Canon mirrorless camera suggestions

[Babemgnet]

I would like to see a Mirrorless camera, with 45MP, Face and eye focus tracking, manual shutter, no video at all for professional still photographers, and sports photographers.  Cut the cost. Maybe the R1?  If you want video an R1C?

As a news paper Photographer I don't use, need, or want video.  I do sports photography and would want a fast shutter speed, and face and eye tracking.  I own two 90D's and they're o.k. I also own a 5d Markii, great for still portraits but not for sports.  I still use my 40D, and D60 for fire scene photographs. The R3 would be nice, but, the cost is a bit much, and only 24MP.  Full frame all the bells and whistles for still work no video.  Thanks.

[deebatman316]

The R5 would be a good choice for Full Frame like the older 5D series. The R7 would be a good choice for sports but its and APS-C camera like the older 7D series. Or the cheaper R10 which is the successor to the 90D and xxD series.

40D, 5D IV, EF 16-35mm F/2.8L III, EF 24-70mm F/2.8L II, EF 28-135mm, EF 50 F/1.8 STM

[AtticusLake]

45MP, Face and eye focus tracking... sounds like you want an R5.

If you want a stills camera that has no video features at all, well, good luck, I don't think such a camera exists.  But with the R5, just leave it in photo mode, and there's no reason the video features will ever bother you.  Even the menus will just have the stills features.

Unless you really want a top-of-the-line camera at a bottom-of-the-line price, in which case, too bad -- no-one makes that camera.

(BTW, with Canon's naming, I believe the R1 will be their most expensive camera.  It doesn't sound like that's what you meant.  But if you did, it's rumoured to be coming in 2023, with 100 MP.)

[jrhoffman75]

I wonder how much having video capability really costs.

[deebatman316]

I wonder if Canon will ever bring back an APS-H like what was in several 1D series cameras.

40D, 5D IV, EF 16-35mm F/2.8L III, EF 24-70mm F/2.8L II, EF 28-135mm, EF 50 F/1.8 STM

[Tronhard]

I have a lot of sympathy for your point of view, as I too am a stills-only photographer. Given that a lot of the economics depend on volume, I doubt that Canon will make a stills-only body because that will limit their sales. 

Back in 2013, Nikon made the Df, a stills-only camera that was also a tribute to the original SLRs from the 1970-80 period. It was a brilliant camera (I still have, and shoot with two of them), using the flagship D4's FF processor that gave outstanding low light performance.  They got serious grief from people who didn't understand the real purpose of the camera, and moaned that it didn't have video. 

I realize you are not seeking a legacy-type interface, but it is telling that in releasing a similarly-themed MILC, in the form of the Zfc, Nikon did include video this time, and it has been a great seller - so it appears the interface was not the critical factor.

[Waddizzle]

Obviously, there is some cost involved in adding video capabilities.  But, the video features are mostly implemented through firmware.  All of the hardware is already present in a stills camera.  Designing a hybrid camera is almost a win-win for marketing and R&D..  

In fact, designing the hardware with video in mind has probably improved the stills features in most camera brands.  I have little doubt that the high speed frame rates available for still photography are a trickle down from developing hybrid hardware for both stills and video.

The biggest question in my mind is which came first, the chicken or the egg?  Stills or video?

[Tronhard]

"I wonder if Canon will ever bring back an APS-H like what was in several 1D series cameras"

I suspect that format is unlikely to find a significant market and with an already limited marketspace, I think they will concentrate on FF and APS-C formats - for a very limited market developing the tech for modern APS-H sensors etc. is unlikely to be economic.

[deebatman316]

Well FF is quite expensive even when Canon released the first 1D series. So I guess Canon's compromise was APS-H.

40D, 5D IV, EF 16-35mm F/2.8L III, EF 24-70mm F/2.8L II, EF 28-135mm, EF 50 F/1.8 STM

[AtticusLake]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

But, the video features are mostly implemented through firmware.  All of the hardware is already present in a stills camera.

---

No, adding video does in fact mean a lot of extra hardware.  Even in phones/tablets (my background) a simple thing like rotating video 90° needs a special processor.  H.264 & H.265 encoding will certainly use dedicated hardware.

I think the reason cameras have video is that the product managers feel it's a checkbox they have to tick in every product -- and not without reason.  Trevor's post about the Df and the Nikon Z's is on point for me.

And, I wonder how many people really only want stills.  On the R5, you can just hit that video button anytime something cool and dynamic happens in front of the camera.  I suspect many die-hard stills photographers will find that handy from time to time.