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.

[Tronhard]

The relationship between market structure, technology and economics have changed a lot since the early days.  Absolutely, a FF sensor costs more to produce, and that is why APS-C cameras are at a lower price point.  However, it is questionable that Canon would embark on the cost for development for a 1.3 factor crop sensor at this stage of a, now mature, market.

[shadowsports]

@BabesMagnet,

What AtticusLake and Waddizzle states is true.  No stills only cameras are coming.  You get fries with that burger.  You get video now, like it or not.  The R1 will have more that the R3's 24MP.  It might not be 85MP, But its going to cost an arm and a leg (with certainty).  We may get one more RF body similar to a 5DSR but when and how much is anyones guess.  I don't expect it would be under the R5's pricepoint. 

The R5 is a great camera for stills.  Just don't shoot video and it won't catch fire on you.  It will likely dip in price this christmas and even more if you go refurb. 

Frankly I cannot believe the price for the R5 C went up $300 after I got mine, but it did.    I think its a bit of a reach personally.  That's got to have pissed some people off.  If you have a working system, I'd wait until the end of year before doing anything.  

[Tronhard]

Price increased for almost everything seem to be standard across the board.  It's another fallout from the chaos wrought on production and logistics by COVID, and even climate change - this morning, I was reading how many factories are shutting down to save energy and water, as China suffers its worst heat wave on record.   There is some relief coming, but this kind of thing is going to be an issue for the future.  Over here, an R5 body only now costs about $6,700NZ - and that's what we earn, so there is no exchange rate to consider for u.

[AtticusLake]

I don't believe it is.  Like the article says, FF sensors were once very expensive, and APS-H was a compromise which allowed camera mfrs to get close to it.  Remember that back in the early days, there was a lot of thrashing about on sensor sizes -- no-one knew what the standards would turn out to be.  And it matters, because if you are making or buying lenses, you need to know what size image circle they should cover.

Nowadays, the standards have clearly settled to APS-C (and S-35) and FF.  APS-H is too close to both of them to be worth it.  It would be like printing a $4 bill.

[AtticusLake]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

Recording video is just another shooting mode that is implemented through firmware.

---

Having worked on the video pipelines for a number of tablet products, I can tell you that it's way more complex than that.  Dealing with video -- whether it's rotating or scaling, or colour balancing, or whatever it may be -- you're handling a colossal amount of data in real time.  The live view on a camera is trivial by comparison, because the resolution is so low -- in fact I would guess that this is why the resolution is so low.  2.1 million "dots" -- as opposed to 45 million for the sensor.  Back when I was designing netbooks, looking at webcam, we could do a USB standard-def webcam in software, no bother.  But an HD webcam needed a dedicated hardware pipeline.

And of course in stills mode there's no H.264 or H.265 encoding.  You're not getting those without hardware support.

[Waddizzle]

Of course, it is way more complex than what is being spoken about here.  But, you are overlooking the simple fact as to why DSLRs were initially given the ability to record video in the first place.  

DSLRs were initially given the ability to record video because all of the basic hardware necessary to record video was already present in the camera.

[Waddizzle]

---

@deebatman316 wrote:

Also DSLR live view and an EVF on mirrorless cameras. You can't forget about that especially on mirrorless cameras. DSLRs and mirrorless cameras alike require video circuitry to allow the rear LCD screen and the EVF to work. You won't be able to use the EVF or rear LCD screen on a mirrorless camera and live view on a DSLR wouldn't work either. 

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

---

Live View.  That is whole point of what I am saying.  Once camera manufacturer’s added the capability for Live View shooting, all of the hardware needed to record video was already in the cameras.

[rs-eos]

The usage of "dots" is strange.  I wonder if manufacturers were trying to trick people into thinking they were getting high res displays.  The resolution is indeed low.  Even the EOS C70's display not being "full" HD.