# I wonder when Canon will launch a great mirrorless body for expert / advanced non-professional photographers, at a fair (of course...) price ?



## Mekos (Oct 22, 2020)

Hi, guys!
My question means R5 is intended for professionals /videographers and with an excessive price (and some issues to be solved). R6 is too short in terms of resolution and stills is paid for video. All the other mirrorless cameras have no IBIS and are older/weaker!
What so many of us would expect? I'd say a camera almost like R5 with no video at all, with a 'reasonable' price, or like R6 but with about 42 MP, with no video and a great price!!! Am I the only one to hope for such a camera? No! At least I know in my circle a dozen of friends. A small circle. I wonder how about all around the world!

I started with Canon in 1978 and did it with the great F1! All along all these years I bought the A1, the unique RT, the T90, and then EOS 5, EOS 3, then the 20D and the 7D! And stopped when something started missing. Then the age claimed for something lighter on my back. I needed Canon would also go mirrorless at a level of about the 'old' EOS 3. No video needed. There are many and many photographers! No videographers at the same time. Fair price. Waited and waited and finally, after 41 years of using Canon, I just bought a mirrorless Fujifilm X-H1 body, with IBIS, brand new, with Power Booster Grip and 2 more batteries for just 1050 €!!! Then, still waiting for a miracle, I bought the great priced fujinon 16-80mm f:4. And finally now, for my over 20 Canon lenses (FD and EF), I bought 2 great adapters to use them on my Fuji camera! What a great decision and save of money!
Ok, I must confess I still hope for such a camera from my first love, though each time more I start doubting Canon will do it! It looks like video overcomes photography as well as only (very) expensive or cheap cameras sell! In-between, towards the high end but for advanced amateurs (photographers, only), with a reasonable price... Canon put apart! And so, I guess so many canonists will change for more realistic brands in gear key specs (Fuji, Sony, Pentax,...). Pity, Canon!!!
Anyone thinking or hoping like me?


----------



## Rzrsharp (Oct 23, 2020)

Video is important.
You want to see how you did talk and walk while you're a kid.
It's video, not photo.


----------



## Bennymiata (Oct 23, 2020)

I doubt many would want a camera that doesn't have video.
Nikon tried it some years ago and all this camera did was collect dust on retailers shelves.


----------



## zim (Oct 23, 2020)

The R probably fit your needs.


----------



## PCM-madison (Oct 23, 2020)

The EOS RP has worked really well for me. I've never had a body with IBIS, and I am not sure it is needed in most cases. In-lens IS allows hand held shots a slow enough shutter speeds to blur motion like this photo I took of Copper Falls using my RP.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Oct 23, 2020)

zim said:


> The R probably fit your needs.



I agree that the R is probably what the OP is looking for.


----------



## Mekos (Oct 23, 2020)

Rzrsharp said:


> Video is important.
> You want to see how you did talk and walk while you're a kid.
> It's video, not photo.


Of course video is important, as it's painting, sculpture, etc. But I am a photographer (only), as so many out there. And Canon has all its cameras now with video. Was it that strange if they may look at all those that don't want to pay a price for something they don't use? Ok, or just a kind of a entry level for video for keeping price reasonable, anyway. Those who do both video and photography may use the present cameras or even video only!


----------



## Mekos (Oct 23, 2020)

zim said:


> The R probably fit your needs.


R has no IBIS and now that I use its benefits with the Fuji I want it in my next Canon (?) camera.


----------



## Joules (Oct 23, 2020)

Mekos said:


> Was it that strange if they may look at all those that don't want to pay a price for something they don't use?


You won't save anything by buying a camera that doesn't have video. Such a camera will be in far less demand than a general purpose one. And especially in mirrorless, literally the only component you pay for is the encoding of the video. With the R5 for example, the line between stills and video is already becoming pretty blury at 20 FPS 45 MP. Or the 120 Hz Live Video pipeline used in the EVF. Those are stills features, but they use the same aspects of a camera that is required for video. Just the step of compressing and writing the data to the card is a video exclusive, and it won't save you enough to offset the dimminished sales numbers.

Or why else do you think even the most entry level cameras have video features? If even such price sensitive products don't ditch it in order to lower costs, I don't see how you can reasonably expect to save anything by 'crippling' the video on a high end model.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 23, 2020)

Mekos said:


> R has no IBIS and now that I use its benefits with the Fuji I want it in my next Canon (?) camera.


There will be a low end Canon Mirrorless probably around 30MP but no one knows about IBIS. If is sells cameras its just like video, they will add it. Realistically, I see no difference using EF lenses which have IS (I know that there is little or none). I never had a issue with my EF 24-70 on my R and have yet to use it on my R5, I don't see IBIS as a big benefit since it is only of value for a stationary subject. If the subject is moving, a fast shutter speed is needed to get a sharp photo.

I will say that R5 images are notably better than my R images. I did not expect that much improvement.


----------



## Mekos (Oct 23, 2020)

Joules said:


> You won't save anything by buying a camera that doesn't have video. Such a camera will be in far less demand than a general purpose one. And especially in mirrorless, literally the only component you pay for is the encoding of the video. With the R5 for example, the line between stills and video is already becoming pretty blury at 20 FPS 45 MP. Or the 120 Hz Live Video pipeline used in the EVF. Those are stills features, but they use the same aspects of a camera that is required for video. Just the step of compressing and writing the data to the card is a video exclusive, and it won't save you enough to offset the dimminished sales numbers.
> 
> Or why else do you think even the most entry level cameras have video features? If even such price sensitive products don't ditch it in order to lower costs, I don't see how you can reasonably expect to save anything by 'crippling' the video on a high end model.


OK, maybe you're right about what you say. Maybe I may put things in other way: I (and so may long run Canonists, not professional but advanced amateurs with a lot of money spent along the years in Canon gear) expect a Canon mirrorless camera to come (with video or not, doesn't matter for me, but I then say: the best for Canon and their clients) with IBIS, above R6 in resolution (42 MP it's my goal), much cheaper than R5! That's it! Thank you for participating in this thread!


----------



## SteveC (Oct 24, 2020)

Mekos said:


> OK, maybe you're right about what you say. Maybe I may put things in other way: I (and so may long run Canonists, not professional but advanced amateurs with a lot of money spent along the years in Canon gear) expect a Canon mirrorless camera to come (with video or not, doesn't matter for me, but I then say: the best for Canon and their clients) with IBIS, above R6 in resolution (42 MP it's my goal), much cheaper than R5! That's it! Thank you for participating in this thread!



OK, so basically you want an R5 without the R5 price, since there's little difference between 42 MP and 45MP.

What would you expect them to remove from the features list to get a cheaper camera? You've already said you don't want them to get rid of IBIS.

If you had requested 30-35 MP instead of 42, I could see them putting something out there someday. Perhaps the R mark II will have the feature set of the R5/6 (minus things like 8K that require 45MP) with a 30MP sensor.


----------



## ColorBlindBat (Oct 24, 2020)

My choice would be an Rii / R5.5. 

An R (retain the magnesium body and a 30-36MP sensor) with the following additions:
IBIS
Second SD card slot (less heat than a CFx card would produce)
Joystick instead of the touchbar
Improved AF similar to the R5 and R6.
Higher frame rate


----------



## SteveC (Oct 24, 2020)

ColorBlindBat said:


> My choice would be an Rii / R5.5.
> 
> An R (retain the magnesium body and a 30-36MP sensor) with the following additions:
> IBIS
> ...



That's basically an R6 with a bigger sensor, and I'd have gone for that, too. I've got zero interest in CF Express, or the top LCD. But I was interested in a sensor with substantially more than 20MP, so I went with the R5.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Oct 24, 2020)

I went from a 70D to the R then to the R5. I sold all my EF/EF-S lenses with the 70D and went full RF L Lenses when I moved to the R.

The R is a great camera for the price point. However it was a bit slow for my tastes. The R5 was a step up for me in all regards. That being said... I would wholeheartedly recommend the R for someone who wants to get advanced gear w/o going over 2k. If the IBIS is that important w/o breaking the bank, your left with a R6... however IBIS is a moot point if buying IS lenses (I love it w/ my primes though).

As others mentioned... video is more of a software based thing now. Removing video would probably not saved much... if anything.

Personally, I would love the R5 being a 2k (or less camera)... but that won't happen. However I've come to terms w/ how much I can justify for a camera. When you look at a L lens collection, the cost of an R5/R6 doesn't seem so bad anymore to run it.


----------



## ColorBlindBat (Oct 24, 2020)

SteveC said:


> That's basically an R6 with a bigger sensor, and I'd have gone for that, too. I've got zero interest in CF Express, or the top LCD. But I was interested in a sensor with substantially more than 20MP, so I went with the R5.


Except the R6 has a polycarbonate body and no top LCD display versus a magnesium body and top LCD display on both the R and R5.
Basically an R5 with a lower pixel count sensor and dual SD card slots.
Oh, and the ability to select IBIS or IS when using EF glass. It should be a relative easy firmware change to allow the user to select which stabilization they wish to use.


----------



## Mekos (Oct 24, 2020)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> There will be a low end Canon Mirrorless probably around 30MP but no one knows about IBIS. If is sells cameras its just like video, they will add it. Realistically, I see no difference using EF lenses which have IS (I know that there is little or none). I never had a issue with my EF 24-70 on my R and have yet to use it on my R5, I don't see IBIS as a big benefit since it is only of value for a stationary subject. If the subject is moving, a fast shutter speed is needed to get a sharp photo.
> 
> I will say that R5 images are notably better than my R images. I did not expect that much improvement.


As I said before, it's not the point the low end new cameras (at least for me). I'd expect something near R5 (IBIS obliged, video... I don't miss it in a camera for photography) above R6 in resolution, and at a fair price! That's what's missing in Canon mirrorless R system, i.m.h.o..


----------



## Mekos (Oct 24, 2020)

SteveC said:


> That's basically an R6 with a bigger sensor, and I'd have gone for that, too. I've got zero interest in CF Express, or the top LCD. But I was interested in a sensor with substantially more than 20MP, so I went with the R5.


Here I'd say I agree (ok, let's say a 36 MP sensor)  .


----------



## bernie_king (Oct 27, 2020)

I just have to chuckle when people want an R5 at a "Fair Price." What exactly is a fair price? The 5D Mark IV launched in 2016 for $3499 which equates to $3794.00 in today's money. Are we really complaining about an extra $105.00 for all the advancements they packed in this camera?  In many ways the R5 outperforms the $6500 1DX Mark III. The amount of R&D alone that goes into these advanced cameras more than enough to justify their price. I was almost expecting it to launch at $4999 with the specs they list. Add to that the shrinking demand and you have a more than fair price. For those of you who think removing video would make it cheaper, you're crazy. The market for a camera without the "fancy" video features would be so small that the price would be much higher for Canon to make a profit. Probably too high to justify making the camera in the first place. Remember, Canon is in business to make a profit and I'm willing to bet it will be a year or two before they clear a dime on the R5. A smaller sensor could save some money, but not much. You might see such a camera launch for $2999, but I doubt it. I was more than happy to pay the current price for the R5. It's the best camera I've ever had and I've been shooting 1 Series cameras from the 1D3 through the 1DX Mark II.


----------



## Mekos (Oct 27, 2020)

bernie_king said:


> I just have to chuckle when people want an R5 at a "Fair Price." What exactly is a fair price? The 5D Mark IV launched in 2016 for $3499 which equates to $3794.00 in today's money. Are we really complaining about an extra $105.00 for all the advancements they packed in this camera? In many ways the R5 outperforms the $6500 1DX Mark III. The amount of R&D alone that goes into these advanced cameras more than enough to justify their price. I was almost expecting it to launch at $4999 with the specs they list. Add to that the shrinking demand and you have a more than fair price. For those of you who think removing video would make it cheaper, you're crazy. The market for a camera without the "fancy" video features would be so small that the price would be much higher for Canon to make a profit. Probably too high to justify making the camera in the first place. Remember, Canon is in business to make a profit and I'm willing to bet it will be a year or two before they clear a dime on the R5. A smaller sensor could save some money, but not much. You might see such a camera launch for $2999, but I doubt it. I was more than happy to pay the current price for the R5. It's the best camera I've ever had and I've been shooting 1 Series cameras from the 1D3 through the 1DX Mark II.


The USA isn't the only country in the world. And if you can get there the R5 for $3900, in Europe it costs 4600€ (=$5400)! I called a fair price for the camera if it would be around 3300€ (= $3900)! That's it!


----------



## SteveC (Oct 27, 2020)

Mekos said:


> The USA isn't the only country in the world. And if you can get there the R5 for $3900, in Europe it costs 4600€ (=$5400)! I called a fair price for the camera if it would be around 3300€ (= $3900)! That's it!



Your complaint is with Europe, not with Canon.


----------



## Mekos (Oct 27, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Your complaint is with Europe, not with Canon.


Sorry, it's Canon fault (the prices), yes!


----------



## SteveC (Oct 27, 2020)

Mekos said:


> Sorry, it's Canon fault (the prices), yes!



How much of the 4600E/$5400 price is VAT and other taxes?

To be sure the camera doesn't cost $3900 in my part of the United states; I had to add 8.25 % at the cash register for sales tax. So, comparing taxed price to taxed price, I was at $4221.75. But the camera without taxes was $3900. So how much would the camera be without your VAT?


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 27, 2020)

SteveC said:


> How much of the 4600E/$5400 price is VAT and other taxes?
> 
> To be sure the camera doesn't cost $3900 in my part of the United states; I had to add 8.25 % at the cash register for sales tax. So, comparing taxed price to taxed price, I was at $4221.75. But the camera without taxes was $3900. So how much would the camera be without your VAT?



€4549 minus 21% VAT comes in around $4240.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 27, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> €4549 minus 21% VAT comes in around $4240.



Is VAT %21 percent of the final price (inclusive), or is it %21 added to the pre-tax price (exclusive), which would make it ~17.35 of the final price? You did that calculation as if it were inclusive, not exclusive.

[Equivalently, if the 21 percent is inclusive, it's equivalent to a 26.6% exclusive tax, in the US it would be like buying a $100 dollar item (our stated prices do not include tax) and getting $26.60 added to it at the cash register; 26.60 is ~21 percent of 126.60.]

Starting with his claim that €4600 is the price and is equivalent to $5400 (implied exchange rate of €1 = $1.174):

An exclusive computation takes $5400 and divides by 1.21 to get $4462 pre-tax. This is almost a thousand dollars less than the price paid. It's $562 above the US pre-tax price ($3900).

An inclusive computation takes $5400 and multiplies by .79 (taking 21 percent off the total) and yields $4266, which is $366 above the US pre-tax purchase price.

So basically all but either 366 or 562 dollars (or the equivalent in Euros) of the nominal price difference is due to the VAT (depending on whether the VAT rate is inclusive or exclusive).

That's why I said his complaint is with Europe. In fairness I should have said _mostly_ with Europe. Comparing apples to apples, the price in the US (before tax) is closer to the European price (before tax) but once taxes are applied, the difference is much, much larger; he's paying $5400 whereas I paid $4221.75


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 27, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Is VAT %21 percent of the final price (inclusive), or is it %21 added to the pre-tax price (exclusive), which would make it ~17.35 of the final price? You did that calculation as if it were inclusive, not exclusive.
> 
> [Equivalently, if the 21 percent is inclusive, it's equivalent to a 26.6% exclusive tax, in the US it would be like buying a $100 dollar item (our stated prices do not include tax) and getting $26.60 added to it at the cash register; 26.60 is ~21 percent of 126.60.]
> 
> ...


It’s exclusive and I should’ve divided by 1.21 instead of asking google to deduct 21%


----------

