Will Canon ever produce a "beautiful" classic looking R camera?

They probably could, may not be on the rumor horizon. I'd expect they don't see it as a reasonable profit path. If this is a recreational interest for you, which is fine, try a Fuji or the Zfc. Why not? There are somethings with using different systems, learning two sets of operations, duplicating capabilities, maybe different cards, different batteries, etc., that might be a bit of an annoyance. But even some tool users use multiple systems.

RDKirk said:

BackToNature1 said:

Instead of just kind of looking like one.

Click to expand...

Lack of lens flexibility. Canon didn't abandon its rangefinder line for nothing.

People are already complaining about the Canon locking down the rf-mount.

Click to expand...

Don't really see how folks whom have no desire to ever buy Canon have anything to do with them making a Real Rangefinder Camera. Just do it Canon.

I think you are probably looking for a Leica, mate. Or is the price a bit too much for a fashion statement?

Just read the snatch and grab tales in the News section.

Let the pretty boys run around with their fancy cameras, and maybe the snatch and grab crowd will leave us ordinary ugly folk alone.

chipman said:

Just read the snatch and grab tales in the News section.

Let the pretty boys run around with their fancy cameras, and maybe the snatch and grab crowd will leave us ordinary ugly folk alone.

Click to expand...

Thieves love Canon too.

https://www.lightstalking.com/photo...-camera-attacked-and-robbed-on-christmas-day/

charisgratia said:

chipman said:

Just read the snatch and grab tales in the News section.

Let the pretty boys run around with their fancy cameras, and maybe the snatch and grab crowd will leave us ordinary ugly folk alone.

Click to expand...

Thieves love Canon too.

https://www.lightstalking.com/photo...-camera-attacked-and-robbed-on-christmas-day/

Click to expand...

Ouch! I don't care what brand it is, no camera, or anything else, is worth this -

The victim attempted to hold on to the suspect vehicle and was dragged for several blocks.

PAntunes said:

If you had to choose between a beautiful photo of you, or a bad photo of you, what would you choose to represent you? Both have the same function. Both are photos of you…

Would you care about what other people think?

Click to expand...

Unless those "other people" are paying me to do a job or use specific equipment that they want me to use, I couldn't care less what they think of me or how I look.

I have a R5 with the 2.8 zoom trinity and I love it. The image quality is spectacular.

But I also bought a Fuji X-T1 with a manual lens to play around.

I would 100% buy a retro styled RF body particularly if they would also make a matching lens. All they have to do is pretty much copy fujifilm.

Maybe for some people this is stupid but there is clearly a market for this (maybe the market is not big enough for canon).

davidbindle said:

Jonathan Thill said:

CameraCarl said:

My camera is a tool; not a fashion statement. And I think Canon cameras look just fine. After all, I'm looking through them -- not at them.

Click to expand...

Could not agree more.

Click to expand...

I get it. I've been using Canon cameras as my "tools" since film days with A2e and then to D-series digitals and now R series. Are beauty and functionality mutually exclusive? 100V and Leica owners often speak of the "inspirational" aspect of picking up the camera that is fun. I've shot lots professionally, but now, I mostly shoot for fun. I still think there is room for beautiful tools that you want to pick up and use. There is nothing wrong with beautifully crafted tools. I'm not talking about a fashion statement.

Can a camera not also be a thing of beauty?

I still think there's room for both.

Click to expand...

Or you can have both?

I have an R5. But at one point I started not taking it out as often, particularly when going on vacation. The idea of having a combo worth at least $5k with me made me constantly cautious. I also just didn’t like the attention it can draw.

So I finally decided to see what the fuss was about and bought myself an XT-4 with a single prime. Do I like the experience? Does it inspire me to shot? Does it do all those things you seem to crave? Yes… to a certain extent.

However, I am not sure that it would make sense for canon to go the fuji way. Canon’s bodies (IMO) provide a better all around experience than the fuji does. At least that is my impression using the R5 as comparison. The control ring on the lens, along with the front and rear dials just gives me the exposure triangle in one go, with the command dial being EC. The XT-4 + lens combo is actually quite heavy. Not particularly in a bad way, but a if you have full metal lens and camera bodies it is gonna be heavier.

All I am saying is that canon came to this form factor because it is what works for everyone generally. Nikon tried to go the retro way with some of their bodies… I am assuming they didn’t sell as well as the more conventional ones.

PIOT said:

Jonathan Thill said:

CameraCarl said:

My camera is a tool; not a fashion statement. And I think Canon cameras look just fine. After all, I'm looking through them -- not at them.

Click to expand...

Could not agree more.

Click to expand...

If I spend $4000 on something I want this to look as good as possible
I think as a photographer i should really care about aesthetic, doesn't matter is a hammer or camera gear

And I think Canon R cameras dos not look like premium product

Click to expand...

I doubt that photojournalists, sports photographers, and such care what it looks like, as long as it does the job well. The R5 and R3 do a good job of that. And for that matter, "look like premium product" is in the eye of the beholder. Not everyone would agree that old-style film cameras represent the epitome of beauty.

From the 2021 market share numbers, Canon had 45.8% of the market, while everyone outside of the top 5 combined had 5.6%. Chasing some small part of that market isn't going to get Canon a whole lot more market share. Executing better in the professional market and the lower-end market, where $1000 is still steep, would give them more opportunity.

Now, I wouldn't mind one bit if the R7 had a third control dial, to allow setting ISO, shutter speed, and aperture separately, but that's function, not form.

PAntunes said:

The way you present yourself and the accessories you choose to wear/use are a way of expressing who you are as an individual. It's not childish, stupid or futile. You don't live a shallow life because you like to show who you are to the world. Considering that anyone that cares about how they look is shallow, childish or stupid, well, that is in fact stupid.
As you said, people like to look good in a photo. People look better in certain clothes, with certain accessories. I don't see how can you agree with that for a photo and disagree with that if the person walks out of the frame.

Click to expand...

And there's the rub. Is my camera a fashion accessory or a tool? To me, it's simply a tool.

There are some places where I would want a camera to look like a cheap beater or a toy. When we went to Mexico 20 some odd years ago, I bought an Olympus Stylus Epic so that walking around Mexico City I wouldn't draw attention to myself. That little toy-looking camera sported an excellent 28 f/2.8 lens, though. My wife called the store to order it, and she told me that the dealer laughed approvingly and said "finally, someone who wants the best point & shoot there is!". So I suppose in a way it did make a statement to people in the know. But that wasn't why I bought that cheap little gem.

M1k4 said:

I know that Canon won't make such a camera but this would be my dream camera basically:

- Fujifilm X100V looks (silver one especially is gorgeous camera)
- Canon EOS R5 internals (or whatever is their current top dog high res FF camera)
- 5D series film simulations (you could get 5D classic colors if you wanted)
- 35mm f 1.8 OR f 2 optically excellent lens (and 24, 28, 50 mm conversion lenses like Fuji X100 series has)
- Sony A7RV type rear screen (flip out and tilt)
- EVF 9.44M dot resolution
- excellent battery life
- a built-in 1TB SSD internal storage
- pixel shift function
- NO AA filter
- IBIS
- No video required at all

Would buy one even if it was $ 4000-5000+ / €

Click to expand...

That camera would be a lot more bulky than the X100V.

Didn't read the other replies but I'm 81 and could care less about having a "nice Looking" camera. I care much more about the results of the pix.

Kent

davidbindle said:

Is it just me? Canon is producing some technological wonders, but nothing that looks exceptionally beautiful that inspires me to pick it up and go shoot.

Could they seriously not produce something with chrome on it with some analog-style top dials?

Could they not produce a rangefinder "style" FF like Sony's A7C or Nikons Zfc or something based on the look of an old Canon film camera like an AE-1 or QL-GIII rangefinder... or their answer to the Fuji X100 V???

I think that if they would come up with the right "recipe" for a small, beautiful, analogue styled camera - packed with recent Canon technology - they would sell like hot-cakes.

Other opinions??

David

Click to expand...

The perception of beauty is very subjective, just as the old saying " beauty is in the eye of the beholder". in my own eyes, those range finder including Leica looks really ugly, and not to mention the lack of a good size real handgrip makes it a horrible camera to hold ergonomically. yes I owned a few of those before and will never buy one again. The two most beautiful camera in the market today in my own eyes is the Canon R3 and Nikon Z9, and i own one of them and patiently waiting for the rumor R1 if they don't get too creative and give me a body like a R7 and R8.

As the original poster of this whole thread - thank you. You have summed it up well.

I don't argue form over function - they should co-exist and maybe, just maybe - sometimes Canon's functions are very cluttered (I don't use even 1/4 of the menu's functions) but making a camera that tries to be everything at the cost of innovative aesthetics/function "might" be a winner for them.

What about an affordable Leica Mll or interchangeable lens Q-like camera using M lenses? Or X100V type - or as one user suggested - a Digital Canonet QL? People did love the Olympus PenF digital and that kept all the modern digital tech of the day - and many people loved the design aesthetic of that camera.

I get the workhorse tool argument - I used to be that guy - as I get older, I see room for a beautifully designed "tool" that isn't only about function. Maybe I'm just cheap and I'm jealous I'll probably never afford a Leica M11 with a 35 1.4 - or a Q. Even used x100V's are getting pricey because of demand.

Oh well... maybe I should've just kept this sentiment to myself... there will not be a consensus on my musing...

davidbindle said:

As the original poster of this whole thread - thank you. You have summed it up well.

I don't argue form over function - they should co-exist and maybe, just maybe - sometimes Canon's functions are very cluttered (I don't use even 1/4 of the menu's functions) but making a camera that tries to be everything at the cost of innovative aesthetics/function "might" be a winner for them.

What about an affordable Leica Mll or interchangeable lens Q-like camera using M lenses? Or X100V type - or as one user suggested - a Digital Canonet QL? People did love the Olympus PenF digital and that kept all the modern digital tech of the day - and many people loved the design aesthetic of that camera.

I get the workhorse tool argument - I used to be that guy - as I get older, I see room for a beautifully designed "tool" that isn't only about function. Maybe I'm just cheap and I'm jealous I'll probably never afford a Leica M11 with a 35 1.4 - or a Q. Even used x100V's are getting pricey because of demand.

Oh well... maybe I should've just kept this sentiment to myself... there will not be a consensus on my musing...

Click to expand...

It was an illuminating thread. I enjoyed reading the different replies. So, thanks for starting the conversation. I do think those more interested in a "workhorse tool" over aesthetics prefer Canon or Nikon. Those who crave a different experience probably tend to gravitate to other brands (e.g., Fuji, Leica...). Those who like a bit a variety may have more than one system. ;-)

davidbindle said:

Is it just me? Canon is producing some technological wonders, but nothing that looks exceptionally beautiful that inspires me to pick it up and go shoot.

Could they seriously not produce something with chrome on it with some analog-style top dials?

Could they not produce a rangefinder "style" FF like Sony's A7C or Nikons Zfc or something based on the look of an old Canon film camera like an AE-1 or QL-GIII rangefinder... or their answer to the Fuji X100 V???

I think that if they would come up with the right "recipe" for a small, beautiful, analogue styled camera - packed with recent Canon technology - they would sell like hot-cakes.

Other opinions??

David B

Click to expand...

Have you considered one of those silicone covers ? I think they are as much for looks, as they are to protect the camera from scratches….

davidbindle said:

Oh well... maybe I should've just kept this sentiment to myself... there will not be a consensus on my musing...

Click to expand...

There really doesn't have to be. Thank you for giving us all the opportunity to air our thought on the matter

I trust Canon to gift us with an alternative to the A7c .. with better ergonomics



Question is .. when ..