Mikica wrote:
Where does this chart with readout speeds come from? Regarding R3 readout speed something is not right there. If R3 can shoot with speed of 195 pictured per second (photos, not video) then the readout time must be shorter than 5.13 msec (1/195 = 0.00513) because the exposure time must also be squezed within these 5.13 msec. Did provider of this chart actually measure R3 readout speed for photos or 5,5 msec was just assumption based on specified flash sync speed which is 1/180 sec or 5,5 msec.
The mechanical shutter closes on turning off the R5, R6 etc and makes the curtain that keeps dust out of the body when changing lenses. So you don't have this dust prevention mechanism on the R10 and R50. At least you won't put a clumsy finger through it...
Al Goldis wrote:
In the Canon world, only on the R3. On other cameras like the R5, R6 and R7 (I don't know about the R8), Mechanical shutter syncs faster than EFCS.
On the R5 the flash synch speed is 1/200 in MS and 1/250 in EFCS. I am quite familliar with the setting and it is on page 175 of the English advanced user guide.
The R7 is similar, having up to 1/250 in MS and 1/320 in EFCS. The shutter distance traversed is 1/1.6x as far so it makes sense.
I think in one review (maybe the dpreview video) the reviewer says the shutter is very noisy, but not sure if that has anything to do with it being EFCS.
Phoblo is calling the R8 the R successor. Is it, or is it the RP successor? Given it's stuck in an RP body, I'd be more inclined to think the latter. So where would an R successor fit? There aren't many numbers left in the single digits. Just 9, 4, 2 and 1. Maybe when the R5II launches, they can release an R5-lite with ~30MP sensor in addition to whatever sensor upgrade will be installed in the R5II.
I think in one review (maybe the dpreview video) the reviewer says the shutter is very noisy, but not sure if that has anything to do with it being EFCS.
Shouldn't be because of EFCS, but rather the shutter mechanism Canon chose to meet their desired price point. Recall that the R7's shutter is also fairly loud compared to Canon's previous APS-C DSLRs and the R3, 5 and 6/6II. It's just one more small differentiator to nudge those on the fence to a higher tier camera.
rscheffler wrote:
Phoblo is calling the R8 the R successor. Is it, or is it the RP successor? Given it's stuck in an RP body, I'd be more inclined to think the latter. So where would an R successor fit? There aren't many numbers left in the single digits. Just 9, 4, 2 and 1. Maybe when the R5II launches, they can release an R5-lite with ~30MP sensor in addition to whatever sensor upgrade will be installed in the R5II.
IMO, the R8 is the successor to both the R and the RP. Regarding the R it is the successor regarding its internal components. Regarding the RP it is its successor regarding the body configuration and weight. I don't think there will be a lower model R FF camera than the R8 because Canon has run out of sensors to put in it. Also, the APS-C line has filled in the $1k and lower tier.
I would rather consider the R and RP as just no more and they have no successors. They were a stop gap to get people to see what canon could do with FF mirrorless and to introduce the RF lenses.
The R models afterwards are now designed to fit canons roadmap long term, and the R8 is just a lower cost R6II.
TeamSpeed wrote:
I would rather consider the R and RP as just no more and they have no successors. They were a stop gap to get people to see what canon could do with FF mirrorless and to introduce the RF lenses.
The R models afterwards are now designed to fit canons roadmap long term, and the R8 is just a lower cost R6II.
Yeah, it seems the R actually succeeded the 6D more so than the 5DIV (with which it shared a sensor).
So one could say it went
5DIV --> R5
6D --> R --> R6
RP --> R8
Of course its not a perfect analogy, since the R was really in between the 5 and 6 lines in some way, and the 6 line has taken a big leap forward in some ways. And the RP didn't really have an EF successor. One could equally say the R and RP merged in to the R8, and the 6D became the R6 and 5D became the R5. Either way, there has been some evolution and some in-breeding in the Canon family tree through this transition.
They say the R sensor is not the 5D4 sensor, but when I compared, they were pretty close in final results, so take that with a grain of salt. Canon always says that too, camera X with a sensor that appears to be identical to Y, still has a new sensor.
jedibrain wrote:
Yeah, it seems the R actually succeeded the 6D more so than the 5DIV (with which it shared a sensor).
So one could say it went
5DIV --> R5
6D --> R --> R6
RP --> R8
Of course its not a perfect analogy, since the R was really in between the 5 and 6 lines in some way, and the 6 line has taken a big leap forward in some ways. And the RP didn't really have an EF successor. One could equally say the R and RP merged in to the R8, and the 6D became the R6 and 5D became the R5. Either way, there has been some evolution and some in-breeding in the Canon family tree through this transition.
The R6 was really a less expensive and less pro version of the 1DX3, IMO, not really replacing the R either. I still think that the R and RP are on an island all their own, as Canon rushed those out (and stated as such) to introduce eye AF (which in the first iteration was not great until they did the firmware update) and the RF lenses. Not to belittle the R or RP, they were really good successes for Canon, so they did their homework, but I think these two were a blip in their overall roadmap. Just my opinion based on all things Canon folks stated in various interviews at the intro of these bodies, and some of the features or lack of, etc in those bodies.
I just look at those as market openers (dare I say working prototypes without fear of forum retribution?) to give Canon time to really develop their R line and to get more lenses to market. I think the R5 and R6 were really what Canon wanted to put out first, but they didn't have the luxury of time. I did have an R, so before anyone starts to go on a tirade, I do have experience with the R and 5D4 side by side for a good part of a year.
I always though of the R as targeted to gentleman amateurs, landscape, portraits and travel—a deluxe pro-sumer design. It certainly is not optimized for pros, BIF, sports or video. For most things I shoot—macro, small products and landscapes—the R has been wonderful. I own an R6 MK II and love it but it really has little to offer over the R for my subject matter. Well, except for its in-camera focus stacking. That justified the R6 MK II purchase for me. Most of my images are at ISO 100—even twilight shots—since I often use a tripod. The R6 does allow one to dig out shadows a bit more. However, for music videos, the R6 MK II knocks my socks off. R video is primitive in comparison.
TeamSpeed wrote:
I would rather consider the R and RP as just no more and they have no successors. They were a stop gap to get people to see what canon could do with FF mirrorless and to introduce the RF lenses.
The R models afterwards are now designed to fit canons roadmap long term, and the R8 is just a lower cost R6II.
Agreed. The purpose of the R was to demonstrate their high quality RF glass. The RP just made that glass accessible to more people.
Canon always says that too, camera X with a sensor that appears to be identical to Y, still has a new sensor.