I can’t believe another year is almost over. It hardly seems like it was just a year ago that Craig and I were trashing the R100.
My list was almost the same as Craig’s, but I can’t just say, “Yeah, me too, bro,” and leave this at around 20 words, so I have to go off what Craig has already said a bit.
Hits of the Year
Canon slugged it out between the EOS R5 Mark II and the EOS R1 this year. Canon set the tone and probably forced Sony to release the A1 II, so they have a rational reason for the A1 being $2000 more than the R5 Mark II (even though there still isn’t a good reason).
I would have to choose the R1 simply as it closes off the lineup for the RF series with the release of the 1 series camera body that we have been waiting for. I know many people expected more of an A1 camera with higher megapixels. Still, Canon doesn’t operate like Sony – they look more at their users and who they wish to be interested in purchasing the camera. We were told that retailers struggled with fulfilling initial orders of the EOS R1, so it sounds like Canon made the right call.
Yes, the camera may not have everything you wish for, but you probably weren’t the target market. Get the second-best camera of the year, the R5 Mark II.
Canon also released the Canon RF 28-70mm f/2.8 IS STM lens, and while it was a bit more pricey than what people wanted, this lens hits the sweet spot for size, speed and affordability from an OEM brand. I hope this lens is well-received and Canon feels encouraged to do this with more of Canon’s F2.8 L lenses. This lens is nicely matched with the R8 and the smaller full-frame camera bodies, especially for a lightweight travel option that does not sacrifice speed for size and weight.
Another hit for Canon this year has little to do with Cameras and Lenses but one of their other business ventures. Canon’s FPA-1200NZ2C was officially shipped to TIE (Texas Institute for Electronics), a semiconductor consortium based in Texas, where it will further research into nanoimprinting lithography (NIL). Canon hopes that NIL will help reduce both power and water requirements and overall costs of semiconductor manufacturing in the future. They expect NIL to image down to 2nm geometries without using ASML’s equipment. This could be large for both Canon and the world as a whole.
The Misses of the Year
This section is a little tricky this year, but I can’t fault any of Canon’s releases. When it comes to camera gear and lenses, Canon nailed it this year and, I believe, hit a home run.
But one thing left me going, ” Huh? ” was the Canon RF-S 7.8mm F4 STM DUAL Fisheye for Apple Vision Pro. This may be a lens that, in the future, we look back on and say that Canon was playing 4D chess while everyone else was playing checkers, but as it stands right now, I don’t think that lens has impacted either sales or the camera market. It was a dud by any measure. We live in a time when almost every Canon product goes on backorder when it’s released, except for this lens. I don’t think that is coincidental.
That said, it’s not as bad as the EOS R100 that we had to pick apart last year. The bar was set pretty low with the EOS R100 in 2023, and Canon managed not to go under that. Well done, Canon.
However, perhaps Canon’s biggest mistake in 2024 will be rectified in 2025. Canon’s biggest mistake is not releasing a small-form-factor camera like a Lumix S9 or the Fuji X-M5, which is conspicuously missing from Canon’s lineup.
It’s been an excellent year for Canon and a fun year writing for you all here. I hope 2025 is an exceptional year for everyone.
Canon FPA1200 Image Credit: Sanspo.com
|
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. |
It's not really a "mistake" by Canon, but it's interesting that so many major reviewers are not bothering to compare the Sony α1 II with the R5 Mark II. There are a number of ways in which the R5ii is the better of the two cameras!
Even among Canon cameras, well, I guess I'm biased as an R5ii owner, but I think that it is, in many ways, preferable to the R1, and not just because it's cheaper. (I'll admit that there are some advantages to the R1, but I think they're not that big, and, most me, anyway, outweighed by the 45MP sensor.) I would prefer the R5ii to the R1 even if they were the same price, and I think many other people would agree.
Whoa... Sony Northrup can't do that.....
That would be a good poll... I would not for many reasons, but yes.... maybe a lot would?
For 2025, I have no interests in other Canon cameras, but I would be interested in seeing if they release any super telephoto zoom lenses and / or super telephoto DO-based lenses.
To give just a few reasons to pick the R5ii over the R1, totally independent of price:
- 45 vs. 24 megapixels is significant. With baseball, for instance, getting to crop in is really worth something. In general, with megapixels, more is still more. There are limits — especially on smaller formats. But most modern FF lenses (including later EF lenses as well as ~all RF lenses), the lenses are built for ~45MP cameras. When using older EF lenses or adapted vintage lenses, the 45MP sensor may outresolve the lens. But usually you're getting more resolution, and that's just... good. (A counterargument is that the buffer is necessarily smaller because of this, even putting aside the card slot differences.)
- Similarly, the ability to shoot 8K video is useful for me. I did a major project on my original R5 involving hours of 8K footage (actually, ProRes RAW on the Ninja V+, because I needed 3-hour continuous clips). I don't care about 8K delivery, but being able to crop into 8K source footage was huge for me.
- 30 vs. 40 fps is not a huge difference. 30 is plenty for sports action. I wouldn't use the ES for baseball on the R5 due to distortion but I have no problems using it on the R5ii. Yes, the R1 has a higher framerate, but, even for sports, I feel the returns are diminishing. I don't even use 30 fps all the time when shooting bursts.
- I prefer the smaller form factor (or, at least, the ability to choose a smaller form factor). It fits into a smaller bag. It's more inconspicuous. (This is obviously subjective. I do have the battery grip, but I don't use it most of the time.)
- The electronic shutter is fast enough for my purposes, even though it's not as fast as the R1's. It's not night and day like the R5 vs. R3. (I still prefer the R5 to the R3 spec-wise, but I at least got the argument for the R3 over the R5 on ES performance.)
Are there some ways the R1 is better? For sure. Buffer (despite resolution making it arguably apples and oranges). Card slots (I don't shoot dual, but I only really shoot CFExpress on the R5ii, so it would be nice to have two slots). The optical AF controller (seems cool, though I'm good with the joystick). GPS (I don't care that much, but it's neat).This is not an exhaustive comparison at all. Just a few initial thoughts. But even at the same price, I'd go R5ii over R1 every time. I bought my R5 before the R3 existed, so it's unfair, but I would have made the same choice then (though I would have been more tempted by the R3's ES capabilities over the R5's, just due to distortion in baseball and the 12-bit limitation preventing me from wanting to use ES on the R5).
<opinionated>Trigger Warning: I detest cropping and any mention of it beyond perspective and some subtle composition. Use the right lens or get closer. :p </opinionated>
8K... sure... I will never use or need it. I'm sure others do. How much are you cropping to notice a difference between 6K and 8K?
As always there are going to be varying needs, wants, desires.
Re Small Cameras: I'm cool with small bodies as long as the lenses are proportionate. Fuji X for example.
Miss: RF 35mm f/1,4, mostly because it isn\'t the expected optically corrected 35mm f/1,2!
True, it can always depend on the facility and/or their rules.
I used to shoot for an OHL team. We had the only arena in the league without photographers holes in the glass, it made for some challenging angles and focal length choices. I even offered to buy the hole saw to solve the issue.
Getting closer would mean entering the water, I’m not that motivated yet :)
Haha touche.... and no.
I just did not happen to be a buyer of any of those for various reasons that matter to me.
Now a R1s with body, EVF and AF same as the R1, but a higher res sensor, that I would be interested into! Super fast frame rates be damned
I do agree with you this was a huge miss :mad: no big surprise coming from me I guess :LOL:
The 35 1.4 is not bad but it is not "magic" like the 2 1.2's either - IMHO
I am very unlikely to acquire a sub-40MP camera again, but if I were under deadline, I'd appreciate not having to deal with those large files. I'm sure that I'd pony up the $6k+ to purchase an integrated body with 45-50MP (not more!) and all the other advances of the R1. And yes, I would be fine with 25-30fps. Even 20fps would probably be acceptable. But saying that Canon clearly made the right decision in limiting the R1's MP count because they sold out their first batch or two is more than a bit disingenuous without more data. What if Canon decided to produce less because they didn't expect the demand to be very high for the R1? Or, how many more R1 would Canon have sold if the MP count was 45-50MP? The latter question is probably unanswerable and Canon probably won't answer the former.
Anyway, in the best of all worlds, I'd own both--24MP is plenty for shooting large mammals and many sports events--and I'd also have infinite time to shoot wildlife!
I've always loved the pairing of my R3 and R5 - smaller files but faster when I need it, and bigger files and a smaller body when I need it. Until Canon releases a QPAF sensor that can switch between 80 mp raw and 20 mp raw, I'm going to stick with the combination that gives me the most options when I need them. Ideally, with an unlimited budget, I'd upgrade both to an R1 and an R5 mark II, but until I win the lottery, I'm pretty content with these two!
I do wish Canon would release something akin to a X100, I know it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for them to focus on cameras that don't sell accessories, but as much as the X100 series interests me, I do much prefer staying in-house with Canon, especially with how great having Canon Pro Services is.
ISO due to 45MP is heaps terrible compared to R1/R3. Period.
How many times does it have to be said?
1 series cameras are designed based on the input from the people that will be using and buying them. Canon does not care how many they sell through retail. These cameras are purchased in bulk by agencies and CPS programs globally. 1 series cameras are a very small percentage of Canon's total shipments.
Canon does not care what the internet thinks or what other brands are doing. They are taking care of their customers.