« Shooting Skills: Contrast for Clarity | Main | Sunday Support Group: Ah, July (OT) »

Friday, 10 July 2020


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

I think the current fetish for full-frame on the part of amateurs is mis-placed ego gratification. The weight, size and price of bodies and corresponding "full-frame" lenses only really serves the needs of only a limited number of people. Those people can fully exploit this equipment, no question, and it's good for them to have the option. This equipment announcement doesn't bother me, nor does it interest me. Except that it seems to lead to the neglect of APS/C development, which I think could be more useful for more people, if their ego did not get in the way. I like photography but I would never spend close to $4000 on a body.
It's a bit like high-end cars. I'm sure they're fantastic, but who needs an M5 to go get groceries. How many people actually print big.

Incredible specs.... really generic boring body.

No ISO 25, or even better - ISO3 like we had with Tech Pan.
Hope the dynamic range at low ISO settings is at least as good as Nikon and Sony, finally.

Ok, two points. 1. I predict the R5 will be a good seller for some time to come, but still not be a great seller in an historical sense because less people buy cameras all the time. 2. I kind of wish Pentax had gone in this direction instead of the K1.

Mike, let me jump in here as a Nikon and Fuji mirrorless shooter. I think Canon has done a great job with the Mirrorless buildout relative to Nikon. I have had a Z6 for about 18 months now and sold my 70-200 f4 when I bought it thinking Nikon would have a similar native lens soon. Boy was I wrong? I do have the new 24-200 lens that was just released and it is a fine lens, but very slow. Ok for travel and work with a tripod, but not good for studio work or event work. I am not thinking of switching to Canon yet, but if Nikon keeps disappointing me I may. The future looks much more promising with Canon than Nikon. Eric

I'll probably get an R6 one day to replace my 5DIV to use with my EF lenses. I will never pay over $3000 for a camera again so the R5 is not needed/wanted. I'll use it primarily for sport photography, assuming the EVF black out is not an issue.

My immediate reaction - the body and controls look like Canon DSLR body and controls to me. When I was first looking (Canon Rebel vs Nikon D70s) the Nikon felt much better in my hands, so that's what I bought. Since then I have continued to be happy with Nikon (D300 and D700, both bought used) with no interest in changing because they feel good in my hands and make photos.

I haven't held the new Nikon Z6 or Z7, and currently have no money for camera/lens or computer/storage/software upgrades, but if I was on the hunt for a FFM camera I would start there and would have to be seriously disappointed before venturing to another brand.

This will be a great machine for action shooters. As a landscape person it has nothing to interest me. I've NEVER shot video with a camera, the few I make of my grandkids are with a phone, perfectly adequate. Deal breakers include anti-aliasing filter, "only" 45MP, no pixel shift, no automated focus stacking. Both the Nikon and Sony mirrorless and even the lovely Fuji, have more to offer. I'm sure they'll sell a bunch to folks itching for mirrorless and who have a lot of Canon glass tho it requires an adapter just like using Canon on Sony. Competition is good.

I may be tempted to add one to my Canon assigment's gear, mostly for the silent shutter. No rush.

At a high level, these cameras are what I thought five years ago all digital cameras would be. Fewer moving parts, better low light sensitivity, at least the optical possibility of using any brand lens on a sensor. The only thing we don't have (that I thought we would) is hot-swappable sensors, which I thought would be the 21st century version of "film." Choose one for B&W, one for sports, one for low-light etc.

I don't know about you all, but I am getting a "Nikon F6" End-Of-Concept feeling. Once prices come down to $1,000 per unit on these puppies, you'll buy one and be set for the next 10 years, just like you were with your F3 or F1. It will be interesting to see whether Canon (and Nikon and whoever follows Sony's lead on this kind of design) will be able to survive the success of the basic design concept.

While both the R5 and R6 are more camera than probably only a fraction of pros need, what struck me is their poor estimated shots per battery charge, heaviness, and cost.

We're officially in the realm of buying cameras for features. The image quality is all the same (in my opinion), which is high quality.

These Canon cameras are loaded with the latest features which is indeed impressive, and which should have appeal to those who can use those features.

For me, I'm sticking with DSLR mostly for the optical viewfinder (Nikon D750 and D7500). But also because I can't justify the investment to a new system since I don't use video at all and I'm satisfied with my Nikkor F-mount lens set.

But I won't lie, it's fun to see these new releases.

As a Nikon-man and landscaper it is not for me. Should I be in a position not to be already invested in and used to Nikon, I would expect, that Nikon‘s next body would be even better for landscape, therefore I would wait for the next Nikon (e.g. I see no focus shift in the new Canon).
What would be more important though: I would examine the lenses: I use shift/tilt, which might tip the scales in favour of Canon only a short while ago. Canon seem to have some outstanding lenses, but those are not very new, so I do not know, if they prepare „a splash“ of even better series, like Nikon S lenses.
All in all, I am not quite sure, which system (or family) is „better“ for landscape, both are capable to say the least, although at the moment Nikon S lenses and their road map seem to say somehow more clear as to where they are going.

I don't care about them.

Dual card slots. Excellent! After all, we know that "pros" will only use a camera with dual card slots. Are there are enough pixels for all those "pros" out there?

Two more amazing, fully featured cameras with extraordinary performance and a price to match. Makes your mouth water. The problem I see is that almost no one needs cameras such as these. The cameras almost all of us are now using more than satisfy our needs.

Neither new offering convinces me to sell my a7ii or my MFT kits. Both new Canons have nice new features, for Canon, particularly IBIS, but IQ for the R6, while better than the 6D and 6Dii, appears to be not all that much different from the RP, a7ii, and a tad below the a7iii and Z6. Also, I and most others do not actually need the 45 MPs in the R5. YMMV. And, it would be nice if both would include better battery life. If the R had IBIS, then I would be more excited about gettng a Canon again. I am a long time Canon users with a short stack of favorite EF primes, now used on the a7ii. After seeing the new Canon offerings, they with the Sony may someday just enter the used marketplace, with my MFT kits becoming my only format.

Do "Wow!" and "Cool!" count as two points?

These seem squarely aimed at the cinema crowd (though I think they'd make excellent DMDs, if you ignore 90% of the features, 60% of the price, and the lenses). Looks at first glance like a Sony killer, but I can't help wondering if Canon's really aiming to kill the L-mount before it gains traction, seeing a bigger threat there.

For the 5D video crowd I don't see many wish-list items that the R5 doesn't check off, at least on paper. Battery life and heat dissipation are big questions (I do see that there's a battery grip.). And lenses, of course.

I’m not impressed. But I’m certainly not in the market, there’s that one spec, the price!
I think that’s going in the wrong direction. And I’m still satisfied with my Oly EM5, and it’s EVF and stabilization technology.
Another thing about Canons, they all look like the previous model, you’d think they’d give them a make-over. If I had the bucks to buy, I’d be considering the Fuji line, and maybe that tasty looking 100V.

It is so ugly. Haven't they heard of Bauhaus or seen an Apple product?

After many years with film cameras (Contax, Leica, Hasselblad, Sinar, etc.) I bought my first digital camera: a Nikon Coolpix 950, in 1999. There followed three successive models as technology leapfrogged itself, and I then moved to Pentax, having used a number of them in film days.
That was in 2007, and I have progressed through six of their body models from K-10 to the K-1, a 36 megapixel full-frame that I bought new for $1,800 in 2016. (I later added the smaller, more flexible APS-C K-70.)

That is my history in a nutshell.
Now, whenever someone introduces a new camera, I turn to DPReview's side-by-side comparison. While never spot-on accurate, it does give me a view of the differences: features, weight, battery life, etc.

The Canon R5 does have some nice features, and if I were to be starting over, I would give it consideration, but I don't see anything. that really rattles my cage, so I'll be sticking with what I have.

I'm sure it's a fine camera. Just like the Nikon Z series.

It's also too expensive. Just like the Nikon Z series.

I have a very nice D7100 that I could afford and great classic manual focus and auto focus glass for it. I see no reason in this camera to replace them. Just like the Nikon Z series.

Well, if there is anything the whole camera industry needs, it's Buzz.
I haven't seen this much buzz in a long time, especially from Canon.
That has to be good weather you are a Canon fan or not.
The Specs seem quite impressive, other manufacturers will follow suit and there will be more buzz, again, a good thing.
Canon has been accused of being too conservative or protecting their Cinema EOS line, but the most common comment I see is something like "Canon pulled out all the stops"
They obviously have invested a great deal in R&D in spite of economic conditions - all enthusiasts should be in favor of that.
Their investment in Dual Pixel technology seems to be enabling a lot of interesting features.
I read a comment from a Portrait photographer who has the original 85mm f/1.2. She said "it is a lens with a wonderful look but very slow focusing-- the best I get is 70% eye sharp , when I put it on the canon mount adapter nearly every single frame was eye sharp, and the adapter ADDs Control ring functionality to an old lens"
Not only is that impressive, but when was the last time we saw a company improve old hardware???
So weather these cameras are your particular cup of tea or not, I don't see how they are not very positive developments.
Sony will have their answer, and so will Nikon, I think it is a good thing.

R6 -- underwhelming features. Have seen 5D4 advertised at a lower price. Only feature of interest is the IBIS and would like to see user reports.

R5 -- interesting but pricey. I would not buy on the basis of video performance, since I never have used it in my 5D4. Also do not need 20 FPS. A few other bells and whistles that I would never need to use. But they do justify the price.

Am more interested in the new higher capacity battery -- LP-E6NH -- but have not been able to find out definitively if it will work in older cameras using the LP-E6/E6N battery.

Aren’t new cameras incredible these days? That top view seems to indicate something I’ve always wanted in my yet-to-be next camera: room for my nose! I wonder if they will will work for glasses wearers like me.

Viewfinder/glasses compatibility is a most desirable feature for me, but it’s rarely mentioned.

I bought the R a while back to use with a specific highly specialized lens (Laowa 24mm f/14 probe lens). The EVF meant that I'd be able to get a decently light viewfinder image at f/14 or even f/45. The R does the job, but it's not exciting, and I'm still getting used to the menus. So my reaction to the R5 and R6 is -- maybe. I don't need 8K video or 45 megapixels.

Looks like slightly larger versions of the Nikon Z6 and Z7 with Canon characteristics (color, etc.) Most higher-end cameras are now so good that it's hard to get excited about new entries. About the only thing that would perk me up would be a higher-pixel Panasonic GX8+.

[From your lips to Yamane-san's ears. --Mike]

As an R owner from launch, I have never understood why many have screamed about lack of IBIS. Typically having invested in the body you would have stabilised lenses.

Also the absolute necessity for dual card slots. Personally I've never had a card fail since my first Kodak digital camera back in 2000. Maybe I'm just very lucky, but I doubt this is the case.

The specs appear impressive, they won't improve photography, and I'd rather invest the thousands on trips and print tech, paper.

I have zero interest in full frame, so no thanks from me. But I'm sure this is a very exciting development for a huge portion of the enthusiast camera market.

It's also good for the industry as a whole, I would guess, that Canon seems to have finally put their serious pants on.

I still prefer high-bit count FF 35mm DSLRs, but for those who are after a mirrorless camera the R5 is it!

I am too happy with the size/weight-to-results ratio of my Fuji(s) to go back to full frame. For projects that stand to benefit from a larger imaging surface and more resolution, I'll rent a medium format camera.

I have a bunch of full frame Nikon gear I am looking to donate to a worthy recipient.

Besides my Fuji, I have held on to a 5D II for ages, like the old Timex commercials "it's took a licking but kept on ticking". I don't feel compelled to ransom my grandkids for features I'll never use.

As a longtime 6D user the R6 makes perfect sense as my next camera. It’s specifically designed to appeal to someone like me. It’s got better specs across the board, great native lenses, EF lens support, and a nice finder (120fps option) which has been a mirrorless concern of mine. I imagine the standout specs for me will be the 8 stop IS and better AF subject tracking. When you consider that the 6D Mark II was the third most popular body rental at LensRentals in 2019 this release makes a lot of sense from Canon’s perspective.

The fact that the resolution stays the same (for me) is not a problem. I have no need for more resolution and I’ve never really used the top plate LCD on my 6D so I won’t miss it. My only quibbles are that I would have preferred the 5.76 EVF and a tilting LCD.

I’ve been carrying Canon cameras for 12 years now and from the moment I pick one up, I know the R6 will disappear in my hand. That may be the best spec of all.

For me personally it's size, size, size. No, not sensor size (my M43 and APSC bodies do a fantastic job for my needs). And no not body size (A Panasonic G9 is about the same size).
It's body + lens size. An M43 body and an Olympus 12-45mm lens is still much, much smaller than an R5 or R6 and a 24-105 f4 and the image quality across the frame from that little lens is stellar--much more consistent than APSC or Full frame zooms I've owned in the past and I've owned some good ones. (I know, the 24-105 has a bit more reach, but not much).

Oh, and importantly for me, the size of the cost. The M43 setup even new requires a much smaller sized wad of cash.

As someone who shoots stills and video of dance with a Nikon system (Z6, D850, and D500), I'm very intrigued by the R6. Its sensor is said to be the same as the 1DX mark III's, so low light performance should be good, and the autofocus looks very impressive. And then there are the lenses, both real and rumored, but you asked for only two reasons ...

Anyway, I'll be renting one when available to test. Many cameras in the past promising the world with their sensors and autofocus turned out to be less capable than promised.

I’m sure they are great cameras, but not for me - and I’m a Canon shooter. It seems to me that if you’re going to get the best from the R system you need to buy new R lenses - all the reviews say that they have excellent performance, generally a bit better than the EF equivalent. And as a retired amateur, I simply can’t afford any of it! Instead, I shall press on with my existing APS-C DSLR, itself purchased within the last year (Canon 90D), together with the ‘good enough’ lenses that go with it.

I’d rather spend my money on travel (once we can) to places where I can take pictures with the kit I have, than spend it on equipment that will make little difference (if any) to my results, and then not be able to go anywhere to use it.

But it’s good to see some positive buzz in Canon’s direction.

Coming from a non-canon candidate myself, these look like good options in their lineup. It does relegate the previous two R bodies to placeholder status to combat Nikon Z's announcements, but that is their issue not mine. As little as I 'need' 36×24 I'm fine with a re-shuttered D600 to do what micro4:3 cannot do quite as well.

I'd say a second battery slot is far more important than a second memory slot - ouch!

Off to one side here, but the new printer excites me more than these cameras (and the ink will be affordable.) I get the R5 but the price is too high. I don't get the R6 at all. And I like Canon.

I saved up my money on a privates' pay in the late '80s for the Canon T70.
I ended up late to the party, and ended up with a new-fangled Canon EOS 650 kit.
I have had two Rebels (450D and 760D) since and added odds and ends glass on the cheap.
I intended to wait for the R-whatever-was-going-to-be-the-low-light-sports-photography model.
Then for about 7 days two weeks before Christmas Canon dropped about $500 off the R and I decided having the EOS 650 and EOS R would be a personal thing.
I have used the nifty fifty I bought in '88 on the new R, that's cool. The EVF flicker in the R is atrocious, but I'm learning to deal.
The R6 is still my goal, in a few years - it should be the ticket for a long time. Anticipating better EVF for sports, good low light, and fast frame rate.
No more Rebels - good cameras, I've just out grown them.
For me, a full frame camera is to APS-C or 4/3 like an f2.8 is to an f4. Shoot more f8 than 4 or 2.8, but an f4 will never open up to 2.8 when you need it to.

My R5 would probably sit on the shelf while I took my cellphone out (no, it will already be in my hand entertaining me) and snapped the shot.

A new camera at this point in my photographic life (I'm 57) is unlikely to improve my photography as much as more courage would. That said, upstream someone said that the new cameras improve old tech - that really is something worthwhile and if I were younger I might be thinking that the R5 sounds fab and go all in on one of these and some lenses. Right now though I reckon that if I can't make decent photos with the gear I already have (mostly Nikon for the serious - paid - stuff) well, I might as well pack up and, erm, enjoy lockdown.

Seems likely I'll have an R6 before the year is out. A mirrorless Lumix GX9 is my favorite camera to use. A 5D Mark IV is my workhorse for its color rendering and for low-light capability. It seemed cool to have the 5D IV's 30 megapixel files, but don't really need more than 20. Pixel peeking shows that I can't hold the Mark IV still enough without a tripod, even with optical stabilization. (It takes very little movement for a focused light beam to move from one pixel to the next on that 30 mP sensor). So I'll be hoping that the IBIS is great and that the 20 mP R6 will finally be my perfect camera (just a little self-sarcasm there).

Only 29 interface languages?! Hard pass.

This is my upgrade cycle. I've been shooting with the same Canon 5Dmk3 since three days before my son was born. My son is seven now, can read, ride a bike 10 miles in an afternoon, and he outlasts me on the backyard trampoline. My 5Dmk3's paint is worn off, the mode dial is missing its cap, and there's dirt embedded in the grip. My 5Dmk3 has survived a fall into a lake in Northern Wisconsin, a slide down a muddy hill in Oregon, getting drenched in a New Orleans thunderstorm (that one knocked out my camera for a day but it came back to life), numerous lens changes at the beach, hours of waterfall mist, and over one million air miles traveled. It's time for a new camera. I've been following the rumors sites closely for the past year.

The big announcement has left me somewhat disappointed, not for the R5 and R6, both are exciting offerings. What disappoints me is the lack of sample images from these cameras and the lack of inspiration. I was expecting some cool real world photos and videos from Canon's ambassadors. I guess it's too early for that?

The R6 might be my next camera. The R6 is a mirrorless Canon 1DXmk3 for the low, low price of $2500. That's an unbelievable value. But wait, there's more. The R6 is a 1DXmk3 with 5 stop IBIS. Amazing. For that price I could afford to upgrade every four years instead of every 7 years.

I still might opt for the R5. I like the idea of 45 MP, but I don't like it enough for that price. Plus, I am mainly hoping for low light performance so I'm going to need to see more sample photos.

I'm not a Canon user but these product announcements are exactly what the brand needed. Canon is definitely hot on the heels of Sony and L-Mount now in the full-frame mirrorless market. Nikon, sadly, seems to be in the doldrums now. All we've heard about them are rumors of three updated cameras and an inability to bring the 24-200mm and 70-200mm to market.

The ergonomics will be good, as will the menus. I like the idea of 8 stops of ibis and the smallish, good 35/1.8 macro making a very neat package. Weather sealing, a fine 24-105/4 and that 100-500 will have me completely covered. I think I'll go for the R5.

Perfectly timed introduction for the Tokyo summer Olympics that are about to start in two weeks. Oh no, wait...

... which is why the new tele lenses and converters were also released alongside the new bodies. That 100-500mm will also have wildlife photographers take notice. It's somewhat affordable and not too heavy.

They're far more expensive than I'm willing to spend on a camera anymore; at least two or three times more.

"Full-frame" does nothing to help with anything I'm interested in shooting.

The R6, with a full frame sensor that has 'only' 20 Mp will be great for low light hand held photography at high ISOs, when that's combined with the IBIS and (I presume) a WYSIWYG viewfinder.

Well, it's good that a new camera has come to market. Perhaps things are not quite so bad as we thought. However I can't see anything to excite me. Just another camera. Canon system owners have finally caught up with current tech - at a price.

As James Carville said, "It's the lenses, stupid." Or was that the "economy"? I don't know, but Nikon's Z glass is so great, in another league really, that if a camera body can't mount Z lenses, who cares.

Both of these are above the WAF (Wife Approval Factor) Limit for me, especially since I would also need lenses.

I'm a Nikon guy, and I'm impressed. Not going to switch, though - after 45 years Nikon still meets most of my needs.

I'm hoping this will push Nikon to resolve my biggest single complaint about my Z6 - a full featured battery grip. I have wrist damage, and holding the camera sideways for long periods is painful.

Nice job, Canon!

Short answer = Too Expensive. If I were a Canon shooter I'd be more interested, but I'm not so I'm not. Not seeing a value proposition here that would drive me to make the leap to another system.

Side-by-side, I like the top LCD, like my D700, but I'm not about to ditch any of my M43 gear, so I'd go for the Panasonic G9.

If I were ever to go FF mirrorless, it would be the Panasonic S1. The D700 & kit would be gone.

Realistically, being retired, I'd have to sell a heap of stuff on eBay to do either one. So, here I'll sit.

btw - OT - TS Fay came through here today, a couple of inches of torrential rain, flood warnings. Radar now shows that outer bands are moving into your area. Let that stream adjacent your property roar into life!

[Wow, I hope so. Thanks--I hadn't heard that. We've had very little rain all Summer and could use a soaker. --Mike]

Being a Nikonian I only hope that Nikon will come with something equal or better. And with a more nice pricetag...

Try as I might, I cannot get excited about a new camera (any camera) or lens right now without the ability to travel freely, as in the pre-pandemic days. What's the point when I can't use it?

I'm glad to see Canon kicking things up a few notches, but I won't be coming along for the ride. (To mix a few metaphors.)

I began using Canon in 1993, first their film cameras, and then making the move with them to digital in 2003. My Canons were super-reliable and the image quality was great, but a pair of bodies and three or four lenses, especially the pro zooms, made a heavier package than I wanted to carry.

These new bodies seem to be a reasonable size and weight, but the lenses still weigh a ton. Same thing with the Sonys, A light-weight body doesn't help much unless you're going to carry just one, with a smallish prime lens.

So,in 2017 I switched to the Fuji X system. Small cameras and small lenses, with little or no loss of image quality.

In 2019 I picked up an X-H1, the flagship of the Fuji fleet. It's slightly larger and heavier than my other Fuji bodies, and the handling felt a bit strange as first. But I quickly became acclimated, and now it feels just right. The more I use it, the better I like it. This thing is so solid and well-built that I may never need another camera. It offers higher quality and more capability for less money than any camera I've ever heard of.

As you said about the X-H1, Mike, "It strikes me as a simply amazing camera; virtually everything on it is well thought out and beautifully implemented, and works smoothly and effectively."

So a fond farewell to Canon. I always liked the system and I wish them well.

I pre-ordered the R6 but really wanted the R5. I just can't justify the price for so many video features I'll never use. I wish the R6 was 24-26MP, but maybe it will compensate with extremely low noise at 1,000 to 3,200 ISO.

I have the EOS R and hate the touch bar but like most other things about the camera. The R6 will fit 90% of everything I want, and the R5 might have captured another 5%, which isn't worth $1,400.

Best feature = IBIS for my classic Zeiss, Olympus, and Nikon lenses.

Way too big, and way too expensive, for me! Bet it will take great pix though.

8 stop IBIS is pretty impressive but a tripod for my beloved 6D is a lot cheaper.

Very little interest to me. Never liked Canon egomaniacs, their colour sucks, they cripple cameras, low light performance is sub par and this new camera has very little new to offer for the inflated price they are asking. A lot and I mean a lot of hype preceding the release would indicate to me that even Canon thinks it's a dud. Watch the price come down really fast.

My post should have said Canon ergonomics! Oops not trying to slam Canon shooters.

I haven’t bought a camera since 2012 (the 5d mk 3). With it and its older sibling, a 5d2, I have earned my entire income for more than a decade. I’m excited to upgrade to the R5 (which is very close to my initials, RS). That being said, if there were a version that had a half stop faster sync speed (or cost even $25 less and had no video capabilities whatsoever), I’d have bought that one.

I plan to donate the older gear (or the eBay proceeds from its sale) to my alma mater’s college paper, where I first welded a DSLR in 2002.

The other end of the spectrum is more exciting for me at this point. The 'how to look at and edit what you got' end. I got a ThinkPad X1 Gen 6 flagship on runout. It has the highest tested screen in any device. Ever. Full coverage of EVERY gamut. Full NTSC gamut? Yep. All I know, is that it displays colours I've never seen before. So intense, it hurts my eyes even with the screen brightness turned down low. It's an extravagance beyond measure for me - until I turned it on. The visual is so luxuriant that it's like a live concert to the aural senses. You can only take so much before your circuits get saturated. Anyway Mike, for image editing, it's like a little bombproof carbon fibre and magnesium magic pod of wonders :-) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSIEWiD2y_8

I've been using Leica SL (with the nice viewfinder that Canon has just reached) for the past four years, and more recently the Lumix S1R and Leics SL2, both with IBIS. Have more nice lenses than I can take along on any one excursion. It's nice to see Canon catching up, as Ned Bunnell says, to be one of the last two standing.

Serious overheating issues with the R5, no cooling fan,in 8k and in 4k. No Netflix camera!!!

Great website and photos, Rob Strong. I especially enjoyed the "museum" photos on your site. As a whole, your photos evidence a special talent. . . . I'm a Sony A7RIV user, and am excited for the new Canons because they seem to be quite innovative and Canon is apparently making great lens (and non-traditional ones), always has, now for mirrorless. Competition is good.

My only interchangeable lens cameras are the Olympus OM-D EM1 Mk1 and a couple of PLs. I've been thinking for some months about what I would choose for a new system.

Ideally, Panasonic's L-mount appeals and I look for a Foveon sensored L-mount from Sigma, but it looks like I'll be waiting.

I've long noticed that third party (Sigma, Tokina) lenses are nearly all for Nikon, Canon and Sony, so I would have to choose from one of those, I think. I had a Canon 30D in 2008 but the lack of IBIS was frustrating and I moved on. Now that Canon has good IBIS, I'll consider them again, especially as there is such a huge lens choice, especially used, and the mount is so adaptable.

But blocking the way for all these new cameras is the cost. I don't think I can afford this hobby any more. In order to spark myself up and put some fun back into my photography, I bought a Nikon P950 with its 2,000mm lens. It's definitely hand holdable, I've found. I think that will see me out.

Hi Mike

I love that you included the camera size comparisons. However, I don't think your format comparison provides a good impression of the real world practical size differences between formats.

Many people purchase smaller format systems to get a lighte and more compact system.

ILC camera bodies need to be a reasonable minimum size to provide space for all the controls, viewfinder, screen and hand grip etc - there is little to be gained from making an ILC body too small, the sacrifices in handling get too great. This limits the body size advantage of smaller bodies. However, it is the overall package bulk that matters, not the just the camera body.

I've done my own version comparing my smallest m4/3 camera and my smallest APS-C body with the Nikon/Canon flagships.

I have fitted them all with the smallest c. 24-70mm equivalent standard zoom available from their respective ranges. No attempt has been made to match the lens specifications or lens quality beyond selecting the smallest offerings available in that rough focal range. We are comparing system size here, not quality.

I think this provides a much more realistic impression of the real world size difference:


I have also done another comparing telezooms. Because of the limited range of Canon lenses I haven't been able to get a close focal length match so this is 200-600mm (eq) vs 100-500mm actual:


If we are interested only on absolute image quality, then I guess the full frame wins but if we are looking for decent quality in the smallest practical package, there is no doubt what my winner is.

One reader calls the look of the body "boring", but another says "it will disappear in my hand".

After many, many thousands of shots with almost every digital Canon, I say that consistency counts for a lot. And they just feel right to me.

Mike, we want to hear your "idiosyncratic reaction as a consumer". Your readers contribute a ton of useful info, but your opinion does count more than most people's.

I left Canon some years back due to what appeared to be, intentional feature crippling. My last FF was the 5DII with a full compliment of L glass. When it came time to take advantage of tech advances in features, I switched to Fujifilm. The need for FF had faded, I longer needed FF for stock or print sales.
These new bodies finally have features that were missing for years from Canon’s offerings. But, its too little, too late for me. Price is way past my budget. I’m no longer interested in paying $3k for bodies and more to change systems requiring new glass too. Been there, done that. Good to see Canon finally decided to provide full AF points across the sensor for both bodies, instead of crippling it in the lower priced model as they did traditionally.
I’ve got enough gear and systems to fit my needs. During this global crisis, the need for more gear is not important.

Still confused about the model number ordering being backwards, but I guess that's a Canon thing, and I've never been a Canon shooter (R5 more expensive than R6).

I've had dual card slots for a while now, and so far have never used them in earnest (I do play with things). Never lost a file on a memory card in 20 years of shooting. What's right there will depend a lot on what they expect buyers of these new bodies to already have. I've been out of CF for a couple of years yet, so the dual-UHS-II sounds vastly more attractive to me. But I'm not the market since I never actually use them. (Lately I've been letting an old slow but very large card sit in the second slot for backup. But haven't resorted to images from it. Can't hurt though, unless it slows things down.)

I'd say it's a precarious time to be releasing any product into this world economy.

Never understood why manufacturers of all stripes give so much prominence on the body to a rotary dial that more likely than not is one of the least frequently used: shooting "modes"...

This is a huge ad for Panasonic. I see the G9 better in everyway compared to the R6.
Too bad marketing is poor in the m43rds world.
Even the m43rds 50-200mm lenses are better than the Canon 100-500mm.

I hope m43rds continues as this alternative is huge, expensive and dim.

Look at the acne of buttons all over the body. If they deliver for the pro who masters and uses them, great – but a series of product shots only consolidated my growing appreciation for minimalist designs.

I’ll probably buy one after the rumored 50mm f/1.8 is announced and the “new hotness” tax expires. The Sony A7Riii is close to what I want, but the grip is not tall enough, and the LCD is not fully-articulated. For me, it would fill the role of portrait camera that’s smaller and lighter than 6x7 SLRs (hence 40mp FF). Hopefully they’ll add pixel shift in a firmware update for DSLR scanning! It might also be fun to shoot with classic lenses and IBIS. Overall, I’m excited about how this camera would complement my film shooting.

My z7 is just fine for my photography.... that of course is the whole point: it’s whatever works for you ... both features & ergonomics (plus - I like the lenses I have, thank you). As with most folks, the major problems with my photography are already built into the photographer :-)

Yay! Another black wunderbrik from one of the big names. No doubt it'll give the camera tribes on DPR something to argue about and with until another big name announces something. I'm sure it's amazing on paper. It's just that, more and more, I have a hard time seeing how iterations of already over-engineered, over-specified, same old products are going to help me make better pictures than last years model.

well done Canon

but looking forward to an M6 upgrade (from M3)

They look pretty cool, see they are finally catching up with SR (shake reduction) Played with one of the current gen Canon R's this week and I was trying to say nice things about it but was struggling a bit. I really just prefer my own camera layout (Pentax K-1). It just fits me better.

Might have been that I had a HD Pentax-D FA*70-200/2.8 on mine which is just sublimely talanted. I alternate calling it baby bazooka or The Hammer - I point it, shoot it and it just nails it.
Link https://flic.kr/s/aHsmPaHK7c to my daily uploads for the month using the hammer. You can trim out the last bit for the comments.

The most significant aspect is the opening of a new front, not a megapixel race but a race for inbuilt computer grunt. Much in this camera is down to computer power and computational image processing. Canon was late to the party but they have arrived. I'd expect rivals to counter with more processing power asap.

Both Canon recent mirorless introductions suffer from at least one critical flaw ... PRICE ... they were developed for Olympics year to showcase proudly Canon most recent technology development with a view and expectations set on expanding economy that Canon saw as a bold opportunity to rise again price bar further up. In Japan they have set MSRP on R-6 at $ 3.135 and R-5 is $ 4.730 - for body only options. The fact that Canon never rectified these prices and they went ahead full force ... is frankly puzzling ... considering that we are currently in COVID-19 introduced economic downturn and camera sales are down by 60-70% lately, I am afraid these inflated prices alone are what is going to kill sales of both models ...

The big three already set the standards for their mirrorless cameras. I guess not much exciting things for the cameras would come for the next ten years. If Nikon brings out a digital SP, that would be something to "wow" about.

Am I paying significant $$ for video? Because I don't need or want video! Was the Df the last gasp effort by anyone to build a stills-only photography camera? Sad.

Finally a camera with specs to match my awesome abilities as a photographer. Up to now all of those D800’s and Hasselblad x-whatever’s have only let me down. My cat will look amazing when I use this camera.

With my last camera purchase (EOS R), I got to a point where I don't feel like I need any more features/pixels/gizmos than I have. That said, impressive looking cameras. Canon has been a step or two behind Nikon and Sony for years, seems like they have finally caught up with this release. IBIS seems the most interesting feature, which if what they are saying pans out, is worth about 8 stops of stabilization. Also a newly designed sensor, be interesting to see the reports on that. Anyway, I'm good, not even a faint tickle at the back of my brain that maybe I could upgrade.

1. Canon are back in the game, great cameras and lenses in the RF system.

2. Watch out for the future R1, the 1D series equivalent.

Started looking through your crowd-funded comments out of curiosity, then I saw Kaemu‘a post. I don’t know this person’s criteria for being deemed worthy, but as a Nikon DSLR shooter, I’m always willing to put my hand up to help ease the burden of someone else’s gear ;)

I was surprised by Ken Tanaka's comments about Canon and Sony color science for still photography. Presuming he shoots raw, my understanding is that the color science is supplied by the raw converter when a curve is applied to the raw file. Don't like the colors? Use a different conversion profile. Perhaps Ken could elaborate on how color science is related to the camera manufacturer when processing raw still files.

Way too expensive...

I remember when I was (a lot) younger, and both my brother and me bought a Canon A1 each - he with the 50mm/1.8, I got the 1/1.4 version. These were slightly above 1,000DM (German Mark), so even when you translate that 1:1 by now, 1k€ (or 1k$) would be a good price for a 24x36mm enthusiast camera, affordable by those would would want one (me for instance, in that case).

But no - now you get older Sony or lesser Canon cameras for that amount of money, and I'm not sure if AF and all these modern inventions really helped the case - look at today's 70-200mm monsters compared to the non-AF ones we had in earlier times.

Photography is no fun anymore, and when my Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mk2 will die one day, I'll go back to using the OM-2n instead. Still buying fim from time to time, so I hope that won't die before me...

45MP? Yeah. Sure. For whoever thinks (s)he needs it. For a bigger print I'd love to have a 6x6...

Someone mentioned Nikon doing a Digital SP. I’ve been wondering that for a long time. The SP is one of those cameras that still makes hearts flutter.
I think time fo that is past though. I did think that’s what the Df should have been. It had a great sensor.
Probably too big a risk to do a niche product, and because video features don’t really add to the cost, and every time a camera comes out without a feature there is a significant contingent that complains loudly.
So every camera seems to “need” every feature.
That is not universally true but close.
The stakes are too high , camera companies feel they have to swing for the seats every time. That is usually not the way you win.
I like to think that If I were Nikon I’d be very tempted to try something like an SP ( I say the not really knowing development costs or what else might not get built in order to do it.)so it is probably just nostalgic dreaming.
Something like an SP would probably have to be APS-c to be true to size for body & lenses, and that probably limits selling price.
The reality is that ship has probably sailed.
Fun to think about.
The reality probably is that Canon has done the right thing here.

The announced telephoto caught my attention with its fixed aperture of f11 and price under $800. With today’s high ISO cameras, less need for paying for a fast telephoto that for the Canon 800mm was over $12,000 and weighed a lot. If you like bird photos or moon photos this new 800mm would be a great solution.

I sold my entire Canon kit (EOS 1DsMkII + L lenses) when I purchased my Fuji X100T. Now I am content with my XPro2 and 100F. I don't need more pixels, and I love the fuji ergonomics, size, and image quality.

Interested in getting the R6 to replace my 2013 6D. Have to try one out first and it will really depend on what they price them at for Australia. I'm not an early adopter so prepared to wait for the price to drop.

Compared to my Pentax K1 II, the Canon R5's adjustment dials are in the wrong places. Pentax has them where your hands naturally fall.

IBIS? Finally?

Two different storage cards? Just use SD cards like everybody else.

No pentaprism for that price? No thanks.

Pentax may have come late to the party, but they sure worked on the interface to make it easy to use.

While I am a Canon shooter, I won't be picking either of these two up. I bought the EOS R when it was on special back in December. I paid maybe $100 more than I paid for my original 5D 12 years ago, which seems pretty good to me. I'm happy with it. I don't need 45MP and I don't need 20 fps. The EOS R works for me.

I am happy to see Canon really trying to produce the best cameras that they can produce. At first glance, these two don't seem hobbled, as many of Canon's other releases have seemed. If they want to win market share, they've got to go to market with the best possible products. I think they're finally getting that.

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007