Canon EOS R Series Cameras

Yeah I know they know the market better than myself, but I can't help think that there'd be plenty enough folk that would appreciate a stills only line, especially if they were 2/3 price for example. A Stills only R5 at £3k would be much more appealing and affordable than the 'hybrid' R5. Likewise my A7RIV, I gladly sacrifice the video if the camera was £500 or so cheaper.

I would say the hybrid market is exceeding the stills only market by a large margin these days so theres not much incentive for a manufacturer to make 2 models of the same camera. There are models for every budget and its not in their interest to pay the R&D for video on say an A7mkiv then just deactivate it in the same camera and sell it cheaper as stills only when the manufacturing cost is still the same. You would gladly sacrifice the video at a lower pricepoint but it didnt stop you from buying the camera anyway and thats probably how they see it.
 
No, but as a stills tog you're still paying for features you don't need :(
There’s not a lot though.

When they added live view to dslr’s, they’d instantly added the ability to capture video too. Arguably the R5 could make do with a slightly slower processor for stills only, and no mic socket, but other than that video comes as a freebie.
 
Yeah I know they know the market better than myself, but I can't help think that there'd be plenty enough folk that would appreciate a stills only line, especially if they were 2/3 price for example. A Stills only R5 at £3k would be much more appealing and affordable than the 'hybrid' R5. Likewise my A7RIV, I gladly sacrifice the video if the camera was £500 or so cheaper.
Where’s the £500 saving coming from?
 
There’s not a lot though.

When they added live view to dslr’s, they’d instantly added the ability to capture video too. Arguably the R5 could make do with a slightly slower processor for stills only, and no mic socket, but other than that video comes as a freebie.
Fair enough, I don't profess to know what costs what, I just hear all these fancy terms like 8k, C-log etc etc and think that it must add cost :) What about R&D, does this not increase the cost of a product?
 
What would they be able to throw away?
8k video. Heck even 4k video. Remove the headphone jack and mic jack and accommodate two cf express card slots.

Tweak the sensor to be no more than 30 mp like the 5d4 and you got yourself a 2.5k stills only camera vs almost double that with the video stuff on the r5. You could even have a smaller lighter body as it don't need a large heat sync and ventilation just for taking pics
 
Fair enough, I don't profess to know what costs what, I just hear all these fancy terms like 8k, C-log etc etc and think that it must add cost :) What about R&D, does this not increase the cost of a product?

Yes but the hybrid market is bigger and they are going to put the time and money into adding video to a model, why would they offer version A (with) & B (without) but remove a function they have ALREADY completed the R&D for when BOTH cost pretty much exactly the same to manufacture and they will sell fewer of version B. Might as well only sell model A, have a fairly simplified line up and recoup the R&D costs sooner then move onto the next big thing.
 
Last edited:
Yes but the hybrid market is bigger and they are going to put the time and money into adding video to a model, why would they offer version A (with) & B (without) but remove a function they have ALREADY completed the R&D for when BOTH cost pretty much exactly the same to manufacture and they will sell fewer of version B. Might as well only sell model A, have a fairly simplified line up and recoup the R&D costs sooner then move onto the next big thing.
Meh, that's no good for me ;) :p
 
Last edited:
8k video. Heck even 4k video. Remove the headphone jack and mic jack and accommodate two cf express card slots.

Tweak the sensor to be no more than 30 mp like the 5d4 and you got yourself a 2.5k stills only camera vs almost double that with the video stuff on the r5. You could even have a smaller lighter body as it don't need a large heat sync and ventilation just for taking pics
But you’ve not removed the video, you’ve redesigned the camera.

It’s a 40mp+ stills camera. So the loss is the mic and headphone socket and possibly some processor speed (it’d take someone cleverer than you and me to calculate the stills processing requirement).
 
Video is not just a mere add-on anymore, it used to be the case. Pretty sure there'll be a whole seperate R&D dept dedicated to the video side nowadays, how much cost this adds well, none of knows let's be honest. But it certainly feels like these are more video cameras with 'stills' features [still detest that term/phrase] added on as a bonus. They seem to be catering/pandering more to the vloggers/youtubers than to photographers
 
There's not actually much hardware they'd have to change for a stills camera so the majority of the work is done in software no? The work they do in software can be reused elsewhere so it's unlikely to make a large difference to the end price.

Without more information directly from the manufacturer's we can't be certain but surely If they could make more money from a stills only camera you've got to assume they'd already be doing so.
 
Video is not just a mere add-on anymore, it used to be the case. Pretty sure there'll be a whole seperate R&D dept dedicated to the video side nowadays, how much cost this adds well, none of knows let's be honest. But it certainly feels like these are more video cameras with 'stills' features [still detest that term/phrase] added on as a bonus. They seem to be catering/pandering more to the vloggers/youtubers than to photographers
I think there's a bit of 'echo chamber' here Keith.

I see very little of that world; and whilst it makes up more of the marketing material nowadays than historically, it's certainly not the majority of it.
 
I think there's a bit of 'echo chamber' here Keith.

I see very little of that world; and whilst it makes up more of the marketing material nowadays than historically, it's certainly not the majority of it.

We can only guestimate, and/or opinionate, it's all any of us do here 99% of the time. But ... I'd be willing to put money on it that R&D for video features these days costs as much if not more than the photography side as a lot of it is new tech, new spec, more keepy--uppy and competitive. Watch pretty much any camera review lately and most of it is taken up with the video side. Personally I couldn't give a dang about video, I probably used it 4-5 times since I got the X-H1 last year and that was just because it was there and I may as well test it out. And it doesn't really matter to me I guess if the video side is inflating overall camera prices because I'll only ever buy within my very tight budget anyway. Just pondering really, I do think video is adding to the cost
 
Last edited:
We can only guestimate, and/or opinionate, it's all any of us do here 99% of the time. But ... I'd be willing to put money on it that R&D for video features these days costs as much if not more than the photography side as a lot of it is new tech, new spec, more keepy--uppy and competitive. Watch pretty much any camera review lately and most of it is taken up with the video side. Personally I couldn't give a dang about video, I probably used it 4-5 times since I got the X-H1 last year and that was just because it was there and I may as well test it out. And it doesn't really matter to me I guess if the video side is inflating overall camera prices because I'll only ever buy within my very tight budget anyway. Just pondering really, I do think video is adding to the cos
But it's largely software - as soon as we can see what's on the sensor - recording it is only a software function. Add in a mic socket, headphone socket and a 'different' video output (bearing in mind most digital cameras have some kind of video out from the beginning).

The only way to remove video completely is to dispense with live view - which makes mirrorless cameras pretty much unusable. :)

I'm not defending video - I'd happily live without live view (I was too old by the time it became a thing - don't see much point) - but most photographers have got used to using it a lot.

The other oft overlooked point is the absolute quality of the video from our cameras compared to consumer video cams. When video became available from stills cameras costing <£1k the choice for amateur videographers was £500 handycams with tiny sensors or £5k broadcast quality cams. It might have been an accident to start with - but this technology is remarkable and cheap, whether we're interested in it or not.

Whilst the BBC still can't afford to update their local stations with pro level 720p kit. Joe Bloggs can broadcast in 4k from his bedroom, that's absolutely nuts.
 
But it's largely software - as soon as we can see what's on the sensor - recording it is only a software function. Add in a mic socket, headphone socket and a 'different' video output (bearing in mind most digital cameras have some kind of video out from the beginning).

The only way to remove video completely is to dispense with live view - which makes mirrorless cameras pretty much unusable. :)

I'm not defending video - I'd happily live without live view (I was too old by the time it became a thing - don't see much point) - but most photographers have got used to using it a lot.

The other oft overlooked point is the absolute quality of the video from our cameras compared to consumer video cams. When video became available from stills cameras costing <£1k the choice for amateur videographers was £500 handycams with tiny sensors or £5k broadcast quality cams. It might have been an accident to start with - but this technology is remarkable and cheap, whether we're interested in it or not.

Whilst the BBC still can't afford to update their local stations with pro level 720p kit. Joe Bloggs can broadcast in 4k from his bedroom, that's absolutely nuts.

I would have thought that with better software comes better and pricier hardware but you're probably right. Maybe it wouldn't make much if any difference to pricing if they did no-video options of the same models. I still hate the way the average ML camera is promoted mostly as a 4K video machine though, and all of that is to blame for these flippy screens.
 
I never bother with video but I think I/we need to realise that "we" mostly or even exclusively stills shooters are probably the old fuddy duddies and younger people will probably see video as essential, and even some our age and over may too.
 
Didnt think it was as much as that, 410g difference.
Yep, and the Tamron is 200g lighter still. The difference in the real world is VERY noticeable.
 
Didnt think it was as much as that, 410g difference.

Theres a lot of plastic to it, which helps. But it's such a difference from carrying the EF version about.

Got some shots at my local teams pre season friendly today. Will post later.
 
I'm looking for a new landscapes/general use camera for my hiking trips. I use a 5dmk2 + 24-105 F4 and really, really need to replace it! Very tempted by the new R6, but do worry a little about size/weight. Are they out there to try yet?
 
I generally prefer IF but with a lens like that it must be nice to use a smaller bag and knock about half a kilo off the total weight. Same with the Tamron minus 20mm.

yeah sure would have been handy if it was delivered in time for my holiday. Theres a significant space gaining and weight reduction there. i guess time will tell if the materials used will last as well as those on the EF.

OH, and its a shame it doesn't come in black.
 
Back
Top