Canon is actively conducting market research on a “retro” style camera body

[GMCPhotographics]

I completely agree with you on the AE styling. Many of these now-retro cameras have a certain allure to them. I have a Minolta SRT-102 that was used by an uncle during his deployment in the mid-late 70's. I used it for a short time until deciding to simply preserve the camera. I just feel different when shooting with a retro or retro style camera. It truly does slow down the process, but in a good way. The X100V does the same for me, and apparently many others. It's kind of a back to basics approach that is refreshing.

I think the retro-camera popularity is similar to how people lust after classic cars. I drove a '65 Shelby Cobra a few years ago. The ride, handling, and power were laughable compared to the modern vehicle I owned. I still would have loved to add it to my garage. There is definitely a strong psychological component involved, but you experience driving in a unique way that isn't possible, for whatever reason, with modern cars.

Yes I agree. A good friend of mine has a fully restored 1957 Ford Thunderbird in red, with red leather interior and white wall tyres. He was out of town but his car needed some mechanical attention and he asked me to drive it to the next town to get the work done. I had to put some gas in it too. This was on the sSE coast of the UK. It was the most bizarre driving experiance of my life. It really was a piece of Cr@p to drive. It wandered, was thirsty, didn't go with any urgency and wallowed like a pregnant elephant. However, it was pure automotive theatre. As I filled it up with fuel, I was surrounded by about 30 other guys who had followed me and took photos of me and the car like I was some kind of celebrity. As i drove to Dover, people on the other side of the road where stopping in their cars, leaning out of their windows and taking photos with their phones....it's was really weird. The car looked amazing...truely a wonder in automotive art deco styling. However, every other aspect of the car was terrible. it was a truely terrifying car to drive over 40mph on Brittish narrow roads.

 

[Del Paso]

It should be a camera with all modern features like high fps, mpx etc etc. Just the look should be retro with direct access to shutter, iso, EV etc. I so miss the direct access to these settings.

The direct access is what I'm missing too. When swapping bodies, with R3, R5, R6, R, Nikons, Sonys, you don't instinctively find these controls. Muscle memory! It's no coincidence that most automobiles have standardised controls, Here, of course, for a much more important reason, safety.
Saying retro-style cameras are (I quote) for old hipsters is a primitive self-disqualifying assumption.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

1.) Canon A-1
2.) EOS 650
3.) Snappy 50
4.) Photura 135
5.) Snappy Q

1 and 2 are my reasonable vintage design choices. Both are reminiscent of different "golden" film eras. The rest would be solidly bold directions, thus making them "gotta haves" in my book as they would be futuristic by looking back. Break away from a conventional solution, Canon!

Now there's a thought, Looking to the dawn of EOS / EF rather than the past FD mount. Ironically, most influential camera in design asthetic was the T-90. If you comapre a t-90 to any modern 1 Series (or R3) it will feel strangley familiar. Luigi Colani's design language literally has shaped every pro Canon camera post T-90. So a retro 1 series (including the EOS 650) ...will still look a lot like a T-90.

I still have a AE-1 Program, A-1, EOS-650 and EOS 33 in the cupboard somewhere.

At some point we have to take a step back and say....hold on...we are making a Mirrorless digital camera....look like a relic SLR from the 1970's. We've just moved away from pointy oversized prisms and large mirror boxes. We all ditched the film advance mechanisms and static ISO values of celluloid years ago.

If the intention is to create a retro looking digital range finder, I think Lecia already have this well covered. Any S-II/ Canonette look alike is going to really struggle with it's handling and feel. It's basically a flat block of camera with a lens attached. it will basically look like a Canon M6 Or G7x in silver with no right hand grip attached.

All to scratch the itch of some beardy weirdo in tight cloathes who spends a lot of time in a steampunk gents barbers so he can pretend that he's a "real" photographer. Hey...if it's a market and they are rich...why not.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Hi Canon (if you're reading this). =) I'm stopping in from Nikon Rumors. My first camera was an AE-1 Program and I fell in love with photography. Been back and forth since brands since then, and I am really excited about the Nikon Zf -- but haven't bought one yet. Here are a few ideas that could pull me over to Canon...

1) Lots of lenses in a vintage styling

3) Okay, here is the big one: I would like to see a best-in-class viewfinder. Like driving a Cadillac. The appeal of the film SLR's was how beautiful and big the viewfinders are. DSLR viewfinders weren't as nice without the replacement focusing screens. I really wish the EVF's had an image as beautiful as through the ground glass viewfinders, too. But -- my point here is, go big.

You make 2 really good points here. Put a modern RF lens on a vintage looking camera and the visual narrative is immediately lost. It'll look like a modern crash helmet on a guy riding an old Harley with all the tassels and chrome. It just defeats the point. Ultimately this is a vain styling exercise.

The other point that you make is that the ONLY benefit from the older FD mount SLR's is the huge low contrast viewfinder. I still have my A-1 and AE-1P and the A-1 has the best view finder I've ever used. The EOS 5DII with the EG-s fine focus screen was good but tiny compared to the massive screen fitted to the A-1.
Over the years, the optical view finders have become more contrasty (DOF limited to F4) but a lot smaller and darker. Then we all flip to Mirrorless cameras, ditch the mirror box and prism construction for EVF's. The current best EVF from Canon in the R3 and R5 is still very poor compared to the A-1. Even at 5milion pixels, it's still lower resolution to the finer optical viewfinder from the A-1. I use the R6ii and R8. The R6ii has the better EVF resolution tot he R8 and has a better viewpoint size. The R8 has a really low resolution incomparision and it's viewpoint makes the EVF / view finder experiance the weakest part of the camera (apart from laughably undersized tiny battery).

Isn't it a bit weird that we are contemplating the visual asthetic of a camera from 1978, whihc is terrible by today's standards but ignoring it's mechanical attributes and advantages which is what actually made it a great camera in it's day. Ergo....retro is a weird anathema of specifications based on some kind of random emotion nostalgia. Can anyone discern what that perfect balance will be and will it appease anybody?

 

[sanj]

I’m with you here. It’s a camera idea developed for old hipsters who seem more conscious about image (and what others think of them) than in the actual photographs they are shooting or presenting. If I have a retro styled camera then I’m a “real” photographer and my images will automatically be better…
I’ve built a lot of exotic custom bass guitars over the years but often quite confused by the “retro is best” crowd. It’s like a random aesthetic choices are more important that 50 years of innovation and technology.
No one wants a modern camera to actually shoot images that look and behave like they did in the 1970’s.

No no. You are being judgemental. I want the 'retro styled' camera because I like the way they look. I have super memories of them. And they have direct access. The only downside I see is weather sealing.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

No no. You are being judgemental. I want the 'retro styled' camera because I like the way they look. I have super memories of them. And they have direct access. The only downside I see is weather sealing.

Aha...and you have just called me a name. Amusing isn't it when we press each other's emotional buttons? We become accusive by nature. By the way, you have just perfectly defined a retro styled camera as a "vanity" product.
By the way, I looked over your website / portfolio and really enjoyed viewing your work.

 

[JohanCruyff]

I'd argue that we've already seen the 'retro-style body with a modern take'.

View attachment 212458

I had the Silver + Black M6 (but with black viewfinder) and I liked it... except for the ergonomics, when paired with a "huge" lense like the EF-S 55-250mm STM.

Now I'd like a Silver + Black camera with full format sensor and the size of (at least) a Canon R8.
That would beautiful and I could buy it event if I'm aware that it would make me look very sexy and there could be a risk of sexual harassment.

 

[sanj]

Aha...and you have just called me a name. Amusing isn't it when we press each other's emotional buttons? We become accusive by nature. By the way, you have just perfectly defined a retro styled camera as a "vanity" product.
By the way, I looked over your website / portfolio and really enjoyed viewing your work.

Vanity. As long as we are clear that I do not think I look better or take better photos with a certain camera, I am okay with the vanity as it then denotes a camera. YES. I like it better if I like the look of a camera. And thank you for the website compliment...

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I am preferring the images from Canon R glass over Nikon Z glass. The Nikon glass is kind of boring. The Canon images are more interesting, and I like that Canon is taking risks on making interesting glass (28-70/2.0) I would love to switch over from Nikon if the choices were right.

It really depends on what genre you are shooting. The two brands are constantly trying to leep frog each other. Neither has the budget or will to beat their opposition in every area or genre.

Canon has owned the pro wedding photojournalist market for years because of their back catalogue of fast primes. So a lot of "available light" wedding / portrait photographers appreciate Canon's innavation in this particular area. For hard core available light guys who shoot in dark UK churches...f2.0 still isn't quite bright enough or carries a focal range of a "one bright lens to rule them all".
The new Canon RF 135L fixes a few of the old EF lens's achillies heel for photojournalists. When discussing the EF version, every one talks about sharpness. however, it's a prime alternative to the heavy and bulky EF 70-200mm f2.8. The EF 135L can really complete with the big zoom in about 95% of it's scenarios. However, it's big disavantage was that it still couldn't shoot in really dark venues. The EF lens was effectively stuck at F2 @ 1/125th sec as it's lowest shooting value. Sure Iso can go up and compensate (especailly with modern sensors). But that's -5EV at 100 iso. The EF 85mm f1.2 gains a lot in both brightness as and the ability to shoot at 1/85th sec. That's nearly 2 stops / 2 EV's of difference. With weddings, no one wants to shoot less than 1/50th second because of subject movement. So a 24-70/f2 is very useful for some and not others. The new RF lens unfortunatly gains a lot of bulk and price. but it also gains a far better close focus distance (and slightly better MM), a 1/3rd of a stop in brightness and a really good image Stabliser. Shooting at 1/50th sec handheld wide open at low ISO values is more of an possibility now.

The new Plena 135mm (I still find that name amusing, a tough sell in the Czech Republic) is a beautiful lens. Is it better than the Canon? Certainly not enough to cause people to jump ship from Canon to Nikon, but certainly enough to stop people jumping from Nikon to Canon. It takes a few years for a manufacture to get a lens off the CAD screen into production and all three majour marques are looking over their shoulders to see what the other guys are going in the market place. I'm sure all three have their industial spies and gossips in place too. If Nikon built a 35-85mm f2.0 a lot of Wedding photographer would jump ship instantly. In the mean time they have a re-branded Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8, which I hear is very very good (I know a lot of guys who are considering this lens with an ultrawide as a 2 lens line up on a single body.

Nikon have been ripping into the mid priced wildlife and birding shooters genre a lot recently. Both are pretty well serviced at the top end of the expensive big super primes. The middle ground is where all the current aciton is. Strangely, the fast portrait primes that Canon are famous for were all once uber-expensive niche lenses for the very few who had the need and wanted to pay the price. These days, spending and expectations have climbed so high that these once aspirational optics are now considered the mainstream. These days $2.5K is common for a top lens sticker price. It wasn't long ago when that figure was the price for a photographer's entire lens collection. Things have changed, photographers are now richer, or at least appear to be.

Nikon has a nice array of great 600mm lens options and the recent updates to the Z9's AF ability has finally brought this camera's AF tracking to level of Canon and Sony. Admittedly you have to get the top tier camera, where as the Canon R7 is quite a bit cheaper and shares similar AF capabilty...but Canon's doesn't have a lightweigh 600mm f6.3. Nikon has several options at different price points. Go Nikon and welcome to the party.
Canon has the legendary 100-500mm f7.1 which is joy to use and offers some suprising benefits. Many with R5's 45mp sensor are happy to crop down to 600mm becuase it's super sharp wide open and at 100% pixel peeping. We also know that there's more long zooms coming soon from Canon like the 200-800mm lens.

 

[Gino_FOTO]

New camera in the old fashioned style body is completely out of my interest, cameras was generally pretty unergonomic back then. People who actually used them are all retired, or close to retirement, or even.

 

[FS670ES]

No such thing. It is the photographer and the processing.

I don't agree. Each lens can have unique character like how it renders color and light, field curvature, bokeh, flares and so on. To some extent you can edit images to mimic different look but good luck editing image so it looks like shot on Nikon 58mm f1.4 or Helios lens with swirly bokeh. Apart from that why would one spend time on extensive editing when other system can spit out good results out of camera. I agree that most modern Nikon lenses have totally boring rendering.

 

[sanj]

New camera in the old fashioned style body is completely out of my interest, cameras was generally pretty unergonomic back then. People who actually used them are all retired, or close to retirement, or even.

I am here. Standing tall.

 

[scyrene]

I'd love to see metal lens hoods.

Why?

 

[E_ATL]

Count me among them. All of the example cameras are blocky looking, and based on my personal experience with film cameras of similar design back when they weren't 'retro', current Canon cameras are far more comfortable to hold and use from an ergonomic standpoint.

Will be a great camera for those folks driving around in a Karmann Ghia.

You mean blocky like any Leica? those aren't popular at all. I love everything about my AE-1 even though I haven't shot film since 2008. It's on my shelf. But if I was able to have a Digital version I would absolutely get it. If I'm wearing 2 R series bodies on a blackrapid double, I still have room around my neck for a compact beauty.

 

[tbgtomcom]

I'd buy one. My buddy is in town visiting and he brought his brand new Nikon Zf (full frame) to show off to me. It's really slick. I told him when I saw it that if Canon made one I'd buy it. Now that I've seen this post I'm very happy. Hope it comes out in 2024.

 

[splatrabbit]

I would go for a QL-17 look with interchangeable lenses capability. Loved my QL-17. If not ILC, then with a 28mm and the 45mp sensor for cropping. (It's gotta be cheaper than a Leica Q2!)

 

[clearwaterphotog]

The groupthink here is uncanny. "Retro is for hipsters! I need my ERGONOMICS!!" Maybe don't bolt a 2lb lens onto the camera and ergonomics become less of a problem. Get a neck strap and a thumb grip.

You don't use a new-retro body for 12 hour event shoots. You don't use a new-retro body for wildlife safaris. You use it for walking around town, vacations, small friends/family gatherings, where you're only shooting for a few hours at a time. Deep grips are less of a concern when you're not trying to keep the 3.5lb camera+lens combo in your hand for hours on end. I shot Fuji for 6 years (never for long events because I shoot for pleasure) even with the "big" 16-55 and I never once worried about ergos until I started considering switching systems and saw a lot of DSLR users whining about ergos.

Average people are intimidated by ugly black DSLR-like cameras. They scream "professional" and "paparazzi" to many. In my experience, most people don't act natural around them. When they notice your scary black camera is pointed at them, they turn away, or they frown - at best. Retro cameras on the other hand, usually get a look of curiosity or amusement, in my experience, and people tend to continue doing whatever they were doing. I've had many approach me and ask if I'm still shooting film in the day and age of digital. People seem to think film shooters are doing it for the joy of photography and not because they're trying to snap a creepy photo, and that makes them much more comfortable around retro-looking cameras.

Look, if you shoot events or do actual work with your camera, where all-day comfort and convenience truly matter, then a retro body isn't for you! And that's OK! There is a type of person in this world, and in this community, that love to rag on things that aren't for them - as if things that aren't for them, shouldn't be for anyone. It's sad, really.

 

[splatrabbit]

The groupthink here is uncanny. "Retro is for hipsters! I need my ERGONOMICS!!" Maybe don't bolt a 2lb lens onto the camera and ergonomics become less of a problem. Get a neck strap and a thumb grip.

You don't use a new-retro body for 12 hour event shoots. You don't use a new-retro body for wildlife safaris. You use it for walking around town, vacations, small friends/family gatherings, where you're only shooting for a few hours at a time. Deep grips are less of a concern when you're not trying to keep the 3.5lb camera+lens combo in your hand for hours on end. I shot Fuji for 6 years (never for long events because I shoot for pleasure) even with the "big" 16-55 and I never once worried about ergos until I started considering switching systems and saw a lot of DSLR users whining about ergos.

Average people are intimidated by ugly black DSLR-like cameras. They scream "professional" and "paparazzi" to many. In my experience, most people don't act natural around them. When they notice your scary black camera is pointed at them, they turn away, or they frown - at best. Retro cameras on the other hand, usually get a look of curiosity or amusement, in my experience, and people tend to continue doing whatever they were doing. I've had many approach me and ask if I'm still shooting film in the day and age of digital. People seem to think film shooters are doing it for the joy of photography and not because they're trying to snap a creepy photo, and that makes them much more comfortable around retro-looking cameras.

Look, if you shoot events or do actual work with your camera, where all-day comfort and convenience truly matter, then a retro body isn't for you! And that's OK! There is a type of person in this world, and in this community, that love to rag on things that aren't for them - as if things that aren't for them, shouldn't be for anyone. It's sad, really.

Exactly! I suggested a QL17 style with a 28mm lens and 45MP sensor because I'd love to carry around a Q2 (Q3) but can't justify the cost. I've been sort of doing that with my 5Ds and a 28mm 2.8. I get 50MP to crop with. But a 5Ds is bulky. But a QL17 style like I mentioned that cost around $2K is something I can jump at.

 

[mxwphoto]

They should just allow Cosina to release all of the primes for RF. They are already available for both E and Z mount.

With manual lenses honestly I can care less about exif data that the electrical contacts provide. Just buy all of them in whatever mount is cheapest/aesthetically appealing (likely L mount) and add a small adapter.

AF retro lenses and camera body are nice to have as added bonus, but really I am looking for a full frame camera that foregoes the PASM dial and sets static dials based on shutter speed, iso, and aperture (perhaps on lens) without breaking the bank (looking at you Leica).

 

[jonebize]

You make 2 really good points here. Put a modern RF lens on a vintage looking camera and the visual narrative is immediately lost. It'll look like a modern crash helmet on a guy riding an old Harley with all the tassels and chrome. It just defeats the point. Ultimately this is a vain styling exercise.

The other point that you make is that the ONLY benefit from the older FD mount SLR's is the huge low contrast viewfinder. I still have my A-1 and AE-1P and the A-1 has the best view finder I've ever used. The EOS 5DII with the EG-s fine focus screen was good but tiny compared to the massive screen fitted to the A-1.
Over the years, the optical view finders have become more contrasty (DOF limited to F4) but a lot smaller and darker. Then we all flip to Mirrorless cameras, ditch the mirror box and prism construction for EVF's. The current best EVF from Canon in the R3 and R5 is still very poor compared to the A-1. Even at 5milion pixels, it's still lower resolution to the finer optical viewfinder from the A-1. I use the R6ii and R8. The R6ii has the better EVF resolution tot he R8 and has a better viewpoint size. The R8 has a really low resolution incomparision and it's viewpoint makes the EVF / view finder experiance the weakest part of the camera (apart from laughably undersized tiny battery).

Isn't it a bit weird that we are contemplating the visual asthetic of a camera from 1978, whihc is terrible by today's standards but ignoring it's mechanical attributes and advantages which is what actually made it a great camera in it's day. Ergo....retro is a weird anathema of specifications based on some kind of random emotion nostalgia. Can anyone discern what that perfect balance will be and will it appease anybody?

I don't agree with every point but I like what you said about the viewfinders.

I definitely don't feel that the only benefit from the film SLR's is the VF; it's just one of them. And several aspects make those alone better than DSLR's. I really do not like the f/4 limit of stock viewfinders. Also don't like doing replacement viewfinders. Also, you're right, the DSLR and EVF viewfinders are small. It's just overall not even a close experience. The film VF's are not only huge but also have a glow looking through the lens that makes images look truly special. It makes it exciting to shoot, when you look through the camera and go, "Wowwwwww"

I am probably younger than you but grew up using film SLR's. I have an EOS 650 (signed by Wim Wenders, actually), but I always found the AF film SLR's to be ugly. If I had his autograph on a Canon A-1 or F-1, or one of the older Nikons, I would have it out on my bookshelf. Instead it's buried away in some box, and I guarantee I will never use it again.

Overall my point is, you have to realize that when the 650, etc, came out, the new design style was equally as arbitrary as the "retro" 60's/70's era looks. They're just designs. Me personally, I prefer the look of the older film cameras. It's not about "older" or not. I just prefer them. When DSLR's became popular I basically rejected them -- I'm an artist and dislike things that I don't find visually appealing... I stopped carrying a camera 24/7 like I used to do with my AE-1, FM2, and F3HP. The DSLR's were not only too big but really unattractive, to me.

I shoot professionally now and will only use the modern SLR's as a professional tool; I miss having something that I actually like carrying with me.

These are just my thoughts.

The last thing I would say is that I vastly prefer the manual controls of the film SLR's. I have been shooting professionally for over ten years, and still when I look down at the top of a "modern DSLR", my brain goes kind of blank. I think that the mind is better at dealing with controls where things are separated (not on a screen or with several different adjustments available on a top LCD). And I'm not a stupid person, not even close. I think the brain functions better when one adjustment is attached to a single, mechanical level or dial. When I'm shooting, things have to be automatic; shooting professionally can be stressful and time-sensitive, and ironically, these DSLR's create a minor hiccup in my shooting workflow.

I also virtually never use the menus.

So this is just me. But I think we agree on a lot of things.

If Canon basically made this camera with a huge viewfinder, manual controls, nice design for the body and lenses, great low-light shooting, great autofocus, and 24-33mp, it would be a simple, powerful, and really enjoyable camera to use. But I think so much comes down to the viewfinder. Make it huge and beautiful, and allow me to choose to remove some of the text from the surrounding display. I also find the bright green focus box on the EVF's highly distracting. Totally hate that.