting them. A friend of mine sat with me a couple of times with his 300f2.8 and you could almost hear his arms burning. Still, he persevered and got a few nice shots, He now uses a lighter lens. Ont the plus side, once you get the hang of swifts everything else feels slow.


----------



## entoman (Jan 28, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I have to disagree. What *helps* them take photographs that they'll treasure is always having a camera in their pocket.


Sure, they are far more *likely* to take a photo if the camera can fit in a pocket, but I don't see that as ruling out having an EVF - there are plenty of small cameras with pop-up EVFs and I think a small full frame RF camera could easily accommodate a pop-up EVF (although it would push the price up a bit).

My point is that an EVF or OVF will help them take *better* photos because it will help them to see distracting background items, and to appreciate depth of field etc. Sure, subject matter is what matters most to most people, especially novices, but using an eye-level viewfinder will help them to see "problems" with composition, focus, trees growing out of people's heads etc - things that I think they'll be less likely to notice if they compose on a 3" flippy screen.



neuroanatomist said:


> I'm curious, when you put your camera on a tripod and carefully compose a shot, do you use the VF or the LCD? Personally, I use the LCD. It's especially helpful for landscape shots, and architecture with my TS lenses. Being able to pick parts of the frame and check focus by zooming to 10x magnification (especially when using tilt) is far better than using an OVF, for me. Or for macro shooting, where the camera is at or near ground level – I have an Angle Finder C for my 1D X, but an articulating LCD is a far easier solution. So for me, even with efforts at "art" a rear LCD is much more helpful than a decent VF.


For landscape and tripod-macro I've traditionally used a right angle finder on my DSLRs. The far better stabilisation of my R5 has meant that I shoot almost everything hand-held these days. I've never used the fully articulating screen on my R5 for hand-held work, partly because I find it awkward to use - I'd be more likely to use it if it was a Nikon-style tilting screen or a Panasonic-style hybrid screen. But my main reason for not using it is for the reasons given in my previous posts.


----------



## entoman (Jan 28, 2022)

scyrene said:


> Why is it more efficient? Some things are objectively true: a screen is less effective in bright ambient light (especially with direct sun on it), and holding the camera against the head can be more stable, especially with bulkier lenses. But how is using the EVF more efficient? What does that even mean?
> 
> "Keepsakes" versus "art" doesn't matter. Art isn't great because it meets technical standards. Of course everyone's standards - both technical and affective - differ; regardless, my point is, if the audience for a camera body (in this hypothetical case, a cheap entry level body without an EVF) is satisfied, then it could be a sensible way for Canon to keep the price low, which is vastly more important to many potential customers than if their composition is "lousy".
> 
> PS I treasure photos because of their content, and this is by far the commonest view; as a sometime photography nerd, I also happen to appreciate technical aspects, but that puts me (and you) in the minority. My experience with lay folk is, even explaining what noise, or sharpness, or focus are is difficult and misses the point much of the time.


What do I mean by "more efficient" ?

It's more efficient because it is much easier and quicker to judge composition, exposure, bokeh, depth of field, focus and everything else. The image in an EVF is brighter, clearer and magnified, infintely better IMO than peering at a small screen at arms length. 

Using an EVF (or OVF) also means that the camera will be braced against the face, reducing camera shake, and making it a great deal easier to track a moving subject.


----------



## Czardoom (Jan 28, 2022)

Antono Refa said:


> Canon can make sensors with a higher resolution. We could have a long discussion on why it doesn't, the bottom line is Canon is in it to make a profit, not to sell customers the very best it can.
> 
> And, AFAIK, Nikon did the same for a long while, with FF and APS-C cameras having sensors with the same resolution.


The best it can? So, you are among those that beleive that more MPs means better. Better FPS? No. Better Buffer capacity? No. Better file storage capacity? No. Better high ISO noise? No. Better resolution is the only better that I can think of and the resolution improvement is one of diminishing returns as more MPs means diffraction sets in at lower apertures, higher shutter speeds are needed or you need to use a tripod more often. All of these reasons are why the high MP camera is clearly a niche product that is not a high priority for Canon or anyone else. I think we will see one - and one has been rumored for a long time - but the fact that it is pretty much last in line as far as being made should tell you that most consumers do not think high MP in a camera is "the best."


----------



## Deleted (Jan 28, 2022)

entoman said:


> What do I mean by "more efficient" ?
> 
> It's more efficient because it is much easier and quicker to judge composition, exposure, bokeh, depth of field, focus and everything else. The image in an EVF is brighter, clearer and magnified, infintely better IMO than peering at a small screen at arms length.
> 
> Using an EVF (or OVF) also means that the camera will be braced against the face, reducing camera shake, and making it a great deal easier to track a moving subject.


Your last point is especially true when shooting video. I don’t do it often but I can track subjects with the viewfinder. Switching to the rear screen, as had to be done with a DSLR, means you either have wobbly footage or you loose the subject. It certainly doesn’t help with composition shooting video on the rear screen. That is when shooting handheld, easier on a tripod.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Jan 28, 2022)

If there's a camera among the three without EVF, I just hope it ain't the APS-C model. That would make it very far from a 7D replacement.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 28, 2022)

HMC11 said:


> Genuine confusion/clarification: Let's say I fix the position of the camera and a subject, then I take a picture of the subject with the R5. Next, I take a picture of the subject with an RF APSC camera from the same position as the R5, and that this APSC camera uses the same R5 sensor but 'crop' to APSC specs (ie. about 18mpx). Wouldn't the amount of light falling on the APSC be the same as that falling on the area of the FF sensor that covers the same area as the APSC? Wouldn't the actual noise would then be the same? If by perceived noise, you meant comparing the two images at the same physical size, then the APSC image, having to 'scale' up to the same physical size, would look noisier. I might not have explained well, so please bear with me.


There's no difference between a crop sensor and cropping the image to APS-C size fro a FF sensor, if the sensor technology is the same. Same as if you just use 1.6x crop mode on the R5. Of course, with the same lens (focal length) on the two cameras in your example, you would not have the same picture, but assuming your subject fit within the APS-C area of the R5, that would not matter.

The short version is that the noise would be the same at the pixel level, not at the picture level. Personally I find it more relevant to compare pictures, not pixels.


----------



## entoman (Jan 28, 2022)

jam05 said:


> All of the above may be done without an EVF. Commercial product photography is done all the time without an EVF. Ever tried using an external 4k monitor, or tethering with a 4k monitor? No EVF needed at all. An EVF is simply a Micro OLED. That's all it is. A micro display. Actually composition on a larger and brighter display with two eyes is more "efficient" than looking through an eye piece with one eye. The EVF only advantage is the brightness as compared to the poor and outdated LCDs that some camera manufacturers have been using on cameras to avoid the cost of brighter LCDs or OLEDs with higher NITs.


As I stated in one of my earlier posts, my comments do not apply to TV, cinema or other applications where an external monitor is used. These monitors are a great deal larger and much clearer and brighter than the puny screens on the back of APS and FF cameras, and those are what I'm criticising here - to be precise, my original post was about a fear that the advent of a screen-only budget RF camera could start a trend whereby that highly undesirable trait extended to models higher in the range.


----------



## Czardoom (Jan 28, 2022)

scyrene said:


> IBIS is less effective the longer the focal length; the RF 100-500L is rated as giving 5 stops of stabilisation with ILIS and 6 combined with IBIS; for the RF 800mm f/11 officially no extra stabilisation is gained by using IBIS (it's rated at 4 stops).


You do understand that the angle of view when using a telephoto lens is often so small that even the slightest hand movement or shake moves your subject and composition across a much larger percentage of the frame (or screen). Thus far more critical even if there are 2 or 3 less stops of stabilization than a wide angle or standard lens.


----------



## entoman (Jan 28, 2022)

jam05 said:


> "It's a lot cheaper to build it into the camera in the first place."
> Incorrect. It's not cheaper to build it into the camera in the first place. A camera without EVF is cheaper to build than one with it. First the EVF and rear display both need display driver chips. And they will not use the same driver chip either. Second, the voltage monitor circuit eye sensor has to be programmed. This was Sony's A1 flaw with using an outdated spare parts LCD on it's new A1 that consequently caused camera blackouts and nearly four months of reprogramming and ultimately an update to solve this issue. It's not as simple as simple as merely addiing an unrelated display.


I think you've misinterpreted my post. What I'm saying is that it's cheaper to make a camera with a built-in EVF, than to produce one without an EVF and then have to buy a clip-on EVF to make it usable for any scene containing action or careful composition. The ridiculous £250 price of the Canon EVF-DC2 accessory makes this abundantly clear.


----------



## Rivermist (Jan 28, 2022)

jam05 said:


> A brighter rear new generational LCD/OLED rear display, as long as Canon has solved the supply chain & driver chip issue and doesn't resort to using outdated old LCDs and uses the brighter touch screen ones as they have on their latest camera models. Brighter new generation LCDs and OLEDs have long since overcome the age old problem of brightness and visibility in sunlight. OLEDs and LCDs in bright sunlight are in use on many of new generational consumer devices and well as ones on the battle field. Display driver chips for them is another issue. Some camera manufacturers are still producing devices with outdated old and antique rear LCDs and wonder why their customer base is shrinking. As if that micro OLED EVF used for one eyeball is all there is available.
> "It's the display stupid" says Apple and Samsung.


No argument about how rear screens can be better, more visible, etc, but the one thing I like about my mirrorless is that I can fold the screen away (facing inwards) and use the EVF exclusively. In a way, back to my old film SLRs, in dark places I am not visible, and with relatively heavy lenses I find more stability and less arm fatigue holding the camera up to my eye. The controls are also easier to use in that posture, be it the rings on the lens or the rotary dials and buttons on the camera. A personal thing but Canon would be wise to factor in the habits of "seasoned" photographers on products (as in a bag full of cameras, lenses, batteries, flash, ...) that cost considerably more than a phone. I do appreciate the rear screen for the odd detailed image check and for shooting in awkward positions (close to the ground, above a crowd, etc.) and of course for tripod work, which is in my case only 1% of usage.


----------



## bergstrom (Jan 28, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Your personal dislike of something doesn’t make it an error on the manufacturer’s part. The only error here is your assumption that your opinion is shared by a meaningful number of people.



which it is.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 28, 2022)

Distinctly Average said:


> It is a lot of fun. Often spend summer evenings at one of the local reservoirs shooting them. A friend of mine sat with me a couple of times with his 300f2.8 and you could almost hear his arms burning. Still, he persevered and got a few nice shots, He now uses a lighter lens. Ont the plus side, once you get the hang of swifts everything else feels slow.


I've attempted swifts and definitely agree a lighter setup wins. The only thing I found harder was dragonflies!


----------



## entoman (Jan 28, 2022)

scyrene said:


> I've attempted swifts and definitely agree a lighter setup wins. The only thing I found harder was dragonflies!


Too swift for me...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 28, 2022)

entoman said:


> I think you've misinterpreted my post. What I'm saying is that it's cheaper to make a camera with a built-in EVF, than to produce one without an EVF and then have to buy a clip-on EVF to make it usable for any scene containing action or careful composition. The ridiculous £250 price of the Canon EVF-DC2 accessory makes this abundantly clear.


Cheaper for the consumer to buy, not cheaper for Canon to make. I suspect a cheaper camera and an expensive accessory bought by a small fraction of customers is actually more profitable for Canon. 

There was an M6 MkII but not an M5 MkII. Think about that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 28, 2022)

bergstrom said:


> which it is.


Say the people who claim the earth is flat. 

Sorry, no one but you cares what you think Canon did wrong. Buyers get to decide, and Canon listens to their purchases. The fact that the RP remains a best-selling camera close to 3 years after its launch means the number of people who share your view is not meaningful as far as Canon is concerned.


----------



## Deleted (Jan 28, 2022)

scyrene said:


> I've attempted swifts and definitely agree a lighter setup wins. The only thing I found harder was dragonflies!


They are fun too. To be fair, some species do hover for a nano second, like these, so are a tad easier than a swift. Handheld on a 7D2 using manual focus.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 28, 2022)

entoman said:


> What do I mean by "more efficient" ?
> 
> It's more efficient because it is much easier and quicker to judge composition, exposure, bokeh, depth of field, focus and everything else. The image in an EVF is brighter, clearer and magnified, infintely better IMO than peering at a small screen at arms length.
> 
> Using an EVF (or OVF) also means that the camera will be braced against the face, reducing camera shake, and making it a great deal easier to track a moving subject.


EVFs aren't intrinsically better quality, and you've stated in this thread you think a pop up would be better than an add-on, which seems self-contradictory. I already addressed and largely agree with your point re ergonomic stability, but that's beside your point (that the EVF gives superior compositional potential).

If as you later state you're just concerned that omitting the EVF will trickle up to higher level bodies, I'd say don't worry - it's unlikely, doesn't logically follow, and you don't need to defend such fears by claiming your preferred way of shooting is objectively better (because it's not, and it's irrelevant).


----------



## scyrene (Jan 28, 2022)

Distinctly Average said:


> They are fun too. To be fair, some species do hover for a nano second, like these, so are a tad easier than a swift. Handheld on a 7D2 using manual focus.
> 
> View attachment 202269


Manual focus no less! I am in awe.


----------



## -pekr- (Jan 28, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



So Canon will bring in 3 cameras many ppl will lament upon, myself probably included, when I hear about the removal of the EVF. Would like to see the M6 II successor, with an R mount, plus an EVF, similar to Sony A7c. No wonder it got Red dot award, looks really neat.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 28, 2022)

scyrene said:


> If as you later state you're just concerned that omitting the EVF will trickle up to higher level bodies, I'd say don't worry - it's unlikely, doesn't logically follow, and you don't need to defend such fears by claiming your preferred way of shooting is objectively better (because it's not, and it's irrelevant).


^^This. 

It's like claiming that because APS-C cameras sell more units that FF cameras, you're concerned that Canon will stop making FF cameras and you think they should't because you think FF cameras are better.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jan 28, 2022)

I don't mind them bringing out cheaper full frame R's. It makes complete sense.
Bringing out nothing better than the existing R5 is a bit conservative.
I thought they would do a R5DR.
I guess they need to grow the user base. 
The users they are targeting this year don't suit the bulk of the lens they've produced so far.
A year of consolidation perhaps


----------



## -pekr- (Jan 28, 2022)

cgc said:


> So the R5s and R1 will not come until 2023... and no APS-C glass ever, or maybe merely only a single kit lens? A single crop camera model does not deserves a entire line of crop glass...



It's not going to be a single APS-C camera imo. EOS M is mostly dead with the new releases and they imo want ppl to bring into an RF mound world, even if cameras are going to be a bit bigger.


----------



## tron (Jan 28, 2022)

What I would like to see as new cameras (but it will not happen):

R5s (I believe we will have to wait much longer for this)
A R3 like camera with 45Mp sensor (too soon I know )
R7 (maybe but they may start with a mid-level variant like R70?)

I know, I know! I mentioned: "I would like". OK! I will wait 5 years! It's good for my wallet anyway! 

For now my R5 is being used in a little strange way: Behind a 500mm 4L IS II/2XIII/EOS-R-EF adaptor or behind a RF 24-70L 2.8L IS lens.

But it's not my fault that I use it in a car and the above mentioned tele-combination is very sharp 
... or that D850 and D500 combine well with 500mm 5.6PF


----------



## unfocused (Jan 28, 2022)

entoman said:


> Yes I fully realise that there are millions who have never used a viewfinder, and I'd go so far as to say that I'm sure their images suffer as a result of using a camera that way. And sure, manufacturers are just responding to that demand. But I feel that manufacturers also have a *responsibility* to ensure that their products are fit for purpose. And IMO, a stills camera without a viewfinder is not fit for purpose, unless that purpose is to produce technically poor and badly composed snaps.


So basically, you would impose your own viewpoint on all other consumers. And, you would impose your viewpoint even if it means that consumers who can't afford to buy a camera that includes a viewfinder wouldn't be able to get any camera at all. And, those who don't see the need for a viewfinder would be forced to pay for one because you personally can only take "technically poor and badly composed snaps" without a viewfinder. 

As far as I'm concerned, Canon can offer any camera they want in any configuration they want. If I don't care for that configuration (and I personally would never buy a camera without a viewfinder) I just won't buy it, but I won't deny others that option. Heck, I would never buy an RP, but that doesn't mean I think Canon shouldn't make one.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 28, 2022)

Distinctly Average said:


> They are fun too. To be fair, some species do hover for a nano second, like these, so are a tad easier than a swift. Handheld on a 7D2 using manual focus.
> 
> View attachment 202269


That's at least as good as any DIF I have ever shot if not sharper. But, the AF of the R5 is good enough to catch them in flight. In fact, I bought the R5 after testing it with the adapted EF 100-400mm II, and there are lots of shots in our dragonflies thread. Here is a thread I devoted to it. https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...rf-100-500mm-for-dragonflies-in-flight.40622/


----------



## entoman (Jan 28, 2022)

scyrene said:


> EVFs aren't intrinsically better quality, and you've stated in this thread you think a pop up would be better than an add-on, which seems self-contradictory. I already addressed and largely agree with your point re ergonomic stability, but that's beside your point (that the EVF gives superior compositional potential).
> 
> If as you later state you're just concerned that omitting the EVF will trickle up to higher level bodies, I'd say don't worry - it's unlikely, doesn't logically follow, and you don't need to defend such fears by claiming your preferred way of shooting is objectively better (because it's not, and it's irrelevant).


We'll have to agree to disagree - I believe that shooting with an EVF *is* objectively better than using a small screen at arms length, for reasons I've already stated several times.


----------



## entoman (Jan 28, 2022)

unfocused said:


> So basically, you would impose your own viewpoint on all other consumers. And, you would impose your viewpoint even if it means that consumers who can't afford to buy a camera that includes a viewfinder wouldn't be able to get any camera at all. And, those who don't see the need for a viewfinder would be forced to pay for one because you personally can only take "technically poor and badly composed snaps" without a viewfinder.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, Canon can offer any camera they want in any configuration they want. If I don't care for that configuration (and I personally would never buy a camera without a viewfinder) I just won't buy it, but I won't deny others that option. Heck, I would never buy an RP, but that doesn't mean I think Canon shouldn't make one.


Well we are all "imposing our own viewpoint" merely by making comments on a forum...

People are free to make choices, including bad ones.


----------



## Deleted (Jan 28, 2022)

AlanF said:


> That's at least as good as any DIF I have ever shot if not sharper. But, the AF of the R5 is good enough to catch them in flight. In fact, I bought the R5 after testing it with the adapted EF 100-400mm II, and there are lots of shots in our dragonflies thread. Here is a thread I devoted to it. https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...rf-100-500mm-for-dragonflies-in-flight.40622/


Thanks Alan. I’ve seen that thread and you have some amazing shots. The old 7D2 does AF on dragons OK but nowhere near as well as the R5. Hopefully if an R7 arrives that will be just as good. Currently I am reluctant to get an R5 as my current FF, a 5D4, barely comes off the dusty shelf. I guess I have got comfortable with the crop setup I use. Have use an R5 quite a lot and have been amazed by what it can do in every way.


----------



## -pekr- (Jan 28, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> An add on EVF may not be elegant, but it will allow the camera without an EVF to be sold at that lower price point that Canon may be aiming for, while also giving those who want an EVF the chance to buy the lowest cost R camera. I briefly owned the M6 II and bought the add-on EVF and it worked great for me. I bought the add-on EVF used, so it cost me less than $250. If they offer the low cost R camera without an EVF at all - than that would be a camera I would never buy - even for 50 bucks. There's no way I can hold the camera at arm's length and take the shot along with the fact that you can't see the screen in many lighting conditions. So no EVF means no buy. Add-on EVF means potential buy.



Yes, yes, and when I want to add small Flash or transmitter, I am screwed, as the hot-shoe is occupied by an EVF. If we want a form of M6 II, EVF should be moved to the side, as with Sony A7c imo, to allow such a design form.


----------



## -pekr- (Jan 28, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> It would be interesting to see a RP mark ii... probably without an EVF for size/cost and be a bridge from phone cameras to full frame.
> For me, it could be a great backup body or one where I could use it for star trails overnight. A second hand RP would be another option as well.



Please don't invoke the devil here, or Canon will get a wild idea to refurbish more of the 6D II sensors


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 28, 2022)

-pekr- said:


> Please don't invoke the devil here, or Canon will get a wild idea to refurbish more of the 6D II sensors


I think it’s hilarious that you somehow think that idea has not already occurred to them…


----------



## unfocused (Jan 28, 2022)

entoman said:


> Well we are all "imposing our own viewpoint" merely by making comments on a forum...


Not really. There is a difference between expressing an opinion and declaring that your opinion should be the ruling factor. 

_"...I feel that manufacturers also have a *responsibility* to ensure that their products are fit for purpose. And IMO, a stills camera without a viewfinder is not fit for purpose, unless that purpose is to produce technically poor and badly composed snaps."_

There is not a lot of space between that statement and "I don't like it, so therefore they shouldn't do it."

Everyone on the forum is expressing their own viewpoint. But expressing that viewpoint is not the same as declaring that your viewpoint should govern how others behave.



entoman said:


> People are free to make choices, including bad ones.



And, apparently Canon wants to give people choices. However, "bad" is subjective and what is "bad" to you may be "good" to someone else. 

As I've already said a number of times, I'm not interested in a camera without a viewfinder. I just don't begrudge Canon for offering one, if indeed they do.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 28, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> An add on EVF may not be elegant, but it will allow the camera without an EVF to be sold at that lower price point that Canon may be aiming for, while also giving those who want an EVF the chance to buy the lowest cost R camera. I briefly owned the M6 II and bought the add-on EVF and it worked great for me. I bought the add-on EVF used, so it cost me less than $250. If they offer the low cost R camera without an EVF at all - than that would be a camera I would never buy - even for 50 bucks. There's no way I can hold the camera at arm's length and take the shot along with the fact that you can't see the screen in many lighting conditions. So no EVF means no buy. Add-on EVF means potential buy.


I briefly owned a G3X (24-600mm zoom equivalent). It was impossible to use at 600mm without the optional slide on EVF and bracing the camera against my cheek. Problem was where to store the EVF as it seemed too delicately fixed for carrying around.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 28, 2022)

entoman said:


> And IMO, a stills camera without a viewfinder is not fit for purpose, unless that purpose is to produce technically poor and badly composed snaps.


I missed this statement in the back-and-forth until @unfocused pointed it out. I have to say, as the user of an M, M2 and an M6 I find it rather offensive. For example, I don’t think this is a technically poor, badly composed snap. Nor did the director of a nearby Audubon sanctuary who decided to hang a print of it on the wall.




It was taken with an M2 and an EF-M 55-200mm lens.

Perhaps _your_ photography is limited to technically poor, badly composed snapshots unless your camera has a viewfinder, but please understand that shortcoming does not apply to all photographers.

Edit: maybe it’s semantics or interpretation, and by using ‘IMO’ what you meant was _you_ cannot take the types of pictures you want without a viewfinder, but that’s not how it came across. If I said, “IMO, no one should take COVID vaccines because they aren’t fit for purpose, don’t work and actually cause your testicles to swell up,” the fact that I was just expressing my opinion would not make me sound any less like a moron.


----------



## entoman (Jan 28, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Not really. There is a difference between expressing an opinion and declaring that your opinion should be the ruling factor.
> 
> _"...I feel that manufacturers also have a *responsibility* to ensure that their products are fit for purpose. And IMO, a stills camera without a viewfinder is not fit for purpose, unless that purpose is to produce technically poor and badly composed snaps."_
> 
> ...


Not really - I deliberately used the terms "I feel" and "IMO" to indicate that I was stating a personal view, which is my normal practice on CR.


----------



## entoman (Jan 28, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I missed this statement in the back-and-forth until @unfocused pointed it out. I have to say, as the user of an M, M2 and an M6 I find it rather offensive. For example, I don’t think this is a technically poor, badly composed snap. Nor did the director of a nearby Audubon sanctuary who decided to hang a print of it on the wall.
> 
> View attachment 202270
> 
> ...


I think you're overreacting and to take offence is just a bit silly. We are after all just expressing our own opinions about cameras, which is the purpose of this comments section. I can't see anything even remotely offensive in anything I've said, and you may rest assured that I have no intention to upset any delicate feelings!

Sure, it's possible to take good photos via a flippy screen, but I consider it to be much easier to use an EVF or OVF, particularly in bright sunlight when reflections on the screen compound the issues with them that I've already suggested to exist.

You did well to get a technically good and well composed shot using what I very much regard to be a less than ideal method of viewing and composition...


----------



## InchMetric (Jan 28, 2022)

entoman said:


> The issue with rear screens on APS-C and FF cameras, is that a) the screens are too small to be usable for composition or analysis of details, b) they are used at arms length which makes it much harder to keep the camera steady, and c) reflections from ambient light make them virtually unusable in sunlight. Using an OVF or EVF solves all those issues, and leads to better photography.


Good thing that most offering will have the OVF you desire. Some customers might well occasionally (or always) prefer an ultra-compact without the bulk, weight, and cost of a viewfinder. I'll jump on a little "deck of cards" that attaches to some of those light and compact RF lenses like the RF50 F1.8. Ideal grab for family shots or pocket for play in the park. Leave the R5 with battery grip at home. Basically a Fuji X100. Give it a 35mm f2.8 ( or faster) in the smallest possible config.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jan 28, 2022)

AlanF said:


> That's at least as good as any DIF I have ever shot if not sharper. But, the AF of the R5 is good enough to catch them in flight. In fact, I bought the R5 after testing it with the adapted EF 100-400mm II, and there are lots of shots in our dragonflies thread. Here is a thread I devoted to it. https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...rf-100-500mm-for-dragonflies-in-flight.40622/


Hi Alan - I've had say reasonable success tracking dragonflies with a 1DXIII but it never really locks on. It's sort of hit and miss, if the dragonfly flies predictably you have better success. Do you find the R5 tracks the dragonfly well? 
How are finding it with birds?
The 1DXIII is the best focussing camera I've ever had but 20MP is a bit weak for small birds (which is about all I get). It's very good for sport where people fill the frame. I'm putting away money for the eventual 1DR which I hope will be a 50MP camera. The R5 is the only one so far that would tempt me. It has alot of happy users.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 28, 2022)

entoman said:


> Sure, it's possible to take good photos via a flippy screen, but I consider it to be much easier to use an EVF or OVF, particularly in bright sunlight when reflections on the screen compound the issues with them that I've already suggested to exist.


It’s more than possible, personally I don’t find particularly difficult to take good pictures on an M. But your statement really does not allow much wiggle room for that possibility:



entoman said:


> And IMO, a stills camera without a viewfinder is not fit for purpose, unless that purpose is to produce technically poor and badly composed snaps.


Take a step back and think about the context of your statement: what you’re suggesting is that Canon intentionally developed cameras to take crappy pictures. Do you honestly think that makes sense or that that was their intent?

I’m not suggesting that you cannot have that opinion, or that you cannot share it. Just be aware that like people who have and share their opinion that the Earth is flat, you sound foolish.


----------



## entoman (Jan 28, 2022)

InchMetric said:


> Good thing that most offering will have the OVF you desire. Some customers might well occasionally (or always) prefer an ultra-compact without the bulk, weight, and cost of a viewfinder. I'll jump on a little "deck of cards" that attaches to some of those light and compact RF lenses like the RF50 F1.8. Ideal grab for family shots or pocket for play in the park. Leave the R5 with battery grip at home. Basically a Fuji X100. Give it a 35mm f2.8 ( or faster) in the smallest possible config.


Well, I seem to have inadvertently stirred up a hornet's nest on this subject... 

Of course, there will be people who consider pocketability to be very important. I can absolutely understand that - after all it's one of the main reasons so many use smartphones for photography.

However, the pocketability (or lack of it) of an RF mount camera is largely dictated by the diameter of the mount, and the size of the lenses that will be fitted to it, rather than by whether it has an EVF. 

Even the little Sony 1" sensor RX100 cameras have a pop-up EVF, so one could certainly be put in a FF Canon.

I think the point some here are missing, is that having an EVF or OVF just makes a camera so much more usable, and if the camera is well designed, it doesn't need to add to the size (although it would of course add to the cost).


----------



## entoman (Jan 28, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Take a step back and think about the context of your statement: what you’re suggesting is that Canon intentionally developed cameras to take crappy pictures. Do you honestly think that makes sense or that that was their intent?



No.

What I'm suggesting is that by omitting an EVF, Canon are cutting a very desirable feature from a camera in order to keep the cost down, and that they see a demand for a cheap product without an EVF.

Canon is in photography to make money, and they'll make anything that they think will make a profit and is good enough in quality to bear the company name.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that it's the best tool for the job. I stand by my opinion that a camera with an eye-level viewfinder is much more usable than a "rear-screen only" device, particularly when that rear screen is much smaller than that on a smartphone. A camera can be kept small and still have an EVF, especially if the size of the camera is dictated by the diameter of the mount.


----------



## Deleted (Jan 28, 2022)

entoman said:


> No.
> 
> What I'm suggesting is that by omitting an EVF, Canon are cutting a very desirable feature from a camera in order to keep the cost down, and that they see a demand for a cheap product without an EVF.
> 
> ...


What is the right tool for the job depends on both the job, and the person doing it. Not everyone has the same needs, desires and ability. I would guess this non-EVF camera is aimed at a specific market. It might be for vloggers for instance, or those that just want to have a bit of fun with it. We haven’t even seen this rumoured camera yet. If it ever does emerge then it will be interesting to see how it sells and to whom.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 28, 2022)

Hector1970 said:


> Hi Alan - I've had say reasonable success tracking dragonflies with a 1DXIII but it never really locks on. It's sort of hit and miss, if the dragonfly flies predictably you have better success. Do you find the R5 tracks the dragonfly well?
> How are finding it with birds?
> The 1DXIII is the best focussing camera I've ever had but 20MP is a bit weak for small birds (which is about all I get). It's very good for sport where people fill the frame. I'm putting away money for the eventual 1DR which I hope will be a 50MP camera. The R5 is the only one so far that would tempt me. It has alot of happy users.


I've got very good shots as well with a 5DSR and 5DIV when the DIF is hovering. But, the R5 just locks on and you can track it. If the background is clear, then it's easy - it will pick up flying birds and dragonflies faster than I can see them. This is a shot of a Brown Hawker from last summer with the R5 and 100-500mm - it swooped past really fast, rather than hovering,and the camera caught it for me.


----------



## Chig (Jan 28, 2022)

Jasonmc89 said:


> IBIS is pretty crucial to telephoto users…?


Why do you say that? Most telephoto shooting is of fast moving subjects where high shutter speeds are required , once you acquire a subject it's fairly easy to keep it in frame even for birds like swallows.
IBIS isn't crucial for any photography but quite handy at times, I'd much rather have really useful features like higher fps, twin CFe card slots and of course better heat transfer from a fixed sensor than IBIS


----------



## entoman (Jan 28, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I've got very good shots as well with a 5DSR and 5DIV when the DIF is hovering. But, the R5 just locks on and you can track it. If the background is clear, then it's easy - it will pick up flying birds and dragonflies faster than I can see them. This is a shot of a Brown Hawker from last summer with the R5 and 100-500mm - it swooped past really fast, rather than hovering,and the camera caught it for me.
> 
> 
> View attachment 202272


Great shot Alan!

Would you mind sharing the settings you use?

Focus zone?
Case ?
Animal AF on or off?
Eye-AF on or off?

I'm assuming you have all these settings saved to AF/ON?

Cheers


----------



## AJ (Jan 28, 2022)

If the EVF is an optional attachment, then the body should have two mounting points: one on the left and one on the right, for left- and right-eyed shooters. Maybe you could mount two EVFs for shooting with the 5.2/2.8 dual fisheye.


----------



## entoman (Jan 28, 2022)

Distinctly Average said:


> What is the right tool for the job depends on both the job, and the person doing it. Not everyone has the same needs, desires and ability. I would guess this non-EVF camera is aimed at a specific market. It might be for vloggers for instance, or those that just want to have a bit of fun with it. We haven’t even seen this rumoured camera yet. If it ever does emerge then it will be interesting to see how it sells and to whom.


Just had a look at your flickr pages.

There's no way that your photos are "distinctly average". You've got some great shots there, thanks for sharing!


----------



## Chig (Jan 28, 2022)

Distinctly Average said:


> They are fun too. To be fair, some species do hover for a nano second, like these, so are a tad easier than a swift. Handheld on a 7D2 using manual focus.
> 
> View attachment 202269


Wow manual focus! I have a 7D2 as well and usually just rely on it's auto focus


----------



## Inspired (Jan 28, 2022)

Am I the only one that would just like an R5 that's 30mp, 4k oversampled, no 8k, No overheating and about $2500. - $3500? 
Obviously it woundnt be called an R5 but you get the idea


----------



## David - Sydney (Jan 28, 2022)

bergstrom said:


> 4k cropped, lp e17 battery.


I don't need video but it does 4k - correct? I still think that the majority of use cases for 4k video at the lower end of the market is not so much.
The small size of the RP means that the larger LP-e6 battery can't be used. I agree that a longer battery life is always better but small and light is the RP's niche. I would be using external power in any case.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jan 28, 2022)

entoman said:


> Yes I fully realise that there are millions who have never used a viewfinder, and I'd go so far as to say that I'm sure their images suffer as a result of using a camera that way. And sure, manufacturers are just responding to that demand. But I feel that manufacturers also have a *responsibility* to ensure that their products are fit for purpose. And IMO, a stills camera without a viewfinder is not fit for purpose, unless that purpose is to produce technically poor and badly composed snaps.


This is a similar situation as audio quality. CD quality really pushed the envelope but when iPods etc came out, it was much more important to the market to have portability and the number of songs than quality.

Similarly here where where billions of photos are shared on facebook etc which are acceptable quality to the majority of people. Every phone is a stills (and video) camera without a viewfinder!


----------



## entoman (Jan 28, 2022)

Inspired said:


> Am I the only one that would just like an R5 that's 30mp, 4k oversampled, no 8k, No overheating and about $2500. - $3500?
> Obviously it woundnt be called an R5 but you get the idea


That sounds like a likely specification for the rumoured upcoming replacement for the R, and I think it will be cheaper than you suggest.

I think it will be based on the R6 body though, not the R5, but that's no bad thing.
My guess is 33MP, IBIS, and possibly a different menu and EF interface for stills and video.


----------



## entoman (Jan 28, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> This is a similar situation as audio quality. CD quality really pushed the envelope but when iPods etc came out, it was much more important to the market to have portability and the number of songs than quality.
> 
> Similarly here where where billions of photos are shared on facebook etc which are acceptable quality to the majority of people. Every phone is a stills (and video) camera without a viewfinder!


Yes I agree, although my posts were really addressing the usability / versatility of the projected camera, rather than the quality of its output, which I'm sure will be fine.

Anyway I'll give the subject a rest as I seem to have inadvertently touched a few raw nerves, and I've posted more than enough here tonight.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jan 28, 2022)

entoman said:


> Sorry but I have to disagree.
> 
> An eye-level OVF or EVF is a far more efficient way to view a scene and allows you to compose and judge focus, depth of field, bokeh and distracting background elements far better than peeking at a little screen at arm's length.
> 
> "Consumers at the low end" probably don't *care* much about the quality of their images, which are mostly keepsakes rather than efforts at "art" - many wouldn't even notice the existence of garbage in the background, poor exposure, bad focus or lousy composition. OK, that may sound elitist, but a decent OVF or EVF would *help* them to take photographs that they'd treasure, which is surely why they take photos in the first place.


I have drives of landscape and underwater photos that I have taken but when I die, the family will only be interested in the ones that had people in them - even if they aren't technically perfect or art. I won't be a famous photographer selling my prints long after I am dead.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 28, 2022)

entoman said:


> Great shot Alan!
> 
> Would you mind sharing the settings you use?
> 
> ...


Face + tracking (no zones). Case 2 (highest tracking, highest accln/decln). Animal eye-AF on. AF-ON BBF. Full manual speed, aperture and iso. The other BBF is point focus at the centre.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jan 28, 2022)

entoman said:


> Sure, it's possible to take good photos via a flippy screen, but I consider it to be much easier to use an EVF or OVF, particularly in bright sunlight when reflections on the screen compound the issues with them that I've already suggested to exist.


It depends on your shooting genre and I agree with bright/direct sunlight but....

Taking astro landscapes on a tripod with your camera pointing at the sky was a massive pain in the back/neck (literally!) when using the OVF or fixed rear LCD with my 7D/5Diii/5Div as they didn't have a flippy screen. Arguments for and against tily vs flippy are a separate issue.

Canon's previous stance that flippy screens weren't robust enough has been put to rest with recent models and being able to flip the screen inwards is another benefit. Of course, there is no reason that the screen can't be left facing outwards like previous models with the only downside being the real estate that the mechanism takes up


----------



## Hector1970 (Jan 28, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I've got very good shots as well with a 5DSR and 5DIV when the DIF is hovering. But, the R5 just locks on and you can track it. If the background is clear, then it's easy - it will pick up flying birds and dragonflies faster than I can see them. This is a shot of a Brown Hawker from last summer with the R5 and 100-500mm - it swooped past really fast, rather than hovering,and the camera caught it for me.
> 
> 
> View attachment 202272


Excellent, very interesting about the tracking. Might make it tempting to get an R5. Thanks Alan


----------



## David - Sydney (Jan 28, 2022)

vladk said:


> What made you believe there will be no APS-C glass ever? And how do you know there will be only a single APS-C camera model?
> While it can be quite possible there will be no midrange and telephoto APS-C glass for some time because the full frame RF glass line is far from completion, I am positive Canon will provide an RF alternative for at least 10-22.
> 
> I am more curious about the M line. APS-C RF most likely means it is dead.


The cost for Canon to produce another line of lenses for a small number of users would be high and produce some confusion in the market.

There may be more APS-C models in the future but the situation is that Canon hasn't released a 7Dii successor for a very long time suggests that they don't see a significant market for it. Who knows, it might become a best seller if the pricing is compelling

All current 7Dii users are using EF glass (including wide angle EF-s glass) and they will continue to use them adapted on a RF APS-C body.
The upside for Canon will be moving them to telephoto RF glass but not wide angle RF glass.

The M series will continue as is for as long as there is a market for it even if Canon hasn't released any new bodies/lenses for the system. They are still very popular based on a number of rankings in particular markets. It is definitely not "dead" and fits the !
A better question is whether Canon will release new M bodies/lenses to support new sales by people upgrading.


----------



## entoman (Jan 28, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> It depends on your shooting genre and I agree with bright/direct sunlight but....
> 
> Taking astro landscapes on a tripod with your camera pointing at the sky was a massive pain in the back/neck (literally!) when using the OVF or fixed rear LCD with my 7D/5Diii/5Div as they didn't have a flippy screen. Arguments for and against tily vs flippy are a separate issue.
> 
> Canon's previous stance that flippy screens weren't robust enough has been put to rest with recent models and being able to flip the screen inwards is another benefit. Of course, there is no reason that the screen can't be left facing outwards like previous models with the only downside being the real estate that the mechanism takes up


Let me be clear that I'm not criticising the existence of flippy screens - I fully agree that there are some circumstances where they are actually *more* suitable than an EVF.

What I've criticised is the *absence* of an EVF, or to be more accurate, the absence of *choice*.

I think that even a basic camera should have both EVF **and** flippy, to make it versatile and easy to use in the wide variety of situations that even a novice will encounter.

I wonder who would buy a camera with only a rear screen? It sounds like a bottom of range budget model for novices, does it not? In which case, would they not be better off using a smartphone, which has a much larger screen, and would probably cover 99% of their needs?


----------



## Czardoom (Jan 28, 2022)

entoman said:


> No.
> 
> What I'm suggesting is that by omitting an EVF, Canon are cutting a very desirable feature from a camera in order to keep the cost down, and that they see a demand for a cheap product without an EVF.
> 
> ...


If you look at your comments on this subject, such as this one:

"Yes I fully realize that there are millions who have never used a viewfinder, and I'd go so far as to say that I'm sure their images suffer as a result of using a camera that way." it seems pretty obvious that you are insulting photographers who shoot with the rear LCD. Maybe your images suffer from not using an EVF - and I would say most assuredly that mine would as well - but you make it quite clear that you don't think that - in general - people are competant enough to shoot and compose using the LCD. And your reasons seem very shaky and vague at best. For those that shoot that way - and are used to shooting that way, they almost certainly see all the necessary things in the LCD they you claim they won't see. I think LCDs today are high enough quality so that IQ is not an issue.

Whether it is the EVF or the LCD, you get the rectangle of the photo and you can see all that is within. Perhaps you can't - that's OK, and it may be easier for you - and maybe for me, too, but composing your photo on an LCD is essentially the same as doing so on an EVF as far as I can see. Both methods have times where the sun gets in the way of getting a clear view - it's not just the LCD that runs into that problem.

On the other hand, it may indeed be true that is easier to hold the camera still up against one's face. I know for me personally, it is definitely the case. I have never seen anyone do a comparison or a study, but it would not surprise me if this would be demonstrably true. If it's not, then I would certainly accept the results and understand that my personal preferences - and techniques that definitely work better for me - are not necessarily better for everyone.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jan 28, 2022)

entoman said:


> I wonder who would buy a camera with only a rear screen? It sounds like a bottom of range budget model for novices, does it not? In which case, would they not be better off using a smartphone, which has a much larger screen, and would probably cover 99% of their needs?


I can't tell you the volume of sales but the Sigma fp (USD1500) which is 25mp full frame and the Sigma fp L (USD2500) which is 60mp full frame and are clearly not budget cameras and yet don't have a EVF. Their small size is remarkable! 
You can get an external EVF for an extra USD500 for the fp L but the ergonomics aren't great


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 28, 2022)

entoman said:


> I think the point some here are missing, is that having an EVF or OVF just makes a camera so much more usable,


I think you’re missing that point, yourself. The converse of ‘makes a camera much more usable’ is not ‘purposed for producing technically poor and badly composed images’.

As pointed out by me and others, having a rear LCD makes a camera so much more usable.

Obviously, having both is the best of both worlds. But as someone with years of experience using cameras with only an OVF, only an LCD, and both, if I had to choose between a camera with only a VF or only an LCD, I’d pick the LCD without hesitation.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 28, 2022)

entoman said:


> I wonder who would buy a camera with only a rear screen? It sounds like a bottom of range budget model for novices, does it not? In which case, would they not be better off using a smartphone, which has a much larger screen, and would probably cover 99% of their needs?


I live adjacent to the largest park in town. It's a frequent site for photographers shooting senior pictures and engagement shots. I've seen a number of young photographers shooting DSLRs using the rear screen only. It's a generational issue. That's the way they learned to shoot on their phones and they've carried it over to their cameras. They are obviously getting paid for their photographs, so I wouldn't assume that it's a shooting style reserved for novices.

In fact, I'm pretty sure I've seen videos of at least one of the younger Canon Explorers shooting that way. 

But, setting that aside, I'm still trying to wrap my head around why you care. If Canon wants to make an R model that only has a rear screen, no one is going to put a gun to your head to buy it, so what's the harm? And, yes...I anticipate such a camera would be targeted to young photographers on a budget. Good for Canon to be offering more options.


----------



## entoman (Jan 28, 2022)

vladk said:


> I am more curious about the M line. APS-C RF most likely means it is dead.


The M series cameras are excellent, and huge sellers, especially in Asia, so it's highly unlikely that Canon would discontinue them in the immediate future. Canon is a huge company and easily capable of keeping both M and RF systems in production for many years. There are already enough lenses in the M system to satisfy most of the people who buy these cameras, so Canon doesn't need to plough money into developing more of them.

The only question in my mind is "where does M go from here?" - the M50 is pretty much perfect already, but eventually will go out of fashion, What features might Canon add? How can they improve the specification without making it "too advanced" or "too complex" for its target market, which seems to be mostly, but not entirely, novices?

As for RF mount APS-C cameras, we know that one is coming, and I hope it is a sports/wildlife machine, but it could just as easily turn out to be a budget consumer model. Either way, it's unlikely that canon will bring out more than a couple of crop lenses for it - maybe a 28mm F2.8 pancake, maybe a retractable short tele-zoom?


----------



## entoman (Jan 28, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I think you’re missing that point, yourself. The converse of ‘makes a camera much more usable’ is not ‘purposed for producing technically poor and badly composed images’.
> 
> As pointed out by me and others, having a rear LCD makes a camera so much more usable.
> 
> Obviously, having both is the best of both worlds. But as someone with years of experience using cameras with only an OVF, only an LCD, and both, if I had to choose between a camera with only a VF or only an LCD, I’d pick the LCD without hesitation.


Ah, finally you get it - "having both is the best of both worlds".

I've used a multitude of cameras, with fixed/tilting/fully articulated screens, with OVF, with EVF, also rangefinders, film SLRs, TLRs, field cameras, industrial cameras, compacts, smartphones, you name it, I've used it.

But I'd make the opposite choice to you - if I had to choose between a camera with only a screen, or only an EVF, I'd most definitely go for the EVF, and wouldn't remotely consider having to rely on a screen-only model.

I do like to have both however - I've rarely, if ever, used the screen for composing, but I do find it easier to navigate the menu on a screen, as opposed to cycling through the overlay in the EVF.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 28, 2022)

entoman said:


> Ah, finally you get it - "having both is the best of both worlds".
> 
> I've used a multitude of cameras, with fixed/tilting/fully articulated screens, with OVF, with EVF, also rangefinders, film SLRs, TLRs, field cameras, industrial cameras, compacts, smartphones, you name it, I've used it.
> 
> ...


The next innovation by Canon will be eye-menu - look through the evf at the item to adjust.


----------



## entoman (Jan 28, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I live adjacent to the largest park in town. It's a frequent site for photographers shooting senior pictures and engagement shots. I've seen a number of young photographers shooting DSLRs using the rear screen only. It's a generational issue. That's the way they learned to shoot on their phones and they've carried it over to their cameras. They are obviously getting paid for their photographs, so I wouldn't assume that it's a shooting style reserved for novices.
> 
> In fact, I'm pretty sure I've seen videos of at least one of the younger Canon Explorers shooting that way.
> 
> But, setting that aside, I'm still trying to wrap my head around why you care. If Canon wants to make an R model that only has a rear screen, no one is going to put a gun to your head to buy it, so what's the harm? And, yes...I anticipate such a camera would be targeted to young photographers on a budget. Good for Canon to be offering more options.


I agree that it's largely a generational thing. Most younger photographers have grown up using smartphones, so it seems more natural to them to compose on a screen.

You chose to misread my post, in which I referred to "mostly, but not entirely, novices". Yes, there are some young pros who shoot via the rear screen. There was in fact fairly recently a shoot out between Jared Polin and a young fashion photographer. Jared took quite tight compositions via the EVF, and the other photographer took much looser compositions with lots of empty space around the subject (leaving space for text and inset images). I think that if she was shooting tighter compositions, she would have found an EVF much better.

Why do I care? Because I think a more versatile, more usable camera will result in greater pleasure and wider photographic opportunities for the user. Having the option of both an EVF and a rear screen makes a camera more versatile, more usable and therefore I think more pleasurable for most people to use.


----------



## entoman (Jan 28, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The next innovation by Canon will be eye-menu - look through the evf at the item to adjust.


Quite possibly! If they manage to get higher precision with the eye-control, it could well be possible to just look at an icon, and twiddle the dial to make a selection. But it's probably more likely that such decision-making will eventually be taken away from the user and handed over to AI automation...


----------



## Otara (Jan 28, 2022)

entoman said:


> Ah, finally you get it - "having both is the best of both worlds".
> 
> I've used a multitude of cameras, with fixed/tilting/fully articulated screens, with OVF, with EVF, also rangefinders, film SLRs, TLRs, field cameras, industrial cameras, compacts, smartphones, you name it, I've used it.
> 
> ...



I can think of cases where Id much prefer to have a viewfinder, but not to that point. If anything much of the stand alone camera market is moving towards neither, with viewing taking place on a separate device, ie action cams, 360 etc.

Id like it if attachable external EVF's were going to stabilise in features that they were viable enough to keep for the next camera, would solve a lot of issues as a oneoff cost rather than paying for a new one for each camera over the years.


----------



## lote82 (Jan 29, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Obviously, having both is the best of both worlds. But as someone with years of experience using cameras with only an OVF, only an LCD, and both, if I had to choose between a camera with only a VF or only an LCD, I’d pick the LCD without hesitation.


Why choose if you can have (as you said) 'the best of both worlds'?
1. VF makes the camera marginally bigger but far more versatile. 
2. Even if VF is too bulky for you(!) there are technical ways to make them disappear if wanted (ask sony for further information) 
3. If you always(!) need a pocket sized camera, why don't you buy a fixed lens camera or take a smartphone?


----------



## John Wilde (Jan 29, 2022)

entoman said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree - I believe that shooting with an EVF *is* objectively better than using a small screen at arms length, for reasons I've already stated several times.


The lack of an EVF doesn't mean that you shoot at arms length. Among many other options, a camera like the M100/200 can be used in the Hasselblad Position, when the screen if flipped up.


----------



## Deleted (Jan 29, 2022)

entoman said:


> Just had a look at your flickr pages.
> 
> There's no way that your photos are "distinctly average". You've got some great shots there, thanks for sharing!


Thank you, you are very kind


----------



## RexxReviews (Jan 29, 2022)

prodorshak said:


> Great. Given my low budget, hopefully now I can switch to R system while upgrading from my beloved 77D. Looks like 2022 will be better (said 2021)?!
> 
> "Hope is a dangerous thing." - Red


RP's were as low as $800 at Christmas, don't expect an R platform to be any less than that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 29, 2022)

entoman said:


> Yes I agree, although my posts were really addressing the usability / versatility of the projected camera, rather than the quality of its output, which I'm sure will be fine.


Seriously? How is, …“produce technically poor and badly composed snaps,” _not_ a commentary on the quality of output?

Instead of trying repeatedly to reframe your silly statement (and failing, because your words are there for all to see), it might be better to just do as you said you would:


entoman said:


> Anyway I'll give the subject a rest…


Except that, obviously, you didn’t.



entoman said:


> Ah, finally you get it - "having both is the best of both worlds".


Finally? My only point has been that having just a rear LCD and no viewfinder does not mean photos taken with the camera are crap (or, in your words, technically poor and badly composed snaps).

Having both IS the best of both worlds. But if you have only one of them, _either one of them_, taking high quality, well composed photographs is quite possible.


----------



## becceric (Jan 29, 2022)

AJ said:


> If the EVF is an optional attachment, then the body should have two mounting points: one on the left and one on the right, for left- and right-eyed shooters. Maybe you could mount two EVFs for shooting with the 5.2/2.8 dual fisheye.


As an optional attachment, the EVF should slide into a port in the hot shoe. It could allow centered placement, and protrude off of the camera back. This allows use by either eye. Of course it should be weather resistant and have another hot shoe on it’s top.
As a bonus, that additional hot shoe could accept another EVF. This would make vertical camera holding with the 5.2/2.8 dual fish eye not cumbersome at all...


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jan 29, 2022)

Chig said:


> Why do you say that? Most telephoto shooting is of fast moving subjects where high shutter speeds are required , once you acquire a subject it's fairly easy to keep it in frame even for birds like swallows.
> IBIS isn't crucial for any photography but quite handy at times, I'd much rather have really useful features like higher fps, twin CFe card slots and of course better heat transfer from a fixed sensor than IBIS


I photograph a lot of birds and low light is aaaaaalways an issue. Plus long lenses magnify camera shake massively.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jan 29, 2022)

scyrene said:


> IBIS is less effective the longer the focal length; the RF 100-500L is rated as giving 5 stops of stabilisation with ILIS and 6 combined with IBIS; for the RF 800mm f/11 officially no extra stabilisation is gained by using IBIS (it's rated at 4 stops).


Disagree completely. The longer the focal length the more magnified camera shake is. That’s a photography basic.


----------



## SnowMiku (Jan 29, 2022)

I'll have a good look at the entry level RF full frame when it's out, it would be great if it includes a viewfinder and a physical cable release port but I have a feeling they will not be included. Depending on the price and specs I may even instead get a used 6D or 6D II.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 29, 2022)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Disagree completely. The longer the focal length the more magnified camera shake is. That’s a photography basic.


The point is that IBIS is less effective at longer focal lengths. No one is arguing that the effect of camera shake is greater at longer focal lengths, although there may not be as much need for stabilization spending on subject. When I shoot birds in flight with my 600/4, I’m at 1/2000 s or faster shutter speeds, so IS isn’t much benefit whether in lens or body.


----------



## Czardoom (Jan 29, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> The point is that IBIS is less effective at longer focal lengths. No one is arguing that the effect of camera shake is greater at longer focal lengths, although there may not be as much need for stabilization spending on subject. When I shoot birds in flight with my 600/4, I’m at 1/2000 s or faster shutter speeds, so IS isn’t much benefit whether in lens or body.


I think we all understand that IBIS is less effective on longer lenses, but the question of IBIS and telephoto lenses was in regard to whether the camera would have IBIS or not, the argument being that because users will be using telephoto lenses the camera does not need IBIS. Or at least that is how I interpret the initial statement, here:

"David - Sydney said: 

I am not sure that the R7 will have IBIS. It will mostly be targeted at telephoto users where IBIS is less effective anyway."


----------



## tapanit (Jan 29, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> I agree that the R system does not need specific RF-S lenses (with the possible exception of a wide angle entry), but the 24-240 is not designed for the focal lengths that a crop user will want, nor is it at the price point for entry level crop buyers. The 16mm will translate to a usable crop lens, but so far they don't have any other lenses that really fit both FF and crop focal lengths.


I think the RF 50/1.8 would work fine with a crop body as a portrait lens (comparable to ~80mm in FF). I certainly used my ancient EF 50 in EF-S bodies that way quite happily.

The RF 35/1.8 (~56mm) would also have many uses as a crop lens, too.

But I agree with you that a new short zoom would definitely be needed for crop R bodies. More likely several (I'm thinking the likes of of EF-S 18-135 and 17-55/2.8).


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 29, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> A cropped sensor with fewer but smaller pixels can be read more frequently than a FF sensor with the same size pixels. The Canon 32MP APS-C sensor, scaled up to FF gives 80MP but the smaller sensor might be readable at 10 FPS. The same processing engine at 80MP could only get 4 FPS. Improving the processing engine costs money. It boils down to: speed, resolution and/or cost - choose two.
> 
> Change that last sentence to: _At any particular time,_ it boils down to: speed, resolution and/or cost - choose two.


You have no argument from me. Different trade offs for different photographers, and Canon will make those it can & can make the most profit on.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 29, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> The best it can? So, you are among those that believe that more MPs means better.


Better for some, but not for others.


Czardoom said:


> Better FPS? No. Better Buffer capacity? No. Better file storage capacity? No.


More details? Yes. Some photographers care for those.

I don't care for your straw man arguments. Go find a donkey who'll eat those.


----------



## Chig (Jan 29, 2022)

Jasonmc89 said:


> I photograph a lot of birds and low light is aaaaaalways an issue. Plus long lenses magnify camera shake massively.


So do you use a very low shutter speed and hope the bird doesn't move then ?


----------



## AlanF (Jan 29, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> I am not sure that the R7 will have IBIS. It will mostly be targeted at telephoto users where IBIS is less effective anyway.


David, Sydney is full of Ibis - so much so I recall you call them "bin chickens", "tip turkeys", "sandwich snatchers" and "picnic pirates". Here's one I took outside our hotel there pre-covid. Has anyone tried to see if Ibis gives any stabilization to the good old EF 400mm f/5.6 L?


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 29, 2022)

SteveC said:


> This time we don't need a pseudo-different mount to prevent a -S lens from being put onto a regular RF mount, as the camera will crop down automatically. So I see no need to create a distinct RF-S mount, even if they do decide to create a crop RF lens.


On the R series there’s no mirror to collide with the rear of the lens so no need for a different mount.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 29, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> It would be interesting to see a RP mark ii... probably without an EVF for size/cost and be a bridge from phone cameras to full frame.
> For me, it could be a great backup body or one where I could use it for star trails overnight. A second hand RP would be another option as well.


Personally I hope Canon don’t take the viewfinder off the RP series. Unless you require fast frame rate there’s very little the current RP can’t do, the ergonomics and interface are as quick as my 5 series, so that makes it a bargain priced “competent” camera. Judging by the serial numbers since 2019 Canon are moving a lot of them.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 29, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> phrase is "focal length limited". You may have high hopes for the M-system. I certainly did at one point, but there don't seem to be enough of us to get Canon's attention. Incidentally, an M5 looks ridiculous on my Sigma 150-600 Sport zoom but it works remarkably well.


Haven’t you just contradicted yourself there ?


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jan 29, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> The point is that IBIS is less effective at longer focal lengths. No one is arguing that the effect of camera shake is greater at longer focal lengths, although there may not be as much need for stabilization spending on subject. When I shoot birds in flight with my 600/4, I’m at 1/2000 s or faster shutter speeds, so IS isn’t much benefit whether in lens or body.


Birds in flight is not the only use of a telephoto lens. Most of my subjects are perched birds for example, in the forest where it’s really, really dark. A hell of a lot of shots are like 1/50 sec at 600mm focal length. The more IS the better!


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 29, 2022)

HMC11 said:


> The rumoured new R FF cameras seem to be replacements for RP & R. By putting the 1DXIII sensor in the entry-level camera, it would be psychologically challenging to buy an R6 even if the latter have much better features and control. It could well put downward price pressure on the R6 which is good news for me .


Personally I don’t think so. The R6 is effectively a £2,500 mirrorless 1DXIII, and most people shooting at that rate don’t seem to want more than 20-ish mp. Unless you need that speed you’re probably wasting your money. 
Construction of the R6 also made me feel better about swinging a relatively heavy lens like the 70-300L about on an RP. According to those that own both cameras the construction (mag alloy chassis, polycarbonate shell) is identical, and as the R6 is clearly intended to be used with big, heavy lenses I’m guessing the RP can handle it too - with the grip extension, or I can’t handle it !


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jan 29, 2022)

Chig said:


> So do you use a very low shutter speed and hope the bird doesn't move then ?


A lot of the time yes! My interest is in small rainforest birds. Usually it’s so dark there that to get shutter speeds up you’d have to use something like iso 5200. Here’s an example of one from the other week. White-collared manakin. 400mm on a crop body. 1/160 shutter.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 29, 2022)

W


bergstrom said:


> Forget RP, huge error on canon's part.


What an extraordinary comment ! With relatively small lenses and the grip extension attached the RP is the most comfortable camera to hold in one hand that I’ve experienced in forty years of photography, and this compliments it’s general ergonomics and interface. Judging by the serial numbers since it’s introduction it looks like Canon has shifted tonnes of them.
Hardly a huge error.
The only problem is I still prefer an OVF.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 29, 2022)

SnowMiku said:


> I'll have a good look at the entry level RF full frame when it's out, it would be great if it includes a viewfinder and a physical cable release port but I have a feeling they will not be included. Depending on the price and specs I may even instead get a used 6D or 6D II.


I wonder why you’re not considering the current RP ?


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jan 29, 2022)

Inspired said:


> Am I the only one that would just like an R5 that's 30mp, 4k oversampled, no 8k, No overheating and about $2500. - $3500?
> Obviously it woundnt be called an R5 but you get the idea


I'd actually love a camera like with those specs and I fear it would be an in-house competition for the R6 because a lot of people prefer to have 30mp over 20mp. Plus, if the sensor is a new-developed one, it might have advantages over the R6 sensor. I don't see another camera being placed at the same price point as the R6 because should fill the gap between RP successor and the R6. This would also relate to the specs.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 29, 2022)

scyrene said:


> IBIS is less effective the longer the focal length;





Jasonmc89 said:


> Disagree completely. The longer the focal length the more magnified camera shake is. That’s a photography basic.





Czardoom said:


> I think we all understand that IBIS is less effective on longer lenses,


Evidently @Jasonmc89 doesn't understand that, which was the point of my reply to him.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 29, 2022)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Birds in flight is not the only use of a telephoto lens. Most of my subjects are perched birds for example, in the forest where it’s really, really dark. A hell of a lot of shots are like 1/50 sec at 600mm focal length. The more IS the better!


I agree. The point is that IBIS is not going to give you much IS benefit at 600mm. That’s a photography basic. You can completely disagree with it, but when you argue with physics you’re going to lose.

I’m not saying Canon should ‘not include IS because most R7 users will be telephoto shooters’, I don’t think anyone in this forum understands who Canon will be targeting with an APS-C RF body. If they leave out IBIS, it will be because it’s a low cost body intended to pull Rebel/xxxD users into the RF ecosystem.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jan 29, 2022)

We have a pretty good idea of what the entry level camera and RP replacement will look like:
- no EVF
- 20 MP sensor
- no mechanical shutter (my guess --> saves money)
- small camera housing (smaller as RP?)
- no IBIS (I guess due to pricing)

But I'm really wondering what specs the gap-filling/ below R6/ spiritual R successor will receive. Some of the suggested specs on this forum would cut into the R6 sales, but yet there have to be obvious improvements to the R, otherwise the R will keep selling pretty well.

My thoughts are:
- new sensor with around 26 mp (+/- 2 MP)
- FPS 8 (mechanical) max. 12 electrical shutter
- ergonomics close to the R5/R6 but probably they'll strip some buttons (hopefully not the joystick)
- IBIS??? --> biggest question for me. A 1.800-2.000 $ camera should come with IBIS, if it is around 1.300 $ I'm not so sure... --> plus, it differentiate the R6 by a big margin.

For the R6, I think a Mk II might not be so far ahead in the future (second half 2023). It could get an upgrade to differentiate from the gap-camera as well. These could be:

- higher MP count (my guess: 32mp) --> far enough from the R5 and the gap camera
- BSI technology
- 1/16.000 exposure time --> built for speed and yet differentiated to the R3
- slight Upgrade on video specs...

Just my thoughts, I'm curious and excited to see the new FF line-up shaping up this year and in 2023. I love my R but I'm still planning on upgrading because I shoot more and more wild-life and youth sporting events. Maybe the R successor will do (I don't need 20 FPS or more) and maybe not (depends on specs), but I can wait till 2024 if necessary


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jan 29, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I agree. The point is that IBIS is not going to give you much IS benefit at 600mm. That’s a photography basic. You can completely disagree with it, but when you argue with physics you’re going to lose.
> 
> I’m not saying Canon should ‘not include IS because most R7 users will be telephoto shooters’, I don’t think anyone in this forum understands who Canon will be targeting with as APS-C RF body. If they leave out IBIS, it will be because it’s a low cost body intended to pull Rebel/xxxD users into the RF ecosystem.


How is IBIS not going to give you more stabilisation at 600mm? Of course it is. That’s what it does.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 29, 2022)

Jasonmc89 said:


> How is IBIS not going to give you more stabilisation at 600mm? Of course it is. That’s what it does.


It gives you only a small amount more. Canon claims for the RF 100-500 that its IS is 5 stops and on the R5 6 stops with the IBIS. I don't see 6 stops. Ken Rockwell has done experiments - click the following links - and finds very little if any extra stabilization from the IBIS added to the IS of telephotos.



AlanF said:


> Ken Rockwell has compared the overall IS on the R5 and the RP for the RF 800 https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/800mm.htm
> and has concluded:
> 
> "I see only about a half stop extra improvement with the R5 even though the R5 adds in-body sensor-shift stabilization; I haven't seen the R5 IBIS to add any significant improvement to lenses that are already stabilized. The R5 is an awesome camera, but I wouldn't get one solely for the additional in-body stabilization which doesn't seem to do as much as some people hope." (click on both links to see his results on the RF 800 and other lenses.)


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 29, 2022)

chrisrmueller said:


> I would love to see an R7 that is an R5 body with a new APS-C sensor in it. I say R5 and not R6 because I really like that Mode button for convenience and the CFexpress/SD combo for high speed. Something like this in the high $1,000's would be an absolute winner.



Something like that would likely be priced in the high $2,000s. For the high $1,000s, we're more likely to see an RF mount 90D type of camera.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 29, 2022)

bergstrom said:


> I want an RP2 or RX, new budget entry, WITH FAN,
> proper HDMI,
> full ULTRA 4k will do, can live without 8k,
> NO recording time limit, or if there IS one, 2 hours max would be fine
> ...



I guess you want a Corvette for the price of a Chevette, too?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 29, 2022)

Jasonmc89 said:


> How is IBIS not going to give you more stabilisation at 600mm? Of course it is. That’s what it does.



Because for the same amount of camera movement at 600mm the sensor has to move 10X as far as it needs to move with a 60mm lens. Or to put it another way, you can move the camera 10X as far with a 60mm lens as with a 600mm lens and get the same amount of blur, in terms of number of pixels on the sensor, that needs to be compensated for.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 29, 2022)

Jasonmc89 said:


> How is IBIS not going to give you more stabilisation at 600mm? Of course it is. That’s what it does.


Read, please. I didn’t state ‘no more’, I stated ‘not much more’. Not much ≠ none.

IBIS gives me 7-8 stops of stabilization with my RF 28-70/2L. As @AlanF states, the same IBIS system gives at best one stop with the RF 100-500L. As was pointed out earlier, Canon states there is no additional benefit of IBIS with the RF 800/11. Do you see a trend there?

The original point that you _completely disagreed_ with was, “IBIS is less effective the longer the focal length.” Sorry that you seem unable to grasp that concept. It’s simple physics, and your inability to understand the facts doesn’t change them.

Perhaps a graphic from Canon will help. The blue line is labeled Sensor Shift Only (aka IBIS). See how it drops off along the Focal Length axis toward the Telephoto Side?




If you still cannot grasp the concept that IBIS is less effective at longer focal lengths, perhaps you should just ignore the technological aspects of photography and stick to pressing the shutter button.

I don’t understand how all the chips in my iPhone work, but I can still use it to post to the CanonRumors forum.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 29, 2022)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Disagree completely. The longer the focal length the more magnified camera shake is. That’s a photography basic.


You disagree... with my factual statements?


----------



## koenkooi (Jan 29, 2022)

Sporgon said:


> Personally I hope Canon don’t take the viewfinder off the RP series. Unless you require fast frame rate there’s very little the current RP can’t do, the ergonomics and interface are as quick as my 5 series, so that makes it a bargain priced “competent” camera. Judging by the serial numbers since 2019 Canon are moving a lot of them.


I would love to see an R body in the style of the original EOS-M, as someone else put it: a 'deck of cards'. It would be a handy thing to slap on the RF16 or RF50 and have it with you in your coat pocket. I currently use the M6II for things like that, but it lacks both EFCS and ES modes and while the AF is fast, it's not as accurate as the RP or R5. An optional EVF would be nice, but not required for me.

Failing that, an RP-like body with support for electronic shutter would be a great companion to the R5, when the R5 feels too bulky to take with you.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 29, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I agree. The point is that IBIS is not going to give you much IS benefit at 600mm. That’s a photography basic. You can completely disagree with it, but when you argue with physics you’re going to lose.
> 
> I’m not saying Canon should ‘not include IS because most R7 users will be telephoto shooters’, I don’t think anyone in this forum understands who Canon will be targeting with as APS-C RF body. If they leave out IBIS, it will be because it’s a low cost body intended to pull Rebel/xxxD users into the RF ecosystem.


Thank you for saving me the time to reply!


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 29, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Perhaps a graphic from Canon will help. The blue line is labeled Sensor Shift Only (aka IBIS). See how it drops off along the Focal Length axis toward the Telephoto Side?
> 
> View attachment 202281
> 
> ...


That’s interesting. I had no idea that even Canon rated IBIS so much more effective than lens IS on short focal lengths.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 29, 2022)

SnowMiku said:


> …a physical cable release port…


It took me a moment to see you mean ‘physical port for cable release’. My first thought was actually ‘port for physical cable release’.




It’s been a while since I’ve used one of those.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 29, 2022)

Sporgon said:


> That’s interesting. I had no idea that even Canon rated IBIS so much more effective than lens IS on short focal lengths.


AFAIK, the best optical (in-lens) stabilization is 5 stops, and most lenses are rated in the 3-4 stop range (several RF lenses do offer 5 stops). IBIS is rated for 8 stops with the non-stabilized RF 28-70/2.

That seems to be the current cap, as lenses with 5-stops optical combined with IBIS still top out at 8 stops.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 29, 2022)

At some point, I need to test the effectiveness of the IBIS in my R3 with my TS-E 17 and 24. It’s been suggested that the RF 28-70/2 gets 8 stops IBIS because it has a large image circle (the non-stabilized RF 50/1.2 gets 7 stops).

TS-E lenses have huge image circles to allow for lens movements, so if that’s the rationale for the 28-70 they should get that max 8-stop benefit. Probably less benefit with a large degree of tilt and/or shift applied.

I often use shutter speeds in the 4-15 second range for my blue hour architecture shooting, and assuming a 1/15 s handholding, 8 stops of IS means a 15 s exposure. Not saying I’d leave my travel tripod (RRS TQC-14) at home when I go on trips, but it might mean that when I need exposures up to 8 s or so, I leave the tripod strapped to the backpack (at least for shift, which is doable handheld; tilt, not so much at least for me).


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 29, 2022)

cgc said:


> So the R5s and R1 will not come until 2023... and no APS-C glass ever, or maybe merely only a single kit lens? A single crop camera model does not deserves a entire line of crop glass...


Other than cost, I never saw the point of APS-C lenses. The non-L ff lenses seem very inexpensive to me. I think you are right.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 29, 2022)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Other than cost, I never saw the point of APS-C lenses. The non-L ff lenses seem very inexpensive to me. I think you are right.


Size, in some cases. The EF-S 18-55 vs the EF 17-40, for example.

Again, I think it comes down to the market Canon is targeting. If they release an APS-C RF body intended to supplant the Rebel/xxxD DSLRs, then I expect they’d release a some small image circle lenses as well, to make them cheap. If they are aiming at the xxD/7D market segment, probably just a cheap small image circle kit lens. Or none at all, and that’s the purpose of the rumored RF 18-45mm f/4-5.6, which in that case I’d expect to be light on build quality and requiring significant digital correction.


----------



## entoman (Jan 29, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> If you look at your comments on this subject, such as this one:
> 
> "Yes I fully realize that there are millions who have never used a viewfinder, and I'd go so far as to say that I'm sure their images suffer as a result of using a camera that way." it seems pretty obvious that you are insulting photographers who shoot with the rear LCD. Maybe your images suffer from not using an EVF - and I would say most assuredly that mine would as well - but you make it quite clear that you don't think that - in general - people are competant enough to shoot and compose using the LCD. And your reasons seem very shaky and vague at best. For those that shoot that way - and are used to shooting that way, they almost certainly see all the necessary things in the LCD they you claim they won't see. I think LCDs today are high enough quality so that IQ is not an issue.
> 
> ...


Check out this article on dpr by video expert Jordan Drake, in which he discusses the reasons why shooting with an EVF, and having IBIS, are superior techniques:









Why I shoot video with mirrorless cameras (and not video cameras)


DPRTV's Jordan Drake writes about why he prefers mirrorless cameras over video cameras – despite having access to plenty of pro video gear.




www.dpreview.com





It blows away some of the myths perpetuated here.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 29, 2022)

entoman said:


> Check out this article on dpr by video expert Jordan Drake


I don’t find DPR to be particularly reliable, and I don’t shoot video on ILCs. So, no thanks. Since the post to which you replied mentions photos but not videos, I doubt the input of a video expert is particularly relevant.

Did anyone question the utility of an EVF for video? Heck, even the first video camera I used had an EVF…and that was one of those massive, shoulder-mounted beasts from the 80s where the VHS tape recorder was a separate box carried on a shoulder strap. IIRC, it was a green-tinged monochrome EVF, but still an EVF. 






entoman said:


> It blows away some of the myths perpetuated here.


What myths? Please note that if an opinion differs from yours, that does not make it a myth.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 29, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> At some point, I need to test the effectiveness of the IBIS in my R3 with my TS-E 17 and 24. It’s been suggested that the RF 28-70/2 gets 8 stops IBIS because it has a large image circle (the non-stabilized RF 50/1.2 gets 7 stops).
> 
> TS-E lenses have huge image circles to allow for lens movements, so if that’s the rationale for the 28-70 they should get that max 8-stop benefit. Probably less benefit with a large degree of tilt and/or shift applied.
> 
> I often use shutter speeds in the 4-15 second range for my blue hour architecture shooting, and assuming a 1/15 s handholding, 8 stops of IS means a 15 s exposure. Not saying I’d leave my travel tripod (RRS TQC-14) at home when I go on trips, but it might mean that when I need exposures up to 8 s or so, I leave the tripod strapped to the backpack (at least for shift, which is doable handheld; tilt, not so much at least for me).


I remember reading on here some time ago that some of the RF lenses (even ones without IS) have an extra accelerometer to help the IBIS, so perhaps the TS-E lenses wouldn't be able to get the 8 stop benefit despite the larger circle; definitely worth testing! I take it Canon doesn't officially say how much benefit IBIS gives to adapted EF lenses?


----------



## jordanisaak (Jan 29, 2022)

Long time lurker, but I can't resist the siren call to share my opinion.

Here's what I would do if I were running the show at Canon - not what I personally want as a camera user, but what I think makes business sense.

RP replacement -> R100

This would be the EVF-less model. To go with it, design an ultra low end kit lens - something in the ballpark of a 28-70mm f/5.6-10. The goal (and reason to cut the EVF) would be to hit a price point as low as possible while still having a full frame sensor, hopefully within range of the T8i. With the ultra cheap kit lens, image quality should be similar to base APS-C cameras in that price range. Advertising would lean heavily on the "professional grade full frame sensor" that could "use the full capabilities of the RF lens system" and "grow with you on your photographic journey" with the intent of shunting sales that would have gone to competitors' crop sensor cameras (or EF-S/EF-M) into the RF system. Of course a detachable viewfinder would be available, including as a kit. I would lean towards reusing the R sensor to give it a higher megapixel count compared to its crop sensor rivals, but if that's too expensive to make the price point work then the R6 or even RP sensor would be fine - whatever is required to get that base price down.

And on that note, the infamous "Canon cripple hammer" would be applied liberally. Software would be bare bones, essentially T8i/M50 level with no extra frills. *But* I would start offering paid firmware feature upgrades. Want full frame 4k video? That'll be $300 please. Intervalometer? Another $40, thank you very much. And so on. The idea would be to generate a new revenue stream from customers upgrading their camera firmware - one that from Canon's perspective has close to no incremental cost for each sale, relatively low development cost, and will be completely unaffected by supply chain shortages. And it actually could be a win for customers too. At the entry level, full frame is available at a price point never seen before. Yet if there's one specific feature you want, you no longer have to buy the more expensive body with all the bells and whistles you don't need. And of course, the photographers that can afford the everything-including-the-kitchen-sink R3/5/6 will continue to happily buy them for a premium while turning their noses up at the cheaper bodies - no change needed there, the target markets are completely different.

Crop sensor RF -> R7

Drop an M6II 32mp sensor in an R6 body and ship it. Minimal development cost since all the pieces are already there. It's a niche, but for such a low cost to try it why not.

R replacement -> R8

I would have basically done an R quality body with the R5 sensor, but it sounds like Canon are developing a new sensor instead. Still a single card slot, still no IBIS. Full frame 4k, improved AF trickled ddown from the R5/6, and the better sensor would be the main selling points. Similar price point to what the R launched at.

Not mentioned in this rumour are the R1 (spend the time and money to make it unquestionably the best FF camera money can buy), a high resolution R5s (identical to the R5 except the sensor) and an R10 that would essentially be the R6 sensor in a cheaper body with no IBIS, single card slot, and lower end software that could be upgraded like the R100. Those would be for 2023/2024.

As far as the EF-S/EF-M lines go, I would continue the current strategy - spend as little as possible on these systems while riding the long tail of sales into the sunset. Continue to manufacture and sell existing bodies and lenses. Periodically assess how sales are doing. If sales transfer over into the RF system through the R100 and R10, let the other systems slowly dwindle. If they continue strong but competitors' cameras get a significant upgrade cycle, do one last release of a T9i/M50III that drop the 32mp M6II sensor into the current T8i/M50II bodies.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 29, 2022)

scyrene said:


> I take it Canon doesn't officially say how much benefit IBIS gives to adapted EF lenses?


I haven’t seen a list like that from Canon.


----------



## RexxReviews (Jan 29, 2022)

cgc said:


> I bet for the names being:
> 
> R7 for around 32MP APS-C (great features and speed, crippled sensor and OVF nostalgia plus EVF)
> R10 for the new full frame bellow R6/R5 with around 32MP (mirrorless 90D successor and R replacement)
> R100 for a tiny entry-level full-frame with no EVF (mirrorless 850D successor and RP replacement)


Except you ignore the fact that if its using the R6 sensor it wont be 32mp...


----------



## bergstrom (Jan 29, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> I guess you want a Corvette for the price of a Chevette, too?



I don't mind an increase in price if it meant an increase in size to accomodate the LPE6.


----------



## Acpoynts (Jan 29, 2022)

entoman said:


> Yikes, I hope that if they remove the EVF, that they only do it on the cheapest model. Viewing on a little rear screen is OK for people who just want to take snaps, but near-impossible for people shooting sports, action, wildlife or anything requiring careful composition. Heaven forbid that EVF isn't lost from any other models.


Would potentially work well for astro if the sensor is right


----------



## Czardoom (Jan 29, 2022)

Antono Refa said:


> Better for some, but not for others.
> 
> More details? Yes. Some photographers care for those.
> 
> I don't care for your straw man arguments. Go find a donkey who'll eat those.


So, when someone makes some good points about why less MPs might be advantageous, you decide they are straw man arguments.

I would argue that, like so many on the forum who can't stand when someone disagrees with them, you have no real argument, but resort to insults.

Good for you. Very clever.


----------



## melgross (Jan 29, 2022)

Stig Nygaard said:


> Exact same diameter as the EF-mount which I think have worked fine for APS-C.


Yeah, somehow, I’ve thought it saw smaller in addition to being shorter.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 29, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> So, when someone makes some good points about why less MPs might be advantageous, you decide they are straw man arguments.


Your wording is "*might* be advantageous" to use less MP. For others it might be to have more MP. Canon does not serve the best for those, and the rest is you making word games.

1. Higher FPS? Canon offers lower resolution modes for years.

2. Better Buffer capacity? Canon offers lower resolution modes for years.

3. Better high ISO noise? Not for the same print size, and lower MP doesn't allow for higher print sizes, so this argument is rubbish.

4. Diminishing returns as more MPs means diffraction sets in at lower apertures - again, there's no loss for the same print size, and there's a gain with higher apertures.

5. Higher shutter speeds are needed or you need to use a tripod more often - same, as above.

6. High MP camera is clearly a niche product that is not a high priority for Canon - its high enough for Canon to actually make such sensors, which go into real cameras. Not the type you're talking about, but some have actually seen one, which means they think *is* "the best."

Next time, feed your straw men to donkeys.



Czardoom said:


> I would argue that, like so many on the forum who can't stand when someone disagrees with them, you have no real argument, but resort to insults.


I have real argument, you're just not worth the effort of making it, because you're not as clever as you think.


----------



## Skux (Jan 29, 2022)

I thought I wanted it but I can't see Canon making an APS-C R-mount camera anymore. We haven't heard anything about crop lenses, and Canon still seems happy to sell Rebels and EOS M cameras to the entry level market. The price difference between an APS-C and full frame is not nearly as large as it used to be either.

They will likely do a budget RF camera and include their non-L zooms in a cheap kit as a sequel to the RP, with the idea that buyers will eventually upgrade to much more expensive RF lenses.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 29, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> At some point, I need to test the effectiveness of the IBIS in my R3 with my TS-E 17 and 24. It’s been suggested that the RF 28-70/2 gets 8 stops IBIS because it has a large image circle (the non-stabilized RF 50/1.2 gets 7 stops).
> 
> TS-E lenses have huge image circles to allow for lens movements, so if that’s the rationale for the 28-70 they should get that max 8-stop benefit. Probably less benefit with a large degree of tilt and/or shift applied.
> 
> I often use shutter speeds in the 4-15 second range for my blue hour architecture shooting, and assuming a 1/15 s handholding, 8 stops of IS means a 15 s exposure. Not saying I’d leave my travel tripod (RRS TQC-14) at home when I go on trips, but it might mean that when I need exposures up to 8 s or so, I leave the tripod strapped to the backpack (at least for shift, which is doable handheld; tilt, not so much at least for me).



I'm wondering if the fact that the camera body has no idea how much tilt or shift movement has been applied might lead Canon to be fairly conservative with how much sensor movement they'd allow with those lenses, though.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 29, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> Which would you rather purchase and carry around a race track for 6 hours: a FF camera with a 400 f/2.8 lens or an APS-C body with a 300 f/2.8 lens? How about trying to capture a skittish tiny bird from too great a distance, when you really need a 1200mm lens? The phrase is "focal length limited". You may have high hopes for the M-system. I certainly did at one point, but there don't seem to be enough of us to get Canon's attention. Incidentally, an M5 looks ridiculous on my Sigma 150-600 Sport zoom but it works remarkably well.



There's an even more significant difference, both in price and size/weight, between needing a fast handling FF camera + 300/2.8 vs. a fast handling APS-C + 70-200/2.8 to shoot field sports at night. Not to mention that with the 300/2.8 prime, you need a second body with 70-200 anyway for when the action gets close to the sideline.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 29, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> I think that it will be highly unlikely for twin slots as much as the 7D users would prefer it (with the same weather sealing).
> No need for an expensive new BSI sensor with low rolling shutter when video won't be a priority and 10-14fps could be handled by an existing sensor.
> I could be wrong but the pricing will dictate what the feature set will be. I think that it will be priced under the R6



I don't think Chig said anything about how likely it was, just what he would rather have.

Why does every comment about any feature one might find useful have to turn into an expectation that the feature in question is likely to appear in an upcoming product from Canon?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 29, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Not so sure that is true.



I think that's more a reference to the wider end, where APS-C only "superzoom" lenses tend to start at around 18mm to 20mm, rather than 28mm like FF "superzoom" lenses start.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 29, 2022)

chrisrmueller said:


> I think it would be a winner for consumers who want that body style but not a full frame sensor.
> 
> I don’t purport to know what it would cost for Canon to make this camera, but it is my understanding that the most expensive part of the camera is the sensor. If the development in the body is already there (meaning they don’t have to build from the ground up and just adjust cooling/firmware/etc. for the smaller sensor) and they swap the expensive full frame sensor for a cheaper APS-C, it may actually be within reason to sell something like this in the high $1,000’s. I bought my 7D Mark ii new for $1,500 when the 5D Mark iii was over $3,000. If an R6 is selling for $2,500, maybe it’s feasible.
> 
> I’m not an engineer or a salesperson though, so I’m just throwing ideas out there for the sake of conversation.



Meanwhile, the "current" replacement for the 5D Mark III is selling for $3,900. Adjust that $1,799 7D Mark II (introductory price) by the same inflation factor and it's at $2,300.

Not to mention that the 7D Mark II was probably the most camera-per-dollar at introductory price that Canon has ever sold or will ever sell in the future. Fast handling (for its time), built like a tank, large viewfinder, top of the line (for its time) AF system, dual card slots, etc. It really was a "mini 1D X" with a sensor only slightly smaller than the original APS-H 1D series. Give it an integral grip and, at barely one-third the price, it would have been superior to the 1D Mark IV, which debuted at the same time as the original 7D.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 29, 2022)

Otara said:


> If they released a 7D2 'mini 1DX' again Id be interested. If it was an M5 update I would be, even though I cant use EF_M with it. As said above, it probably will be neither, so be interesting to see what Canon's take is, Im guessing 90Dish? Ie a good camera at a useful pricepoint but probably not what people in this forum would be wishing for.



Yes, I think the handwriting has been on the wall since the release of the 90D and M6 Mark II without a 7D Mark III using the same sensor that Canon doesn't intend to sell any more APS-C bodies with near 1-series build quality and durability. Any top tier RF mount APS-C body will likely be much more akin to the 90D than to the 7D Mark II.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 29, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Is the rolling shutter on the M6ii okay for action?



No one really knows, because the typical EOS M buyer doesn't really shoot action, and typical action shooters want cameras that aren't as delicate as an M6 Mark II with an eye level viewfinder attached to the hot shoe.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 29, 2022)

Antono Refa said:


> I think customers would like to know whether they'll get the sensor's full resolution, or the camera will auto crop the image for them.



If they're even aware of the possibility they might say they'd like to know if someone asked them if they'd like to know. But Nikon got away with it for years with many users not having a clue that when they used cheaper DX lenses on FX bodies the images were being auto cropped.


----------



## InchMetric (Jan 29, 2022)

AlanF said:


> It gives you only a small amount more. Canon claims for the RF 100-500 that its IS is 5 stops and on the R5 6 stops with the IBIS. I don't see 6 stops. Ken Rockwell has done experiments - click the following links - and finds very little if any extra stabilization from the IBIS added to the IS of telephotos.


I tested the R5 with a vintage Questar 700 mirror lens and got minimal benefit to IBIS. Nikon Z did better even at the wrong focal length of 800.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 29, 2022)

entoman said:


> Sorry but I have to disagree.
> 
> An eye-level OVF or EVF is a far more efficient way to view a scene and allows you to compose and judge focus, depth of field, bokeh and distracting background elements far better than peeking at a little screen at arm's length.
> 
> "Consumers at the low end" probably don't *care* much about the quality of their images, which are mostly keepsakes rather than efforts at "art" - many wouldn't even notice the existence of garbage in the background, poor exposure, bad focus or lousy composition. OK, that may sound elitist, but a decent OVF or EVF would *help* them to take photographs that they'd treasure, which is surely why they take photos in the first place.



Here's the problem with your desire to *help* those poor souls who don't know that an eye level viewfinder is superior to a rear LCD screen:

*Those poor souls make their buying decisions based on what they do know, not on what they do not know.*


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 29, 2022)

entoman said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree - I believe that shooting with an EVF *is* objectively better than using a small screen at arms length, for reasons I've already stated several times.



When someone else is buying an entry level camera it matters not what you believe.

It only matters what the potential buyer believes at the time they are making their purchase decision.


----------



## Rocky (Jan 29, 2022)

John Wilde said:


> The lack of an EVF doesn't mean that you shoot at arms length. Among many other options, a camera like the M100/200 can be used in the Hasselblad Position, when the screen if flipped up.


Can you still see what is on the screen when it is flipped up when you are ouitdoor?? the sun will make it useless.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 29, 2022)

entoman said:


> Canon is in photography to make money, and they'll make anything that they think will make a profit and is good enough in quality to bear the company name.



Not really. Canon will make only those products that they think will _maximize_ total profit.

If Canon thinks selling (a cheaper, slightly less capable) product B along with (a more expensive, slightly more capable) product A will make less total profit than selling only product A, then product B will never see the light of day.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 30, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> The cost for Canon to produce another line of lenses for a small number of users would be high and produce some confusion in the market.
> 
> There may be more APS-C models in the future but the situation is that Canon hasn't released a 7Dii successor for a very long time suggests that they don't see a significant market for it. Who knows, it might become a best seller if the pricing is compelling
> 
> ...



As long as there are cameras with different sensor sizes that can share the same lenses, there will be some confusion in the market. That is because many consumers don't understand the distinction between focal length and angle of view.

I'm a current 7D Mark II user who has never owned a wide angle EF-S lens (unless you count a single 18-55mm kit lens, which I do not consider wide angle on APS-C). If I want to take a wide angle shot, I use one of my FF bodies.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 30, 2022)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Disagree completely. The longer the focal length the more magnified camera shake is. That’s a photography basic.



It's also a basic that for IBIS to correct for the same amount of camera movement, the sensor has to move 10X as far with a 600mm lens as it moves with a 60mm lens. But since most 600mm lenses don't project oversized image circles large enough to do that, it makes no sense to raise the cost and complexity of the IBIS system to even bother making a sensor that could move that far.


----------



## HMC11 (Jan 30, 2022)

Sporgon said:


> Personally I don’t think so. The R6 is effectively a £2,500 mirrorless 1DXIII, and most people shooting at that rate don’t seem to want more than 20-ish mp. Unless you need that speed you’re probably wasting your money.
> Construction of the R6 also made me feel better about swinging a relatively heavy lens like the 70-300L about on an RP. According to those that own both cameras the construction (mag alloy chassis, polycarbonate shell) is identical, and as the R6 is clearly intended to be used with big, heavy lenses I’m guessing the RP can handle it too - with the grip extension, or I can’t handle it !


I have used the EF 70-300L on the RP with an adapter. No cracks so far on the body . They work well enough together with very decent images. Not for small & fast wildlife though, as both the reach of the lens and the slow frame rate of the RP make it difficult to get enough sharp images with the subject filling a good portion of the composition. I am expecting that an R6 would work well with a RF 100-500 for me as I do not wish to carry too much weight, although the 20mp would limit the amount of cropping. As such, it is a workable combination, again for me only, especially if the R6 price falls with the introduction of competitive (assumption) new bodies. Alternatively, if the rumored above-entry new body is indeed closer to the R but with 30ish mp and comparable frame rate to the R6, then that would work too. The R5 is also an option, though I am hesitating because (a) it is expensive for my amateur usage; (b) I hardly do videos so 2 SD slots rather than having to buy an expensive CF Express card is preferred; (c) 45mp slows down my editing software and eats up hard disks space; (d) for a pair of not-that-steady hands, I imagine that 45mp is harder to handle even with IS; and that (e) 20-30mp is good enough for the occasional A2/A3 large prints (though upwards of 26mp would be needed for A3). All these mean that I am eagerly awaiting the new bodies to see what they bring on the table......


----------



## Bishop80 (Jan 30, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Is the rolling shutter on the M6ii okay for action?





Michael Clark said:


> No one really knows, because the typical EOS M buyer doesn't really shoot action, and typical action shooters want cameras that aren't as delicate as an M6 Mark II with an eye level viewfinder attached to the hot shoe.


I bought my M6 Mark II primarily as a backup camera for sports where it stays around my neck or on a Spider quick-release. I typically keep a wide-medium zoom on it, for when the action gets too close for the telephoto on my 1DX Mark III. I have not noticed any rolling shutter phenomenon. It tracks the action surprisingly well. It also gets a lot of use when I'm not in a sport season.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 30, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> If they're even aware of the possibility they might say they'd like to know if someone asked them if they'd like to know. But Nikon got away with it for years with many users not having a clue that when they used cheaper DX lenses on FX bodies the images were being auto cropped.


As far as I know, all Nikon crop lenses have DX written on the barrel (do you know of any exception?), same as all Canon crop lenses have EF-*S* written on the barrel. That's what I expect Canon to do, in case it releases crop RF lenses - mark them as crop.

Whether some photographers missed that is beside the point.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 30, 2022)

Bishop80 said:


> I bought my M6 Mark II primarily as a backup camera for sports where it stays around my neck or on a Spider quick-release. I typically keep a wide-medium zoom on it, for when the action gets too close for the telephoto on my 1DX Mark III. I have not noticed any rolling shutter phenomenon. It tracks the action surprisingly well. It also gets a lot of use when I'm not in a sport season.



Rolling shutter issue with athletes will be more pronounced at longer focal lengths, just as shutter speed blur is more of an issue with longer lenses. Using the M6 Mark II at wider angles of view will not reveal rolling shutter shooting athletes as much as using it with longer lenses would. It would show up in fence posts, telephone poles, etc. if you were whizzing by them in a car, where the poles tend to be moving horizontally while the shutter curtains or line-by-line electronic readout are moving vertically. But with random movements that aren't usually orthogonal to the direction of shutter movement/line scanning, it's a different ball game.

I shoot high school football at around 1/800 to 1/1000 with my long lens (either a 120-300/2.8 or 70-200/2.8 on a 7D Mark II). I can get away with 1/400 on my wide body (typically a 24-70/2.8 or 24-105/4 on a FF body) because even though the action is closer when I'm using the wide lens, the same amount of player movement covers a smaller portion of the frame.





This one was actually shot at 1/250, f/4, ISO 3200. The blur in the left of the frame is probably due to the fact I was rotating the camera as I raised it from where it had been hanging on my right side and shooting one-handed with the camera still in front of my abdomen while moving the monopod with my long lens and camera on it away from my eye using my left hand.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 30, 2022)

Antono Refa said:


> As far as I know, all Nikon crop lenses have DX written on the barrel (do you know of any exception?), same as all Canon crop lenses have EF-*S* written on the barrel. That's what I expect Canon to do, in case it releases crop RF lenses - mark them as crop.
> 
> Whether some photographers missed that is beside the point.



Marking a lens barrel is not the same thing as altering a mount with an extra tab so that an EF-S lens can not be mounted to a full frame EOS EF mount camera.

In Nikon's case, they didn't leave room for the possibility that DX lenses could protrude further into the mirror box, so no tab preventing use of DX lenses on FX bodies was needed. The much smaller throat diameter of the Nikon F-mount compared to the EOS EF/EF-S mount might have had something to do with it.

At any rate, there were a lot of Nikon shooters who had no idea their FX camera bodies were auto cropping when using DX lenses. It may be beside your point, that was precisely the point I was making.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 30, 2022)

John Wilde said:


> The lack of an EVF doesn't mean that you shoot at arms length. Among many other options, a camera like the M100/200 can be used in the Hasselblad Position, when the screen if flipped up.



Not really, though. With a Blad you could hold the back of the film pack firmly against your waist to help stabilize the camera because the VF was on top of the main body. With a flippy screen you can't do that because the screen tilts out from the back of the camera body, not from the top.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 30, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Marking a lens barrel is not the same thing as altering a mount with an extra tab so that an EF-S lens can not be mounted to a full frame EOS EF mount camera.


Your point being...?

Mind you, what I wrote was "I think customers *would like to know* whether they'll get the sensor's full resolution, or the camera will auto crop the image for them". For that purpose, marking on the barrel is sufficient.



Michael Clark said:


> At any rate, there were a lot of Nikon shooters who had no idea their FX camera bodies were auto cropping when using DX lenses. It may be beside your point, that was precisely the point I was making.


Replying to me makes it look like you think it isn't beside my point. Next time, make your beside-the-point as an independent post, rather than a reply.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 30, 2022)

Antono Refa said:


> Your point being...?
> 
> Mind you, what I wrote was "I think customers *would like to know* whether they'll get the sensor's full resolution, or the camera will auto crop the image for them". For that purpose, marking on the barrel is sufficient.
> 
> ...



My point is, I think you're assuming that customers want to know something about an issue which they're not even aware exists. That's my point. 

Your assumption is wrong. 

Nikon proved it for years. Most of the customers you are talking about don't have a clue what you are talking about, thus they don't care about something they have no clue about.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jan 30, 2022)

That is ridiculous. First they get rid of the mirror and say that an EVF is better than an OVF and then they get rid of the EVF.

Keep in mind that even the cheapest DSLR has a viewfinder.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 30, 2022)

Rocky said:


> Can you still see what is on the screen when it is flipped up when you are ouitdoor?? the sun will make it useless.


Is the sun always shining from directly overhead where you are?? And if it were, wouldn't your head/body cast shade onto it?


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 30, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> My point is, I think you're assuming that customers want to know something about an issue which they're not even aware exists. That's my point.
> 
> Your assumption is wrong.
> 
> Nikon proved it for years. Most of the customers you are talking about don't have a clue what you are talking about, thus they don't care about something they have no clue about.


Unless you have data to support that claim, I'll stick to my doubts about this claim.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 30, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> I think that's more a reference to the wider end, where APS-C only "superzoom" lenses tend to start at around 18mm to 20mm, rather than 28mm like FF "superzoom" lenses start.


I get that. But, it's not correct to say that a 24-240 RF lens is not a focal length that crop sensor users would want, given how popular the EF-S 55-250 mm zoom is. A lens that is equivalent to 39-384 mm on a crop sensor could be very appealing, especially since it can also be used on a full frame body with no adapter. The price tag might be a bigger problem than the zoom range.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 30, 2022)

Re-reading and thinking about this rumor. If two of the three are simply replacements for the RP and R, which seems like a good possibility, the exciting news about three new R bodies essentially becomes much less impressive news about one APS-C body added to the lineup.


----------



## Czardoom (Jan 30, 2022)

Antono Refa said:


> Your wording is "*might* be advantageous" to use less MP. For others it might be to have more MP. Canon does not serve the best for those, and the rest is you making word games.
> 
> 1. Higher FPS? Canon offers lower resolution modes for years.
> 
> ...


Here is your quote that I responded to initially:

"Canon can make sensors with a higher resolution. We could have a long discussion on why it doesn't, the bottom line is Canon is in it to make a profit, not to sell customers the very best it can."

Forgive me if your two sentences were not both talking about sensor resolution. If both sentences are talking about sensor resolution, then you are clearly saying that if Canon makes a camera that does not have the highest resolution Canon can make, then it is not the best it can be.

Now you seem to be saying that it may not be the best for everyone - *which is exactly the point I made*.

So, in other words, you've simply back-tracked from your initial comment and begun stating the obvious.
But you still think insulting me makes you the bigger man. OK, I concede. Congrats.


----------



## ozturert (Jan 30, 2022)

"No EVF" is quite a disturbing idea. Not only "old folks" are using EVF by the way.


----------



## dtaylor (Jan 30, 2022)

ozturert said:


> "No EVF" is quite a disturbing idea. Not only "old folks" are using EVF by the way.


I'm fine with no EVF on my M, but that's a casual/light travel camera. I would never accept no EVF on my main camera. Heck...I haven't even accepted no OVF on my main camera...yet.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 30, 2022)

dtaylor said:


> I'm fine with no EVF on my M, but that's a casual/light travel camera. I would never accept no EVF on my main camera. Heck...I haven't even accepted no OVF on my main camera...yet.


A 5DS with fine lenses and good technique takes some replacing, doesn’t it ?


----------



## Otara (Jan 30, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> That is ridiculous. First they get rid of the mirror and say that an EVF is better than an OVF and then they get rid of the EVF.
> 
> Keep in mind that even the cheapest DSLR has a viewfinder.



And even the cheapest bicycle has wheels.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 30, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> Here is your quote that I responded to initially:
> 
> "Canon can make sensors with a higher resolution. We could have a long discussion on why it doesn't, the bottom line is Canon is in it to make a profit, not to sell customers the very best it can."
> 
> Forgive me if your two sentences were not both talking about sensor resolution. If both sentences are talking about sensor resolution, then you are clearly saying that if Canon makes a camera that does not have the highest resolution Canon can make, then it is not the best it can be.


Canon makes a variety of cameras to cater to a variety of photographers. Some of them want higher resolution. Yet, Canon doesn't cater to them with the highest resolution sensor it can makes, which makes an example of how Canon doesn't sell the best technology it has.



Czardoom said:


> Now you seem to be saying that it may not be the best for everyone - *which is exactly the point I made*.
> 
> So, in other words, you've simply back-tracked from your initial comment and begun stating the obvious.


No, I didn't. That was you putting words into my mouth, which is a straw man argument.


Czardoom said:


> But you still think insulting me makes you the bigger man. OK, I concede. Congrats.


Me stating I think you make straw man arguments for argument's sake is exactly that. E.g. you didn't try to say how many MP is good, just argued in a non-specific way that more isn't always better. Is the EOS 350D worse than the 300D, just because it upgraded the sensor from 6.3MP to 8MP?


----------



## David - Sydney (Jan 30, 2022)

RexxReviews said:


> RP's were as low as $800 at Christmas, don't expect an R platform to be any less than that.


Well, I hope that Canon can do a R platform for less than USD800... wouldn't that be an amazing bridge between phones and "real" cameras!


----------



## David - Sydney (Jan 30, 2022)

becceric said:


> As an optional attachment, the EVF should slide into a port in the hot shoe. It could allow centered placement, and protrude off of the camera back. This allows use by either eye. Of course it should be weather resistant and have another hot shoe on it’s top.
> As a bonus, that additional hot shoe could accept another EVF. This would make vertical camera holding with the 5.2/2.8 dual fish eye not cumbersome at all...


The Sigma fp L external EVF is attached on the side of the camera - rangefinder style. Reviews say that it isn't the best. If I recall correctly, it couldn't be attached on the top.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jan 30, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> I think we all understand that IBIS is less effective on longer lenses, but the question of IBIS and telephoto lenses was in regard to whether the camera would have IBIS or not, the argument being that because users will be using telephoto lenses the camera does not need IBIS. Or at least that is how I interpret the initial statement, here:
> 
> "David - Sydney said:
> 
> I am not sure that the R7 will have IBIS. It will mostly be targeted at telephoto users where IBIS is less effective anyway."


Wow! I didn't expect my comment to elicit such a divergent response. I hope that there has been some education for forum members


----------



## David - Sydney (Jan 30, 2022)

AlanF said:


> David, Sydney is full of Ibis - so much so I recall you call them "bin chickens", "tip turkeys", "sandwich snatchers" and "picnic pirates". Here's one I took outside our hotel there pre-covid. Has anyone tried to see if Ibis gives any stabilization to the good old EF 400mm f/5.6 L?
> View attachment 202279


Very true... only problem is trying to fit an Ibis into a camera... Canon have had difficulties 3D printing them small enough


----------



## David - Sydney (Jan 30, 2022)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Birds in flight is not the only use of a telephoto lens. Most of my subjects are perched birds for example, in the forest where it’s really, really dark. A hell of a lot of shots are like 1/50 sec at 600mm focal length. The more IS the better!


Yes, more lens IS but sensor IS is LESS effective due to the massive sensor shift movements needed to counteract movement of the image at 600mm vs at 35mm for instance


----------



## David - Sydney (Jan 30, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’m not saying Canon should ‘not include IS because most R7 users will be telephoto shooters’, I don’t think anyone in this forum understands who Canon will be targeting with an APS-C RF body. If they leave out IBIS, it will be because it’s a low cost body intended to pull Rebel/xxxD users into the RF ecosystem.


Yes, my original point was to reduce cost with a APS-C R7. Of course, if it includes it, the sticker price will be higher. 
One of the very few argument points against the R5c was the omission of IBIS as it would impact stills shooters but cinema users would be less likely to miss it.
Did Canon do it to reduce cost or was there an engineering issue of heat transfer from the sensor that the IBIS mechanism couldn't handle (or both)?


----------



## David - Sydney (Jan 30, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Perhaps a graphic from Canon will help. The blue line is labeled Sensor Shift Only (aka IBIS). See how it drops off along the Focal Length axis toward the Telephoto Side?
> View attachment 202281
> 
> If you still cannot grasp the concept that IBIS is less effective at longer focal lengths, perhaps you should just ignore the technological aspects of photography and stick to pressing the shutter button.


The interesting part of the graphic for me was the significant advantage of IBIS at wide focal lengths over lens IS but there were complaints about jello effects from video users at wide angles. It was assumed that the combined lens IS/IBIS was not working well together and that Canon would release a firmware update to fix it or at least include the option to turn off IBIS and leave lens IS on. Neither of which seems to have happened (yet).


----------



## David - Sydney (Jan 30, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> No one really knows, because the typical EOS M buyer doesn't really shoot action, and typical action shooters want cameras that aren't as delicate as an M6 Mark II with an eye level viewfinder attached to the hot shoe.


That may be true (we don't really know for sure) but the point is that the camera can do sports with pixel density for reach and good fps. 
If you are referring to professional sports shooters then there would be very few in my opinion but the stereotypical "soccer mum" would think that it is a good camera for action. 
I really noticed the difference going from my 7D to 5Diii for indoor sports but I wouldn't have thought about using the M6ii as a replacement. My R5 is a dream now


----------



## David - Sydney (Jan 30, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> I'm a current 7D Mark II user who has never owned a wide angle EF-S lens (unless you count a single 18-55mm kit lens, which I do not consider wide angle on APS-C). If I want to take a wide angle shot, I use one of my FF bodies.


And this is my point that I think that the R7 will be aimed at telephoto users who want pixels-on-subject rather than having a low cost model by a smaller sensor size. Adapting EF-s lenses in your case (and knowledge/experience) would be a no-brainer if you needed it and didn't have a ff body.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jan 30, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> That is ridiculous. First they get rid of the mirror and say that an EVF is better than an OVF and then they get rid of the EVF.
> 
> Keep in mind that even the cheapest DSLR has a viewfinder.


That is a good point that APS-c DLSRs will still be made for some time to come. Canon has optimised the cost of the pentaprism and mirror assembly to hit the Dxxx price points... but will the cost of the rear LCD may match it either now or in the future?
We are all talking about Canon's future models and future strategic direction.
The M series hasn't made the xxxD models obsolete so there is room for both if Canon can handle the product / inventory complexities.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jan 30, 2022)

Sporgon said:


> Personally I hope Canon don’t take the viewfinder off the RP series. Unless you require fast frame rate there’s very little the current RP can’t do, the ergonomics and interface are as quick as my 5 series, so that makes it a bargain priced “competent” camera. Judging by the serial numbers since 2019 Canon are moving a lot of them.


There is no doubt that keeping both the EVF and rear LCD will be the best solution but we are discussing how Canon can release models that are lower cost as bridge to higher end products. Leveraging the R mount is the obvious choice and removing the EVF (a la M100/200 and Sigma fp/fpL) are choices.
There is no doubt that many togs will comment negatively about the removal of the EVF (similar to R5c commentators about the removal of IBIS) but it is unlikely that they are the target audience.
I would like a back-up R body when I am able to do a big landscape photography workshop next. I remember drowning a 7D on a trip and borrowing a 80D and thinking that the flippy screen was amazing!


----------



## unfocused (Jan 30, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> …Keep in mind that even the cheapest DSLR has a viewfinder.


If it didn’t have a viewfinder it wouldn’t be a (D)SLR would it?


----------



## bergstrom (Jan 31, 2022)

ozturert said:


> "No EVF" is quite a disturbing idea. Not only "old folks" are using EVF by the way.



especially doing a shoot on a sunny day. You couldn't depend on the lcd.


----------



## RexxReviews (Jan 31, 2022)

ozturert said:


> "No EVF" is quite a disturbing idea. Not only "old folks" are using EVF by the way.


They are going to gear it towards Vloggers and Youtubers.... who don't need an EVF. Understand the target audience for a camera like that.


----------



## RexxReviews (Jan 31, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Well, I hope that Canon can do a R platform for less than USD800... wouldn't that be an amazing bridge between phones and "real" cameras!


Well don't get your hopes up. I fully expect the entry level RF to be APSC and to also be the unit with no EVF. An RF upgrade to the M6 MKII which is $849. M6MKII was geared towards Vloggers/Streamers and YouTubers. This will EASILY be $800+ If you think $800 is too much you don't want to be in the RF system, you will never be able to afford glass. (I don't mean you as in YOU personally, using it as a general term)


----------



## David - Sydney (Jan 31, 2022)

RexxReviews said:


> Well don't get your hopes up. I fully expect the entry level RF to be APSC and to also be the unit with no EVF. An RF upgrade to the M6 MKII which is $849. M6MKII was geared towards Vloggers/Streamers and YouTubers. This will EASILY be $800+ If you think $800 is too much you don't want to be in the RF system, you will never be able to afford glass. (I don't mean you as in YOU personally, using it as a general term)


I was replying to a comment that said that the RP was on sale before Christmas for USD800 which - as you point out - is less than the retail M6ii.

Not about my hopes but more about market segmentation. No one thought that a USD1000 ff body was possible until the RP. 
Canon may sell the entry level body at cost to drive future lens sales and an upgrade path to more expensive bodies. 
That really isn't possible with the M ecosystem which is ideal for cost/size but a closed/limited system for high margin upgrades.

Canon stated in their financial results that "highly profitable EOS R systems over the years. As a result, the sustained profitability of the camera business has increased significantly". Moving more users into the R mount system makes logical sense by broadening their range of bodies.

I am not convinced that the base model will be APS-c. Yes, a APS-c sensor will be slightly cheaper than a FF in general but a new sensor probably wouldn't be cheaper than the current 6Dii/RP sensor. The use of adapted EF-s lenses for wide angle would be okay for enthusiast togs who are primarily telephoto users would be acceptable to the market but explaining that to the users of a base model R mount would be harder for them to understand especially as a bridge to more expensive cameras. Let's keep in mind that multi-camera phones are now common and people are used to flipping to wide angle with ease.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 31, 2022)

bergstrom said:


> especially doing a shoot on a sunny day. You couldn't depend on the lcd.


Perhaps you can’t. I have no trouble using my M6 on sunny days, with proper technique.


----------



## Bishop80 (Jan 31, 2022)

If the EOS RP had instead been introduced as an EF DSLR, with all other specs the same as possible, would it have been an upgrade to an existing camera (like an SL1/SL3 upgrade), or would it have been a new DSLR product line?

And now the same question, except the RP is introduced as an EF mirrorless. Product upgrade or new camera line?


----------



## yungfat (Jan 31, 2022)

I really wish Canon could continue the EOS M series or camera and coming out a weather sealed M6 mark iii in future.
The mirrorless camera was invented to have smaller body and smaller lens, RF mount lens isn’t that small, even there will be a APSC body that slightly smaller than RP, it is still larger than M6.
Just my wish.


----------



## dtaylor (Jan 31, 2022)

yungfat said:


> I really wish Canon could continue the EOS M series or camera and coming out a weather sealed M6 mark iii in future.
> The mirrorless camera was invented to have smaller body and smaller lens, RF mount lens isn’t that small, even there will be a APSC body that slightly smaller than RP, it is still larger than M6.
> Just my wish.


Same here. Any of the M bodies plus a couple compact primes/zooms make for a fantastic lightweight kit. It's my casual kit when I know I'm going to want something better than the iPhone, but photography isn't the main goal. Canon should position the M line as the replacement for P&S cameras for those people who don't find phones to be a sufficient replacement.

And a weather sealed M body plus a weather sealed 11-22 IS would be a perfect long hike/thru-hike companion.


----------



## becceric (Jan 31, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> The Sigma fp L external EVF is attached on the side of the camera - rangefinder style. Reviews say that it isn't the best. If I recall correctly, it couldn't be attached on the top.


Thanks for the info. It looks, well, ok. While I like the focus tracking capabilities of the R3/5, I‘m not sure I want as much info displayed in the EVF as it appears there is. I like the relative visual solitude of an OVF. At this point I can’t see myself composing anything but static subjects on a rear LCD.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 31, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> There is no doubt that keeping both the EVF and rear LCD will be the best solution but we are discussing how Canon can release models that are lower cost as bridge to higher end products.


Yes and I was referring to the future RP replacement. As I own one of those I can identify room for Canon to produce a cheaper, simpler FF camera below the RP that becomes the ‘budget’ FF model whilst retaining any future ‘RP II’ broadly as it is now - a very competent, complete and small FF camera.


----------



## Inspired (Jan 31, 2022)

entoman said:


> That sounds like a likely specification for the rumoured upcoming replacement for the R, and I think it will be cheaper than you suggest.
> 
> I think it will be based on the R6 body though, not the R5, but that's no bad thing.
> My guess is 33MP, IBIS, and possibly a different menu and EF interface for stills and video.


With a top LCD Screen, instead of the rebel styled controls. Why make a camera so expensive and high end as the R6 and then to stick it in a Rebel's body? 
Makes no sense.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 31, 2022)

Inspired said:


> With a top LCD Screen, instead of the rebel styled controls. Why make a camera so expensive and high end as the R6 and then to stick it in a Rebel's body?
> Makes no sense.


Having handled these cameras I think that the build is superior to the Rebels TBH. Regarding the top plate layout, do we really need a LCD now we have both rear screen and EVF ? Canon are probably testing the market on this design. However I think there will be many people who agree with you given the price.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 31, 2022)

becceric said:


> Thanks for the info. It looks, well, ok. While I like the focus tracking capabilities of the R3/5, I‘m not sure I want as much info displayed in the EVF as it appears there is. I like the relative visual solitude of an OVF. At this point I can’t see myself composing anything but static subjects on a rear LCD.


At least on the R3, that’s customizable. You get up to three different OVF displays (you can cycle through them during use with the Info button), two of which you can edit to show detailed info along the sides, a histogram, an electronic level, or none of those. Deselecting all of them gives you the ‘uncluttered’ display of an OVF, showing only the exposure info under the image, and the active focus point(s) when focusing.


----------



## grimlock361 (Jan 31, 2022)

Getting a terrible feeling that Canon is going to give us some small crappy APSC compact like the Sony a6000 series or m50. It will be fast so 7d users should be happy......WRONG! Wildlife shooters want a real sized camera (90d R5,6) for super tele lenses. Give us an R7 that mirrors the R5,6 cameras.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jan 31, 2022)

unfocused said:


> If it didn’t have a viewfinder it wouldn’t be a (D)SLR would it?


You mean OPTICAL viewfinder. Most mirrorless cameras also have a viewfinder and they should really have one, because it is a very basic thing.

I have to mention again, that even my cheap compact camera "Canon PowerShot S1 IS" had an EVF, although that one had quite a low resolution. 
A low resolution EVF still is better for composing a photo than having no viewfinder at all. Even a low resolution EVF can show framing, colours and exposure.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 31, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> You mean OPTICAL viewfinder. Most mirrorless cameras also have a viewfinder and they should really have one, because it is a very basic thing.


Basic, nice to have, but not a requirement.

I have to mention again, I have no trouble using the rear LCD on my M6. It’s small size is one of the main reasons I bought it (and the M and M2 before it). Given the launch price of the M6 II ($US850 body only, $1100 with kit lens), it’s not a cheap / entry-level camera.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 31, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> You mean OPTICAL viewfinder. Most mirrorless cameras also have a viewfinder and they should really have one, because it is a very basic thing.
> 
> I have to mention again, that even my cheap compact camera "Canon PowerShot S1 IS" had an EVF, although that one had quite a low resolution.
> A low resolution EVF still is better for composing a photo than having no viewfinder at all. Even a low resolution EVF can show framing, colours and exposure.


An EVF on my Olympus TG5 that I use for underwater shots when snorkelling would not be better than using the LCD, in fact quite the opposite.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jan 31, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Yes, more lens IS but sensor IS is LESS effective due to the massive sensor shift movements needed to counteract movement of the image at 600mm vs at 35mm for instance


Cheers, I can understand that. Still, would prefer ibis to no ibis!


----------



## unfocused (Jan 31, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> You mean OPTICAL viewfinder. Most mirrorless cameras also have a viewfinder and they should really have one, because it is a very basic thing.
> 
> I have to mention again, that even my cheap compact camera "Canon PowerShot S1 IS" had an EVF, although that one had quite a low resolution.
> A low resolution EVF still is better for composing a photo than having no viewfinder at all. Even a low resolution EVF can show framing, colours and exposure.


No. I said it wouldn’t be a Digital Single Lens Reflex if it didn’t have a viewfinder. By definition all DSLRs and SLRs must have a viewfinder. Other cameras can also have a viewfinder without being an SLR. But it can’t be a DSLR or an SLR without a viewfinder. That’s what Single Lens Reflex means.


----------



## koenkooi (Jan 31, 2022)

unfocused said:


> No. I said it wouldn’t be a Digital Single Lens Reflex if it didn’t have a viewfinder. By definition all DSLRs and SLRs must have a viewfinder. Other cameras can also have a viewfinder without being an SLR. But it can’t be a DSLR or an SLR without a viewfinder. That’s what Single Lens Reflex means.


The 'reflex' bit refers to the 45 degree mirror, not the OVF.


----------



## reefroamer (Jan 31, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> The 'reflex' bit refers to the 45 degree mirror, not the OVF.


Yes, but the mirror is there to reflect the image to the viewfinder. Without an OVF, there is no reason to have a mirror.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 31, 2022)

Antono Refa said:


> I think customers would like to know whether they'll get the sensor's full resolution, or the camera will auto crop the image for them.



It's one thing to inform the customer they'll either get a crop (or a tunnel-vision image if the camera fails to detect that it's a crop lens--this is what happens with my Tamron lenses on my R5; I must manually put it into crop mode or accept the special effect), it's another to physically block them from using the lens.


----------



## prodorshak (Jan 31, 2022)

RexxReviews said:


> RP's were as low as $800 at Christmas, don't expect an R platform to be any less than that.


I used my friend's RP for a few days and, although it was much better IQ, the frame rate was practically (and on paper) worse than 77D. That was important for my kind of use. So, didn't go for it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 31, 2022)

SteveC said:


> ...it's another to physically block them from using the lens.


That was Canon's approach with EF-S on DSLRs. I haven't heard people complaining about automatic crop mode with EF-S adapted to R-series bodies, but I suspect that many people using higher-end bodies pay more attention to such things (especially on a gear-oriented forum like this). However, it may become more of an issue if Canon comes out with the rumored <$800 FF MILC, especially if they have an APS-C R body and small image circle RF lenses.


----------



## John Wilde (Jan 31, 2022)

There's a vague rumor that Nikon will eventually release an entry-level Z30 with no viewfinder.

People who started photography with a smartphone are used to not having a viewfinder. Viewfinders are for old people.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 31, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> That was Canon's approach with EF-S on DSLRs.


Yes, and that was what I was arguing against in my original comment (to which my comment was a reply to a reply). I do NOT want Canon inventing a slightly different but physically incompatible mount for APSC RF. (That was pages ago, of course, and the context has been lost.) They shouldn't have to as long as full frame cameras can automatically crop a lens that is specifically made for APS-C. But they _should_ make clear on the lens packaging that Full Frame cameras will (effectively) become APS-C with the lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 31, 2022)

SteveC said:


> But they _should_ make clear on the lens packaging that Full Frame cameras will (effectively) become APS-C with the lens.


I think they should make it clear on the lens itself, at least with a designation like Nikon's DF. RF-S could be problematic (for Canon) because people familiar with the fact that EF-S lenses won't mount on EF bodies may not buy a lens designated RF-S.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 31, 2022)

Inspired said:


> Am I the only one that would just like an R5 that's 30mp, 4k oversampled, no 8k, No overheating and about $2500. - $3500?
> Obviously it woundnt be called an R5 but you get the idea


Nope.

Had this R5.5 been available when the R5 and R6 came out, I'd have bought it. However, it didn't look like Canon was ever planning to offer it (or they'd not have numbered the R5 and R6 consecutively), so I went with the R5, preferring overkill to underkill.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 31, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I think they should make it clear on the lens itself, at least with a designation like Nikon's DF. RF-S could be problematic (for Canon) because people familiar with the fact that EF-S lenses won't mount on EF bodies may not buy a lens designated RF-S.


Excellent point--it should be both on the lens AND the packaging (the latter so there's no issue of people getting a surprise when they open the box). Maybe "CROP LENS"?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 31, 2022)

SteveC said:


> Excellent point. Maybe "CROP LENS"?


RF-L for 'little' image circle.


----------



## Bishop80 (Jan 31, 2022)

reefroamer said:


> Yes, but the mirror is there to reflect the image to the viewfinder. Without an OVF, there is no reason to have a mirror.


Think hybrid rangefinder. The mirror is used to reflect/split the light between metering and AF sensors. Since none of the light goes on to an OVF, the AF and metering sensors get more light than with a traditional SLR.

Partitioning of the metering and autofocus to a dedicated chip allows lower power consumption since the main photo sensor doesn't have to drive live view continuously. 

If such a camera doesn't exist, then I guess I made a niche camera idea (though probably not for Canon).


----------



## unfocused (Jan 31, 2022)

reefroamer said:


> Yes, but the mirror is there to reflect the image to the viewfinder. Without an OVF, there is no reason to have a mirror.


Exactly.


----------



## entoman (Jan 31, 2022)

Inspired said:


> With a top LCD Screen, instead of the rebel styled controls. Why make a camera so expensive and high end as the R6 and then to stick it in a Rebel's body?
> Makes no sense.


I have an R5 (with top LCD screen) and I've also used a friend's R6 (with traditional rotating mode dial). I actually prefer the R6 method.

I hope that the new model which fits between the R5 and R6 (R5.5  ) has a R6-style dial. I think such a camera could be a huge seller for Canon, if it has around 30-33MP. The original R which it replaces, lacked IBIS, had slow burst speeds, and had a swipe bar that most people disliked. A "R Mkii" or whatever it is called will fill a big gap in Canon's lineup. If it has 33MP it will be able to shoot 4K, so would potentially be a great hybrid camera, and that's what I think Canon will aim at.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jan 31, 2022)

AlanF said:


> An EVF on my Olympus TG5 that I use for underwater shots when snorkelling would not be better than using the LCD, in fact quite the opposite.


I am still working out the best approach (LCD/EVF) when shooting underwater with my Ikelite rig. My preference is for the EVF for composing but the downside is that I am not quite under/level with the subject. Reviewing shots via EVF for critical focus is hard whilst managing surge etc. I am using the rear LCD for shooting information Q menu etc. 
For my wide angle turtle shots, I tend to shoot with my arm extended and shooting blind one handed - taking a burst with changing angle slightly.

A 45 degree magnified viewfinder may be the solution but at USD950 it is beyond my current budget!


----------



## becceric (Feb 1, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> At least on the R3, that’s customizable. You get up to three different OVF displays (you can cycle through them during use with the Info button), two of which you can edit to show detailed info along the sides, a histogram, an electronic level, or none of those. Deselecting all of them gives you the ‘uncluttered’ display of an OVF, showing only the exposure info under the image, and the active focus point(s) when focusing.
> 
> View attachment 202320


Uncluttered sounds good. I seem to get fatigued by the distracting elements. Overwhelming like a first time tourist walking through 1980s Time Square.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Feb 1, 2022)

The worst thing about Canon EVFs is that sometimes there is no option to show the real image that is coming from the lens. Some lenses like the 16mm and the 14-35mm have quite an extreme distortion, but there is no option to show that distortion in the EVF, even if you prefer that distortion not to be corrected in some situations. 

It seems Canon does not care about lens distortion anymore, because now it can hide those distortions even in the viewfinder. That is bad news for the customer. In the past Canon tried everything to correct distortions optically, because they were visible in the viewfinder.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 1, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> It seems Canon does not care about lens distortion anymore, because now it can hide those distortions even in the viewfinder. *That is bad news for the customer*. In the past Canon tried everything to correct distortions optically, because they were visible in the viewfinder.


I’m not sure that part is true. An optically corrected 16/2.8 would certainly be much more expensive than $300, and _that_ would be bad news for many customers.


----------



## RexxReviews (Feb 1, 2022)

SteveC said:


> Nope.
> 
> Had this R5.5 been available when the R5 and R6 came out, I'd have bought it. However, it didn't look like Canon was ever planning to offer it (or they'd have not numbered the R5 and R6 consecutively), so I went with the R5, preferring overkill to underkill.


Ill take my IBIS on my R5 over The video modes on R5c as we uuse these for stills also. Not even half of TV owners are even using 4k displays, much less 8k. Most of hollywood isn't filming in 8k, with the exception of a handful of movies, for a reason. 8k is still a gimmick. Those of you that want to chime in and say "oh but the cropping we can do", compose better. If you can't crop in enough to fix your mistake from the 4k recording pick a different line of work. In the way we use our R5s we have never run into OH issues. Crop mode never overheats, is a 6k down sample , is sharper than 4k HQ and does not overheat the camera. Take 10 steps back and you have the same frame. R5 video crop mode is the same crop mode as the Canon C70.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 1, 2022)

RexxReviews said:


> Ill take my IBIS on my R5 over The video modes on R5c as we uuse these for stills also. Not even half of TV owners are even using 4k displays, much less 8k. Most of hollywood isn't filming in 8k, with the exception of a handful of movies, for a reason. 8k is still a gimmick. Those of you that want to chime in and say "oh but the cropping we can do", compose better. If you can't crop in enough to fix your mistake from the 4k recording pick a different line of work. In the way we use our R5s we have never run into OH issues. Crop mode never overheats, is a 6k down sample , is sharper than 4k HQ and does not overheat the camera. Take 10 steps back and you have the same frame. R5 video crop mode is the same crop mode as the Canon C70.


The R5 crop mode is great for filming things like perched dragonflies, you get 60fps and a very good detail due to the downscaling. And the crop means you can stay further away to avoid scaring them.

This is with the RF100L at 1.4x magnification + 1.6x crop:


----------



## GoldWing (Feb 1, 2022)

Nikon will sell more Z9's and glass than anyone could imagine based on the R1 being vaporware.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 1, 2022)

GoldWing said:


> Nikon will sell more Z9's and glass than anyone could imagine based on the R1 being vaporware.


You think.

If you're right, it will represent a sharp reversal of Nikon's ILC sales, which have taken a real beating over the past few years. Nikon execs are probably holding their breath hoping that happens, but I wouldn't recommend that.


----------



## John Wilde (Feb 1, 2022)

GoldWing said:


> Nikon will sell more Z9's and glass than anyone could imagine based on the R1 being vaporware.


Won't most potential R1 buyers be people who already own a 1 DX and a bunch of Canon lenses? I doubt that many would want to get rid of all their Canon lenses and buy Nikon lenses.


----------



## GoldWing (Feb 2, 2022)

John Wilde said:


> Won't most potential R1 buyers be people who already own a 1 DX and a bunch of Canon lenses? I doubt that many would want to get rid of all their Canon lenses and buy Nikon lenses.


I've seen shots of Big Whites attached to the Z9 and the shots are much better than if the same glass was attached to a 1DX 1 2 or 3 and R3

My bet is, many will use adapters that allow for focus and tracking while they start to build their Nikon Glass kits.

The increased resolution/IQ is so good, that it's worth transitioning.


----------



## Jethro (Feb 2, 2022)

GoldWing said:


> I've seen shots of Big Whites attached to the Z9 and the shots are much better than if the same glass was attached to a 1DX 1 2 or 3 and R3
> 
> My bet is, many will use adapters that allow for focus and tracking while they start to build their Nikon Glass kits.
> 
> The increased resolution/IQ is so good, that it's worth transitioning.


So you've seen (i) shots of Canon big whites physically attached to Z9s, or (ii) the images resulting from that adaptation? I wasn't quite clear. 

If someone has done a detailed comparison of examples of (ii) with comparable shots on the Canon bodies you mention, then please share the reference - I'm sure many here would be very interested.


----------



## Abbuzze (Feb 2, 2022)

> Maybe a little M50 mixed with some 7D” is how it was described.



Sounds like a bigger M50 with improved AF, but with the need for using bigger and heavier RF-lenses. 

Without dedicated RF-S lenses it will be difficult for Canon to hold EOS-M users. The EF-M 32mm is an extraordanary lense, or the small 22mm.
So this camera is maybe more interesting if you are allready own a RF 70-210, or a RF 100-400mm.

RF 18-45mm as a Kit-Lense? Thats a realy poor range for a APS-C starter Kit nowaday (beside the size!). Worse than the EF-M 15-45mm. Even Nikon offers a 16-50mm for Z-Mount.

Of course it would be easy for Canon to cange the older EF-M lenses to RF-S. And most EOS M users choosed this system because of the small size and weight. Nothing a RF lense APS-C could offer.


----------



## Swerky (Feb 4, 2022)

Ok Canon listen here. For that mid range model that sits between the R6 and the entry level model, make it an EOS R with ibis, if you wish to beef up the body a bit for that, fine, maybe even complete the body frame so that it wraps under the screen as well, like on a 6D II, and replace the Touch Bar by a thumb controller and you should have a winner. Here's for daydreaming.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 14, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> That may be true (we don't really know for sure) but the point is that the camera can do sports with pixel density for reach and good fps.
> If you are referring to professional sports shooters then there would be very few in my opinion but the stereotypical "soccer mum" would think that it is a good camera for action.
> I really noticed the difference going from my 7D to 5Diii for indoor sports but I wouldn't have thought about using the M6ii as a replacement. My R5 is a dream now



I had pretty much given up on using my 7D for sports in artificial light due to the poor AF performance in low light as well as the amount of noise in the files. I was using my 5D Mark III with my 70-200/2.8 and my older 5D Mark II with my wider lens (usually a 24-105/4). I too noticed a significant difference 7D → 5DIII in terms of both hit rate and image quality. I still used the 7D for daylight sports where the difference in reach was greater than the difference in noise/AF in good light.

Then the 7D Mark II came out. I had absolutely no plan to ever buy another APS-C body again. Until I saw that it had flicker reduction.

The flicker reduction provided by the 7D Mark II was worth more to me than the better S/N ratio of the 5D III if both are used in the exact same point in the cycle of the light's flicker. The 7D Mark II shutter is always fired at the peak of the light cycle and the 5DIII shutter is not. The light falling on the front of the lens can be a stop or more brighter, as well as fuller spectrum, at peak than when the light is in the bottom of the trough. With the APS-C camera always firing at the peak and the FF 5DIII a crap shoot that often shifted color/brightness from one side of the sensor to the other or hit the very dark bottom of the trough, the S/N ratio difference was moot. My hit rate went way up and my post processing time went way down because the color was much more consistent from frame to frame as well as from one side of each frame to the other. The 7D Mark II AF is also almost as good as the 5DIII AF even at HS stadium light levels.

So I switched back to using the 7D Mark II with the longer lens and the 5DIII (and then 5DIV) with my wider lens when shooting sports under lights. I'm now using a Sigma 120-300/2.8 with the 7D Mark II and the 70-200/2.8 with the 5D IV. Depending on the weather forecast, I'll put either a 24-70/2.8L (original) if it's going to be dry or 24-105/4L IS (original) if it might get wet on the 5DIII.

That 120-300/2.8 is heavier than a beginner's eight pound bowling ball, though. I'm debating selling it and going back to just cropping the stink out of the 7D II + 70-200/2.8 and only carrying two bodies for field sports. I really need the wider angle for the work I do at halftime with the bands, and it's far too swampy here in the south during all but the end of the season to make me comfortable with changing lenses at the beginning and then again at the end of halftime.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 14, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> That is a good point that APS-c DLSRs will still be made for some time to come. Canon has optimised the cost of the pentaprism and mirror assembly to hit the Dxxx price points... but will the cost of the rear LCD may match it either now or in the future?
> We are all talking about Canon's future models and future strategic direction.
> The M series hasn't made the xxxD models obsolete so there is room for both if Canon can handle the product / inventory complexities.



Rebels don't have pentaprisms, they have pentamirrors. That's one way they keep both the cost and weight down.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 15, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I get that. But, it's not correct to say that a 24-240 RF lens is not a focal length that crop sensor users would want, given how popular the EF-S 55-250 mm zoom is. A lens that is equivalent to 39-384 mm on a crop sensor could be very appealing, especially since it can also be used on a full frame body with no adapter. The price tag might be a bigger problem than the zoom range.



The EF-S 55-250mm had only a 4.5X zoom ratio, and all of that was longer than the registration distance for the EF mount. That allowed a simpler lens design with no retrofocus needed to get to focal lengths shorter than 44mm. That's why it could be so cheap and still have better IQ than superzooms that required retrofocus designs to get wider than that 44mm barrier.

It wasn't popular because it offered a "single lens solution". It was popular because it got users to 250mm at well below even the relatively modest price of the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6.


----------



## bergstrom (May 5, 2022)

Swerky said:


> Ok Canon listen here. For that mid range model that sits between the R6 and the entry level model, make it an EOS R with ibis, if you wish to beef up the body a bit for that, fine, maybe even complete the body frame so that it wraps under the screen as well, like on a 6D II, and replace the Touch Bar by a thumb controller and you should have a winner. Here's for daydreaming.



and put in an LPE6 battery. A mini R6 with a sprinkle of bits and pieces from the R3. And no recordig limit, or at least increase it to 60-90 minutes and no overheating, so a mini R5c and all under $1700. Lets do this!


----------

