• Log In
  • Sign Up
    • As a Canon user of some years, I have been patiently waiting for Canon's response. I do not claim to have an encyclopedic knowledge of Nikon's and Sony's systems but Canon's intial offering seems worth waiting for

      One of the interesting facts in the above video is that with an adapter an existing Canon 100-400 f4.5 ->f6.3 + a 2X Telextender WILL retain full autofocus capability with the Canon R body which can AF to a -6EV with the 50mm f1,2 lens at light levels so low it is very hard to see with the naked eye.

      The R body uses the same battery - the LP-E6N that the 5D MIV and the 7D Mk II both use. Not stated, but I am very hopeful, is that the R system will also be able to use the Canon radio controled speedlight system.

      The Canon R body is only the first - apparently Canon has several more on the way, more pro and more amateur targeted. The construction of the body and the weather sealing seem to be robust. It is larger than the Sony body, but smaller isn't always better, The new 28-70 F2.0 lens looks huge, but a way cool tool!

      The new lenses are expensive, but good glass has never been cheap and tends to hold its value over time. The ability of the new mirrorless R camera system to use all of the existing Canon glass is going to be a selling point as well

      Like the Nikon Z6 and Z7, the R body only has one card slot, so there's that to consider. But it does retain and expand on Canon's Dual Pixel focusing system which looks to be quite impressive in very low light.

      One factor may be that the sensor is only about 30 Mpxls, versus the significantly higher pixel counts of the Sony and the Nikon bodies. Maybe there is another R body coming with a higher pixel count; it is well known that Canon can do that.

      The lack of In Body Image stabilisation may deter aceptance of the Canon R - especially for video shooters. But Canon already has announced that this is just the first of 3 or 4 new bodies in the R system, so.......

      For myself, 30 really good Mpxls are more than enough for the images I want and make, and I'm really not a video shooter, ( although I guess I should be ) . Now to find the funds for a body and a lens and an adapter or two.

    • I think that the engineering of the camera and lenses is up-to scratch but it's not as easy an entry into the system as Nikon or Sony systems. You can pick up Sony and Nikon plus good lens for around £2500 the Canon sets you back around £3400 give or take, that's a big gap.

    • The Sony A III is significantly cheaper than the A IIIR and maybe is more comparable to the Canon R in terms of Mpxls in the sensors. I think Canon will have to have a camera with a 40-50 Mpxl sensor at some point; they have one of a sorts, in their 5D SR .

      I think the lack of IBIS will matter to a lot of folks also. It looks like it will be an interesting contest. The Canon R isnot cheap, but is not expensive compared to a 1DX Mk II. The glass is expensive, but so is Leica glass and they sell every lens they make.

    • Both the Nikon and the Canon new cameras are enough to keep the eyes of their current users on their chosen brand but will they attract the gaze of new users from Sony, can't see it myself and if your launching these new systems that's the challenge.

      I don't equate the Leica comparison as valid really as such an iconic brand can charge what they want to the well healed that use them while Canon doesn't have such a fan-base. All in all probably best for new users to wait for the mark 2 versions of both the new systems or still hop over to the more rounded Sony system, this applies to new entry user like myself only ofc as if you have 5-6K of glass already your gonna stick with what you know.

      Great to see the competition though.

    • I'll give it a closer look if/when it comes time to replace my 7D (mark 1 version). The 7D does what I want when I use it. I'm using it less these days unless I feel the need for my 70-200 or want to use automagic indoor bounce flash. The 7D may last a long time.

    • Nice write-up, Pathfinder. Interesting. In the video you linked, the Canon guy said this is the first of the R bodies and mid-level, not a replacement but maybe an addition to our bags.

      I can't help but feel disappointed by the camera. Watching Kai's video, he didn't seem to be able to hide his disappointment either. There are high points like the low-light autofocus but then there is no in body image stabilization like there is on the new Nikon Zs, Kai says you can shoot 8 frames per second but only 5 with autofocus.

      Two things caught my eye though that I thought were pretty cool. One is this adapter with the drop-in filter:

    • The other thing I really liked is the new 24-70 f/2 lens. I always have this struggle with myself when shooting a wedding or event: keep swapping primes to get a shallower depth of field and get caught out with the wrong focal length in a fast-shooting environment? Or settle for the 24-70 f/2.8 (I just did that for a wedding the other day).

      I understand the new 24-70 is a beast of a chunky lens and $3,000, but it's my kind of a beast. At a wedding, I actually like being the guy with the fattest equipment and I like creamy, dreamy shots with shallow depth of field.

    • It’s 28-70mm f2.0, so not 24mm wide but 40 years ago 28mm was thought a wide angle lens. The f2.0 with the image quality of a prime and the bokeh of f2.0 is very appealing.

      The R body seems pointed at event shooters, not landscapers, I think. I am interested to see what comes next.

      The R body apparently will utilize the EX speedlites with their radio control which I think will appeal to event shooters.

      I am interested to see if there will be an APS-C body in the mirror less line - smaller sensors and potentially smaller lenses

      I am interested in what comes next, and when it is announced. The work behind these new items has taken a few years to get ready.. Hopefully we won’t have to wait long

    • Oh, interesting that my mind did an autocomplete to 24mm. Hmmm. That's slightly a bummer, but I suppose 4mm isn't the end of the world. I'd rather have the f/2.0.

      I'm stuck in this neverland of owning some really epic Canon lenses: 200mm f/2, 200-400 f/4 (with the built-in doubler), 14mm, 85 f/1.2 — and yet I prefer my Nikon body even though I don't have all the great lenses for it.