« Next Print Sale Starts March 6th | Main | New News From the World of Stuff »

Monday, 18 February 2019


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I'm a little confused. If I had my old EOS lenses, I'd be up to try it, I suppose. But that's a $1300 experiment. One point of confusion for me is that if you're going mirrorless, one of the benefits is smaller lighter body and lenses. If you stick the same older heavy lenses on the new body, what's the ergonomics like, and kind of, what's the point?

I'm not the first to mention this, but although the price and specs of the Canon EOS RP seem attractive enough, potential RP buyers are left with the choice of buying either Canon's large, heavy, and expensive RF-mount lenses or buying an EF-RF mount adapter to use any existing EF lenses they might own. That may be a satisfactory solution for those who already own Canon lenses; I don't know how appealing it will be for someone who might be thinking of switching.

I think the RP is a brilliant marketing move. Canon won't be taking market share away from Sony so much as they'll create new full frame customers. The RP's low price will open full frame to the 7D, 80D, and xt3 crowd. It will jump-start RF mount lens sales. Once these new customers are invested in Canon glass they'll become loyal Canon customers for a decade or more.

Also, did you see that stubby, little RF 70-200 that Canon teased? That lens has me more excited than the RP. The promise of mirrorless has always been smaller, better designed lenses. Canon looks like it could deliver where the other lens makers have been building nothing but larger and larger lenses.

Both of Canon mirrorless cameras do not have image stabilization.

I'm a Nikon guy who always kinda wished that they had a FX camera that was similar to a Nikon D5300 (or D5xxx body type). I thought that would be a winner if combined with some compact lenses. Key word: compact, as in small and light.

But a small FX camera with large FX lenses doesn't work for me, and that is what the list of upcoming Canon mirrorless camera lenses look like, so it seems clear they'll be producing a Big Boy mirrorless camera pretty soon to compete with Nikon and Sony (and Panasonic). Don't see any small lenses on the list for the EOS RP though. Maybe later?

This all reminds me that APS-C still seems the sweet spot for sensors where you can get really good image quality, but have smaller and lighter systems, and why m43 has such a loyal following. Perhaps this small Canon EOS RP gives hope for a compact FX camera, but would small, compact lenses also be produced? And would the results be all that much better than a DX camera with small, compact lenses of like quality? Seems Fuji has already answered that question.

Other than it's one of the ugliest cameras ever made (and the R is no beauty)?

It's cheap. Otherwise I'm pretty underwhelmed.

Looks good to me. I like the full-frame sensor. The cost. The size. And the compatibility with my existing Canon EF lenses. I have two takeaways from the early reviews on YouTube, namely 1) I'm sure the reviews will trend better as more people get their hands on them - much the EOS R and 2) I wish videographers would stop "peeing in the pool," so to speak about what's missing in every camera that comes down the pipe just because it doesn't meet their needs as vloggers. Some of us appreciate cameras that help us take good photos, archaic as that sounds nowadays.

The Canon EOS RP comes in at a great price point - which will appeal to many consumers, just as Canon's Rebel series does. But if the RP feels like most of the Rebels in hand, that would be unappealing to me.

The sensor from the 6D? Meh. But, on the other hand, it's one reason why the new camera is only $1299.

All-in-all, there's nothing from Canon so far to make me regret that I pulled the trigger on the Sony A7III. But I imagine Canon won't have much trouble selling the RP.

I was interested in the Canon RIP until it was announced- underwhelmed by the specs. I guess it may be "value" for the price, a full frame Rebel, just not enough "there" there (apologies to Gertrude Stein, don't think she'll mind tho).


Unfortunately the lenses haven't shrunk with the body...

I don't have any commentary about the RP directly but it did give me a sense of deja vu. If you look back at the history of Canon in the digital age, there have been several moments when they broke price barriers and opened the floodgates for the masses. Think of cameras like the EOS D30, the original Digital Rebel, the original 5D, etc. Every time Canon announced those, it both set price standards that everyone else aimed to meet or beat and it signaled that a shift in the marketplace was imminent. We now have a brand new (not massively overproduced and overstocked) full frame mirrorless camera sitting at a $1300 price point. I can't help but believe that one of those moments is upon us again.

With all of that in mind, I decided to head over to Lensrentals and pickup a Nikon Z7 kit for a weekend and come to terms with mirrorless. It's the mirrorless camera that most appeals to me (mostly because I'm already a Nikon shooter and enjoy their ergonomic and control decisions). For now, I'm still happy with my DSLR kit but I think the RP marks the turning point where DSLRs start drifting to the dustbin of history. It's time for me to get a feel for what lies ahead.

In my opinion, if there ever was a "game-changing" camera release - this is it. When the news about the introduction of three new full-frame mirrorless systems spread around, my thought was that the market would be too small to support four players with premium product strategies. Canon themselves forecasted further shrinking of the camera market about two weeks ago, and I believe what we see here is the start of a pricing war. Sony seems to keep their old A7 models on the market, too, and sells them at huge discounts.

What's interesting is that Canon's release could trigger a downward slide of pricing in the entire market, not only in the full-frame mirrorless segment. How to explain to a customer that a 20MP, m43 Panasonic G9 costs the same as the new, 26MP full-frame canon? (I know, apples and oranges. But many customers just compare numbers, and bigger is always better, as we've been taught.)

Best, Thomas

Considering a Canon for first time since buying Fuji X100. The size is fantastic and the price for the first time makes me think that large sensor cameras can be affordable.

Never having used one, no.

My opinion on the camera is built off Thom Hogan's - I didn't really know what to make of it. It makes sense that they rushed something to market without suitable lenses for the target market because they're trying to keep Sony from whittling away at their user base. If you have EF lenses and want to put them on an inexpensive mirrorless body, a Canon body is bound to be better than an old Sony with an adapter. So it should get the job done, even if it doesn't really attract any non-Canon users. (The RF lens lineup is too high end for most people who would consider buying in at the entry level, unless all you need are a 24-105 and a 35).
What I find more intriguing is what this might portend for APS-C. Canon's EOS-M system is not compatible with EOS-R and Nikon has yet to announce mirrorless APS-C. My guess is both would prefer to not roll out APS-C lineups compatible with their new FF mirrorless, if they can drive enough of the market to FF. Canon probably already sells plenty of EOS-M systems to people who obviously aren't concerned with an upgrade path ... Fuji and m43 offer no upgrade path ... only Sony would have APS-C and FF with the same mirrorless mount if Nikon is content with a somewhat smaller, but more lucrative user base. Time will tell, but a $1300 FF body (even if it's not performance-oriented enough for 7D users) might help sway some APS-C EF users to move to FF. I'm sure the low prices on Sony's A7 and A7 II have tempted some former crop sensor users.
In short, I think the RP shows that the behemoth can sit and watch the market, then react quickly enough, when needed.

It hasn't been tested yet, but it appears they just tossed in the sensor from the 6d Mark 2, and that sensor was pretty much unchanged from the 6d in terms of noise and dynamic range. Amazon shows the 6D was first listed in April of 2013. I just take landscapes, that DR is the big thing for us, so if it does turn out to be a more or less 6 year old sensor, it's going to be disappointing.

I'm basing this on what I see at this place -


Here's my thoughts about the new Canon EOS RP: Personally, I think Canon played this really smart with respect to three key business goals: capture market share in FF mirrorless, maximize margin (the margins in FF are the highest in the ILC industry) and prevent existing Canon installed base from "leaking" as Thom Hogan describes it, to other brands. Thom described Canon's strategy in his excellent blog, Sans Mirror, on Feb. 1, that Canon is going for "low and mass market", and I think that is a very accurate assessment.

And, I also think they are playing this really smart with the focus on the RF series of lenses at the higher end of engineering specification. Here's whats at play: Despite what all the YT "reviewers/vloggers" say, the vast majority of the ILC market (80-85%) were buying APS-C cameras in the $600-$900 price range. The typical purchase experience goes like this: Customer goes into their local camera store, and says they are looking to buy a camera. Salesman asks them about their needs, to which they respond: "I want an affordable, well-made camera that takes good pictures". That's 80% of the market right there. Almost none of these customers is going to drop 2 large on a camera body only. Now, for effectively a grand, customers can "move up to FF" with a capable, well-made camera that has just the right mix of features and functions at a very attractive price point, as well as the accessories that let them use their existing lenses if they have them, and...if they buy the new RF lenses, a lens system they can keep for the rest of their lives, upgrading bodies as their needs and camera bodies evolve.

The lenses are an interesting side bar: Nikon has taken considerable flak for putting out "consumer/prosumer" lenses for Nikon Z. Now with the advent of the R, Canon is taking flak for not putting out consumer/prosumer lenses, rather full-on professional-level RF lenses, what we used to call "L glass". If you're a camera manufacturer, you must feel if you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

We all know that digital camera bodies come and go, but the lenses stay. The bottom line is it takes years and years and years to build out a brand new line of lenses. Remember Fuji X? That system started with 3 lenses. Canon will have ~10 lenses on-market by the end of this year, and given that these lenses will be used on at least 3, and more likely 4, new mirrorless Canon FF systems, including the new new "RF Pro" model, it makes sense to focus finite lens development resources on the RF lens lineup.

Everyone one was hoping to see the mirrorless 1Dx MkII, but, because of its exceedingly high engineering specification (there is are reasons a 1D-series bodies sell for >$6K) that camera will take consderably longer to develop, and Canon can plow the revenue from RP sales into the development of the "R Pro", which I predict will debut just before the 2020 Olympics.

Lastly, my guess is my local brick 'n mortar stores in the Bay Area: Looking Glass in Berkeley, Samy's in San Francisco and Mike's Camera around the Bay Area are thrilled at the prospect of being able to offer their customers a $1299 FF Canon camera. From their perpsective: FF Canon for $1299 (including $180 in "goodies")...what's not to like?

From a business perspective, I think Canon got this one right. Whether customers agree remains to be seen, but lets not forget that the best-selling mirrorless camera in 2018 was the EOS M50.

Too expensive for an "entry level"

Why? If sales are expected to fall 50 percent there is no entry level market to buy this camera.

I haven't looked at in detail at any of the new mirrorless models from any maker, though I am vaguely aware of their existence.

For how I use my cameras (no video, no interest in live view, etc.), I don't see the value proposition from full-frame mirrorless cameras, regardless of brand. There is nothing that a mirrorless camera would allow me to do that I can't currently do with my existing DSLRs. And I'd rather spend the cost of a new camera and lenses on traveling someplace nice to use my current camera & lenses. Plus, if I want a back up camera, with most of the herd jumping off the mirrorless cliff, there will continue to be bargain prices on DSLRs.

What's going to limit this camera's success is the lack of an inexpensive native kit lens.

On the one hand a brilliant marketing move: a $1300 FF mirrorless, fully 35% less than anyone else. What could go wrong? Yes, the sensor is old and the EVF ghastly but have to give up something.

Ah, as others have said, it is the lenses. a glance at the R lens roadmap shows a lack of bottom-feeding lenses. So put an adapter and use EOS lenses? Ohh-kaay. Now you've got size, weight and cost within a lick of a 6D which has the same sensor, but the 6D wins almost every other way: VF, FPS, AF, human factors, etc.

I think that Canon will sell a boatload of them but i also don't think that they are very useful photo-making machines.

After converting from Nikon SLRs (film) in 2004 to Canon DSLRs for their FF sensors, Canon's slowed pace toward greatness and 'iterations' instead of innovations have finally forced me to no longer consider new Canon gear since buying my current 5D IV. Afterward I have picked up a 2-body kit of Fuji X-bodies and fast primes, and may be headed back to Nikon's Z7, if they'll only add a second card slot, the lack of which is non-negotiable for advertising shooters needing redundant in-camera backup. Canon's 'new mirrorless' reliance upon the (now old tech) 5D IV sensor, with its disappointing 'cropped-sensor'4K video and memory-hogging codec, no IBIS, and quirky design flaws (multi-function bar?!?) are all uninspiring design decisions, compared to the boldness of Nikon, Sony, Fuji and Panasonic offerings. Sad to see a company with so much potential, hamstrung by 'playing-it-safe', corporate mediocrity.

I’m not sure that Canon is focused on traditional photographers “upgrading” to full frame with the RP release. Smart phone users/photographers will stand in line to spend $1K on a phone so Canon may be thinking these users will drop a similar amount (eventual price drop) on a small camera that produces pictures their phone can’t. Better images could improve a buyer’s social media presence which might just be enough incentive.

If this is indeed Canons thinking, advancements in computational photography and new multi lens phones could make this market disappear fast. Also, if this demographic hasn’t already bought a dedicated camera to make better pictures I don’t know that a full frame ILC camera is much of a draw. I would think the simplicity of a fixed lens camera like the Sony RX100* (also $1K) might make more sense for these users. Canon may need to create/bundle a cheap RF kit lens and free EF adaptor to sweeten the deal.

For social media users looking to buy their first dedicated camera the RP does seem to tick a lot of boxes though.

Small and easy to use (feature assist)
Low light performance
Bluetooth-mediated Wi-Fi
Great JPG files with lens optimization
Face tracking
Cheap ($99) EF adapter/Cheap EF lenses
RF 35mm f/1.8 IS Macro STM ($449)
Good controls compared to phone (two dials + lens dial)
Dual Pixel Autofocus for live view and 1080 video

Back in the day, the $1K price point of a 12MP APS-C Rebel and the vast array of EF lenses prompted me to upgrade from an $800 2/3 sensor bridge camera. Canon seems to be repeating what worked in the past…which is what Canon does.

I don't want one, but I applaud Canon for making a full frame, mirrorless Rebel camera. They have a huge user base, who already have some lenses and want an inexpensive (relatively) new camera. They have a huge base of users who might want to step up from an APS-C camera. This seems like a smart move to me. They should also release a relatively inexpensive kit lens like the Nikon 24-85 to keep the kit price down.

Strikes me as the OM-1 of full frame mirrorless.

I don't understand the criticisms of the new body not having enough lenses. When has a new system/body ever been released with a FULL complement of lenses in the system? If I remember well, that was one of the criticisms of the m4/3s system when it was first introduced.

I know I am a photo troglodyte. ISO to 40,000? Photograph through a sleep mask??

Full Frame Featuring Flippy Finder's Freaking Fabulous!

Curiously Cheap Canon Cameras Could Convince Cash Constrained Consumers.

6Dii owner here.

The 6Dii is not the most advanced camera in any way you could choose to measure. However, it's fairly light, the flippy screen is fun, it's easy to use, the JPEGs are fairly incredible, and Canon's live-view/dual-pixel user experience is crazy good. I get better pictures done easier with my Canon than with any other camera I've ever used.

Now this RP is basically the same thing, but even lighter and even more live-view-y.

I'll bet Canon sells a boatload of these.

(And, Mike, you could make a strong argument that the current RF 24-105 and 35 lenses are a perfect "nested" pair, and all most enthusiasts would ever need :-) )

When Canon fills out this system, I'm sure it will look more rational.

I'm an older fellow who values a lightweight system. What I carry now (crop frame camera with a 24mm and a 50mm lens) weighs 795 grams. The Canon RP body with the already-announced 35mm f/1.8 and my guess at the weight of a not-even-announced 85mm f/1.8 is 1266 grams total. I'm still happy with crop frame.

But maybe I'm looking at this all wrong. Like many others, I have fond memories of the lightweight Olympus OM-1 with the 50mm f/1.8 I had. The equivalent Canon RP with 50mm f/1.8 (assuming the RF version that Canon will make someday weighs the same as the current EF version) is slightly lighter. The two cameras are about the same size except the RP is 20mm thicker. And as far as I can tell, the price of the OM-1 body in 1972 is about the same as the Canon RP today, adjusted for inflation.

I welcome the small size and light weight. I hope Canon continues in that direction.

My XF 16/2.8 Fujicron is ordered, I'm hoping it's my perfect lens on my X-E3. (I'm a massive fan of 24mm on my Nikon FX equipment.)

Hmmm, 20+ comments and all about the Canon mirrorless Rebel.

No one picks up on a nice tiny 24mm-eff lens for use with the Fuji X-Pro2 and whatever comes next in that line. The Fujicrons are designed, as Leica M lenses have always been designed, so that you can see past them, for instant optical viewing. The Fuji f/1.4 line of lenses are designed to work best with the X-T2, X-T3, and (stabilized, much disparaged but I don't understand why) X-H1. They balance well on the bigger bodies and are sharp corner to corner for the landscape types. The Fujicrons are not as sharp side to side, but stop them down and they do fine, and are weatherproof (claimed) to boot. For their intended use there speed and size seems right.

My feeling is that the X-Pro2 and Fujicron line of lenses is a different world, on a price level 1/2 that of the Leica Q and CL, and another factor of 2 less than the traditional Leica Ms. Perhaps it deserved a separate post, to get out from under the cloud of Canonfire.

I strongly suspect this "fujicron" moniker is a kind of compensetion for people who can't afford the real thing.

The lack of stabilization built in is not a problem for me. At times a bit of motion blur is welcome - and can even help. Usually not - but I learned how to hold a camera steady from Alfred Eisenstaedt, a lesson I have used for a few decades now.
I prefer an optical finder over the electronic versions. Night vision and the bright light in the finder or rear screen makes it difficult for me in low light conditions. I can still frame by starlight with a good optical finder and don't have lights messing up my night vision. The electronic finders I have tried so far are not too good for night conditions - for me.
Will be most interested in the newer "mirrorless" stuff when I can actually see improved image quality in the finished print. At least as good as my current "mirrorless" camera - my 8x10 Deardorff.

Hmm it seems like a waste of time as no stablization and an ectry level at 1300 maybe 800 would've done the trick considering the a7 11. By the way that viewfinder lag in th eNikon Z cameras when you turn the on gives me zero confidence in them

Not a Canon user anymore, but I gotta love the callout in the name to the P Rangefinder. Both cameras seem fit for the same purpose - a practical, reliable camera for most folks.

And while I do love the fujicrons, my 16 1.4 is simply too wonderful for the newest critter to catch my eye. For those not shooting black cats in a coal mine (or, for me, kids and family on disney rides:), the 2.8 looks like the perfect fit.

Must be getting old. I find all of this interesting strictly from a news perspective, but not from a personal perspective. It just seems to be more of the same thing with these companies racing around chasing each other's tail.

The last digital camera that tickled my fancy was the Pentax K5iiS, and I still own it and use it regularly. When you live in the outback of Nevada and love photographing the great outdoors the K5's feature set is very useful.

The last camera of any kind that tickled my personal interest meter enough to buy one was the Leica M-A, which obviously has its own range of very expensive glass. But at least they are small and easy to pack. I still have it as well and use it even more regularly than the K5iiS.

Like I said, I must be getting old. :)

I'm a long-term Canon user with a couple of EOS DSLRs - a 5DIV and a 750D. I've just come back from a trip to Asia on which I took the 750D, because of airline weight limitations. I was glad I did - even carrying that around in Bangkok in 35 degree heat was a trial. So I ought to be interested in the RP, yes? Well, I don't think so. Is it actually much better than the 750D? - i.e. will it produce obviously better results? I'm not sure it will, and that's an expensive gamble. So for now I'm sticking with the DSLRs. To use another of Thom Hogan's terms, I might have already bought my Last Camera.

Except I haven't. I also took my phone, of course, and I've come home with almost as many images from that as from the Canon. And I wouldn't say that the Canon images were actually any better. The more I use it, the more I'm enjoying using the iPhone, esp. the new dual-lens camera. That might well be the way I'll go in the future.

Surprised about all this talk of the RP being revolutionary because of its low price tag. The Sony A7 (with 28-70mm lens) is listed for under $1,000 and the Sony A7II (with 28-70mm lens) is listed at $1,200 or $100 less than the RP camera alone. And the Sony system already has the smaller, cheaper lenses available. The RP also uses an older sensor and tech so it is comparable to the older Sony models. Looks like Canon is just catching up. BTW - I shoot Nikon so no brand loyalty between either.

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007