Another announcement cycle is out of the way, so what’s next from Canon for the EOS R system?

Avenger 2.0

EOS M6 Mark II
Jul 30, 2017
95
90
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Aug 9, 2018
2,020
2,444
With the R6 II and its sensor being not that exiting (compared to the price) it seems I'll lean back and hope for an EOS RP successor - even though that is not mentioned yet (or might never come with the APS-C bodies - as some say).
If I were you, I'd wait for the first reliable R 6II sensor reviews. There might be a surprise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,400
1,754
UK
A "R5s" with a 90MP+ sensor would be nice, but only if there was an option to also shoot *uncropped* 45MP and 22MP RAWs.

Personally I'd much rather just have a R5 Mkii with a state-of-art 45MP-ish sensor, a new more powerful processor, a higher-res EVF with zero lag, and with the lockups and freezes of the original R5 fixed. Oh, and *don't* change any of the dials or buttons PLEASE!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
I don't see how that would be significantly different from the existing, already small RF 16mm f/2.8.
The RF 16mm has heavy vignette and distortion. I would like to see a 15, 16 or 17mm f/2 or faster without the heavy vignette and distortion. Yes, it would be heavier and more expensive, but much more interesting to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
D

Deleted member 381342

Guest
Agreed a RF 300 2.8 is due. Personally would rather see if without a 1.4x. Without a TC, the RF 300 2.8 should be light enough to hand hold for a reasonable duration. Plus if I have enough light for f4 I'd use the 200-400. It's a little shorter than a 300x1.4 but gives me more composition options. Sadly an RF 200-400 f4 hasn't been talked about anywhere I've looked. The decade old 200-400 design is due for an upgrade. And why not dream big, how about a 120-300 f2.8 (to match Sigma and Nikon's offerings) with the possibility of a TC.
The built in TC just fills in what would otherwise we a long empty stem. Since all the lenses with built in TCs are significantly lighter than the predecessors to date, what weight the TC is adding, isn’t the make or break on if you can hand hold it. The Nikon 400 f/2.8 TC is very hand holdable, but we are more likely to see a 120-300 f/2.8 and something like a 200-500 f/4.0 instead of the primes so you have no choice but to buy a £10,000+ lens that doesn’t eat sales from the 400 and 600.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,824
4,240
The Ozarks
I do not believe in a R successor, just makes no sense. Unless it's called that because of the missing IBIS, joystick, single card slot and to make fun of us they include a new touch bar :LOL:
I read somewhere that the touch bar will be replaced with 6 dip switches. ;)
 
  • Haha
  • Wow
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

bbasiaga

Canon Shooter
Nov 15, 2011
592
747
USA
Agreed a RF 300 2.8 is due. Personally would rather see if without a 1.4x. Without a TC, the RF 300 2.8 should be light enough to hand hold for a reasonable duration. Plus if I have enough light for f4 I'd use the 200-400. It's a little shorter than a 300x1.4 but gives me more composition options. Sadly an RF 200-400 f4 hasn't been talked about anywhere I've looked. The decade old 200-400 design is due for an upgrade. And why not dream big, how about a 120-300 f2.8 (to match Sigma and Nikon's offerings) with the possibility of a TC.

The built in TC just fills in what would otherwise we a long empty stem. Since all the lenses with built in TCs are significantly lighter than the predecessors to date, what weight the TC is adding, isn’t the make or break on if you can hand hold it. The Nikon 400 f/2.8 TC is very hand holdable, but we are more likely to see a 120-300 f/2.8 and something like a 200-500 f/4.0 instead of the primes so you have no choice but to buy a £10,000+ lens that doesn’t eat sales from the 400 and 600.
Would love a 120-300 2.8 from canon. That one might even be less than $10k USD. I assume they'll push the 300 3.8 price point up to $8-9k, a TC version would be $12k (similar to the 400 2.8, or maybe just a bit less). Either way, it'll remain a dream only lens for me. I think the Sigma 120-300 2.8 last retialed for about $3500USD, so add a decade of inflation, plus some Canon improvements, and maybe $5-7k for that one from Canon? Also not really an option for me.

-Brian
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Bob Howland

EOS R
CR Pro
Mar 25, 2012
871
549
The RF 16mm has heavy vignette and distortion. I would like to see a 15, 16 or 17mm f/2 or faster without the heavy vignette and distortion. Yes, it would be heavier and more expensive, but much more interesting to me.
Also, the RF 16 f/2.8 is for a FF sensor and Sigma makes a 16 f/1.4 for 1.5X APS-C that is optically very good but a little large.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0