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.

[AtticusLake]

There's a LOT of anti-R5 feelings out there.  Understandably, given that it was seriously mishandled at launch.  But if someone is asking for advice on a purchase, I prefer to stick to the facts on how well a camera would fit a person's needs today.  With that in mind:

• I'm curious to know what stills features are missing from the R5?  As a mainly video shooter, I may be missing something.
• When you say the R5 has overheating issues, do you mean in stills mode?  Because that's what we're talking about... right?

For video, it's still a fanless camera, and I don't know of any fanless camera that shoots 8k with no overheating issues.  However, I have tested it for 4 hours continuous with no overheat: https://moonblink.info/MudLake/gear/r516

[deebatman316]

No I'm talking about the R5 and R6 overheating in video mode. But the R5 and R6 (I've used the R5, R6, R and RP) they're all great cameras. I was just pointing that most camera manufactures hype up and put more emphasis on the video specs more than the stills specs. But it would be nice if Canon made speedlites with an AF Assist compatible with mirrorless cameras. Instead of pulsing the speedlite rapidly like the built in flash on an APS-C camera. It can be quite distracting. Well Canon only has 1 speedlite with and LED light (320EX) but it blinds your subject when the AF Assist Beam lights up in their face. 

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]

Just to be clear, I agree with Dee too.  No video means losing most of your business -- video is a huge deal these days.  That's why product managers are going to insist on it.

I really sympathise with people like the OP (not going to mention that name) who want a stills-only camera.  I think there is probably a real core of serious stills photographers who would feel the same.  But that's becoming a smaller and smaller niche nowadays.  And like I said, in a well-designed camera, the existence of video features shouldn't intrude into a stills workflow.

Economically, video is so prevalent that it is almost certainly cheaper to make one camera with it all (like the R5, or the R3) rather than make a separate stills-only camera -- that camera might technically be cheaper per unit, but given the development costs and the probably tiny market for it, it wouldn't be worth it.

[Waddizzle]

“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.”

I have to totally disagree with that reasoning.  A stills-only camera needs to rotate images, also.  Stills cameras contain video hardware to drive their rear screens.  All of the hardware is already present in a stills camera.  Recording video is just another shooting mode that is implemented through firmware.

[deebatman316]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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