Does Canon R8 belong on "most significant cameras" list?

[MAC]

I think it does

This is the first camera at this price point and weight category to have such advanced features. It's one of the cheapest current full frame cameras, yet the AF, video capability and image quality have not been nerfed over the premium Canon models in any way. Sony and Nikon have no answer to the R8.

I think Canon are adopting the video games console pricing model, where little or no profit is made on the games console itself, but a lot of profit is made on the games. This would explain why Canon are threatening to sue third party lens manufacturers to prevent them from producing RF lenses, and would also explain why

Canon RF lenses are so much more expensive than Sony or Nikon equivalents.

no they are not .. Nikon's cheapest FF UWA zoom 900GBP Canon 600 Nikon's cheapest 85mm 790GBP Canon 590, Nikon 24mmF1.8 950GBP Canon 715, Nikon cheapest 50mm 550GBP, Canon 190 Nikon cheapest 35mm 840GBP canon 500, canon has the cheapest 24-105 standard zoom other cheap lenses that are unique to canon is the 100-400 16mm 600/800 F11

the list of lenses above will cover most cases for the buyer on a budget wich you will be if considering the R8

folk buying the cheapest FF body will mainly be looking at the cheapest lenses ..canon has you covered, yes some Canon lenses are more expensive but the idea Canon is selling cheap body to sell expensive lenses doesn't float when Canon clearly has a range of the cheapest lenses

Why does the R8 lack IBIS?

to diffaranchat it from the R6ii

Because Canon can then charge more for IS lenses

no most of Canon's cheaper lenses have IS

while charging less for the body, and the body is usually the thing that gets people into a camera system in the first place.

Precisely. It's amazing that people still spout this nonsense about Canon's lenses being so expensive, when the details about prices are readily available to anyone. It's almost as if people have a narrative they want to push, and simply ignore all the (abundant) evidence to the contrary (who ever heard of anyone doing that, eh?). And before someone chimes in to say that the cheap Canon lenses aren't any good, that's also nonsense. I own the 16, 35, 50, 85, and 100-400. They range from very good to excellent.

That and Canon does on sale price marking down more than once a year on so many items.

Who pays retail ?

exactly

one must time their purchases

I paid $899 for my RF 24-105 F4 IS L - 3.5 years ago - black friday

some good deals on RF last black friday also

 

[MAC]

I think it does

it is a generational camera - I pre-ordered

This is the first camera at this price point and weight category to have such advanced features. It's one of the cheapest current full frame cameras, yet the AF, video capability and image quality have not been nerfed over the premium Canon models in any way. Sony and Nikon have no answer to the R8.

true

I think Canon are adopting the video games console pricing model, where little or no profit is made on the games console itself, but a lot of profit is made on the games. This would explain why Canon are threatening to sue third party lens manufacturers to prevent them from producing RF lenses, and would also explain why Canon RF lenses are so much more expensive than Sony or Nikon equivalents.Why does the R8 lack IBIS? Because Canon can then charge more for IS lenses while charging less for the body, and the body is usually the thing that gets people into a camera system in the first place.

no, it is market segmentation with their R6II

give RF lens development time

with all the digital firmware updates, lens and body, third party ain't something I want to wrestle with ... If you are patient, and time your purchases, you will be rewarded

 

[jwilliams]

folk buying the cheapest FF body will mainly be looking at the cheapest lenses

I'm going to buy one soon. Main lenses used will be RF 14-35 4 L, 24-105 4 L, 70-200 4 L & 50 1.2 L.

MaybeI 'm just abnormal.

You also might want to consider that someone shooting a R5 with bag full of L lenses might want a lightweight body for occasional use and/or backup.

$2300 saved buying a R8 instead of another R5. Not a trivial amount of money even for those whop spend big bucks on photo gear.

--
Jonathan

 

[by DMP]

Canon 100-500 £2980 - Sony 200-600 £1600

Canon 70-200 f4 £1714 - Sony 70-200 f4 £1095

Canon 70-200 f2.8 £3059 - Sony 70-200 f2.8 £2599 - Nikon 70-200 f2.8 £2599

Canon 24-70 f2.8 £2629 - Sony 24-70 f2.8 II £2099 - Nikon 24-70 f2.8 £2299

Canon 24-105 f4 £1389 - Sony 24-105 f4 £999 - Nikon 24-120 f4 £1149

Canon 15-35 f2.8 £2389 - Sony 16-35 f2.8 £1999

And I haven't even covered Canon's super tele lenses which are basically just old EF lenses with adapters and teleconverters built in.

I don't know why UK prices show so much disparity here but if you compare pricing between these lenses in other markets, you'll find they're much closer.

 

[Canon_Guy]

folk buying the cheapest FF body will mainly be looking at the cheapest lenses

I'm going to buy one soon. Main lenses used will be RF 14-35 4 L, 24-105 4 L, 70-200 4 L & 50 1.2 L.

MaybeI 'm just abnormal.

You also might want to consider that someone shooting a R5 with bag full of L lenses might want a lightweight body for occasional use and/or backup.

$2300 saved buying a R8 instead of another R5. Not a trivial amount of money even for those whop spend big bucks on photo gear.

+1

Davev8's assumption might be valid for some but i really doubt majority of R8 owners will be happy from killing the great sensor and AF system by mediocre lenses.

BTW I was using EF 70-200/2.8 II on a 30D...

 

[VanDyck]

The small size but high performance features of the R8 offers two options

1. light weight body coupled with light weight low cost RF lens for travel or walk around

2. high quality L lenses to complement the performance features of the R8.

1. and 2. are not mutually exclusive for R8 owners.

At the moment, I have two EF L lenses, an EF-R adapter, and a RF 100-400.

Over time, I may seek out used EF L lenses to stay within budget. RF L lenses would be considered if I could justify the expense. Without doubt, I'll add the RF 16 F/2.8, the nifty fifty F/1.8, and the 24-105 STM for light weight walk around shooting. An RF 800 is on my, no pun intended, long range priority list.

 

[Leigh A]

Significant:

'compelling, important, momentous, powerful, serious, symbolic, big, consequential, considerable, meaningful, notable, noteworthy, substantial, vital, cogent, convincing, denoting, eloquent, expressing, expressive."

EOS R8: I don't think so,---- except, perhaps to those who own one. :-D

 

[zorgon]

I'm going for the R8, 35 1.8 and 70-200 f4. I want a lightweight, minimalist travel setup, but still want good quality images. I even considered getting just the 24-70 2.8, but I needed more reach for zoos and wildlife parks, so went for a 2 lens setup instead.

In the past, I've ended up accumulating heavy and expensive gear that I end up leaving at home most of the time.

 

[zorgon]

Canon RF lenses are so much more expensive than Sony or Nikon equivalents.

no they are not .. Nikon's cheapest FF UWA zoom 900GBP Canon 600 Nikon's cheapest 85mm 790GBP Canon 590, Nikon 24mmF1.8 950GBP Canon 715, Nikon cheapest 50mm 550GBP, Canon 190 Nikon cheapest 35mm 840GBP canon 500, canon has the cheapest 24-105 standard zoom other cheap lenses that are unique to canon is the 100-400 16mm 600/800 F11

None of those lenses are equivalent. You're comparing Nikon S lenses with Canon non-L lenses.

 

[Sittatunga]

Canon 100-500 £2980 - Sony 200-600 £1600

Canon 70-200 f4 £1714 - Sony 70-200 f4 £1095

Canon 70-200 f2.8 £3059 - Sony 70-200 f2.8 £2599 - Nikon 70-200 f2.8 £2599

Canon 24-70 f2.8 £2629 - Sony 24-70 f2.8 II £2099 - Nikon 24-70 f2.8 £2299

Canon 24-105 f4 £1389 - Sony 24-105 f4 £999 - Nikon 24-120 f4 £1149

Canon 15-35 f2.8 £2389 - Sony 16-35 f2.8 £1999

And I haven't even covered Canon's super tele lenses which are basically just old EF lenses with adapters and teleconverters built in.

I don't know why UK prices show so much disparity here but if you compare pricing between these lenses in other markets, you'll find they're much closer.

I just checked the price of the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 with my local camera shop and today it's £2729 less a £300 cashback if you bought an RF mount body in the last six months.

 

[Sittatunga]

It is a shame that after FIVE YEARS of releasing RF lenses, Canon gives R camera owners TWO choices for a RF 50mm lens. One costs $180 and the other costs $2,300. Anyone that says this is good enough is just ignoring the reality of Canon's lack of meeting the RF lens need of its overall user base. The same can be said of many other focal lengths and zoom ranges. After five years, there is no excuse for not having a RF 50mm f/1.4 lens at a $1k price point as well as, many other lenses.

It took over 6 years from the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 to the EF 50mm f/1.4. In 1989 that they had a ¥358,700 ($6500 in today's money) 50mm f/1.0 and a ¥21,000 ($380 in today's money) 50mm f/1.8. The big difference is that it didn't take 2½ years for the fast RF lens to come out.

 

[MikeJ9116]

It is a shame that after FIVE YEARS of releasing RF lenses, Canon gives R camera owners TWO choices for a RF 50mm lens. One costs $180 and the other costs $2,300. Anyone that says this is good enough is just ignoring the reality of Canon's lack of meeting the RF lens need of its overall user base. The same can be said of many other focal lengths and zoom ranges. After five years, there is no excuse for not having a RF 50mm f/1.4 lens at a $1k price point as well as, many other lenses.

It took over 6 years from the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 to the EF 50mm f/1.4. In 1989 that they had a ¥358,700 ($6500 in today's money) 50mm f/1.0 and a ¥21,000 ($380 in today's money) 50mm f/1.8. The big difference is that it didn't take 2½ years for the fast RF lens to come out.

I understand what you are saying. However, what Canon did decades ago has little to do with today's dynamics in the photography market. The ILC market segment is quickly shrinking at best and dying off at worst. A medium tier 50mm lens is a staple in any lens catalog these days and the only reason I can figure why Canon hasn't provided one is for pure profit reasons. They could R&D this lens in their sleep and make a good bit of money from it while satisfying their user base by a large amount. Instead they are going for maximum short term profits. Canon does this a lot where other brands do not. Right now, Canon users are completely at the mercy of Canon's bean counters regarding the RF lenses made available. The bean counters only care about maximizing profits even if it is to the detriment of what the vast majority of their user base desires.

 

[davev8]

folk buying the cheapest FF body will mainly be looking at the cheapest lenses

I'm going to buy one soon. Main lenses used will be RF 14-35 4 L, 24-105 4 L, 70-200 4 L & 50 1.2 L.

MaybeI 'm just abnormal.

You also might want to consider that someone shooting a R5 with bag full of L lenses might want a lightweight body for occasional use and/or backup.

$2300 saved buying a R8 instead of another R5. Not a trivial amount of money even for those whop spend big bucks on photo gear.

+1

Davev8's assumption might be valid for some but i really doubt majority of R8 owners will be happy from killing the great sensor and AF system by mediocre lenses.

BTW I was using EF 70-200/2.8 II on a 30D...

my 1st L glass was a17-35F2.8 on a 20D..but a 20/30D was a magnesium body semi-pro enthusiast body..the xxD range was derated at the 60D to make space for the 7D

well i think the majority on DPR may use better glass but that's the minority of R8 users in real life ,,, canon makes a lot of cheap FF glass.. somebody must be putting all this cheap glass on a Canon body ..that body is most; likely be the cheapest FF body

..the24-105 STM was offered on the R6 as a kit ..in fact, i buy this kit as it was only 125GBP more than the body only, and as they were making the best part of 300 at the time on the bay, i think i will make a bit of cash ..but it turns out the lens was not as bad as folk say in fact optically its about as good as the EF24-105F4 and the RF24-105

 

[davev8]

I'm going for the R8, 35 1.8 and 70-200 f4. I want a lightweight, minimalist travel setup, but still want good quality images. I even considered getting just the 24-70 2.8, but I needed more reach for zoos and wildlife parks, so went for a 2 lens setup instead.

In the past, I've ended up accumulating heavy and expensive gear that I end up leaving at home most of the time.

well at least you leave it at home......i tend to take it with me and still end up not using it

 

[davev8]

Canon RF lenses are so much more expensive than Sony or Nikon equivalents.

no they are not .. Nikon's cheapest FF UWA zoom 900GBP Canon 600 Nikon's cheapest 85mm 790GBP Canon 590, Nikon 24mmF1.8 950GBP Canon 715, Nikon cheapest 50mm 550GBP, Canon 190 Nikon cheapest 35mm 840GBP canon 500, canon has the cheapest 24-105 standard zoom other cheap lenses that are unique to canon is the 100-400 16mm 600/800 F11

None of those lenses are equivalent. You're comparing Nikon S lenses with Canon non-L lenses.

i am comparing Nikons cheapest lenses with Canon's cheapest lenses

 

[MyReality]

Wise choices. I am looking at doing the same thing, but I am going to add the 50mm f1.8 for portraits.

 

[thunder storm]

I think it does

This is the first camera at this price point and weight category to have such advanced features. It's one of the cheapest current full frame cameras, yet the AF, video capability and image quality have not been nerfed

Well, it's 24Mp only. That's not a dealbreaker, IQ is more than Mp-count, and it can be easily enough for a lot of customers, but at the same time it's not a meaningless metric when talking about IQ.

over the premium Canon models

R5 is 45Mp

in any way. Sony

A7IV is 32Mp

R8 = 1820 euro. I've payed 2450 for my A7IV. That's more, however, 32Mp + IBIS, and eye recognition is a bit smarter than my R5.

and Nikon have no answer to the R8.

I think Canon are adopting the video games console pricing model, where little or no profit is made on the games console itself, but a lot of profit is made on the games. This would explain why Canon are threatening to sue third party lens manufacturers to prevent them from producing RF lenses, and would also explain why Canon RF lenses are so much more expensive than Sony or Nikon equivalents.

Yes, that's the case. The RF stm primes are teasers for good IQ, but if you want to pair that good IQ to fast AF + a not pretty dark aperture you will have to pay for expensive L USM zooms.

Why does the R8 lack IBIS? Because Canon can then charge more for IS lenses while charging less for the body, and the body is usually the thing that gets people into a camera system in the first place.

I love to be critical on Canon, however, on this one, to be fair, Canon is putting IS in all the budget zooms and all the stm primes except for the 50mm f/1.8 and 16mm f/2.8. 16mm is so wide it doesn't need stabilization that much, so only if you desperately need a stabilized 50mm it's a downside. IMO that's a small price to pay to get a more compact and more affordable (and maybe more durable) body.

 

[Canon_Guy]

folk buying the cheapest FF body will mainly be looking at the cheapest lenses

I'm going to buy one soon. Main lenses used will be RF 14-35 4 L, 24-105 4 L, 70-200 4 L & 50 1.2 L.

MaybeI 'm just abnormal.

You also might want to consider that someone shooting a R5 with bag full of L lenses might want a lightweight body for occasional use and/or backup.

$2300 saved buying a R8 instead of another R5. Not a trivial amount of money even for those whop spend big bucks on photo gear.

+1

Davev8's assumption might be valid for some but i really doubt majority of R8 owners will be happy from killing the great sensor and AF system by mediocre lenses.

BTW I was using EF 70-200/2.8 II on a 30D...

my 1st L glass was a17-35F2.8 on a 20D..but a 20/30D was a magnesium body semi-pro enthusiast body..the xxD range was derated at the 60D to make space for the 7D

My point here was a bit diferrent: 30D was way underspec'd with its resolution, AF performance, image circle... Lens was cleraly far more capable than the body. But it worked and gave me lots of nice pictures.

R8 has great sensor with capable resolution and excellent class leading AF. Good RF L glasses will shine with their performance on R8.

well i think the majority on DPR may use better glass but that's the minority of R8 users in real life ,,, canon makes a lot of cheap FF glass.. somebody must be putting all this cheap glass on a Canon body ..that body is most; likely be the cheapest FF body

Same as owners of RF-S bodies who have strictly limted choice of RF-S lenses.

..the24-105 STM was offered on the R6 as a kit ..in fact, i buy this kit as it was only 125GBP more than the body only, and as they were making the best part of 300 at the time on the bay, i think i will make a bit of cash ..but it turns out the lens was not as bad as folk say in fact optically its about as good as the EF24-105F4 and the RF24-105

Well sharpness is only a bit worse on 24-105STM than on 24-105L but the STM vignetts notably more, has much slower AF, no weather sealing, f/7.1@105mm is really dim and the build is even worse than 24-105L. So the price difference has its clearly notable reasons.

 

[m100]

I think it does

This is the first camera at this price point and weight category to have such advanced features. It's one of the cheapest current full frame cameras, yet the AF, video capability and image quality have not been nerfed over the premium Canon models in any way. Sony and Nikon have no answer to the R8.

I think Canon are adopting the video games console pricing model, where little or no profit is made on the games console itself, but a lot of profit is made on the games. This would explain why Canon are threatening to sue third party lens manufacturers to prevent them from producing RF lenses, and would also explain why Canon RF lenses are so much more expensive than Sony or Nikon equivalents.

Why does the R8 lack IBIS? Because Canon can then charge more for IS lenses while charging less for the body, and the body is usually the thing that gets people into a camera system in the first place.

It is #1 on my list. They are making one for me and I do not mind using an adapter at all !

 

[Gjames]

If only it had IBIS