# As many as 7 new RF lenses coming in 2019 [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 2, 2019)

> Canon’s 2019 roadmap is not yet clear for us on the camera side of things, but the lens side of things seems to be coming into focus (I see what I did there).
> Canon has said themselves that no new EF lenses would be coming in 2019, but we do expect at least one EF-M lens and a few new RF lenses. Canon mentioned at the EOS R announcement that they’re working a series of f/2.8 zoom lenses, which is likely the “holy trinity”.
> We’re told that we can expect up to 7 new RF lenses being announced in 2019, though a few may not begin shipping until early 2020.
> *Rumoured RF lenses for 2019:*
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## BeenThere (Jan 2, 2019)

Yep, RF in ascendance. EF in maintenance mode.


----------



## greenjacket (Jan 2, 2019)

I predicted there will be a light weight 85mm f1.8 to complement 35mm f1.8. These two lenses should show off light weight and superior optics advantages of R.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jan 2, 2019)

EOS R alone won't cope with all those lenses. Need a few more bodies before the lenses come out.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 2, 2019)

If Mirrorless is going to be a success, lenses are needed. I expect that Canon is going all in on mirrorless lenses this year. I also expect a professional level Mirrorless at some point. Hopefully, we will see a mix of L and consumer grade lenses, but I expect more high end lenses than consumer grade ones. There are so many that are wanted, besides the three we expect, perhaps a RF 100mm 2.5L Macro and maybe a RF 100-300mm f/4 L. I expect to see the wider apertures pop up just because Canon wants to provide a reason for people to buy them.


----------



## docsmith (Jan 2, 2019)

That is a nice road map. 15 RF lenses in 36 months or ~5 per year. 

I do hope Canon plays with things a bit, something like 12-24, 20-70, and 70-240, or slightly faster apertures. Or, if they do recreate the existing holy trinity that they are noticeably smaller/lighter.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 2, 2019)

I guess this shows us which way the wind is blowing......


----------



## hazydave (Jan 2, 2019)

All RF lenses, no EF lenses in 2019 sounds like a correct move for Canon. Right now, the EOS R is really only for Canon users with plenty of EF glass to adapt. No one outside of the Canon ecosystem is going to look at jumping into EOS R if they're after a mirrorless system. Getting the EOS R out last summer was certainly a good way to help prevent all the hemmoraging of customers over to Sony. But they need another two bodies (one entry level, one true professional model) and lots of glass, to bring the system around to where a new adopter would be happy without needing to go back to EF glass. Nikon is going to have the same thought process with the Z System.

And of course, low activity on EF or F mount cameras is likely to have existing customers feel, well, sort of like Sony's A-mount customers did while Sony was spending nearly all their time on E/FE-Mount stuff. It will be interesting how they negotiate the two systems, or really in Canon's case, four different EOS mounts.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 2, 2019)

This is a wonderful rumor to kickoff 2019!


----------



## JonSnow (Jan 2, 2019)

the DSLR is maybe not dead but it´s already 104 years old..... how long does it have?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 2, 2019)

JonSnow said:


> the DSLR is maybe not dead but it´s already 104 years old..... how long does it have?


I had one of the first DSLR's, from 1995. Which ones were there 104 years ago?

35mm SLR's came out around the 1960's, I still have a Canon FT. Medium format TLR's were in use before that, but DSLR's 104 years ago?


----------



## stevelee (Jan 2, 2019)

1995 seems like 104 years ago in a lot of ways.


----------



## JonSnow (Jan 2, 2019)

human age..... time left... get it?


----------



## Nelu (Jan 2, 2019)

JonSnow said:


> the DSLR is maybe not dead but it´s already 104 years old..... how long does it have?


Is this supposed to be a joke? 104 years old digital SLR?
Too bad one can't down-vote a post...


----------



## JonSnow (Jan 2, 2019)

Nelu said:


> Is this supposed to be a joke? 104 years old digital SLR?



bingo... how did you figure that out. 

maybe because D stands for DIGITAL and around 1914 there was not much digital stuff around?

figure of speech and such stuff is unkown to some i guess.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 2, 2019)

JonSnow said:


> the DSLR is maybe not dead but it´s already 104 years old..... how long does it have?


The DSLR has quite some time left...certainly more than you are implying. 

For Jan-Oct 2018, 62% of all ILCs shipped were DSLRs. Compared to the same period in 2017, DSLR sales dropped ~10%...and MILC sales were completely flat, no increase at all in MILC shipments year-over-year. For those claiming that MILCs are a growth market, that’s a real facepalm.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 2, 2019)

JonSnow said:


> the DSLR is maybe not dead but it´s already 104 years old..... how long does it have?



This is a question that isn't being asked by many photographers in the real world. Most use the gear they already have. We have to be careful that this forum doesn't become a canon mirror-
less niche /sect.


----------



## Etienne (Jan 2, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> I guess this shows us which way the wind is blowing......



The wind has been blowing in this direction for a long time. Finally Canon is raising the sails.


----------



## Etienne (Jan 2, 2019)

This is a nice, if overly optimistic, timeline for lenses.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 2, 2019)

JonSnow said:


> bingo... how did you figure that out.
> 
> maybe because D stands for DIGITAL and around 1914 there was not much digital stuff around?
> 
> figure of speech and such stuff is unkown to some i guess.


Unintentional anachronisms are unacknowledged by some, I guess.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 2, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> This is a question that isn't being asked by many photographers in the real world. Most use the gear they already have. We have to be careful that this forum doesn't become a canon mirror-
> less niche /sect.


So "we" are going to steer conversations away from talking about exciting mirrorless developments? Are "we" going to demand an end to CR threads (such as this one!) about RF lenses that might be coming? Or just a moratorium until "we" have made the transition "ourselves"?


----------



## Maximilian (Jan 2, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> ...
> RF 85mm f/1.8 IS STM
> ...


As I am a 85 mm lens guy this one might be the one that could draw me into the R system, together with the RF 35 and a 5D4 sucessor in the R.


----------



## hkenneth (Jan 2, 2019)

JonSnow said:


> the DSLR is maybe not dead but it´s already 104 years old..... how long does it have?



YKN JonSnow


----------



## The Supplanter (Jan 2, 2019)

Maximilian said:


> As I am a 85 mm lens guy this one might be the one that could draw me into the R system, together with the RF 35 and a 5D4 successor in the R.



I tend to share your sentiments. This rumored 85, a nice UWA zoom (wider than 16mm), and a 40 would make a decent, light, and simple hobbyist kit.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jan 2, 2019)

Why the 105 f/1.4? A 24 f/1.4 or 24 f/1.8 IS STM makes much more sense. The f/2.8 holy trinity is fine, but where is the 5D4 or 1Dx2 class camera that makes sense with those lenses?


----------



## unfocused (Jan 2, 2019)

Most of these lenses are duplicates/variations of EF lenses. Right now, Canon appears to be creating a parallel universe for its RF system. Signs point to Canon positioning itself for success regardless of which way the market ultimately goes. The big hole in the system, however, remains the lack of an adapter that will allow customers to use RF lenses on EF mount cameras. Absent that, it will be very hard to convert many users to the new system.


----------



## Reiep (Jan 2, 2019)

2020 is an Olympics year, I bet the 1DX2 eq. will appear then.


----------



## RiceCanon (Jan 2, 2019)

Great news on the lens side of the equation but I'm personally not going to jump into the R pool until Canon introduces a worthy mirrorless successor to the 5D Mark IV. I'm not buying anything on the DSLR side either so I'm totally holding back on Canon purchases at the moment. I feel like the floodgates will open in Canon's favor when they start selling pro-style mirrorless bodies.


----------



## SV (Jan 2, 2019)

Wow - That's a lot of lenses in a short period of time, assuming no delays. I guess there's an RF mount body in my future ...


----------



## jeanluc (Jan 2, 2019)

I think Canon has been putting a lot of engineering manpower on the RF gear for longer than we think, so the release of lots of good lenses quite rapidly is no surprise. They made the decision to jump into FF MILC, and they are going to do it right. 

I think the R body was rolled out so they have something in that market segment partly as a placeholder, partly to see the reaction. Plus for the vast majority of people, it is a great body, essentially a 6d3. The 5d and 1d bodies will be here in the next 1-2 years I suspect and they will be “mature” a lot faster than people think. 

Having said that, DSLRs aren’t going away anytime soon. The EF lineup is already great, so it makes sense to put the effort into the future. Because at some point, R will supplant EF.

I’m holding off on any gear purchases until the body I really want, a 5dsr 2 equivalent, comes out. I’ll buy one, and use my EF glass until the R version of those lenses comes out. I’ll keep my dslrs for non landscape stuff like birding until the R bodies catch up. 

I guess we’ll see how long all that takes, but I bet it’ll be a lot quicker than most think. So time to save up now lol....


----------



## RayValdez360 (Jan 2, 2019)

That's crazy. I didnt know they had digital cameras in 104 years ago. How big were the memory cards back then. The size of a building for 
like 5 bits.


----------



## PerKr (Jan 2, 2019)

hazydave said:


> And of course, low activity on EF or F mount cameras is likely to have existing customers feel, well, sort of like Sony's A-mount customers did while Sony was spending nearly all their time on E/FE-Mount stuff. It will be interesting how they negotiate the two systems, or really in Canon's case, four different EOS mounts.



I'm sure a lot of A-mount customers would feel happier if the adapter situation had been similar to Canon/Nikon and if the E-mount bodies had actually been able to fully replace the A-mount bodies.

Yes, not much development will happen with EF or F mount equipment but moving over from EF to RF or F to Z once it makes sense looks to be a relatively painless experience.


----------



## peterzuehlke (Jan 2, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I had one of the first DSLR's, from 1995. Which ones were there 104 years ago?
> 
> 35mm SLR's came out around the 1960's, I still have a Canon FT. Medium format TLR's were in use before that, but DSLR's 104 years ago?



digital cameras without mirrors have been around awhile too. my first digital camera was a Canon G1, ;-). And mirrorless cameras with interchangeable lenses have been around, especially in the video world for a long time. Folks got excited when Sony started taking some sales away from Canikon. (I am on my second Sony, shooting alongside my 5D4, when I need IBIS or discretion). I don't see any reason to buy a R or a Z (no Nikon glass). For me have to wait awhile and see where they go with this.


----------



## The Fat Fish (Jan 2, 2019)

Sounds like a good lens lineup but some of those lenses and current ones would benefit massively for IBIS. Please Canon, make a competitive camera in 2019.

New BSI sensor
Full frame 4K with no catches
Dual Card Slots
IBIS
£2000

Sony can do it, Nikon can do it (minus dual cards) and Panasonic are about to do it.


----------



## Cochese (Jan 2, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Most of these lenses are duplicates/variations of EF lenses. Right now, Canon appears to be creating a parallel universe for its RF system. Signs point to Canon positioning itself for success regardless of which way the market ultimately goes. The big hole in the system, however, remains the lack of an adapter that will allow customers to use RF lenses on EF mount cameras. Absent that, it will be very hard to convert many users to the new system.



An adapter isn't possible from RF to EF.


----------



## David Hull (Jan 2, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Most of these lenses are duplicates/variations of EF lenses. Right now, Canon appears to be creating a parallel universe for its RF system. Signs point to Canon positioning itself for success regardless of which way the market ultimately goes. The big hole in the system, however, remains the lack of an adapter that will allow customers to use RF lenses on EF mount cameras. Absent that, it will be very hard to convert many users to the new system.


How would you do that?


----------



## bokehmon22 (Jan 2, 2019)

Unless Canon give us an EOS R that's competitive to Sony and Panasonic offering, I'm hesistate to commit to RF lens.

I'm fine with third party lens and L EF lens adapted on EOS R or give me the option to use it on Sony & Panasonic.


----------



## David Hull (Jan 2, 2019)

jeanluc said:


> I think Canon has been putting a lot of engineering manpower on the RF gear for longer than we think, so the release of lots of good lenses quite rapidly is no surprise. They made the decision to jump into FF MILC, and they are going to do it right.
> 
> I think the R body was rolled out so they have something in that market segment partly as a placeholder, partly to see the reaction. Plus for the vast majority of people, it is a great body, essentially a 6d3. The 5d and 1d bodies will be here in the next 1-2 years I suspect and they will be “mature” a lot faster than people think.
> 
> ...


One of the problems with the R is the blackout (or actually freeze frame) when they pull the data off the sensor. The DSLR still seems to have an advantage here even something like the 5D series. It isn’t much of an issue for me but I don’t see how an action shooter would be happy with it. 

I think this once again I think this harks back to Canon’s sensor implementation. To eliminate all benefits of the “mirror flipper” they need to find a way to move and process that data faster.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 2, 2019)

Bob Howland said:


> Why the 105 f/1.4? A 24 f/1.4 or 24 f/1.8 IS STM makes much more sense. The f/2.8 holy trinity is fine, but where is the 5D4 or 1Dx2 class camera that makes sense with those lenses?



Canon has an EF 24mm f/1.4L that can be adapter to EOS R. What Canon doesn't have is a 105mm f/1.4, which Nikon & Sigma do. It makes some sense to plug the holes first, and improve options later.

I guess Canon made some survey with pro photographers to prioritize between bread & butter lenses and hole plugging lenses.


----------



## criscokkat (Jan 2, 2019)

I wonder if the RF Kit lens will actually be two lenses? I can't see a 18-55 without a corresponding RF version of the 55-250. 

Or maybe we'll see just one kit lens from canon, but it'll be a superzoom? 18-200 ala nikon or 18-300 ala Tamron/Sigma?


----------



## Architect1776 (Jan 2, 2019)

hazydave said:


> All RF lenses, no EF lenses in 2019 sounds like a correct move for Canon. Right now, the EOS R is really only for Canon users with plenty of EF glass to adapt. No one outside of the Canon ecosystem is going to look at jumping into EOS R if they're after a mirrorless system. Getting the EOS R out last summer was certainly a good way to help prevent all the hemmoraging of customers over to Sony. But they need another two bodies (one entry level, one true professional model) and lots of glass, to bring the system around to where a new adopter would be happy without needing to go back to EF glass. Nikon is going to have the same thought process with the Z System.
> 
> And of course, low activity on EF or F mount cameras is likely to have existing customers feel, well, sort of like Sony's A-mount customers did while Sony was spending nearly all their time on E/FE-Mount stuff. It will be interesting how they negotiate the two systems, or really in Canon's case, four different EOS mounts.



A difference is that all the EF and EF-S lenses work 100% and better on the R camera(s) especially with the Control Adapter. All other brands changing mounts to mirror-less cannot make that claim with Nikon being the absolute worst with all AF lenses being dumped from working now. That is huge. I see the M series as its own world and applaud Canon for keeping it as it does provide a platform for development of very small light ILC system products for hikers and the like.


----------



## Architect1776 (Jan 2, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> The DSLR has quite some time left...certainly more than you are implying.
> 
> For Jan-Oct 2018, 62% of all ILCs shipped were DSLRs. Compared to the same period in 2017, DSLR sales dropped ~10%...and MILC sales were completely flat, no increase at all in MILC shipments year-over-year. For those claiming that MILCs are a growth market, that’s a real facepalm.



Mirror-less was flat due to Canon and Nikon not having FF mirror-less yet. You know the M series Canon are hot sellers. With Canon and Nikon now on board the mirror-less sales will rise again, how much? Who knows? Especially with cell phones taking the low end user out of the market who don't care about quality. Sort of like SLRs in the Instamatic camera era where Instamatics way outsold SLRs the whole time.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 2, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> I see the M series as its own world and applaud Canon for keeping it as it does provide a platform for development of very small light ILC system products for hikers and the like.


You are implying that the EOS M line is more of a niche product, but in reality I suspect the M line will strongly outsell the R line, just as for close to a decade and a half, APS-C DSLRs have outsold FF DSLRs. The only way the EOS R will take over is if they include APS-C sensors into the R lineup.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 2, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> Mirror-less was flat due to Canon and Nikon not having FF mirror-less yet. You know the M series Canon are hot sellers. With Canon and Nikon now on board the mirror-less sales will rise again, how much? Who knows? Especially with cell phones taking the low end user out of the market who don't care about quality. Sort of like SLRs in the Instamatic camera era where Instamatics way outsold SLRs the whole time.


Actually, instamatics (Fuji Instax mini, etc.) still resoundingly outsell digital cameras. As for MILC sales rising strongly, we’ll see. The M series are hot sellers, and APS-C DSLRs remain even hotter, because APS-C cameras are cheaper. FF MILCs from Canon/Nikon at >$2K are not likely to have much of an effect on overall sales numbers (although they will likely increase the overall value of cameras sold).


----------



## Architect1776 (Jan 2, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> You are implying that the EOS M line is more of a niche product, but in reality I suspect the M line will strongly outsell the R line, just as for close to a decade and a half, APS-C DSLRs have outsold FF DSLRs. The only way the EOS R will take over is if they include APS-C sensors into the R lineup.



I imagine the APSC will be in the R line-up unless they make a FF in the 500.00 range. M will be niche seeing as R and M are not compatible at all and no path from M to R is possible. Unless Canon is just plain stupid they will need APSC R and even the current R works with APSC lenses now so that sounds like R APSC lenses and body are in the future. But who knows.


----------



## Architect1776 (Jan 2, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Actually, instamatics (Fuji Instax mini, etc.) still resoundingly outsell digital cameras. As for MILC sales rising strongly, we’ll see. The M series are hot sellers, and APS-C DSLRs remain even hotter, because APS-C cameras are cheaper. FF MILCs from Canon/Nikon at >$2K are not likely to have much of an effect on overall sales numbers (although they will likely increase the overall value of cameras sold).



I am sure the Instax sell well but not even on the same planet as cell phone sales.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 2, 2019)

The Fat Fish said:


> Please Canon, make a competitive camera in 2019
> New BSI sensor
> Full frame 4K with no catches
> Dual Card Slots
> ...





bokehmon22 said:


> Unless Canon give us an EOS R that's competitive to Sony and Panasonic offering, I'm hesistate to commit to RF lens.



Don’t hold your breath. Canon is already making a competitive FF MILC, from their viewpoint and from an objective viewpoint. The difference is that you define ‘competitive’ as having a spec sheet that matches others’ or as having features that you personally want, whereas Canon defines competitive as selling more cameras (and by that metric Sony, Nikon and Panasonic are now the ones worrying about being competitive).


----------



## unfocused (Jan 2, 2019)

David Hull said:


> How would you do that?



If you are referring to adapting RF lenses for existing Canon DSLRs, I am not an engineer. I would never presume to know how to design a particular adapter. But, I can certainly see the need for such an adapter and expect that Canon's design team would be working on one. I imagine some of the self-proclaimed experts on this forum may claim it is impossible. I will wait and see what Canon and third party manufacturers do.

I see the lack of complete interchangeability between Canon's two full-frame systems as a major disadvantage. On the other hand, not being an engineer, I also have no idea as to the relative cost of manufacturing two separate sets of full frame lenses. If the costs are marginal, we may see Canon producing parallel EF and RF lenses for decades. Possibly, they will even pull a "Sigma" and offer low cost mount conversions in the future. 

I am certain that Canon understands the risks and downsides of having two separate full-frame mounts and is working feverishly to find a solution that will not alienate its customer base, as I have never considered them stupid.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 2, 2019)

unfocused said:


> If you are referring to adapting RF lenses for existing Canon DSLRs, I am not an engineer. I would never presume to know how to design a particular adapter. But, I can certainly see the need for such an adapter and expect that Canon's design team would be working on one. I imagine some of the self-proclaimed experts on this forum may claim it is impossible. I will wait and see what Canon and third party manufacturers do.
> 
> I see the lack of complete interchangeability between Canon's two full-frame systems as a major disadvantage. On the other hand, not being an engineer, I also have no idea as to the relative cost of manufacturing two separate sets of full frame lenses. If the costs are marginal, we may see Canon producing parallel EF and RF lenses for decades. Possibly, they will even pull a "Sigma" and offer low cost mount conversions in the future.
> 
> I am certain that Canon understands the risks and downsides of having two separate full-frame mounts and is working feverishly to find a solution that will not alienate its customer base, as I have never considered them stupid.


It’s certainly possible to create an adapter for RF lenses to be mounted on DSLRs. However, such an adapter would require optical components, as did the FD-to-EOS adapter (which was produced in limited quantities and was not ever very popular). So while Canon _could_ make such an adapter, I highly doubt they ever will. 

There really isn’t a difference in the ‘relative cost of manufacturing two separate sets of full frame lenses’, as the cost of doing so can easily be built into the selling price of the lenses (and I suspect, already is).


----------



## unfocused (Jan 2, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don’t hold your breath. Canon is already making a competitive FF MILC, from their viewpoint and from an objective viewpoint. The difference is that you define ‘competitive’ as having a spec sheet that matches others’ or as having features that you personally want, whereas Canon defines competitive as selling more cameras (and by that metric Sony, Nikon and Panasonic are now the ones worrying about being competitive).



I agree that Canon is already making a "competitive" MILC in comparison to other brands. But I would add/concede that it doesn't appear to be truly competitive with its top end DSLRs. What we do not know and cannot know at this point is whether the RF system will eventually be capable of replacing Canon's own full frame DSLRs. 

I imagine you would agree that Canon has no vested interest in any particular format, but instead has a vested interest in remaining the world leader in the marketplace. Some people seem to believe that Canon has a vested interest in promoting a particular format. I think you and I believe they care only about format in so far as it affects profitability and sales.


----------



## SereneSpeed (Jan 2, 2019)

My favourite part about this; Canon makes very solid business decisions and I believe they KNOW they have body technology to support this lens lineup.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 2, 2019)

unfocused said:


> I agree that Canon is already making a "competitive" MILC in comparison to other brands. But I would add/concede that it doesn't appear to be truly competitive with its top end DSLRs. What we do not know and cannot know at this point is whether the RF system will eventually be capable of replacing Canon's own full frame DSLRs.
> 
> I imagine you would agree that Canon has no vested interest in any particular format, but instead has a vested interest in remaining the world leader in the marketplace. Some people seem to believe that Canon has a vested interest in promoting a particular format. I think you and I believe they care only about format in so far as it affects profitability and sales.


Definitely agree. The EOS R sits in 6-series DSLR territory, based on feature set and price. Canon themselves have said MILCs aren’t yet ready for full professional use. Time will tell. Certainly as long as people are buying ILCs with a Canon name plate, Canon doesn’t care whether or not the camera has a mirror.


----------



## -pekr- (Jan 2, 2019)

"entry-level EOS R body " - could it be even more entry level? What would you leave, to make it an entry level? Is it possible for Canon to introduce new lower megapixel sensor with slightly better characteristics, than the recent one, having first IBIS implementation, etc., and still keep ppl buying recent EOR R?


----------



## unfocused (Jan 2, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> ...There really isn’t a difference in the ‘relative cost of manufacturing two separate sets of full frame lenses’, as the cost of doing so can easily be built into the selling price of the lenses (and I suspect, already is).



Good point, given that the prices of the RF and EF 24-105 f4 lenses are identical.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Jan 2, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don’t hold your breath. Canon is already making a competitive FF MILC, from their viewpoint and from an objective viewpoint. The difference is that you define ‘competitive’ as having a spec sheet that matches others’ or as having features that you personally want, whereas Canon defines competitive as selling more cameras (and by that metric Sony, Nikon and Panasonic are now the ones worrying about being competitive).



That's why I have one foot half way out the door and evaluating what's best for me. 3/4 of my EF lens are from Sigma/Tamron so it isn't difficult to adapt and switch to what ever is best. 24-70 2.8 II is my only L lens. 

I returned my EOS R and waiting for the next generation of FF mirrorless from Canon, Sony, Panasonic before commiting to a lens mount. 

EOS R is a fine camera and so are the RF lens, such as 28-70 F2, but it's too expensive and not enough to warrant upgrade over my 5D IV.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Jan 2, 2019)

-pekr- said:


> "entry-level EOS R body " - could it be even more entry level? What would you left, to make it an entry level? Is it possible for Canon to introduce new lower megapixel sensor with slightly better characteristics, than the recent one, having first IBIS implementation, etc., and still keep ppl buying recent EOR R?



No multi functional bar, lower EVF, 6D II sensor, no 10 bit 4K or articulate LCD screen - $1500

If they release something like that in 2019, they definitely deserve to get laugh at.


----------



## dtaylor (Jan 2, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> The DSLR has quite some time left...certainly more than you are implying.
> 
> For Jan-Oct 2018, 62% of all ILCs shipped were DSLRs. Compared to the same period in 2017, DSLR sales dropped ~10%...and MILC sales were completely flat, no increase at all in MILC shipments year-over-year. For those claiming that MILCs are a growth market, that’s a real facepalm.



Canon and Nikon are going to push mirrorless until the 'DSLR is dead!' prophecy fulfills itself. It's an opportunity to try and further differentiate themselves to take a larger slice of a shrinking pie (total ILC sales) while also putting pressure on existing customers to upgrade.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 2, 2019)

bokehmon22 said:


> That's why I have one foot half way out the door and evaluating what's best for me. 3/4 of my EF lens are from Sigma/Tamron so it isn't difficult to adapt and switch to what ever is best. 24-70 2.8 II is my only L lens.
> 
> I returned my EOS R and waiting for the next generation of FF mirrorless from Canon, Sony, Panasonic before commiting to a lens mount.
> 
> EOS R is a fine camera and so are the RF lens, such as 28-70 F2, but it's too expensive and not enough to warrant upgrade over my 5D IV.


It's not an upgrade over a 5DIV. The R is an upgrade from a 6DII.


----------



## Foxeslink (Jan 2, 2019)

I would like to see a 85mm 1.2 or 1.4 and a 35mm 1.2 or 1.4!!

It would be awesome. Probably not interested in 85mm 1.8 as it shouldn't be L lens


----------



## bokehmon22 (Jan 2, 2019)

AlanF said:


> It's not an upgrade over a 5DIV. The R is an upgrade from a 6DII.



Yes. I agree. It's what the 6D II should have been. Once the GAS wear off, I returned it and wait for worthy upgrade instead of using it as a backup to my 5D IV.


----------



## springle (Jan 2, 2019)

I mostly photograph wildlife and use a Canon 7D II body. My main lens for such use is a Sigma 150mm -600mm Sport. (I do own 5 Canon "L" lenses.) I have been contemplating buying a Canon 600mm F4.0 III, but have delayed the purchase because of uncertainty regarding mirrorless bodies. The 7D II sensor, if full frame, would be greater than 50 MP. So unless Canon can supply a mirrorless body with a full-frame sensor of greater than 50 MP, or else an APS-C sensor in a mirrorless body, I am totally uninterested in the "R" lenses listed. I also use a Sony RX10-IV which has a Zeiss lens that zooms to 600mm at F4.0 (equivalent). Much lighter to lug around, but doesn't get me the 960mm equivalent of the Canon gear. However, if Sony brings out an RX10-V with 800mm equivalent or more and no more than F5.6 equivalent at 800mm and around 22 MP, then I would drop the Canon equipment. As a bonus, the silent shutter of the Sony decreases the anxiety of small birds. I know several other photographers doing similar work who are using the Sony RX10-IV more and carrying the Canon/Nikon gear less. Perhaps not a large market niche, but one that supports the Big Whites (or Blacks). Meanwhile consumer use of rapidly improving smartphones for their photography is also increasing. To date, though, such phones are not useful for wildlife photography. Canon may be trying to protect a market that it has already lost. Perhaps Canon should come out with a smartphone with a fancy camera on it and forget about "R" bodies and lenses. And if they don't upgrade their equipment for wildlife/sports photography, they will also lose this market to cameras like the Sony RX10-IV and its successors.


----------



## criscokkat (Jan 2, 2019)

bokehmon22 said:


> No multi functional bar, lower EVF, 6D II sensor, no 10 bit 4K or articulate LCD screen - $1500
> 
> If they release something like that in 2019, they definitely deserve to get laugh at.



No way they get rid of the articulating screen, it's on everything now. A smaller screen, maybe. I am not sure if they want to change the viewfinder much either, that's something that really comes down in price if used in volume across their lines.

I'm still not convinced that they aren't keeping secret the possibility of a smaller sensor on this camera from leaking. They have been very coy not to ever mention full frame specifically when talking about the RF system overall, they only talk about it in terms of the EOS R camera itself. 

The EOS R has been built to auto crop down to EF-S lenses when put on an adapter. There is no reason that couldn't be done directly with other lenses using the R mount either. To differentiate them from EF-M it could be a slightly larger sensor like the APS-H that was used in the 1d cameras as recently as 5 years ago. It doesn't have to be the same size as that one either at a 1.3 crop size - it could be 1.4 and still be called aps-h to differentiate it. The cost savings come from the fact that each silicon wafer produced could produce 40-60 aps-h sized chips versus 20 full frame or 100 aps-C. If an RF-S lens is produced with a smaller circle the existing EOS R full frame could adjust automatically. At most it might need a firmware update that can be done by the end user.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 2, 2019)

bokehmon22 said:


> Yes. I agree. It's what the 6D II should have been. Once the GAS wear off, I returned it and wait for worthy upgrade instead of using it as a backup to my 5D IV.


Gas is contagious!


----------



## AlanF (Jan 2, 2019)

criscokkat said:


> ..............It doesn't have to be the same size as that one either at a 1.3 crop size - it could be 1.4 and still be called aps-h to differentiate it. The cost savings come from the fact that each silicon wafer produced could produce 40-60 aps-h sized chips versus 20 full frame or 100 aps-C. If an RF-S lens is produced with a smaller circle the existing EOS R full frame could adjust automatically. At most it might need a firmware update that can be done by the end user.


I don't understand the calculations. A 1.3 - 1.4x crop would have half to ~0.6 x the area of FF and so 20 FF would make ~34-40 of the aps-h, not 40-60, and a 1.6x crop is 1/2.56 the area of FF so 20 FF would give 51 aps-c, not a 100? Have I got something wrong?


----------



## sid.safari (Jan 2, 2019)

springle said:


> I mostly photograph wildlife and use a Canon 7D II body. My main lens for such use is a Sigma 150mm -600mm Sport. (I do own 5 Canon "L" lenses.) I have been contemplating buying a Canon 600mm F4.0 III, but have delayed the purchase because of uncertainty regarding mirrorless bodies. The 7D II sensor, if full frame, would be greater than 50 MP. So unless Canon can supply a mirrorless body with a full-frame sensor of greater than 50 MP, or else an APS-C sensor in a mirrorless body, I am totally uninterested in the "R" lenses listed. I also use a Sony RX10-IV which has a Zeiss lens that zooms to 600mm at F4.0 (equivalent). Much lighter to lug around, but doesn't get me the 960mm equivalent of the Canon gear. However, if Sony brings out an RX10-V with 800mm equivalent or more and no more than F5.6 equivalent at 800mm and around 22 MP, then I would drop the Canon equipment. As a bonus, the silent shutter of the Sony decreases the anxiety of small birds. I know several other photographers doing similar work who are using the Sony RX10-IV more and carrying the Canon/Nikon gear less. Perhaps not a large market niche, but one that supports the Big Whites (or Blacks). Meanwhile consumer use of rapidly improving smartphones for their photography is also increasing. To date, though, such phones are not useful for wildlife photography. Canon may be trying to protect a market that it has already lost. Perhaps Canon should come out with a smartphone with a fancy camera on it and forget about "R" bodies and lenses. And if they don't upgrade their equipment for wildlife/sports photography, they will also lose this market to cameras like the Sony RX10-IV and its successors.



No offense mate but you're all over the place. You simply can't compare the Canon 600 f/4 III prime with the Sony RX10-V (600mm). The image quality of both is worlds apart. One is a professional grade lens and the other is ... well it's amateur for lack of a better term. You then state that other photographers are carrying the Sony RX10-V more and the Canon / Nikon less?! Are you actually suggesting that wildlife photographers (bird photographers) are moving away from prime 12k+ glass and their respective pro DSLR systems to a $1700 camera fixed lens system which has terrible ISO and even worse focusing?

I'm not being a Canon fanboy but none of this makes much sense because you aren't comparing apples to apples. I can understand if you say more pro's are going from Canon and Nikon to the Sony A9 + Sony 400 f/2.8 GM with the Sony 1.4x and 2x TC. Perhaps there is an argument there, but the RX10-V is not in the same league as any of the top systems used by wildlife and bird photographers I know. It's not even a viable backup to be honest.

BTW. I'm a wildlife photographer and I'd buy the 600mm f/4 III and pair it with the 7D or 1dx mark II in a heartbeat. You don't need a mirrorless body with the big primes, and while having more MP's is nice anyone who has shot with the big prime and a large MP body knows that you need to increase shutter speed significantly to get pin sharp images (I am speaking during situations when subject is moving). So high MP's in wildlife isn't always ideal. Ideally you want between 22 - 30 MP's with good ISO and a high enough FPS (10 - 20) to capture the critical moment and to get sharp images in low light conditions (when most wildlife photography is done).


----------



## slclick (Jan 2, 2019)

This does not say no EF are shipping in 2019


----------



## sid.safari (Jan 2, 2019)

slclick said:


> This does not say no EF are shipping in 2019



Aren't the new Canon 300mm f/2.8 III and the Canon 500mm f/2.8 III being released in 2019?


----------



## bhf3737 (Jan 2, 2019)

springle said:


> ...
> I also use a Sony RX10-IV which has a Zeiss lens that zooms to 600mm at F4.0 (equivalent). Much lighter to lug around, but doesn't get me the 960mm equivalent of the Canon gear. However, if Sony brings out an RX10-V with 800mm equivalent or more and no more than F5.6 equivalent at 800mm and around 22 MP, then I would drop the Canon equipment. As a bonus, the silent shutter of the Sony decreases the anxiety of small birds. I know several other photographers doing similar work who are using the Sony RX10-IV more and carrying the Canon/Nikon gear less. Perhaps not a large market niche, but one that supports the Big Whites (or Blacks). Meanwhile consumer use of rapidly improving smartphones for their photography is also increasing. To date, though, such phones are not useful for wildlife photography. Canon may be trying to protect a market that it has already lost. Perhaps Canon should come out with a smartphone with a fancy camera on it and forget about "R" bodies and lenses. And if they don't upgrade their equipment for wildlife/sports photography, they will also lose this market to cameras like the Sony RX10-IV and its successors.


I tried Sony RX10-IV once in a trip and that was enough for me. It was slow as hell to power up, battery life was very short and it didn't have a charger to start with. The LCD screen was invisible in day light, diffraction was horrible, zoom function was extremely slow, and worst of all, continuous-AF while zooming was disabled!! It was the worst nightmare that I had with any camera so far. May be it is an expensive toy for moms taking picture of kids running around but definitely not a camera for sports and/or wildlife.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Jan 2, 2019)

10 bit digital has been around since the dawn of man. It's the mirror that was waiting in the winds.


----------



## kaptainkatsu (Jan 2, 2019)

Foxeslink said:


> I would like to see a 85mm 1.2 or 1.4 and a 35mm 1.2 or 1.4!!
> 
> It would be awesome. Probably not interested in 85mm 1.8 as it shouldn't be L lens



The EF 85 1.4 is such an incredible lens, not sure how much better an RF version would be. That lens will probably be one of the later RF lenses since the 85 1.4 was just recently released.


----------



## Del Paso (Jan 2, 2019)

Foxeslink said:


> I would like to see a 85mm 1.2 or 1.4 and a 35mm 1.2 or 1.4!!
> 
> It would be awesome. Probably not interested in 85mm 1.8 as it shouldn't be L lens


Me too! Gimme, gimme !


----------



## bokehmon22 (Jan 2, 2019)

criscokkat said:


> No way they get rid of the articulating screen, it's on everything now. A smaller screen, maybe. I am not sure if they want to change the viewfinder much either, that's something that really comes down in price if used in volume across their lines.
> 
> I'm still not convinced that they aren't keeping secret the possibility of a smaller sensor on this camera from leaking. They have been very coy not to ever mention full frame specifically when talking about the RF system overall, they only talk about it in terms of the EOS R camera itself.
> 
> The EOS R has been built to auto crop down to EF-S lenses when put on an adapter. There is no reason that couldn't be done directly with other lenses using the R mount either. To differentiate them from EF-M it could be a slightly larger sensor like the APS-H that was used in the 1d cameras as recently as 5 years ago. It doesn't have to be the same size as that one either at a 1.3 crop size - it could be 1.4 and still be called aps-h to differentiate it. The cost savings come from the fact that each silicon wafer produced could produce 40-60 aps-h sized chips versus 20 full frame or 100 aps-C. If an RF-S lens is produced with a smaller circle the existing EOS R full frame could adjust automatically. At most it might need a firmware update that can be done by the end user.



6D II is a FF sensor. It's not smaller sensor. It may not be comparable to 5D IV/EOS R.

Regarding the articulating screen: I have no idea if they will take it out. It's just a suggestion if they want to reduce cost to $1500 price point.


----------



## Del Paso (Jan 2, 2019)

springle said:


> I mostly photograph wildlife and use a Canon 7D II body. My main lens for such use is a Sigma 150mm -600mm Sport. (I do own 5 Canon "L" lenses.) I have been contemplating buying a Canon 600mm F4.0 III, but have delayed the purchase because of uncertainty regarding mirrorless bodies. The 7D II sensor, if full frame, would be greater than 50 MP. So unless Canon can supply a mirrorless body with a full-frame sensor of greater than 50 MP, or else an APS-C sensor in a mirrorless body, I am totally uninterested in the "R" lenses listed. I also use a Sony RX10-IV which has a Zeiss lens that zooms to 600mm at F4.0 (equivalent). Much lighter to lug around, but doesn't get me the 960mm equivalent of the Canon gear. However, if Sony brings out an RX10-V with 800mm equivalent or more and no more than F5.6 equivalent at 800mm and around 22 MP, then I would drop the Canon equipment. As a bonus, the silent shutter of the Sony decreases the anxiety of small birds. I know several other photographers doing similar work who are using the Sony RX10-IV more and carrying the Canon/Nikon gear less. Perhaps not a large market niche, but one that supports the Big Whites (or Blacks). Meanwhile consumer use of rapidly improving smartphones for their photography is also increasing. To date, though, such phones are not useful for wildlife photography. Canon may be trying to protect a market that it has already lost. Perhaps Canon should come out with a smartphone with a fancy camera on it and forget about "R" bodies and lenses. And if they don't upgrade their equipment for wildlife/sports photography, they will also lose this market to cameras like the Sony RX10-IV and its successors.



OK, you convinced me.
SO, I'm gonna sell all my Canon and Leica FF equipment and buy a new smartphone, perfect for wildlife pictures!


----------



## criscokkat (Jan 2, 2019)

AlanF said:


> I don't understand the calculations. A 1.3 - 1.4x crop would have half to ~0.6 x the area of FF and so 20 FF would make ~34-40 of the aps-h, not 40-60, and a 1.6x crop is 1/2.56 the area of FF so 20 FF would give 51 aps-c, not a 100? Have I got something wrong?


An old whitepaper from canon I linked at the bottom mentions economics on page 10-11. 

This paper actually mentions that aps-c could have up to 200 of them on a wafer, but I think Canon puts more space between each one which is why I remember reading that they were just over the 100 mark (I don't have a link to back up that statement handy). The linked paper asserts that they could get 46 APS-H sensors on the same wafer that could only fit 20 full frame.

My APS-H thoughts were thinking of something a little smaller than the 1d's APS-H and more the size of Sigma's APS-H (528mm² vs 478mm²). An 8 inch wafer theoretically has 129717 mm² to work with, but some of that is lost by space in between chips and layout in regards to fitting rectangles within a circle. The full frame chips are 860 mm² and the canon aps-c chips are 330 mm². Most other brands APS-C are 370mm² so if canon chose something above 400mm² they could probably get away with calling it aps-h. 

One big cost saving has already happened - it mentions on that same page that there needs to be 3 separate exposures - Canon's own technology that they sell to large chipmaking companies (Intel, Global Foundaries/AMD, Sony, etc) can now do this step all at once. 

http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Information/Canon-Full-Frame-CMOS-White-Paper.pdf


EDIT: I realized I never mentioned WHY I think an aps-H sensor would be something canon would consider -- I think in terms of "small/medium/large" for their camera lineup. EF-m for their small cameras, aps-h on R for their "I want a full sized camera without the full size price" ti/xxd series, and Full Frame for their pro or prosumer oriented cameras. (With some bleed in between, such as a mirrorless 7d like camera)


----------



## criscokkat (Jan 2, 2019)

...and the yield is much bigger too. 1% total scattered around a wafer of defects might invalidate 2-3 of your 20 chips. That same on an aps-c wafer might only hit 5-6 of the 100.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 2, 2019)

criscokkat said:


> ...and the yield is much bigger too. 1% total scattered around a wafer of defects might invalidate 2-3 of your 20 chips. That same on an aps-c wafer might only hit 5-6 of the 100.


Thanks for the explanation - very illuminating.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 2, 2019)

bhf3737 said:


> I tried Sony RX10-IV once in a trip and that was enough for me. It was slow as hell to power up, battery life was very short and it didn't have a charger to start with. The LCD screen was invisible in day light, diffraction was horrible, zoom function was extremely slow, and worst of all, continuous-AF while zooming was disabled!! It was the worst nightmare that I had with any camera so far. May be it is an expensive toy for moms taking picture of kids running around but definitely not a camera for sports and/or wildlife.


Not what I find. A charger comes with the camera to use via the USB port, I get 300-400 shots per charge, and f/4 precisely matches the diffraction limit at 220mm (= 600mm equivalent) for the pixel size and gives the same equivalent for diffraction as f/6.3 with a 7DII or 5DSR. I don't use the LCD screen for wild-life shots, but use the viewfinder, and find all mirrorless cameras slow to power up. I use one to complement my 5DSR and 5DIV and have got many satisfying shots with it. It does have drawbacks as all cameras do but used correctly is a superb tool. Here is a recent shot shot (cropped), which matches the quality I get with a 100-400mm II on a 5DIV.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 2, 2019)

And it has incredible AF. I could get a whole series at 24 fps of, for example, a gull flying past, all in spot-on focus.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 2, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Thanks for the explanation - very illuminating.


Yep – it's not the absolute area, but the number of rectangles that can be inscribed within a 300 mm diameter circular wafer of silicon. That disproportionately affects larger sensors, as does an equivalent distribution of lithography artifacts.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 2, 2019)

springle said:


> I know several other photographers doing similar work who are using the Sony RX10-IV more and carrying the Canon/Nikon gear less. .



I think you are getting confused between "I am off for an afternoon walk and the Sony gives me a chance to take a camera in case I see something" and "I am off to photograph peregrine falcons in flight and think the Sony will do whatever the Canon gear can".


----------



## AlanF (Jan 2, 2019)

Mike, as you know, I am a Canon shooter, but I do appreciate good gear from other manufacturers, and the RX10 IV is remarkable. Ken Rockwell is addicted to his RX10 IV - just read https://kenrockwell.com/sony/rx10-iv.htm It's quite wrong to rubbish it.


----------



## springle (Jan 2, 2019)

WRT the Sony RX10-IV, yes it has deficiencies. I only use the electronic viewfinder and find the contrast too low and hummingbirds flutter rather than fly, but the spin dial exposure adjustment is nice in this viewfinder as you can see the brightness change as you spin it.. I did purchase an extra battery and a separate battery charger. I set it to 30 fps on my first outing and had half a battery charge remaining after exposing 1800 images. Now I shoot at 10 fps and the battery is not as good as in the DSLRs. The resolution of the Zeiss lens is not as good as with the Sigma and Canon lenses I have used (but likely adequate for the 20 MP on a 1-inch sensor). However, when shooting wildlife the limiting factor is the subject, not the lens. Not studio photography. All the fancy gear in the world won't help if you can't find the subject being sought. And if the subject is unpredictable and "flighty", luck may supersede many camera features.

For example, last Summer I heard a certain bird, but to get close enough for photos, I had to negotiate a steep slope of loose dirt and gravel. I knew the heavy gear would be able to take better photos, but I took the Sony instead because of the terrain. I have taken razor sharp images of very speedy Kinglets with the Sony. The silent shutter helps. It has a 600-page manual just for an English-only version. You have to study and fiddle in order to get the most out of this camera. If the next version is as big of a jump in features as this one is over the III version, I know I'll buy it and find it even more of a substitute over the big, heavy gear.

I just think that Canon has foundered in recent times. I think the mirrorless camera bodies announced along with the suggested lenses will be competing with smartphones in the future and they will lose. Google's Night Sight, for example, may be better at shooting Owls than any current DSLR. However, a mirrorless upgrade of the 7D II will not be competing with smartphones. But I'd want lenses for such a body designed for it, not restricted by adapters.


----------



## rom (Jan 2, 2019)

AlanF said:


> It's not an upgrade over a 5DIV. The R is an upgrade from a 6DII.


Maybe not if you only read reviews. But selling my 5d Iv for the eos r was a really good decision. The eos r is a much more modern digital camera. Almost no leftover from old limitations. Like mirror and control dials and separate focus sensor. You get an integrated experience with one focus system and universal control dials. For me the eos r is so much better and more convenient to take with you. And canon did this in a beautiful design.


----------



## applecider (Jan 2, 2019)

Cochese said:


> An adapter isn't possible from RF to EF.


This isn’t entirely true, an adapter without optics isn’t possible, but the optics may be tough to squeeze in, and may need to be lens specific.

What we have not yet seen is third party lenses for R. And all the new ’Rs are looking like expensive,if good lenses.


----------



## maxfactor9933 (Jan 2, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Most of these lenses are duplicates/variations of EF lenses. Right now, Canon appears to be creating a parallel universe for its RF system. Signs point to Canon positioning itself for success regardless of which way the market ultimately goes. The big hole in the system, however, remains the lack of an adapter that will allow customers to use RF lenses on EF mount cameras. Absent that, it will be very hard to convert many users to the new system.



absolutely not. so far the R lenses released have completely new design not a EF with spacer attached. infact this is what Sony did with GM lenses. take a look at 24-70 GM, 85 1.4 GM... all have complementary spacer welded at the back of the lens


----------



## HarryFilm (Jan 2, 2019)

sid.safari said:


> Aren't the new Canon 300mm f/2.8 III and the Canon 500mm f/2.8 III being released in 2019?



--

And while they're at it, Canon might as well release an RF-mount 800 mm and 1200 mm for the pro wildlife and special observation still photo markets! When you start spending $6000+ US for a lens you might as well go for the biggest L-series you can for those can't-get-any-other-way shots which will hopefully earn you that coveted Photograph-of-the-Year award in your specialty!

It's foregone conclusion that Canon will be releasing some SWEET L-series RF lenses first since THEY NEED to back them up later on with a true pro body which ABSOLUTELY WILL consist of a super-low-light sensitive 30 to 50 megapixel sensor in a Full Frame camera body! The other competitors are ALREADY on the way! Canon DOES NOT have much time on this! 

Equivalent to Sony A7s2 and BETTER low light gathering ability in an RF-mount body with PRO stills and video features IS NOW UTTERLY REQUIRED of Canon!
It had BETTER BE 30 megapixels at least and 50 megapixels preferably WITH 60 fps 4k video and at least 30 fps 8K video!
.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jan 2, 2019)

What's that saying? Nice lens shame about the camera. Come on Canon give us something that can compete against the Sony A7R4, not the A7R.


----------



## applecider (Jan 2, 2019)

unfocused said:


> If you are referring to adapting RF lenses for existing Canon DSLRs, I am not an engineer. I would never presume to know how to design a particular adapter. But, I can certainly see the need for such an adapter and expect that Canon's design team would be working on one. I imagine some of the self-proclaimed experts on this forum may claim it is impossible. I will wait and see what Canon and third party manufacturers do.
> 
> I see the lack of complete interchangeability between Canon's two full-frame systems as a major disadvantage. On the other hand, not being an engineer, I also have no idea as to the relative cost of manufacturing two separate sets of full frame lenses. If the costs are marginal, we may see Canon producing parallel EF and RF lenses for decades. Possibly, they will even pull a "Sigma" and offer low cost mount conversions in the future.
> 
> I am certain that Canon understands the risks and downsides of having two separate full-frame mounts and is working feverishly to find a solution that will not alienate its customer base, as I have never considered them stupid.


Except in the case of mount conversions between EF and R it’s not just about the mount it’s also about the optics. So I doubt you will see simple mount conversions, by canon for these systems.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 2, 2019)

rom said:


> Maybe not if you only read reviews. But selling my 5d Iv for the eos r was a really good decision. The eos r is a much more modern digital camera. Almost no leftover from old limitations. Like mirror and control dials and separate focus sensor. You get an integrated experience with one focus system and universal control dials. For me the eos r is so much better and more convenient to take with you. And canon did this in a beautiful design.


It depends on what you shoot. If you are in to wild life and nature photography you need the higher specs of a camera that fires up instantaneously for opportunistic shots, you can use as a spotting scope with the viewfinder and have a decent frame rate. For me to get an R, it would be a downgrade. If you are into portraits, landscapes etc only, I can see it would not be. I’ll get a later generation R that upgrades the specs I need as the R series looks very promising. I believe Canon considers the R closer to the 6DII, but I may be wrong.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 2, 2019)

Oh man, that 105 f1.4 must come true, my favorite FL for portraits and in company of my 50


----------



## bhf3737 (Jan 2, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Not what I find. A charger comes with the camera to use via the USB port, I get 300-400 shots per charge, and f/4 precisely matches the diffraction limit at 220mm (= 600mm equivalent) for the pixel size and gives the same equivalent for diffraction as f/6.3 with a 7DII or 5DSR. I don't use the LCD screen for wild-life shots, but use the viewfinder, and find all mirrorless cameras slow to power up. I use one to complement my 5DSR and 5DIV and have got many satisfying shots with it. It does have drawbacks as all cameras do but used correctly is a superb tool. Here is a recent shot shot (cropped), which matches the quality I get with a 100-400mm II on a 5DIV.


It seems that you have more experience with the RX10 IV camera and I appreciate your thoughts on it. I had it for less than a week and had no time to truly test its features. Because of no external charger provided, I had to charge one battery at a time in camera via USB. I had to leave the power on because of on/off time was quite long and it chewed through the battery quite fast. From my limited experience, diffraction at f/8 or even f/5.6 was giving me quite soft pictures. Your example birds seem to fly left to right and not towards you. Perhaps because of positioning, I could get only a handful of shots in focus when the creatures were coming towards me, because the AF was locked during zoom in/out. Focus speed was very good only when leaving it at a fixed focal length. At the end of the day, my wife with her M3 in green mode could get better shots and more of them in focus than me!


----------



## lenspacker (Jan 2, 2019)

the most of these lenses are existing right now, or I can buy it by a third party lens producer (sigma 1,4 105...). So at the moment there is no need to switch to a system with only 1 (in words ONE) camerabody. And this body is not worth the money canon wants to have for it. I own a 1dx and a 5D 3 - as I wrote above: NO NEED TO CHANGE THE SYSTEM - I STILL STAY AT MY OLD GEAR FOR SURELY TWO MORE YEARS - I hope that canon can deliver an equivalent body like 5d4 or 1dx.....


----------



## sid.safari (Jan 3, 2019)

springle said:


> WRT the Sony RX10-IV, yes it has deficiencies. I only use the electronic viewfinder and find the contrast too low and hummingbirds flutter rather than fly, but the spin dial exposure adjustment is nice in this viewfinder as you can see the brightness change as you spin it.. I did purchase an extra battery and a separate battery charger. I set it to 30 fps on my first outing and had half a battery charge remaining after exposing 1800 images. Now I shoot at 10 fps and the battery is not as good as in the DSLRs. The resolution of the Zeiss lens is not as good as with the Sigma and Canon lenses I have used (but likely adequate for the 20 MP on a 1-inch sensor). However, when shooting wildlife the limiting factor is the subject, not the lens. Not studio photography. All the fancy gear in the world won't help if you can't find the subject being sought. And if the subject is unpredictable and "flighty", luck may supersede many camera features.
> 
> For example, last Summer I heard a certain bird, but to get close enough for photos, I had to negotiate a steep slope of loose dirt and gravel. I knew the heavy gear would be able to take better photos, but I took the Sony instead because of the terrain. I have taken razor sharp images of very speedy Kinglets with the Sony. The silent shutter helps. It has a 600-page manual just for an English-only version. You have to study and fiddle in order to get the most out of this camera. If the next version is as big of a jump in features as this one is over the III version, I know I'll buy it and find it even more of a substitute over the big, heavy gear.
> 
> I just think that Canon has foundered in recent times. I think the mirrorless camera bodies announced along with the suggested lenses will be competing with smartphones in the future and they will lose. Google's Night Sight, for example, may be better at shooting Owls than any current DSLR. However, a mirrorless upgrade of the 7D II will not be competing with smartphones. But I'd want lenses for such a body designed for it, not restricted by adapters.



It seems you favor weight and portability over image quality. Which is fine if that works for you...I just don't know any other wildlife photographers who shares a similar view. I think we all have a smartphone when we are in the field and we'll take plenty of environmental / habitat shots with animals in the foreground. But most of these are for social media, hardly anyone will use it commercially...Bottom line is no smartphone or digital fixed lens camera can ever replace big, fast glass and a dslr / mirrorless designed to capture action. If you value image fidelity that is.


----------



## Tom W (Jan 3, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


I'm a little surprised to not see a 20-24 mm prime, but I am certain that Canon wants to get it perfect. They want to showcase the R body and a superior wide/ultrawide lens or two would do just that.


----------



## Tom W (Jan 3, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> The DSLR has quite some time left...certainly more than you are implying.
> 
> For Jan-Oct 2018, 62% of all ILCs shipped were DSLRs. Compared to the same period in 2017, DSLR sales dropped ~10%...and MILC sales were completely flat, no increase at all in MILC shipments year-over-year. For those claiming that MILCs are a growth market, that’s a real facepalm.



Mirrorless will grow when it becomes fully competitive with DLSR cameras in their own wheelhouse. When an "R" body can perform like the 1Dx II (or a 7D2, or 5D4), then the move will start. Notice that Canon made EF compatibility a priority with the R, to make the transition relatively painless when the time comes.


----------



## Cochese (Jan 3, 2019)

applecider said:


> This isn’t entirely true, an adapter without optics isn’t possible, but the optics may be tough to squeeze in, and may need to be lens specific.
> 
> What we have not yet seen is third party lenses for R. And all the new ’Rs are looking like expensive,if good lenses.


Fine, I shall rephrase: in terms of the lens working and performing as it does on the R, it's not possible to create any kind of practical adapter to make RF lenses work on EF bodies. RF lenses, for one thing, have different electronics in them than EF lenses, so bar RF lenses working just fine with EF signals, you'll be faced with the nightmare situation of making a lens that typically works a few millimeters from the senor to one that has to now make that image circle focus a few inches away from the sensor plane. 

There's a reason APS-C lenses on full-frame bodies are useless. And before you go all "but they work on the RF..." Yeah, and you're still limited to the image circle the crop lens puts out. Which makes them only good for using the lens in a cropped mode. Kind of like using them on Nikon bodies. 

tl;dr: Sure, if you want to make what amounts to being a lens for your lens that costs likely nearly as much as your lens, then perhaps there's some kind of possibility, but in terms of making a practical converter that allows the lens to function normally, it's likely impossible.


----------



## sdz (Jan 3, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> EOS R alone won't _cope_ with all those lenses. Need a few more bodies before the lenses come out.


 (emphasis added)

Ummm, how will the EOS fail to cope with many lenses. Users can mount only one lens at a time on any common camera. That's all the EOS R needs to accomplish to cope with the lenses coming out over the next year.


----------



## sdz (Jan 3, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Most of these lenses are duplicates/variations of EF lenses. Right now, Canon appears to be creating a parallel universe for its RF system. Signs point to Canon positioning itself for success regardless of which way the market ultimately goes. The big hole in the system, however, remains the lack of an adapter that will allow customers to use RF lenses on EF mount cameras. Absent that, it will be very hard to convert many users to the new system.



It's not just that Canon will create a parallel lens set for its EOS R mount cameras. It's likely more appropriate to say that Canon will use its EF lens catalogue to build lenses for the new camera system. It will use it by create R lenses for most or all of its popular EF lenses. Useful and popular lenses will be the best bets for an early appearance. Less popular lenses may never make the cut.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 3, 2019)

Cochese said:


> ...you'll be faced with the nightmare situation of making a lens that typically works a few millimeters from the senor to one that has to now make that image circle focus a few inches away from the sensor plane.


Yes, it's definitely a nightmare situation to take a lens designed to be a certain distance from the sensor, and put some sort of adapter behind it that allows the lens to be further away from the sensor and still focus on the sensor. 

A really horrible nightmare situation. 

One I'm forced to live through every time I use a teleconverter.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jan 3, 2019)

sdz said:


> (emphasis added)
> 
> Ummm, how will the EOS fail to cope with many lenses. Users can mount only one lens at a time on any common camera. That's all the EOS R needs to accomplish to cope with the lenses coming out over the next year.



EOS R won't cope in a sense that there will be more RF lenses than people are willing to buy. A lot of predicted lenses are pro L glass and pros will be holding off until Canon releases decent replacements for 5DMkIV, 5DSR etc.
Bottom line is, if Canon really plans to release this many RF lenses soon, they should also plan to release more R bodies.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 3, 2019)

bhf3737 said:


> It seems that you have more experience with the RX10 IV camera and I appreciate your thoughts on it. I had it for less than a week and had no time to truly test its features. Because of no external charger provided, I had to charge one battery at a time in camera via USB. I had to leave the power on because of on/off time was quite long and it chewed through the battery quite fast. From my limited experience, diffraction at f/8 or even f/5.6 was giving me quite soft pictures. Your example birds seem to fly left to right and not towards you. Perhaps because of positioning, I could get only a handful of shots in focus when the creatures were coming towards me, because the AF was locked during zoom in/out. Focus speed was very good only when leaving it at a fixed focal length. At the end of the day, my wife with her M3 in green mode could get better shots and more of them in focus than me!


I have an M5 and find the Sony far, far superior for AF. Point the Sony RX10 IV at a bird or a dragonfly perched, and the AF detects the subject, the little green focussing squares dance around it and if the bird hops around, the AF locks on to it and retains focus. For BIF, there is no comparison, with the Sony locking on far faster and tracking so much better. The M5 is excellent for scenes, portraits etc and is much better in poor light but not for action.
Cameras that don’t have interchangeable lenses have copy variation of the lens just do copies of interchangeable lenses and I bought my Sony after carefully testing it in the store, which also had a 30 day return policy. An earlier copy had to be returned because it was soft.
Regarding BIF, I tend to take photos of birds going across the frame with all the cameras I use as, apart from owls, birds tend to look better in profile or at angle towards you rather than straight at you. You can’t zoom the Sony during a burst in continuous AF, you have to take your finger off the button and you can zoom. This is more problematic for video rather than stills.

A 1" sensor has a crop factor of 2.7, which means that f/8 which you used, has a depth of field equivalent to f/22. My 5DSR would be seriously diffraction softened at f/22 and I try to use it at f/5.6 or wider. Sony put an f/2.4 to f/4 lens on the RX10 IV camera which is sharp wide open and within the diffraction limits, and the lens should be used wide open.


----------



## Tremotino (Jan 3, 2019)

unfocused said:


> If you are referring to adapting RF lenses for existing Canon DSLRs, I am not an engineer. I would never presume to know how to design a particular adapter. But, I can certainly see the need for such an adapter and expect that Canon's design team would be working on one. I imagine some of the self-proclaimed experts on this forum may claim it is impossible. I will wait and see what Canon and third party manufacturers do.
> 
> I see the lack of complete interchangeability between Canon's two full-frame systems as a major disadvantage. On the other hand, not being an engineer, I also have no idea as to the relative cost of manufacturing two separate sets of full frame lenses. If the costs are marginal, we may see Canon producing parallel EF and RF lenses for decades. Possibly, they will even pull a "Sigma" and offer low cost mount conversions in the future.
> 
> I am certain that Canon understands the risks and downsides of having two separate full-frame mounts and is working feverishly to find a solution that will not alienate its customer base, as I have never considered them stupid.



ahaha you are funny :'D


----------



## Talys (Jan 3, 2019)

Late to the party, but wowza, that's an ambitious launch schedule. Should they actually manage to launch all of those lenses in the next 12 months, and a total of 15 or whatever in the next 36, Canon will have a decent lens portfolio pretty that includes all of the "gotta have moneymaker lenses". They just need a couple of really standout camera bodies -- even if they're stupidly expensive -- to shine.

But what I'd really like to see are some f/4 IS's in addition to the 2.8 and wider lenses. I'd love to have some of the lenses both cheaper and smaller, and there are a FL's where I just don't prioritize bokeh/separation, or am happy to switch to a prime to get it.

And of course, I would really like to see a native RF xxx-600mm f/5.6-ish that is optically decent, weather sealed, and that I can afford


----------



## M_S (Jan 3, 2019)

For me, as a 5DSR owner and a couple of EF and manual Zeiss lenses, I don't really see me investing in Canon gear for the forseable future. No new EF lenses announced, no new DSLRs announced. R lenses coming in 2019, which I can't use, EOS-R body, that doesn't appeal to me and offers me more than my DSRL, even in 2019. If they had put out a pro-R-body first, I could have used my old lenses, but that didn't happen.
No signs that the EF line will be alive in the future, no roadmap, no announcments. Just a big question mark...


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 3, 2019)

M_S said:


> No new EF lenses announced, no new DSLRs announced...
> No signs that the EF line will be alive in the future, no roadmap, no announcments. Just a big question mark...



Now, now. Just because a couple has reached an age, or has decided not to have new babies, we don't say their life is over, do we? Many remain very active in retirement and enjoying grandbabies.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jan 3, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Mike, as you know, I am a Canon shooter, but I do appreciate good gear from other manufacturers, and the RX10 IV is remarkable. Ken Rockwell is addicted to his RX10 IV - just read https://kenrockwell.com/sony/rx10-iv.htm It's quite wrong to rubbish it.



KR states in his review that the RX10 IV is good for "paparazzi, surveillance, law enforcement, code compliance, girl watchers" 

Putting irony aside, this Sony seems to be a very capable package. It also shows that bridge cameras aren't dead but still very attractive, if one wants a versatile, light gear with a huge tele range. If once my back will be too old to carry around 10-15 kilograms of tele gear, I gonna switch to such a bridge camera for birding. Could well be a Sony, if it'll beat then comparable products from Canon, Fuji or Nikon. For me, a camera is a technical tool, not a label I personally identify myself with.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jan 3, 2019)

Looking at this list I wonder whether Canon will really come up with a RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS like lens. Wouldn't that cannibalize sales of their new RF 28-70mm f/2 lens? Given the price level of actual EF 24-70 f/2.8 lenses, they wouldn't play exactly in the same league, of course, but close enough for sales interferences. On the other hand, a cheaper RF 24-70mm f/4 lens wouldn't make too much sense because the new 24-105mm RF kit lens seems to be very good and much more versatile. Interesting to watch which new RF lenses Canon will finally give a real go.


----------



## Ladislav (Jan 3, 2019)

If Canon does not like EF anymore why not to give full access to EF lens <->EF camera protocol to third party manufacturers so that they don't need to reverse engineer it? That could have some positive impact on AF with third party lenses and maybe some other features.

Just dreaming ...


----------



## Hector1970 (Jan 3, 2019)

I’d be curious if the total Canon DSLRs and Mirrorless what % of those will be Eos-R at the end of 2019. An Eos-R lens is of no use to someone like me who isn’t going to buy the first EOS-R. 
This would mean I’m unlikely to buy a Canon lens in 2019 (unless I buy an existing one - which is unlikely).
It’s admirable they are taking a longer term view but short term it might reduce lens sales. Poor short term results can get people nervous especially senior management.
Canon would need new Eos-R cameras to support the new lens and make it more compelling.


----------



## Ladislav (Jan 3, 2019)

I wonder if Canon invested years of development and testing to new lenses like EF 24-70 IS, new 50 and maybe even promised affordable super-telephoto lens they will just cancel them? I assume at least first two must be in very advanced stage and could be released anytime. They may not be top in class but after all those years they will not be bad either. So why not to just start selling what they have and capitalize on all those years of development which was already done?


----------



## AlanF (Jan 3, 2019)

We are in an information vacuum at present, and that will inhibit lots of us from buying until we know what is happening. A good affordable long lightweight telephoto and a capable high resolution body with top class tracking would tempt me. Until, then my current Canon gear is sufficiently good to keep me happy.


----------



## proutprout (Jan 3, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don’t hold your breath. Canon is already making a competitive FF MILC, from their viewpoint and from an objective viewpoint. The difference is that you define ‘competitive’ as having a spec sheet that matches others’ or as having features that you personally want, whereas Canon defines competitive as selling more cameras (and by that metric Sony, Nikon and Panasonic are now the ones worrying about being competitive).


No they really dont ! I want usable 120fps and something that can shoot videos that has good value. Now with the R there’s absolutely no value upgrading from the M50.


----------



## Cochese (Jan 3, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, it's definitely a nightmare situation to take a lens designed to be a certain distance from the sensor, and put some sort of adapter behind it that allows the lens to be further away from the sensor and still focus on the sensor.
> 
> A really horrible nightmare situation.
> 
> One I'm forced to live through every time I use a teleconverter.



Oh yes, it's now 2019, the year we takes words for their literal meaning and not their obvious implication. Do go on.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 3, 2019)

RF 105mm f/1.4


----------



## igurdon (Jan 3, 2019)

Guys, you're the experts here and I need advice: *should I buy EOR R with kit RF 24-105mm f/4 and fix 50mm f/1.2 now or wait for EOS R Pro?*

At present I have Canon 450 with Canon 50mm f/1.4 and Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. I've had this setup for about 12 years and was looking to upgrade since year 1. First, I wanted better ISO performance from the camera, then better lenses, then both. At present, I want to invest around £5k into a future-proof system that would provide solid performance for another 10 years. 

I am looking to shoot family & friends' portraits, trips, possibly some landscape and night photography.

I have no interest in video, well, at least I am not concerned about crop factors / etc and I do not like flash: built-in option never worked & I am not setting-up full rig. For that reason I always wanted fast lenses.

*Should I wait for EOS R Pro? *

Thanks!


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 3, 2019)

unfocused said:


> The big hole in the system, however, remains the lack of an adapter that will allow customers to use RF lenses on EF mount cameras. Absent that, it will be very hard to convert many users to the new system.


wow


----------



## Foxeslink (Jan 3, 2019)

igurdon said:


> Guys, you're the experts here and I need advice: *should I buy EOR R with kit RF 24-105mm f/4 and fix 50mm f/1.2 now or wait for EOS R Pro?*
> 
> At present I have Canon 450 with Canon 50mm f/1.4 and Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. I've had this setup for about 12 years and was looking to upgrade since year 1. First, I wanted better ISO performance from the camera, then better lenses, then both. At present, I want to invest around £5k into a future-proof system that would provide solid performance for another 10 years.
> 
> ...


Do yourself a favour and buy the camera. Eos R is a great camera.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 3, 2019)

KeithBreazeal said:


> 10 bit digital has been around since the dawn of man. It's the mirror that was waiting in the winds.


Even a shave and haircut was 2 bits.  And there was always at least one mirror.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 3, 2019)

proutprout said:


> No they really dont ! I want usable 120fps and something that can shoot videos that has good value. Now with the R there’s absolutely no value upgrading from the M50.


Is this AvTvMm, full stop, mirage, 4fun, or proutprout? The reasoning (?), logic (?), thinking (?) sounds familiar... already.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 3, 2019)

Considering the new releases of the TS lenses and a couple of superteles, I don’t think Canon are just abandoning the EF system. But, I’m selling my 85 f1.4 because it will be a tough sell in two years and I’ve commited to the RF system. Good times


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 3, 2019)

proutprout said:


> No they really dont ! I want usable 120fps and something that can shoot videos that has good value. Now with the R there’s absolutely no value upgrading from the M50.


Your response to 'Canon doesn't need to compete on spec sheets' is that you want a particular feature and you don't see the value in the EOS R? Lol. By all means, ignore the facts that the R is the best-selling FF MILC in Japan and that Canon continues to sell more ILCs and more FF ILCs than any other manufacturer. 

It may be hard for you to accept, but Canon doesn't give a damn what you personally want, nor what I personally want. Their goal with the EOS R ( as with all their cameras) was to make a camera that would be popular with a majority of buyers, and the fact is (supported by the available data on sales) they succeeded.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jan 3, 2019)

Maybe Canon has run out of ideas on EF lens as they’ve come close to perfection. If I were R&D designing new lens for Eos-R would be far more interesting.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 3, 2019)

Cochese said:


> Oh yes, it's now 2019, the year we takes words for their literal meaning and not their obvious implication. Do go on.


I'm not the one claiming a practical RF lens to EF mount adapter is impossible. I certainly don't think Canon will produce one, but that doesn't mean it's impossible… I suspect it could even offer some functionality to the control ring on RF lenses, considering that the EF supertelephoto lenses have an AF Stop button, to which any of several functions can be assigned. 

Then again, it is 2019, the year that some people make ridiculous assertions and expect people to take their bullshit as truth. So by all means, do go on making your unsubstantiated claims.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 3, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> Maybe Canon has run out of ideas on EF lens as they’ve come close to perfection. If I were R&D designing new lens for Eos-R would be far more interesting.


The EF lens lineup is extensive and mature. The RF lens lineup is quite limited. It makes perfect sense that they would devote substantial resources to the new line to get it up to speed.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 3, 2019)

justaCanonuser said:


> Looking at this list I wonder whether Canon will really come up with a RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS like lens. Wouldn't that cannibalize sales of their new RF 28-70mm f/2 lens? Given the price level of actual EF 24-70 f/2.8 lenses, they wouldn't play exactly in the same league, of course, but close enough for sales interferences. On the other hand, a cheaper RF 24-70mm f/4 lens wouldn't make too much sense because the new 24-105mm RF kit lens seems to be very good and much more versatile. Interesting to watch which new RF lenses Canon will finally give a real go.



I don't think so. I think it depends on whether or not the RF 28-70 f/2 is selling well despite there being an EF 24-70 f/2.8 II. I see the RF 28-70 as an event lens -- a compromise for those switching between a 24-70 f/2.8 and f/1.4 or f/2 primes. It's big and heavy. I don't see it used much as for travel, hiking, etc. The 24-70 is much smaller/lighter and better for general purpose. I see the 28-70 more as a specialized lens like the 11-24.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 3, 2019)

Ladislav said:


> I wonder if Canon invested years of development and testing to new lenses like EF 24-70 IS, new 50 and maybe even promised affordable super-telephoto lens they will just cancel them? I assume at least first two must be in very advanced stage and could be released anytime. They may not be top in class but after all those years they will not be bad either. So why not to just start selling what they have and capitalize on all those years of development which was already done?



They will if it no longer makes sense. It is rumored they killed off at least 1 DSLR in development, and rumor also had it that the 24-70 II was chosen amongst a version that had IS. I can see that releasing an EF 24-70 f/2.8 IS making sense if it is close, but I would also expect the upcoming RF version to be better or lighter or both. For as much as it takes to develop a new design and a prototype, it costs much more to put it into production.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 3, 2019)

igurdon said:


> Guys, you're the experts here and I need advice: *should I buy EOR R with kit RF 24-105mm f/4 and fix 50mm f/1.2 now or wait for EOS R Pro?*
> 
> At present I have Canon 450 with Canon 50mm f/1.4 and Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. I've had this setup for about 12 years and was looking to upgrade since year 1. First, I wanted better ISO performance from the camera, then better lenses, then both. At present, I want to invest around £5k into a future-proof system that would provide solid performance for another 10 years.
> 
> ...




If you're thinking about not buying/upgrading anything else for the next 10 years, then no, wait for the pro. But if you are willing to lose a few hundred to use the equipment now, then yes. The new system will AF better even with EF lenses, and the RF 50 is a spectacular lens. The RF 24-105 is a competent lens and suited for general purpose. If you are willing to rent the R/RF system for a couple weeks to try it out, then it'd probably make sense to buy it now and upgrade the R body later as needed because the costs will be similar but you'd have R system to use for that much longer. You would also be able to wait for the Pro version price to settle/fall a bit because you already have the R. If you're mostly satisfied with your current system and want the absolute lowest price, then wait. Ultimately, you need to figure out what your opportunity cost is.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 3, 2019)

igurdon said:


> Guys, you're the experts here and I need advice: *should I buy EOR R with kit RF 24-105mm f/4 and fix 50mm f/1.2 now or wait for EOS R Pro?*
> 
> At present I have Canon 450 with Canon 50mm f/1.4 and Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. I've had this setup for about 12 years and was looking to upgrade since year 1. First, I wanted better ISO performance from the camera, then better lenses, then both. At present, I want to invest around £5k into a future-proof system that would provide solid performance for another 10 years.
> 
> ...


The EOS R is certainly a good camera and there are many happy users here. But, don't be rushed into buying now because others have done so as we don't know what Canon will produce this year unless you are satisfied the R has all you want in a camera.


----------



## jschoonj (Jan 3, 2019)

And I'm just sitting here with my EOS M6


----------



## bergstrom (Jan 3, 2019)

wouldn't it be better to fix the complaints people had with the eos r camera and come out wit a new improved mark 2, instead of bringing out a tonne of lenses to attatch to a product that still doesn't match up to a sony a7iii.


----------



## nchoh (Jan 3, 2019)

bergstrom said:


> wouldn't it be better to fix the complaints people had with the eos r camera and come out wit a new improved mark 2, instead of bringing out a tonne of lenses ...



Quite sure Canon has different teams designing lenses and cameras; even sensor designers and software engineers. So yeah, there will be more camera bodies on the way for sure.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 3, 2019)

Wow, there are still people who think the R took over for every DSLR from Canon... I guess that really is a big compliment to the R...


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 3, 2019)

bergstrom said:


> wouldn't it be better to fix the complaints people had with the eos r camera and come out wit a new improved mark 2, instead of bringing out a tonne of lenses to attatch to a product that still doesn't match up to a sony a7iii.



I'm glad that Canon is pushing out so many high quality RF lenses because it shows its commitment to the system. Does anyone remember Samsung's foray into cameras? They had better stuff than Sony at the time, but they the exited the market. Lenses define the system, and Canon's choice in releasing a bunch of RF L's is showing that Canon is preparing for the long term.

I'd rather have the R with the RF lenses rather than the choice that Nikon made with compact/slow lenses launched with the Zs. Canon's "problem" can be fixed by releasing 1 or 2 bodies, whereas the Z7 doesn't focus as well as their D850 and costs more. Why would a person buy a Nikon? For f/1.8 primes or a f/4 zoom at higher prices than their F mount equivalents? I jumped into the R system because of good pricing during the holiday season and because of the lenses. It's grown on me -- a lot more than I expected. I swapped the EF 35 f/2 IS for the RF 35 f/1.8 IS as a compact walk-around setup, and have the RF 24-105 and the RF 50, and I'm sure that many other R adopters did it for the glass as well. 

With the RF 35 f/1.8 IS, 50 f/1.2, 24-105 f/4 IS, and 28-70 f/2 already available, and the RF 16-35mm f/2.8, RF 24-70mm f/2.8 IS, RF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS, RF 105mm f/1.4, RF 85mm f/1.8 IS, RF Macro lens, RF non-L kit lens coming soon, that would cover the majority of the needs of most photographers. Add in EF compatibility, and there is more lens capability in the R system than there will be in the EF system. And then, Canon will just have to release a couple cameras to win over the 1D/5D users.


----------



## FTb-n (Jan 3, 2019)

So no EF 24-70 f2.8L IS in 2019?

Does this signal the end of new EF lenses?


----------



## Talys (Jan 3, 2019)

FTb-n said:


> So no EF 24-70 f2.8L IS in 2019?
> 
> Does this signal the end of new EF lenses?


This rumor is about new RF lenses. It doesn't say anything about EF lenses one way or the other


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 3, 2019)

Talys said:


> This rumor is about new RF lenses. It doesn't say anything about EF lenses one way or the other



Canon have already said no new EF lenses in 2019. So although it may not be the end, it's not looking healthy for the EF system.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 3, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> Canon have already said no new EF lenses in 2019. So although it may not be the end, it's not looking healthy for the EF system.



When did they say that? Was that an official Canon announcement?


----------



## scyrene (Jan 3, 2019)

HarryFilm said:


> The other competitors are ALREADY on the way! Canon DOES NOT have much time on this!



Your old posts were crazy but at least had novelty value. This is just the same old conventional 'the sky is falling and Canon needs to act fast' nonsense we've heard here for years. Why *now* is this line true, when every previous time it turned out not to be?


----------



## scyrene (Jan 3, 2019)

Tom W said:


> Mirrorless will grow when it becomes fully competitive with DLSR cameras in their own wheelhouse. When an "R" body can perform like the 1Dx II (or a 7D2, or 5D4), then the move will start. Notice that Canon made EF compatibility a priority with the R, to make the transition relatively painless when the time comes.



You're implying that the high-end bodies drive sales, but that's not true. The vast majority of cameras sold are at the low end - so why would the introduction of a 1-series equivalent mirrorless cause significant growth of that sector? Even within FF, which is itself a minority of bodies, the 1-series must sell far less than cheaper cameras.


----------



## LesC (Jan 3, 2019)

I'm intrigued so see what an 'entry level' EOS R spec might be. I have the 6DMKII which does everything I want but I'm looking to complement it with an EOS R at some stage. Had a play with a friends EOS R and quite impressed. Only thing missing for me is built in GPS.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 3, 2019)

M_S said:


> For me, as a 5DSR owner and a couple of EF and manual Zeiss lenses, I don't really see me investing in Canon gear for the forseable future. No new EF lenses announced, no new DSLRs announced. R lenses coming in 2019, which I can't use, EOS-R body, that doesn't appeal to me and offers me more than my DSRL, even in 2019. If they had put out a pro-R-body first, I could have used my old lenses, but that didn't happen.
> No signs that the EF line will be alive in the future, no roadmap, no announcments. Just a big question mark...



There was never an EF roadmap, we're no more in the dark now than we were a year ago. And what EF lenses are missing from the lineup at present that you need? It's a pretty mature ecosystem for almost all uses. It's only natural they should focus on an immature system at this point, but EF is still the way to go for most photographers at the present time (even if you're mounting them on an R body).


----------



## scyrene (Jan 3, 2019)

justaCanonuser said:


> Looking at this list I wonder whether Canon will really come up with a RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS like lens. Wouldn't that cannibalize sales of their new RF 28-70mm f/2 lens? Given the price level of actual EF 24-70 f/2.8 lenses, they wouldn't play exactly in the same league, of course, but close enough for sales interferences. On the other hand, a cheaper RF 24-70mm f/4 lens wouldn't make too much sense because the new 24-105mm RF kit lens seems to be very good and much more versatile. Interesting to watch which new RF lenses Canon will finally give a real go.



Well does the 70-200 f/4 cannibalise the 70-200 f/2.8? Or the 300 f/4 versus the 300 f/2.8? There's plenty overlap in EF lenses at different apertures with wildly different price points. I'm not sure 'cannibalising' is the right way to look at how they coexist.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 3, 2019)

The dilemma for Canon comes with the high-end lenses. Do they make a 500mm f4 RF lens that will only work on one series of bodies? Do they continue to make the big whites and other specialty lenses as EF series, to maximize compatibility? Or do they design adapters that allow some RF lenses to be used on EF and EF-S bodies? 

So long as the 1Dx, 7D and 5D series remain the dominant bodies for sports, birding and wildlife, these lenses probably stay as EF mount. 

People compare this to the FD mount, but there are significant differences. Autofocus was always going to make manual focus lenses obsolete anyway, but while the RF mount has some apparent advantages, none are comparable to the difference between manual and autofocus. Mirrorless is different, but not so clearly "better" in all aspects to make users feel compelled to abandon DSLRs (despite what a handful of forum experts might think). 

Right now, for anyone planning to continue to use both DSLRs and Mirrorless, the choice between investing in an expensive, specialty lens in EF or RF mount (even if it were available in RF mount) the scales would likely be tipped toward EF or no purchase at all. I have simply suggested that Canon is smart enough to understand this dilemma and is likely considering how to address it. It seems odd to me that only Neuro is willing to discuss this rationally.


----------



## Cochese (Jan 3, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'm not the one claiming a practical RF lens to EF mount adapter is impossible. I certainly don't think Canon will produce one, but that doesn't mean it's impossible… I suspect it could even offer some functionality to the control ring on RF lenses, considering that the EF supertelephoto lenses have an AF Stop button, to which any of several functions can be assigned.
> 
> Then again, it is 2019, the year that some people make ridiculous assertions and expect people to take their bullshit as truth. So by all means, do go on making your unsubstantiated claims.



My claims are of any kind of practical solution being possible. And as ridiculous as it may seem to you to say that a practical solution is impossible, we're talking more than basic functionality, but full compatibility. Otherwise it would be a useless endeavor to even do. There is no need to purchase any RF lenses prior to purchasing an RF body if your EF lenses already mount to it. And if you don't have an EF body, than you don't have to worry about it since buying lenses first would be pretty useless. It's just not a practical or useful item to make.


----------



## Ladislav (Jan 3, 2019)

Random Orbits said:


> They will if it no longer makes sense. It is rumored they killed off at least 1 DSLR in development, and rumor also had it that the 24-70 II was chosen amongst a version that had IS. I can see that releasing an EF 24-70 f/2.8 IS making sense if it is close, but I would also expect the upcoming RF version to be better or lighter or both. For as much as it takes to develop a new design and a prototype, it costs much more to put it into production.



I also expect RF version to be better. That's why I believe releasing EF as well would not eat from its sales. People who already have "R" or plan to switch to RF would go for that one but there is still a market for people with DSLR who want 2.8 standard zoom with stabilization. I wouldn't even argue if it had worse optical performance than non-IS version (if priced with respect to that). Good IQ, reliable focus, weather sealing, 2.8, IS - that is all I wished for. Third party lenses don't deliver on that.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 3, 2019)

justaCanonuser said:


> Looking at this list I wonder whether Canon will really come up with a RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS like lens. Wouldn't that cannibalize sales of their new RF 28-70mm f/2 lens? Given the price level of actual EF 24-70 f/2.8 lenses, they wouldn't play exactly in the same league, of course, but close enough for sales interferences.



I wouldn't rule it out.

Canon sells 24-70mm f/2.8, 24-70mm f/4 IS, and apparently makes enough profit on both to keep both manufacturing facilities running. I think the same would work, only a stop faster, on RF.



justaCanonuser said:


> On the other hand, a cheaper RF 24-70mm f/4 lens wouldn't make too much sense because the new 24-105mm RF kit lens seems to be very good and much more versatile. Interesting to watch which new RF lenses Canon will finally give a real go.



Canon added a 24-70mm f/4 IS to the 24-105mm f/4 IS, and as both are still manufactured, apparently the pair makes more profit than dropping one of them and saving the manufacturing facilities for one of them,

This is demonstrated in the 70-200mm and 70/5-300mm brackets as well - Canon can profit from several similar lenses, as long as there's a price & performance differences to separate them.


----------



## Cochese (Jan 3, 2019)

unfocused said:


> The dilemma for Canon comes with the high-end lenses. Do they make a 500mm f4 RF lens that will only work on one series of bodies? Do they continue to make the big whites and other specialty lenses as EF series, to maximize compatibility? Or do they design adapters that allow some RF lenses to be used on EF and EF-S bodies?
> 
> So long as the 1Dx, 7D and 5D series remain the dominant bodies for sports, birding and wildlife, these lenses probably stay as EF mount.
> 
> ...



I don't think it's much of a dilemna for Canon. They cut off the FD line for the EF line pretty cleanly, even if people didn't like it, they still made it to number one. 
They just refreshed a ton of glass for the EF line, so most of those lenses will not likely be seeing another EF varient. Which should be enough to carry them for the next five to ten years since lenses often update at a pretty glacial pace. If canon updated the 7D, 1D, and 5D lines in EF, and ended those lines right there, while working on the RF line of cameras, that'd carry them into the future. 
The issue of whether or not to pick of an EF or RF lens should only be an issue if Canon decides to stick with the DSLR lineup. 
Even so, all EF glass can be mounted to the RF camera via a standard adapter, so the sensible choice would be to stick with EF unless the lens you want isn't in EF mount, such as the 28-70 f/2. 
At least, that's my plan. The 5DMIV easily fits my needs, so unless something happens to it, it'll be my main camera for the next four years. By that time, Canon should have a decent array of RF bodies and perhaps a reason to switch over.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 3, 2019)

scyrene said:


> There was never an EF roadmap, we're no more in the dark now than we were a year ago. And what EF lenses are missing from the lineup at present that you need? It's a pretty mature ecosystem for almost all uses. It's only natural they should focus on an immature system at this point, but EF is still the way to go for most photographers at the present time (even if you're mounting them on an R body).


There is a big difference now, we are at a watershed; is Canon going to bifurcate its roadmap down two major highways or is it going to have one major road, ie R and the other is a cul de sac?


----------



## 6degrees (Jan 3, 2019)

How about these:

RF 85mm F1.2
RF 24mm F1.2


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 3, 2019)

scyrene said:


> You're implying that the high-end bodies drive sales, but that's not true. The vast majority of cameras sold are at the low end - so why would the introduction of a 1-series equivalent mirrorless cause significant growth of that sector? Even within FF, which is itself a minority of bodies, the 1-series must sell far less than cheaper cameras.


Because Canon makes all the money selling 20,000 of the 1D series instead of 10,000,000 of everything else. (sarcasm)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 3, 2019)

bergstrom said:


> wouldn't it be better to fix the complaints people had with the eos r camera and come out wit a new improved mark 2, instead of bringing out a tonne of lenses to attatch to a product that still doesn't match up to a sony a7iii.


The EOS R doesn’t match up to the a7III in your mind, fine. But the data we have to date show that more people are buying the EOS R than are buying the a7III. Like many here, you seem to believe that your opinion represents that of the majority, even though the facts contradict your opinion. As they say, you’re entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 3, 2019)

AlanF said:


> There is a big difference now, we are at a watershed; is Canon going to bifurcate its roadmap down two major highways or is it going to have one major road, ie R and the other is a cul de sac?




Yes, none of us know what is going to happen, but one huge fact should (but probably will not) keep people from panicking: Canon went to great pains to make sure that all the EF lenses work on he RF. (it even uses the LP-E6N battery) Even in the most extreme case, where Canon never makes another EF mount camera ever, all your glass still has a home on an R body.


----------



## nchoh (Jan 3, 2019)

AlanF said:


> There is a big difference now, we are at a watershed; is Canon going to bifurcate its roadmap down two major highways or is it going to have one major road, ie R and the other is a cul de sac?



Good question, but a fairly complex one to answer accurately, so let’s break it down.


Canon likes to segment.
Do not know how long it will take Canon to have a full range of R cameras to have maximum segmentation.
RF lens manufacture process is no different than EF lens manufacture process.
Canon makes more money if customers first buy EF then upgrade to RF.
Will mirrorless beat DSLR in all use cases?
So looking at #2, we could probably guess that it would take at least 10 years for Canon to fully build out a camera line up (R1, R5, R6, R7, R80…). Canon could still produce EF glass into its already crowded lineup to stock the distribution chain. Canon could still introduce newer better EF glass into its already crowded EF lineup. So I would take that EF lenses would still be available for purchase at least 15 years. If DSLR still has a profitable use case, would Canon just totally drop the EF system? Probably not.


----------



## Talys (Jan 3, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Yes, none of us know what is going to happen, but one huge fact should (but probably will not) keep people from panicking: Canon went to great pains to make sure that all the EF lenses work on he RF. (it even uses the LP-E6N battery) Even in the most extreme case, where Canon never makes another EF mount camera ever, all your glass still has a home on an R body.



I wish there were a betting site where people could put their money where there mouth is, and either bet that Canon will make another EF body (or EF lens), or not. I'd bet even with 1000:1 odds that Canon will build more of both.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 3, 2019)

Cochese said:


> My claims are of any kind of practical solution being possible. And as ridiculous as it may seem to you to say that a practical solution is impossible, we're talking more than basic functionality, but full compatibility. Otherwise it would be a useless endeavor to even do. There is no need to purchase any RF lenses prior to purchasing an RF body if your EF lenses already mount to it. And if you don't have an EF body, than you don't have to worry about it since buying lenses first would be pretty useless. It's just not a practical or useful item to make.


Your claims have no basis in reality. From an optical standpoint, an RF lens to EF mount adapter is definitely feasible. Certainly no adapter can confer functions on a camera that are not already present, but that would constitute a rather silly definition of ‘fully compatible’. I already pointed out one analogy for the RF control ring being functional on a DSLR. It’s worth pointing out that the supertele AF Stop button function cannot be customized on, say, a Rebel/xxxD camera body. I suppose that by your definition, a lens like the EF 300/2.8L IS II is thus not ‘fully compatible’ with Canon’s entry level cameras. Like I said, silly.

As for a ‘need to purchase RF lenses prior to purchasing’ an EOS R...sure, why would someone buy an RF 24-105/f4 L IS for their DSLR. But can you really not conceive that some people might want an f/2 standard zoom like the RF 28-70/2L for use on their DSLR? How long have some Canon DSLR users been clamoring for an updated 50/1.2L without the intentionally undercorrected spherical aberration that trades bokeh for sharpness? For that, there’s the RF 50/1.2L.Your claim of ‘no need’ seems either disingenuous or seriously obtuse.

So yes, an adapter is possible, and would be useful for some Canon shooters. I still don’t believe they’ll ever make one, but that’s not the point here.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 3, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Yes, none of us know what is going to happen, but one huge fact should (but probably will not) keep people from panicking: Canon went to great pains to make sure that all the EF lenses work on he RF. (it even uses the LP-E6N battery) Even in the most extreme case, where Canon never makes another EF mount camera ever, all your glass still has a home on an R body.


And that is unbelievably wonderful, to me. Still, people really are doing a lot of hand wringing, aren't they? Personally, I can find no reason to worry. For those still shooters (sports, birds, wildlife, etc.) that must have high frame rates, I highly doubt Canon will leave them high and dry in any case. It will be interesting to see what happens. I can't wait!


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 3, 2019)

Cochese said:


> I don't think it's much of a dilemna for Canon. They cut off the FD line for the EF line pretty cleanly, even if people didn't like it, they still made it to number one.



Well yes and no. They did succumb to pressure from pros and made an FDn 200 f1.8 after the EF 200 f1.8, they also made the rare genuine FD-EOS adapter for long lenses that was an effective 1.26 TC that lost you 2/3 stop of light.

https://mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/200mm.htm
https://mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/fdeos.htm


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 3, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> And that is unbelievably wonderful, to me. Still, people really are doing a lot of hand wringing, aren't they? Personally, I can find no reason to worry. For those still shooters (sports, birds, wildlife, etc.) that must have high frame rates, I highly doubt Canon will leave them high and dry in any case. It will be interesting to see what happens. I can't wait!



One of the advantages of mirrorless is that there is no mirror (duh!) and that means that the potential for silly-high burst rates is there. We have an Oly at work that has a 60FPS burst mode! I fully expect to see a high end R come out with a very large buffer and 20 (or 30) FPS burst mode.


----------



## Del Paso (Jan 3, 2019)

proutprout said:


> No they really dont ! I want usable 120fps and something that can shoot videos that has good value. Now with the R there’s absolutely no value upgrading from the M50.


Why don't you just buy a real video camera???


----------



## Rockskipper (Jan 3, 2019)

I could see people buying mirrorless and then putting their previously-owned EF lenses on them just so they don't have to mess with lens calibration. That's a huge benefit to me, anyway, being an impatient eat dessert now type.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 3, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Cochese said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think it's much of a dilemna for Canon. They cut off the FD line for the EF line pretty cleanly, even if people didn't like it, they still made it to number one.
> ...


An adapter that allowed a lens to be used on a camera with a longer flange focal distance that that for which the lens was designed...similar to using an RF lens on a DSLR. Just beating the dead horse a little.

But more importantly, the EF mount offered widely available and universally compatible *autofocus*. Nothing offered by the RF mount seems to rise to that level of impact.


----------



## Ladislav (Jan 3, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> One of the advantages of mirrorless is that there is no mirror (duh!) and that means that the potential for silly-high burst rates is there. We have an Oly at work that has a 60FPS burst mode! I fully expect to see a high end R come out with a very large buffer and 20 (or 30) FPS burst mode.



Potential is the right word. We will see how fast will Canon be able to take advantage of that potential. So far "R" showed major weaknesses when it comes to burst and focusing in sequential shooting. It may take more than one iteration before this is sorted out even to the level of what 1D or 7D bodies are capable of.

Or it may be sorted really quickly but we will not like the price tag ...


----------



## AlanF (Jan 3, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> One of the advantages of mirrorless is that there is no mirror (duh!) and that means that the potential for silly-high burst rates is there. We have an Oly at work that has a 60FPS burst mode! I fully expect to see a high end R come out with a very large buffer and 20 (or 30) FPS burst mode.


A neat advantage of Oly and Pany is that they can have a buffer of shots stored while you are patiently focussing on a bird waiting for it to take off and when you do fire away after it has taken off because of your slow reflexes it has the 20 or so before you have fired and so you haven't missed the take off!


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 3, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> But more importantly, the EF mount offered widely available and universally compatible *autofocus*.



Yes, the EF stood for Electro Focus. This was a HUGE step forward! Instead of having a dedicated control for every function, this was sending a command over a serial port to perform that function. This allowed autofocus. This allowed aperture control without a mechanical linkage back to the camera. This allowed readable switches on lenses. This allowed IS to be placed in the lenses. The fact that EF survived 30 years, and that the M mount uses the exact same pins shows how good of a decision it was. Even the R mount's controls are based on the EF, just an additional high speed serial link to speed up coms...


----------



## Yasko (Jan 3, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> OK, you convinced me.
> SO, I'm gonna sell all my Canon and Leica FF equipment and buy a new smartphone, perfect for wildlife pictures!



Regarding today‘s iPhone prices you may want to add a few bucks for the change ;-)


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 3, 2019)

AlanF said:


> A neat advantage of Oly and Pany is that they can have a buffer of shots stored while you are patiently focussing on a bird waiting for it to take off and when you do fire away after it has taken off because of your slow reflexes it has the 20 or so before you have fired and so you haven't missed the take off!


Plus, even if you get your timing right, sometimes a 6FPS burst rate misses all the action. Witness these two consecutive frames from a 6D2. A high burst rate is going to catch the action a lot better!


----------



## scyrene (Jan 3, 2019)

AlanF said:


> There is a big difference now, we are at a watershed; is Canon going to bifurcate its roadmap down two major highways or is it going to have one major road, ie R and the other is a cul de sac?



I guess the difference for me is that all the lenses I'd like to own already exist, I just can't afford them. If they don't produce more EF lenses, it won't make any real difference. But more generally I think it's clear most new lenses in the short term will be RF, which largely answers the question? It's not so much a matter of a cul de sac (I wouldn't be surprised if Canon hasn't decided yet, and will see how sales go) as one highway already has six lanes so will do fine for now and the other doesn't so that's where the workmen are sent (to stretch a metaphor).


----------



## venusFivePhotoStudio (Jan 3, 2019)

I


unfocused said:


> I agree that Canon is already making a "competitive" MILC in comparison to other brands. But I would add/concede that it doesn't appear to be truly competitive with its top end DSLRs. What we do not know and cannot know at this point is whether the RF system will eventually be capable of replacing Canon's own full frame DSLRs.
> 
> I imagine you would agree that Canon has no vested interest in any particular format, but instead has a vested interest in remaining the world leader in the marketplace. Some people seem to believe that Canon has a vested interest in promoting a particular format. I think you and I believe they care only about format in so far as it affects profitability and sales.


It's not about if they will replace the DSLRs. They will certainly will. It's about how long it will take until MILCs will replace DSLRs.


----------



## Yasko (Jan 3, 2019)

M_S said:


> No signs that the EF line will be alive in the future, no roadmap, no announcments. Just a big question mark...



Well, the adapters work beautifully, don‘t they?
So the only downside is the worth loss because lighter and more compact lenses are available formthe R line and the fact that there may be significantly less DSLRs being released in the future.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jan 3, 2019)

scyrene said:
You're implying that the high-end bodies drive sales, but that's not true. The vast majority of cameras sold are at the low end - so why would the introduction of a 1-series equivalent mirrorless cause significant growth of that sector? Even within FF, which is itself a minority of bodies, the 1-series must sell far less than cheaper cameras.

I do actually thing high end bodies drive the sales of the lower end bodies. I think its sets an idea is buyers heads they are buying the best even if it is the lower end product they are buying. I think the big white lens at World Cups and Olympics make the brand stand out and encourage sales of the cheaper models. A Pro model of the EOS-R I think would help cement RF Lens sales . It certainly would be good advertising for Canon if its really good. For me the problem for Canon is that it would have to be very good and persuade pro-shooters and agencies to switch over. Battery life is one of the few downsides that needs to be overcome. It would be a trade - off, better connectivity / better focusing / more FPS might compensate for the weaker battery life compared to DSLR.


----------



## criscokkat (Jan 3, 2019)

unfocused said:


> The dilemma for Canon comes with the high-end lenses. Do they make a 500mm f4 RF lens that will only work on one series of bodies? Do they continue to make the big whites and other specialty lenses as EF series, to maximize compatibility? Or do they design adapters that allow some RF lenses to be used on EF and EF-S bodies?
> 
> So long as the 1Dx, 7D and 5D series remain the dominant bodies for sports, birding and wildlife, these lenses probably stay as EF mount.



There have been patents in the last few years for adapters that change focal distances, and it was discussed on here just a few weeks ago. One of the biggest issues is how to account for different angles of light - while all of the EF lenses direct the light to the same flange distance, the angle of light striking that plane is different in a long telephoto lens from a short lens, and accommodating that change is complex. This is especially an issue with zoom lenses. 

However if you make an adapter ONLY for a 500mm RF it can work LOADS better. My guess is if they ever go this way it will be specific adapters for very expensive high end L lenses for an extra 200-300 dollars.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 3, 2019)

venusFivePhotoStudio said:


> I
> 
> It's not about if they will replace the DSLRs. They will certainly will. It's about how long it will take until MILCs will replace DSLRs.



Well yes, but then again, "in the long run, we are all dead."


----------



## Architect1776 (Jan 3, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



Remember Canon took 2 years to introduce the EOS 1 after the EF mount was introduced. During that time they introduced many pro level lenses before the EOS 1 was introduced. It amazes me how many do not know this, of course many here might not even have been born then. Yet Canon in spite of that delay destroyed the competition who was trashing Canon for those 2 years and even after to present, out of jealousy now. The R concept leave all others in the dust and Canon will have a pro camera to match. They just don't do all the consumer and pixel peeper crap on their cameras and believe in color quality not ugly fake colors and confusing menus and silly consumer gimmicks.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 3, 2019)

A generally interesting discussion. Of course none of us knows what the future holds. Canon doesn't know, so how could we? 

Some may view it as "handwringing," but for photographers walking around with $20,000 or more in equipment in their bags -- equipment that some of us need for our work -- it's a bit more than just idle speculation. My current equipment serves my needs and most of what I'd like to see Canon improve upon has nothing to do with mirrorless (except that it would be nice to have a body for events where the "silent" shutter isn't a joke.) 

I enjoy reading the debate and, admittedly, stirring the pot a bit. But, in all honesty, I'm far more interested in the 7DIII and the mythical 150-500mm f5.6 lens that's been rumored for years.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 3, 2019)

unfocused said:


> But, in all honesty, I'm far more interested in the 7DIII and the mythical 150-500mm f5.6 lens that's been rumored for years.


Yeah, the 7DIII will be amazing, and the 150-500mm f/5.6 will have great IQ and be affordable...but it will be an RF lens and won't work on the 7DIII.


----------



## Otara (Jan 4, 2019)

AlanF said:


> A neat advantage of Oly and Pany is that they can have a buffer of shots stored while you are patiently focussing on a bird waiting for it to take off and when you do fire away after it has taken off because of your slow reflexes it has the 20 or so before you have fired and so you haven't missed the take off!



Pity it cant work for flash. Ive taken pictures of some shrimp underwater where they repeatedly reacted and were gone before the camera had finished taking the picture. Not sure what it was (mirror flip?), but it was pretty frustrating.

I have the RF, and I agree that the 5DIV would be better for birds/wildlife in general, but it does have some nice features, as a '6D3', I think its pretty good for my needs, ie the tilt screen etc is a nice tradeoff to the more robust 5DIV aspects, I was converted to it by the M5. Looks like I might have to take a look at the RX10 IV though!


----------



## sdz (Jan 4, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> EOS R won't cope in a sense that there will be more RF lenses than people are willing to buy. A lot of predicted lenses are pro L glass and pros will be holding off until Canon releases decent replacements for 5DMkIV, 5DSR etc.
> Bottom line is, if Canon really plans to release this many RF lenses soon, they should also plan to release more R bodies.



I suspect most buy lenses to use over the long term. Lens purchases are not impulse buys for most. Lenses that become available for sale will remain current for years. I suspect Canon knows this and plans accordingly.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jan 4, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> ...the 150-500mm f/5.6 will have great IQ and be affordable...but it will be an RF lens and won't work on the 7DIII.



Probably not. Except for enabling ridiculously high frame rates, there doesn't seem to be any great advantage to mirrorless cameras for long focal length lenses. And by long, I mean anything longer than 100mm. How far is the rearmost lens element of your 600 f/4 from the rear of the lens?

And can Canon/Nikon/Panasonic make their FF MILCs accurately maintain focus at these ridiculously high frame rates on a race car coming toward them at 100 MPH? My 7d does it easily.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 4, 2019)

unfocused said:


> The dilemma for Canon comes with the high-end lenses. Do they make a 500mm f4 RF lens that will only work on one series of bodies? Do they continue to make the big whites and other specialty lenses as EF series, to maximize compatibility? Or do they design adapters that allow some RF lenses to be used on EF and EF-S bodies?



Unfocused, I think - unfortunately - that the release of the big whites in EF means instead that Canon does not intend to in the near future release DSLR-killing pro bodies, but rather DSLR-approaching pro bodies. Perhaps their current throughput and processor gives them only that option. Hope I'm wrong.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 4, 2019)

Bob Howland said:


> Probably not. Except for enabling ridiculously high frame rates, there doesn't seem to be any great advantage to mirrorless cameras for long focal length lenses. And by long, I mean anything longer than 100mm. How far is the rearmost lens element of your 600 f/4 from the rear of the lens?
> 
> And can Canon/Nikon/Panasonic make their FF MILCs accurately maintain focus at these ridiculously high frame rates on a race car coming toward them at 100 MPH? My 7d does it easily.



I think there was a missing [sarcasm] tag in Neuro's response.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 4, 2019)

[email protected] said:


> Unfocused, I think - unfortunately - that the release of the big whites in EF means instead that Canon does not intend to in the near future release DSLR-killing pro bodies, but rather DSLR-approaching pro bodies. Perhaps their current throughput and processor gives them only that option. Hope I'm wrong.



I suspect that limitations in viewfinder lag and battery life are also factors.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 4, 2019)

unfocused said:


> I think there was a missing [sarcasm] tag in Neuro's response.


Yep. Do you think more s would have helped?


----------



## Otara (Jan 4, 2019)

Id see it more as canon knowing their market, ie there will be plenty willing to stay with a 1DX2 but wanting a new big white. Any new R would have to be convincingly superior rather than just roughly equivalent for that person to get both.

So big white stays EF for now as anyone wanting to use mirrorless can adapt anyhow, with the more general lenses going R first.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 4, 2019)

AlanF said:


> A neat advantage of Oly and Pany is that they can have a buffer of shots stored while you are patiently focussing on a bird waiting for it to take off and when you do fire away after it has taken off because of your slow reflexes it has the 20 or so before you have fired and so you haven't missed the take off!


Well, I have an OLY and have no idea what you are talking about. However, I've had 4 strong beers (10% alcohol) and might understand tomorrow.  What I do know, in my inebriated state, is that comparing micro 4/3 to FF is stupid, in my opinion.


----------



## Rockskipper (Jan 4, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Well, I have an OLY and have no idea what you are talking about. However, I've had 8 strong beers and might understand tomorrow.


I think he's saying that those cameras somehow mysteriously know to take shots w/o you so when you blow it you still have some good shots. I'm surprised Canon even has a chance when the competition uses that kind of AI.


----------



## Talys (Jan 4, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Well, I have an OLY and have no idea what you are talking about. However, I've had 4 strong beers (10% alcohol) and might understand tomorrow.  What I do know, in my inebriated state, is that comparing micro 4/3 to FF is stupid, in my opinion.



lol... I suspect Alan is talking about pro capture (or maybe it's called something different now). The thing where if you half press he shutter, it starts to record. When I tried it, it wasn't really my thing because I'm not shy about using the shutter button, and I prefer to use the back button to AF/AE.


----------



## M_S (Jan 4, 2019)

scyrene said:


> There was never an EF roadmap, we're no more in the dark now than we were a year ago. And what EF lenses are missing from the lineup at present that you need? It's a pretty mature ecosystem for almost all uses. It's only natural they should focus on an immature system at this point, but EF is still the way to go for most photographers at the present time (even if you're mounting them on an R body).


I doubt that there was "never" a roadmap. Anyhow, it would be of great help for me as a customer to know, if the company plans on supporting the EF format in the long term. Because this will have a great influence in my buying descision, now and in the future, and affects my brand loyalty. The question what is missing from the EF line is not as important as what should be improved, at least in my opinion. Some lenses don't performe as well on the 5dSR as on a lower MP cameras, 24mm II for example, for which I took the Zeiss Milvus 25 1.4 instead. The TS lenses 17mm and 24mm could benefit also from a refresh, as well as the 50 1.2. All of which are already out there, but will get their refreshments in the R-line sooner or later I suppose. But, as I said, nobody knows, because there is a lack of communication thereof which leaves a big question mark.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 4, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Well, I have an OLY and have no idea what you are talking about. However, I've had 4 strong beers (10% alcohol) and might understand tomorrow.  What I do know, in my inebriated state, is that comparing micro 4/3 to FF is stupid, in my opinion.



Rule 1 for posting on the Internet
Don't post when inebriated as you will end up writing something you regret and might make yourself look an idiot 

Go and Google Olympus Pro Capture, and see what you don't know and what you might be missing, and what a neat feature it would be on any Canon body. It's great for sports photography.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 4, 2019)

Rockskipper said:


> I think he's saying that those cameras somehow mysteriously know to take shots w/o you so when you blow it you still have some good shots. I'm surprised Canon even has a chance when the competition uses that kind of AI.



Rule 2 for posting on the Internet
Don't post when sober smart alec comments that backfire as people might think you are inebriated. 

Go and google Olympus Pro Capture or Panasonic Pre-burst


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 4, 2019)

There is only one sad thing IMO: RF lenses cannot be mounted on an EOS M camera so no upgrade path by buying RF lenses for EOS M (except someone finds a solution maybe with thin titanium based adapter components and some trick for making contact).
And it's a pity that you cannot mount the EF-M 32 on an EOS R for 4k video where it would be a great standart focal length with close to perfect IQ.

Hopefully Canon will make some fast tele lenses in EF mount for those who want to use their 5D and 1Dx cameras for an extended period - what about giving the customer a free EF2RF adapter with control ring if they buy above e.g. 2.0 200mm? Compared to the lens prices the adapter is nothing and gives the customer "future proof" lenses (and Canon maybe EOS R body sales).


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 4, 2019)

M_S said:


> I doubt that there was "never" a roadmap. Anyhow, it would be of great help for me as a customer to know, if the company plans on supporting the EF format in the long term. Because this will have a great influence in my buying descision, now and in the future, and affects my brand loyalty. The question what is missing from the EF line is not as important as what should be improved, at least in my opinion. Some lenses don't performe as well on the 5dSR as on a lower MP cameras, 24mm II for example, for which I took the Zeiss Milvus 25 1.4 instead. The TS lenses 17mm and 24mm could benefit also from a refresh, as well as the 50 1.2. All of which are already out there, but will get their refreshments in the R-line sooner or later I suppose. But, as I said, nobody knows, because there is a lack of communication thereof which leaves a big question mark.



I think there is a good chance we've already seen the last EF L series lenses. If we do see new lenses on the EF mount they're going to be minor updates of EF-S kit lenses but even that is pretty remote. Possibly replacements for the other big white primes if they were already in development and close to production, and, yes, I think that replacements for the TS 17 and 24 if they come in the near future would probably also be EF mount. But then that's it. Game over.

When Canon launched the EOS 650 in 1987 the world was full of Canon SLRs with the FD mount. How many new FD lenses did they launch after this? Only one - the FD 200mm f/1.8, and that was AFTER the lens had been launched on the EF mount. Only one! And converting an EF lens to FD was easy due to the flange distances, you pretty much just put on a new mount and add manual aperture control and you're done. Converting a new RF lens design to work on EF isn't viable except in general for >=135mm lenses.

The only thing that would make them go back to launching EF lenses would be if the EOS R was a spectacular commercial failure. But it doesn't seem that's the case.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 4, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Well, I have an OLY and have no idea what you are talking about. However, I've had 4 strong beers (10% alcohol) and might understand tomorrow.  What I do know, in my inebriated state, is that comparing micro 4/3 to FF is stupid, in my opinion.


This is not about comparing 4/3 to FF, it is about looking at features on the top model of a mature mirrorless system and speculating that when Canon introduces a higher end R camera, that it may have some of those features.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 4, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> The only thing that would make them go back to launching EF lenses would be if the EOS R was a spectacular commercial failure. But it doesn't seem that's the case.


The EOS R is already a commercial success. But the idea that Canon will stop releasing lenses for cameras that comprise the majority of the ILC market is ludicrous.


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 4, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> The EOS R is already a commercial success. But the idea that Canon will stop releasing lenses for cameras that comprise the majority of the ILC market is ludicrous.



And just if the commercial success of the EOS R 1st attempt is vanishing in the next months ... today changing bodies is a little bit like changing film (sensor = film type/quality). The original EOS M was a much less advanced attempt to go into mirrorless compared to EOS R and it was incredibly cheap 6 or 12 months after release but the EOS M line survived all the "so much better cameras" and the EF-M 32mm is a good sign that this line has some bigger niche at least.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 4, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> The EOS R is already a commercial success. But the idea that Canon will stop releasing lenses for cameras that comprise the majority of the ILC market is ludicrous.


Yes,

This forum is heavily populated by those with higher end bodies and lots of L glass, but the big sellers for Canon are Rebels and kit lenses.

It is worth noting that the M system is now mature, with many bodies and a reasonable selection of lenses, yet in the world of crop shooters with entry level cameras the Rebels and their kit lenses are still selling well. People have a choice, and some go mirrorless while others go for a bit bigger form factor with a mirror. Those who go mirrorless with the M can get an adaptor and still use their EF or EF-S lenses. It is not unreasonable to expect that in the world of FF mirrorless that the same thing will happen.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jan 4, 2019)

unfocused said:


> When did they say that? Was that an official Canon announcement?



that was in one of the Canon officials interview when R system was just released. the message was: all resources are allocated to R system project in 2019, R system is important and Canon has to catch up with the market quickly. Hence no EF lenses for 2019. That does not sound like an end of EF. EF system is mature and can go for a year without an update.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 4, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Well, I have an OLY and have no idea what you are talking about. However, I've had 8 strong beers and might understand tomorrow.





AlanF said:


> Rule 1 for posting on the Internet
> Don't post when inebriated as you will end up writing something you regret and might make yourself look an idiot
> 
> Go and Google Olympus Pro Capture, and see what you don't know and what you might be missing, and what a neat feature it would be on any Canon body. It's great for sports photography.


Ahhhhh.... Pro Capture is only on the Olympus 1 series. Not on my 5 Mark II  Rats! And I look like an idiot, inebriated or not.


----------



## jonebize (Jan 4, 2019)

I am hoping for some decent IQ, decent size, decent price primes. Im wondering if the new mount will allow the smaller optics to be better than they used to be.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jan 4, 2019)

sdz said:


> I suspect most buy lenses to use over the long term. Lens purchases are not impulse buys for most. Lenses that become available for sale will remain current for years. I suspect Canon knows this and plans accordingly.



Very true. However, I struggle to imagine someone buying RF lenses without buying an R camera. Yet EOS R isn't good enough for me, so I don't even think of buying RF lenses.
Prospective 'holy trinity' RF lenses and the whole prospective RF lineup don't make much sense until more R bodies are released - again, as a continuation of 5DMkIV, 5DSr etc.


----------



## home_slice (Jan 4, 2019)

I'll wait for a suitable camera body to come out before investing in anything R.


----------



## jedy (Jan 4, 2019)

jonebize said:


> I am hoping for some decent IQ, decent size, decent price primes. Im wondering if the new mount will allow the smaller optics to be better than they used to be.


You'd hope if an 'entry-level' (probably still very expensive) EOS R is coming this year that some reasonably priced, smaller f1.8 primes would also be coming. Who knows. It's a bit odd there's no news on a pro level EOS R considering the lenses mentioned (and those already available) are of top quality pro L grade. Looks like Canon want to release the 'workhorse' lenses first. I guess they're trying to entice the pro DSLR user over. They'd better get releasing a more professional EOS R if they want that to happen.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 4, 2019)

scyrene said:


> There was never an EF roadmap, we're no more in the dark now than we were a year ago. And what EF lenses are missing from the lineup at present that you need?



1. EF 50mm f/1.4L USM - every other manufacturer has an equivalent
2. EF 50mm f/<=2.0 IS USM - same upgrade as the 24-28-35mm upgrade
3. EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM


----------



## unfocused (Jan 4, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> that was in one of the Canon officials interview when R system was just released. the message was: all resources are allocated to R system project in 2019, R system is important and Canon has to catch up with the market quickly. Hence no EF lenses for 2019. That does not sound like an end of EF. EF system is mature and can go for a year without an update.



Thanks. As I suspected, someone was reading far more into a general statement from a single Canon executive than was ever intended.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 4, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> I do actually thing high end bodies drive the sales of the lower end bodies. I think its sets an idea is buyers heads they are buying the best even if it is the lower end product they are buying. I think the big white lens at World Cups and Olympics make the brand stand out and encourage sales of the cheaper models. A Pro model of the EOS-R I think would help cement RF Lens sales . It certainly would be good advertising for Canon if its really good. For me the problem for Canon is that it would have to be very good and persuade pro-shooters and agencies to switch over. Battery life is one of the few downsides that needs to be overcome. It would be a trade - off, better connectivity / better focusing / more FPS might compensate for the weaker battery life compared to DSLR.



Brand visibility is clearly relevant to sales, but Canon already has that visibility. I don't think the vast majority of customers know the specifics (whether mirrorless or not for instance), nor care precisely what bodies pros are using at big events. The contention was that the introduction of a high-end R-series body will give sales a big boost, indeed that it is required for significant sales of the RF system - I simply don't think that is the case (though obviously the more bodies available, the more people will buy them, as they will suit more people's desires). Either way, a high-end model will be released at some point in the next year or two, as will other RF and EF bodies - the former will gain some ground because it's starting from a lower base, but the two systems will coexist for a long time to come.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 4, 2019)

M_S said:


> I doubt that there was "never" a roadmap. Anyhow, it would be of great help for me as a customer to know, if the company plans on supporting the EF format in the long term. Because this will have a great influence in my buying descision, now and in the future, and affects my brand loyalty. The question what is missing from the EF line is not as important as what should be improved, at least in my opinion. Some lenses don't performe as well on the 5dSR as on a lower MP cameras, 24mm II for example, for which I took the Zeiss Milvus 25 1.4 instead. The TS lenses 17mm and 24mm could benefit also from a refresh, as well as the 50 1.2. All of which are already out there, but will get their refreshments in the R-line sooner or later I suppose. But, as I said, nobody knows, because there is a lack of communication thereof which leaves a big question mark.



I meant a publicly-accessible roadmap. Canon doesn't work that way, apparently - they obviously have internal plans.

But I honestly don't understand your position. They aren't going to abandon EF! Even if they never make another EF lens, which I'd be very surprised by, they will continue to support existing ones for many years. Beyond that the bottom line is: there are no guarantees. When you buy stuff, you don't know what will happen - but Canon are the biggest player in this market so they are unlikely to go bust and leave you with gear that can't be serviced, and the resale values hold up well, so I don't see why it's such a big deal. I still say the situation is essentially the same now as it was a year ago - all lenses have deficiencies. Some will be replaced, some may never be, we don't know which. You have to buy what suits you best at the time. You'll probably want a new body at some point, if you go with an R-series, they'll take your existing glass. If the new lenses you want are RF then you'll have to buy an R-series if you want to use them (this is the only difference). But by then there will be a choice of bodies and one will likely meet most of your needs (but no body is perfect, regardless of mount or manufacturer). *Shrug*


----------



## scyrene (Jan 4, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> When Canon launched the EOS 650 in 1987 the world was full of Canon SLRs with the FD mount. How many new FD lenses did they launch after this? Only one - the FD 200mm f/1.8, and that was AFTER the lens had been launched on the EF mount. Only one!



As others have intimated, the FD-EF transition isn't a perfect parallel for EF-RF, for various reasons. There's no reason the future should mirror the past. You might be right, but it's not certain.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 4, 2019)

scyrene said:


> As others have intimated, the FD-EF transition isn't a perfect parallel for EF-RF, for various reasons. There's no reason the future should mirror the past. You might be right, but it's not certain.


The past definitely has a mirror. The question is will the future have a mirror?


----------



## scyrene (Jan 4, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> 1. EF 50mm f/1.4L USM - every other manufacturer has an equivalent
> 2. EF 50mm f/<=2.0 IS USM - same upgrade as the 24-28-35mm upgrade
> 3. EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM



I suppose I should have been clearer. There are gaps - there are always gaps. But EF is the most complete range of lenses that exists (especially including third party options - and your 50mm desire would be covered by that, for instance). I'd have liked to see a Canon 180 or 200mm f/2.8 IS macro lens but I wouldn't have made purchasing decisions based on my hopes or rumours (or even a roadmap if it existed). I'd have gone with the best option available at the time - in this case a third party makes the lens I want. I don't see that the introduction of the R-series makes any difference (but if I'm missing a point, I apologise).


----------



## unfocused (Jan 4, 2019)

scyrene said:


> I meant a publicly-accessible roadmap. Canon doesn't work that way, apparently - they obviously have internal plans.
> 
> But I honestly don't understand your position. They aren't going to abandon EF! Even if they never make another EF lens, which I'd be very surprised by, they will continue to support existing ones for many years. Beyond that the bottom line is: there are no guarantees. When you buy stuff, you don't know what will happen - but Canon are the biggest player in this market so they are unlikely to go bust and leave you with gear that can't be serviced, and the resale values hold up well, so I don't see why it's such a big deal...*Shrug*



Generally, I agree with your statement. But, I do feel that we are entering in some new territory here and it might be advantageous for Canon to provide a bit more information about their future plans. Despite what many people claim, this is not at all like the FD to EF conversion. That was a major technological change and anyone with half a brain knew that they had to adopt a system that would accommodate autofocusing. 

While the new mirrorless mount may have some advantages for designing lenses, it simply isn't the same kind of revolutionary change. The EF, EF-S, EF-M and RF systems could very well happily co-exist for decades. 

So, I agree that there is no need for panicked hand-wringing, but I can also see why people might be concerned about making major purchase decisions until the path becomes a bit more clear. I'm not sure that Canon knows what direction they will be moving in the future, but I can see how a bit of transparency on their part might be a smart business move.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 4, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Mike, as you know, I am a Canon shooter, but I do appreciate good gear from other manufacturers, and the RX10 IV is remarkable. Ken Rockwell is addicted to his RX10 IV - just read https://kenrockwell.com/sony/rx10-iv.htm It's quite wrong to rubbish it.



I am not rubbishing the Sony at all - your photos show its capabilities. I was pointing out the (IMO) misinterpretation that Springle put on other peoples' camera choices.
I take my MFT gear out with me more than my Canon gear, but that is because it is more portable and therefore more appropriate for 'casual carrying' not because it is better image quality. Occasions I 'need' the Canon gear are a small number of the shots I take but on those occasions MFT cannot replace it.


----------



## nchoh (Jan 4, 2019)

Let’s put the horse back in front of the cart. What do I mean? There is an argument put forward that because Canon will release seven new RF lenses this year, that that is an indicator that EF is dead. In reality, producing EF lenses is not a big deal; just because Canon is focusing this year on producing RF lenses does not indicate that EF is dead.

What does it take to produce a lens? An optical formula, glass, motor and casing. Is there any difference between EF and RF in the above? No. The only difference is that RF is a superset of communication protocol of the EF and the physical size difference of the mount.

Therefore, the constraint on producing different system lenses (EF, EF-S, RF, MF) is the design and production capacity of Canon, and the capacity of the distribution channel to stock all the lenses. So, as long as there is demand, Canon will likely keep producing and selling EF lenses.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 4, 2019)

Mikehit said:


> I am not rubbishing the Sony at all - your photos show its capabilities. I was pointing out the (IMO) misinterpretation that Springle put on other peoples' camera choices.
> I take my MFT gear out with me more than my Canon gear, but that is because it is more portable and therefore more appropriate for 'casual carrying' not because it is better image quality. Occasions I 'need' the Canon gear are a small number of the shots I take but on those occasions MFT cannot replace it.


Mike
You were not rubbishing the Sony RX10IV, it was bhf3737 who let loose a diatribe against it, and I was objecting to that. These other cameras do fill a genuine lacuna and we should appreciate that. I just wish canon would do a better job at bridge cameras. I bought the G3 X and it just didn't cut it for me whereas the Sony works remarkably well.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 4, 2019)

Mikehit said:


> I am not rubbishing the Sony at all - your photos show its capabilities. I was pointing out the (IMO) misinterpretation that Springle put on other peoples' camera choices.
> I take my MFT gear out with me more than my Canon gear, but that is because it is more portable and therefore more appropriate for 'casual carrying' not because it is better image quality. Occasions I 'need' the Canon gear are a small number of the shots I take but on those occasions MFT cannot replace it.


Yes,

One of the cameras at work is an Oly. It is by far the preferred camera to use by most of us, and that is mostly because it fits into a tool bag. Sometime portability counts above all else  This is why I wonder how long it will be until we see a small kit lens for the R. Perhaps a 24-70 F6.3.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 4, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Generally, I agree with your statement. But, I do feel that we are entering in some new territory here and it might be advantageous for Canon to provide a bit more information about their future plans. Despite what many people claim, this is not at all like the FD to EF conversion. That was a major technological change and anyone with half a brain knew that they had to adopt a system that would accommodate autofocusing.
> 
> While the new mirrorless mount may have some advantages for designing lenses, it simply isn't the same kind of revolutionary change. The EF, EF-S, EF-M and RF systems could very well happily co-exist for decades.
> 
> So, I agree that there is no need for panicked hand-wringing, but I can also see why people might be concerned about making major purchase decisions until the path becomes a bit more clear. I'm not sure that Canon knows what direction they will be moving in the future, but I can see how a bit of transparency on their part might be a smart business move.


I generally agree, but I will point out that at the advent of autofocus lenses there were many who felt than manual focus was faster and more accurate, and some (like me) that simply couldn’t afford AF lenses. Similarly, there were many who claimed that digital would never best film. Looking back, it’s obvious that AF and digital are game-changing innovations that improved photography, but at the time those beliefs were far from universal. Having said that, I agree that there’s really nothing game-changing about a shorter flange focal distance or removing the mirror from a DSLR.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 4, 2019)

scyrene said:


> I suppose I should have been clearer. There are gaps - there are always gaps. But EF is the most complete range of lenses that exists (especially including third party options - and your 50mm desire would be covered by that, for instance).



I was pointing holes, though the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 Di VC USD is on my wish list.



scyrene said:


> I'd have liked to see a Canon 180 or 200mm f/2.8 IS macro lens but I wouldn't have made purchasing decisions based on my hopes or rumours (or even a roadmap if it existed). I'd have gone with the best option available at the time - in this case a third party makes the lens I want.



Which raises the question - why didn't you buy the Sigma 180mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM APO Macro lens?


----------



## unfocused (Jan 4, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I generally agree, but I will point out that at the advent of autofocus lenses there were many who felt than manual focus was faster and more accurate...



Off topic, but I often wonder if I really get better results with autofocus than I did in the old days, when focusing screens were designed for manual lenses and grainy Tri-X pushed to 1600 meant the image was never going to be razor sharp anyway. Probably the biggest thing I notice these days though is how the position of autofocus points influences composition. Instead of composing the image for the entire frame, I find myself backing into the composition based on where the autofocus points happen to be.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jan 4, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> I wouldn't rule it out.
> 
> Canon sells 24-70mm f/2.8, 24-70mm f/4 IS, and apparently makes enough profit on both to keep both manufacturing facilities running. I think the same would work, only a stop faster, on RF.
> 
> ...



I think we'll see during the next 2, 3 years where Canon is going. Maybe you're right. Looks like Canon tries to expand their R lens selection faster than the M system in the past. In fact, they need to be fast to catch up with Sony's now mature ML FF system. Would be good news for us Canon users...


----------



## degos (Jan 4, 2019)

nchoh said:


> Therefore, the constraint on producing different system lenses (EF, EF-S, RF, MF) is the design and production capacity of Canon, and the capacity of the distribution channel to stock all the lenses. So, as long as there is demand, Canon will likely keep producing and selling EF lenses.



But that's the problem. If the production capacity to make the RF 28-70, for example, is currently occupied by the EF 24-70 then who loses? Unless Canon builds-out more capacity they're going to have to make decisions for the Japanese-produced lenses at least.


----------



## nchoh (Jan 4, 2019)

degos said:


> But that's the problem. If the production capacity to make the RF 28-70, for example, is currently occupied by the EF 24-70 then who loses? Unless Canon builds-out more capacity they're going to have to make decisions for the Japanese-produced lenses at least.



Not really. Canon produced 130 million EF lenses in 30 years, an average of more than 4 million a year. If you assume that the half of the production was in the last 10 years, that would be 6.5 million lenses per year. Furthermore, with the decline in sales of ILC cameras, there would be an overcapacity in production capacity. 

Canon being the leader in ILC cameras by a wide margin and having been in business for more than 30 years would certainly not have such a problem.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 4, 2019)

degos said:


> But that's the problem. If the production capacity to make the RF 28-70, for example, is currently occupied by the EF 24-70 then who loses? Unless Canon builds-out more capacity they're going to have to make decisions for the Japanese-produced lenses at least.


There are 80+ lenses currently in production, so obviously prioritization is an issue they deal with routinely and have done so for decades. Adding a few RF lenses into the mix should not present a major problem for them.


----------



## springle (Jan 4, 2019)

Many many years ago, a friend of mine encountered a significant technological change in photography. When I first started to do some photography for pay, I was using Canon equipment, but most sports photographers of that time were using Nikon equipment. Very few Big Whites in view at major events.

This friend was an owner of a company that engaged in sports photography all over the world and indeed, were the official photographers of the Olympic Games. He used Nikon equipment.

When Canon changed its lens mount system to allow for electronic contacts for autofocus, Nikon didn’t follow. Instead they reiterated their position to maintain lens compatibility with all bodies.

While photographing the World Championships of Track and Field, my friend, being an owner of the company, had field access. His employees in attendance only had access to the perimeter of the field.

Although on more than one occasion he had been named World Sports Photographer of the Year, he freely observed that his employees were obtaining better images than he, even though he had better access to events. All such employees were using Canon equipment. Subsequently he approached Canon and they generously agreed to swap out all his Nikon equipment for comparable Canon equipment. No charge. And now we see that the Big Whites dominate numerically at such events.

The moral of the story is that if a system change results in improved photos, then it is good and should be successful. It is not clear to me that the Canon “R” system will result in better images. Fewer moving parts should result in improved durability. (It is disconcerting to have a mechanical failure such as I did while on a paid shoot when my EOS-1D’s shutter failed (after only 40k images). Luckily I had a backup. My current workhorse, a 7D II has at least 200k exposures and clearly is much more durable than the older model.) Silent electronic “shutter” will help me obtain photos more easily for some subjects. Don’t care about flash any more. The main issue for me is lens evolution and lens compatibility. Most of my photography investment is in lenses, not bodies. I wish to make wise investments and to do so, need Canon (et al) to divulge its expected evolution. The lenses mentioned in this thread don’t tickle my fancy enough for a move to the “R” system.

(And, as an aside, I recall watching not many years ago, a photographer with a film Hasslebad on a tripod and a lens about 3-feet-long attached to it aiming at a Northern Hawk Owl. Nice to know it's still possible to take images while focusing manually, exposing manually, stabilizing with a tripod and using film. Easy to become spoiled with tech.)


----------



## AlanF (Jan 4, 2019)

springle said:


> Many many years ago, a friend of mine encountered a significant technological change in photography. When I first started to do some photography for pay, I was using Canon equipment, but most sports photographers of that time were using Nikon equipment. Very few Big Whites in view at major events.
> 
> This friend was an owner of a company that engaged in sports photography all over the world and indeed, were the official photographers of the Olympic Games. He used Nikon equipment.
> 
> ...


Was the owl flying? I’d be really impressed if he could have taken a sharp shot of that.


----------



## bhf3737 (Jan 5, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Mike
> You were not rubbishing the Sony RX10IV, it was bhf3737 who let loose a diatribe against it, and I was objecting to that. These other cameras do fill a genuine lacuna and we should appreciate that. I just wish canon would do a better job at bridge cameras. I bought the G3 X and it just didn't cut it for me whereas the Sony works remarkably well.


With respect, I reported my personal experience with the Sony RX10IV and it was not a pleasant one at all. Someone like yourself may have a different experience. Unlike some reviews, I don't expect the others use only one data point to decide upon usability of any camera from any manufacturer. I use both Canon and Fuji (as a lighter travel kit) and have no bitter experience with either so far.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 5, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> The EOS R is already a commercial success. But the idea that Canon will stop releasing lenses for cameras that comprise the majority of the ILC market is ludicrous.



Why is it ludicrous?

They will continue to manufacture lenses for the EF mount for as long as there is demand, I'm sure. But do they need to invest in new designs? Why would they bother now? I'm sure every Canon DSLR owner who wants to buy EF lenses already has a wish list of existing lenses that's far greater than they can realistically afford. Canon won't stop selling EF lenses to us if they stop launching new ones.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 5, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> Which raises the question - why didn't you buy the Sigma 180mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM APO Macro lens?



Oh I did. Optically it was excellent but my copy had a focus issue so I returned it, and I never got round to buying another.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 5, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Was the owl flying? I’d be really impressed if he could have taken a sharp shot of that.



Funnily enough, when I first got into bird photography I was usually manually focusing, because I tended to mount one (or even two!) extender(s) and this was before the 5D3 allowed autofocus at f/8 (and before then I was using a 50D). It *is* possible to get in-focus birds in flight focusing manually - handheld even - but of course the keeper rate is abysmal. It rather boggles my mind now, but thankfully I worked on my fieldcraft, went to better locations (and changed my expectations) and haven't felt the need to do it in years.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 5, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> Why is it ludicrous?
> 
> They will continue to manufacture lenses for the EF mount for as long as there is demand, I'm sure. But do they need to invest in new designs? Why would they bother now? I'm sure every Canon DSLR owner who wants to buy EF lenses already has a wish list of existing lenses that's far greater than they can realistically afford. Canon won't stop selling EF lenses to us if they stop launching new ones.


>60% of ILC market. Profit. They're going to continue releasing new DSLRs and lenses for them.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 5, 2019)

bhf3737 said:


> With respect, I reported my personal experience with the Sony RX10IV and it was not a pleasant one at all. Someone like yourself may have a different experience. Unlike some reviews, I don't expect the others use only one data point to decide upon usability of any camera from any manufacturer. I use both Canon and Fuji (as a lighter travel kit) and have no bitter experience with either so far.



Fair enough, you shouldn't rely on just one review or one user. I thoroughly researched before testing and buying myself.
I started with this one as it gives a good account, and actually measures the MTFs of the lens at different focal lengths:

“Overall the lens is an excellent performer, better than one with a bright design and 25x zoom power has any right to be.”
https://uk.pcmag.com/digital-cameras/93797/sony-cyber-shot-dsc-rx10-iv

Then I read:
“But it's here now, and it's safe to say right up front that my experiences with this powerful -- if also rather pricey -- shooter have continued to be superb! “
https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-rx10-iv/sony-rx10-ivA.HTM

And went on to further:
“For those looking for a powerful all-in-one solution, the RX10 IV is the best camera out there. It comes at a price, but there's nothing else quite like it.”
https://www.techradar.com/uk/reviews/sony-cyber-shot-rx10-iv

“Let’s get straight to it. The Sony Cyber-shot RX10 IV is a bridge camera (super-zoom) in a league of its own. These all-in-one cameras are designed to cover just about every eventuality and we have not come across one before that does the job so effectively.”
https://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/sony_cybershot_rx10_iv_review

“Sony's RX10 Mark IV is the best all-in-one camera you can buy”
https://www.digitaltrends.com/digital-camera-reviews/sony-cyber-shot-rx10-iv-review/

“a highly capable camera that gets enough right to warrant a gold award and our recommendation.”
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cyber-shot-dsc-rx10-iv

“Sony Cyber-shot RX10 IV: Best all-in-one you can buy right now”
https://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/reviews/sony-cyber-shot-rx10-iv-review/2

“World's Best Super Zoom Camera”
https://kenrockwell.com/sony/rx10-iv.htm

And KR gave a lot of tips on the settings as did https://www.wimarys.com/sony-rx10-iv-settings-tips-tricks/
After learning from these reviews how to use it, I am very happy with the results.

Just remembered, you had problems with AF of birds flying towards you. Cameralabs found it worked very well for such movement https://www.cameralabs.com/sony-cyber-shot-rx10-mark-iv-review/


----------



## Del Paso (Jan 5, 2019)

bergstrom said:


> wouldn't it be better to fix the complaints people had with the eos r camera and come out wit a new improved mark 2, instead of bringing out a tonne of lenses to attatch to a product that still doesn't match up to a sony a7iii.[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> Sorry, but, apart from silly spec-sheets, I see it the other way.
> Your opinion is your opinion only, don't sell it as a universal truth! In points that matter to me (lenses, sensor protection, ergonomics, color rendition), the EOS R is far superior to the A7 III. But again, this is MY opinion, nothing else.


----------



## jonebize (Jan 5, 2019)

jedy said:


> You'd hope if an 'entry-level' (probably still very expensive) EOS R is coming this year that some reasonably priced, smaller f1.8 primes would also be coming. Who knows. It's a bit odd there's no news on a pro level EOS R considering the lenses mentioned (and those already available) are of top quality pro L grade. Looks like Canon want to release the 'workhorse' lenses first. I guess they're trying to entice the pro DSLR user over. They'd better get releasing a more professional EOS R if they want that to happen.



I guess the truth is that it cant all be done/released at the same time. But the fact that different people are clamoring for different things shows that we are all generally excited about the possibilities of the new system and mount. Me, I'm just really curious to see what the 'lower end' of the market looks like. I want to know what the smaller, slightly slower primes are like. Will the new system benefit those? I think so. People aren't talking about that.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 5, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> >60% of ILC market. Profit. They're going to continue releasing new DSLRs and lenses for them.



Time will tell!


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 5, 2019)

Let's see if among these 7 lenses there will be some native RF pancake.


----------



## dba101 (Jan 6, 2019)

If the 1DX2 equivalent (1DXR)? is expected to be used by the pros at the Olympics then unless it appears soonish, there will be no time to trust it or learn it? Surely?


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 6, 2019)

electric cars are the way of the future, but there sure seem to be a lot of gas cars being sold......
mirrorless cameras are the way of the future, but there sure seems to be a lot with mirrors being sold.....

this is a gradual transition, not a binary state.


----------



## gmon750 (Jan 6, 2019)

JonSnow said:


> the DSLR is maybe not dead but it´s already 104 years old..... how long does it have?



The dSLR is 104 years old? How many pixels was it back in 1915?


----------



## dba101 (Jan 6, 2019)

I heard and read the general consensus was 'I bet we get the 1DXR for Olympics time'
Maybe its nearly ready and ready to go early 2019, a big Canon surprise before June.


----------



## HarryFilm (Jan 7, 2019)

scyrene said:


> Your old posts were crazy but at least had novelty value. This is just the same old conventional 'the sky is falling and Canon needs to act fast' nonsense we've heard here for years. Why *now* is this line true, when every previous time it turned out not to be?



---

I would say ONE REASON might be that I have a COMBINED video/stills DCI 8K 8192 x 4320 pixel camera running 50 megapixels stills and 60 fps DCI 8k all 4:4:4 at 16-bits per channel (64-bits RGB/YCbCr RGB colour + Alpha or Distance channel) and 240 fps DCI 4K (4096x2160) + 960 fps (2K 2048x1080) video on a 56mm high-sensitivity CMOS image sensor sitting on my desk running one of the most advanced audio/video/stills codecs EVER created! It uses a high end combined CPU/GPU as it's processor which utterly embarrasses the Canon DIGIC and Qualcomm Snapdragon 845/855 in terms of compute performance!

This NEW camera makes the Nikon D5, Canon 1Dx2, Phase One, Hasselblad, Canon C700, Sony Venice and Arri Alexa-65 cameras LOOK LIKE TOYS ... AND it's at a price point that will pretty much make everyone DROOL with desire !!! Other Cameras simply don't have 32-bits per channels Analog to DIgital sampling with ultra-quality resample downto 16-bits per RGB + A-or-D channel NOR do they have specialty Audio and Metadata channels SAVED FOR EVERY VIDEO FRAME or STILL PHOTO DESIGNED for use by auto-catgorization and datamining systems, Computer Artists and VFX technologists. No-one else has the technology THIS camera does! NO-ONE! PERIOD !!!! It's focus is on STILL PHOTO, VIDEO, AUDIO and METADATA quality and quantity making it highly desirable for Prosumer, Professional, Cinema and Scientific/Engineering Imaging markets.

It also has some of the BEST German-designed and Made-in-Germany FAST GLASS lenses ever created at price points that will make Zeiss/Arri and Lieca turn purple with shock and/or rage! Even Canon's lens library is now at risk of being surpassed by SUPERIOR QUALITY (and Sharpness corner-to-corner!) at a Stunning Price-per-Performance Ratio.

YUP! I think I just might have a teensy, tiny, bit better insight as to what's coming down the pipeline than you do !!!


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 7, 2019)

gmon750 said:


> The dSLR is 104 years old? How many pixels was it back in 1915?



6. That is the origin of the 3X2 format, and you could heat a small city with the tubes


----------



## SecureGSM (Jan 7, 2019)

*HarryFilm*

https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/i...f-lenses-coming-in-2019-cr2.36535/post-758576



> ... This NEW camera makes the Nikon D5, Canon 1Dx2, Phase One, Hasselblad, Canon C700, Sony Venice and Arri Alexa-65 cameras LOOK LIKE TOYS ... AND it's at a price point that will pretty much make everyone DROOL with desire !!!



I.N.S.A.N.I.T.Y. full stop....


----------



## Viggo (Jan 7, 2019)

Why are people still replying to this guy? When it was just that one thread, fine, but don’t bring him in more threads....


----------



## M_S (Jan 7, 2019)

scyrene said:


> I meant a publicly-accessible roadmap. Canon doesn't work that way, apparently - they obviously have internal plans.
> 
> But I honestly don't understand your position. They aren't going to abandon EF! Even if they never make another EF lens, which I'd be very surprised by, they will continue to support existing ones for many years. Beyond that the bottom line is: there are no guarantees. When you buy stuff, you don't know what will happen - but Canon are the biggest player in this market so they are unlikely to go bust and leave you with gear that can't be serviced, and the resale values hold up well, so I don't see why it's such a big deal. I still say the situation is essentially the same now as it was a year ago - all lenses have deficiencies. Some will be replaced, some may never be, we don't know which. You have to buy what suits you best at the time. You'll probably want a new body at some point, if you go with an R-series, they'll take your existing glass. If the new lenses you want are RF then you'll have to buy an R-series if you want to use them (this is the only difference). But by then there will be a choice of bodies and one will likely meet most of your needs (but no body is perfect, regardless of mount or manufacturer). *Shrug*



Service is one thing, bringing out new and improved lenses or bodies another. For over two decades the path was clear and one could happliy buy into the system, assured that there is one system. That was kind of a guarantee, which made this a very safe home. As I said, in my opinion some EF-lenses need improvement, which won't likely happen anymore. Therefore you are forced to buy into the new system, if you want to get these improvements. The resale values of older lenses will drop, if better alternatives exist in native glass. Since I am not made of money, this is naturally of some concern to me.
Another choice I am confronted now is to stay with canon (not likely with the EOS R), or switch to another system all together, since buying another body is a given fact someday. Canon may bring something to the table, but judging from the latest releases, I am not convinced that they will or are able to. EOS R is not for me, too many things that annoyed me (ergonomics, not working features) during my tests with it. If they would have done it differently, I would not question this at all.


----------



## Talys (Jan 7, 2019)

M_S said:


> As I said, in my opinion some EF-lenses need improvement, which won't likely happen anymore. Therefore you are forced to buy into the new system, if you want to get these improvements.



There are certainly some EF lenses that could use improvements that won't get them. But then again, that was always the case, like the 50/1.4. I'm not sure how much of that has to do with the RF system.

On the other hand, I think there will be many EF lenses, including some that aren't bestsellers, that will continue to see refreshes and updates for the foreseeable future. Sure, the cadence may slow, but there are just a ton of EF bodies out there; that's a market that Canon won't leave unserviced.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 7, 2019)

HarryFilm said:


> ---
> 
> I would say ONE REASON might be that I have a COMBINED video/stills DCI 8K 8192 x 4320 pixel camera running 50 megapixels stills ....


8192 x 4320 = 35.38944 megapixels


----------



## JonSnow (Jan 7, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> Why is it ludicrous?
> 
> They will continue to manufacture lenses for the EF mount for as long as there is demand, I'm sure. But do they need to invest in new designs? Why would they bother now? I'm sure every Canon DSLR owner who wants to buy EF lenses already has a wish list of existing lenses that's far greater than they can realistically afford. Canon won't stop selling EF lenses to us if they stop launching new ones.



I would be suprised to see a new 70-200mm f2.8 mk4 in 5 years. 
Maybe canon will do that but that will sure be the last version then.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 7, 2019)

JonSnow said:


> I would be suprised to see a new 70-200mm f2.8 mk4 in 5 years.
> Maybe canon will do that but that will sure be the last version then.


It is rare for Canon to refresh any L lens only 5 years after the introduction of the last version.


----------



## JonSnow (Jan 7, 2019)

AlanF said:


> It is rare for Canon to refresh any L lens only 5 years after the introduction of the last version.



Well when they release a new version it will sure be sooner than later. 8-10 years.... then i guess it is even more unlikely.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 7, 2019)

JonSnow said:


> I would be suprised to see a new 70-200mm f2.8 mk4 in 5 years.
> Maybe canon will do that but that will sure be the last version then.



Why? Because you say so?

Canon will release new versions of lenses whenever they feel the convergence of imaging technology, manufacturing improvements and customer demand justifies a new version. Anyone on this forum who claims to know with certainty what the future holds is simply revealing their own ignorance.


----------



## dba101 (Jan 7, 2019)

Customer demand ? haha, i wish.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 7, 2019)

It is incredible what everyone reads into this rumour!

First off, IT IS A RUMOUR!

Second, look at the lens lineup for EF, and look at the lens lineup for R. R was just introduced, this means that for the next few years Canon is going to be trying very hard to increase the R lens lineup. 

Third, the vast bulk of Canon lens sales are EF and EF-s. The vast bulk of cameras in the field take EF and EF-s lenses. Even if Canon did not sell a single EF or EF-s camera from today onwards, it will take several years before R cameras become the majority, and there is no way that is going to happen.

Fourth, didn't Canon just come out with a bunch of new L glass? Not exactly the sign of a company getting ready to drop a line.... and why in the world would anyone think they were getting ready to drop their major line that supports most of their cameras?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 7, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> ...and why in the world would anyone think they were getting ready to drop their major line that supports most of their cameras?


One clear takeaway from reading this forum is that there are some people who prefer to ignore facts, data, and the objective world in favor of their own personal reality. I think for some people, living a delusion is easier than admitting to being incorrect.


----------



## Del Paso (Jan 7, 2019)

Far too many would-be Nostradamuses on this forum, reading the entrails of dead birds...


----------



## dak723 (Jan 7, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Fourth, didn't Canon just come out with a bunch of new L glass? Not exactly the sign of a company getting ready to drop a line.... and why in the world would anyone think they were getting ready to drop their major line that supports most of their cameras?



Because most forum dwellers are idiots? Could that possibly be true?


----------



## HarryFilm (Jan 7, 2019)

AlanF said:


> 8192 x 4320 = 35.38944 megapixels



The 8192x4320 pixel recording is for video but the image sensor itself is 4:3 ratio at 8192 x 6144 pixels allowing users to DEFINE their own aspect ratio for video and stills recording. We only could get 30 fps at the 8192x6144 pixels BUT for stills you STILL get the full 50,331,648 pixels of the entire sensor (50.3 megapixels). So in order to get 60 fps DCI-8k (8192x4320 pixels) VIDEO RECORDING at 4:4:4 RGB + A or D (16 bits per channel or 64 bits colour pixels) we had to VERTICALLY CROP the 4:3 sensor to a 1.89:1 aspect ratio similar to what Sony Venice does in terms of it's OWN aspect ratio agnostic sensor.

---

Anyways neither here or there...it's sitting on my desk UNLIKE what Canon or Sony can do!

The most advanced COMBINED stills and video camera EVER!


----------



## HarryFilm (Jan 7, 2019)

HarryFilm said:


> The 8192x4320 pixel recording is for video but the image sensor itself is 4:3 ratio at 8192 x 6144 pixels allowing users to DEFINE their own aspect ratio for video and stills recording. We only could get 30 fps at the 8192x6144 pixels BUT for stills you STILL get the full 50,331,648 pixels of the entire sensor (50.3 megapixels). So in order to get 60 fps DCI-8k (8192x4320 pixels) VIDEO RECORDING at 4:4:4 RGB + A or D (16 bits per channel or 64 bits colour pixels) we had to VERTICALLY CROP the 4:3 sensor to a 1.89:1 aspect ratio similar to what Sony Venice does in terms of it's OWN aspect ratio agnostic sensor.
> 
> ---
> 
> ...



---

AND...the ONLY reason we had to do that is because of a CPU/GPU processor limitation. The REST of the camera software can actually do full 8192 x 8192 recording but the CPU itself is bandwidth limited. This will be changed in newer versions in the next 3 to 4 years but for this iteration it's DCI 8k 8192x4320 60 fps 4:4:4 64-bit RGB + A or D pixels for VIDEO and 50.3 megapixels STILLS coming off of a 8192 x 6144 photosite BAYER-formatted High-Sensitivity CMOS sensor that uses 32-bits per channel ADC (32-bits per channel Analog to Digital Convertor downsampled to 16-bits per channel for BEST IMAGE QUALITY EVER)!
.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 7, 2019)

I see the random buzzword generator still works


----------



## flip314 (Jan 7, 2019)

HarryFilm said:


> The most advanced COMBINED stills and video camera EVER!



I think the fact that you haven't told me what it's called, who makes it, or where I can buy it says everything I need to know about it.


----------



## Pape (Jan 8, 2019)

springle said:


> I mostly photograph wildlife and use a Canon 7D II body. My main lens for such use is a Sigma 150mm -600mm Sport. (I do own 5 Canon "L" lenses.) I have been contemplating buying a Canon 600mm F4.0 III, but have delayed the purchase because of uncertainty regarding mirrorless bodies. The 7D II sensor, if full frame, would be greater than 50 MP. So unless Canon can supply a mirrorless body with a full-frame sensor of greater than 50 MP, or else an APS-C sensor in a mirrorless body, I am totally uninterested in the "R" lenses listed. I also use a Sony RX10-IV which has a Zeiss lens that zooms to 600mm at F4.0 (equivalent). Much lighter to lug around, but doesn't get me the 960mm equivalent of the Canon gear. However, if Sony brings out an RX10-V with 800mm equivalent or more and no more than F5.6 equivalent at 800mm and around 22 MP, then I would drop the Canon equipment. As a bonus, the silent shutter of the Sony decreases the anxiety of small birds. I know several other photographers doing similar work who are using the Sony RX10-IV more and carrying the Canon/Nikon gear less. Perhaps not a large market niche, but one that supports the Big Whites (or Blacks). Meanwhile consumer use of rapidly improving smartphones for their photography is also increasing. To date, though, such phones are not useful for wildlife photography. Canon may be trying to protect a market that it has already lost. Perhaps Canon should come out with a smartphone with a fancy camera on it and forget about "R" bodies and lenses. And if they don't upgrade their equipment for wildlife/sports photography, they will also lose this market to cameras like the Sony RX10-IV and its successors.


I wonder if it would be possible get compare pictures about something 10cm wide 3meter away from camera ,with sony rx10-iv with full 200mm zoom and crop sensor canon with good quality 200mm objective. crops from 100% picture so could see what one is sharper? anyone knows pair like this on net?


----------



## HarryFilm (Jan 8, 2019)

flip314 said:


> I think the fact that you haven't told me what it's called, who makes it, or where I can buy it says everything I need to know about it.



---

You'll see it soon enough.... but I will give you a hint ... Ap??? !!!

To put it mildly, WHAT OTHER COMPANY could have afforded to buy me a Bell 429 ???

...and I actually GOT PERMISSION to leak that word noted above in that particular manner, which is NOT a normal thing for them to do ... which shows you JUST HOW IMPORTANT this new type of CODEC and advanced CMOS SENSOR technology really is !!!! --- AND....there is a heck of a LOT MORE COMING DOWN THE PIPELINE with this technology!!!
.
In September, there will be a DELUGE of NEW products to make consumers drool! AND YES! I got permission to say this too!
.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 9, 2019)

Pape said:


> I wonder if it would be possible get compare pictures about something 10cm wide 3meter away from camera ,with sony rx10-iv with full 200mm zoom and crop sensor canon with good quality 200mm objective. crops from 100% picture so could see what one is sharper? anyone knows pair like this on net?


I have compared the Sony RX10IV at a nominal 600mm (ie 220mm on 1") with my very sharp 100-400mm II at 400mm on my 5DSR and 5DIV. The Sony resolution is very similar to the to 5DIV combo but not as good as the 5DSR. The Sony would easily outresolve 200mm on an APSC as 400mm on a 5DIV will outresolve 200mm on a 7DII.


----------



## Pape (Jan 9, 2019)

Yes its expected it would be better than 5DIV on bird photographing .Canon full frames got low pixel density compared to Rx10iv ,full frame with same density would be 180 mpx.
I never heard any lens would outresolve APSC would be supriced if first is superzoom not prime lens? If Rx10iv can resolve 1/3 its pixels it would be equal with APCS i would think?


----------



## Viggo (Jan 9, 2019)

I picture HarryFilm in my head like one of those huge inflatable guys waving their arms outside a cardealership...


----------



## scyrene (Jan 9, 2019)

HarryFilm said:


> YUP! I think I just might have a teensy, tiny, bit better insight as to what's coming down the pipeline than you do !!!



No, you just have a more active imagination, to put it politely. But you have answered my question, obliquely - there is no reason why now is different, as the only "evidence" you have is fantasy.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 9, 2019)

M_S said:


> Service is one thing, bringing out new and improved lenses or bodies another. For over two decades the path was clear and one could happliy buy into the system, assured that there is one system. That was kind of a guarantee, which made this a very safe home.



But that's not actually true - we had no guarantees Canon _wouldn't_ bring out a new system at any point in the past few years, indeed plenty of people were predicting a new FF system, with no consensus on whether it would be EF or something new. Now we have a _better_ understanding of their plans than we did before, because the new mount is out there. You can *still* buy into the system - as others have said here numerous times, EF lenses work fine on RF bodies. And service will continue on EF lenses for years to come - I don't see that being impacted by the introduction of RF at all. All lenses' service lifetimes are finite.



M_S said:


> As I said, in my opinion some EF-lenses need improvement, which won't likely happen anymore.



We don't know yet either way.



M_S said:


> The resale values of older lenses will drop, if better alternatives exist in native glass.



It will drop as it always has when a new version of a lens is released, but it never falls off a cliff. Look at e.g. the relative secondhand prices of each version of Canon supertelephoto lenses - the older ones are still expensive.



M_S said:


> Another choice I am confronted now is to stay with canon (not likely with the EOS R), or switch to another system all together, since buying another body is a given fact someday. Canon may bring something to the table, but judging from the latest releases, I am not convinced that they will or are able to. EOS R is not for me, too many things that annoyed me (ergonomics, not working features) during my tests with it. If they would have done it differently, I would not question this at all.



I think you're being premature. Unless you have some compelling reason to make a change now, why is it urgent? Your current gear still performs as it did. Judging a line based on its first iteration is frankly silly - look at how the M line has matured, and indeed compare the current Sony bodies with their earlier versions.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 9, 2019)

HarryFilm said:


> ---
> 
> You'll see it soon enough.... but I will give you a hint ... Ap??? !!!
> 
> ...



Glad to see you've gotten a fresh supply of hallucinogens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 9, 2019)

Oh, and for those who suggested that the rumored bolus of RF lenses coming this year means EF is being abandoned, here’s what Canon had to say in an interview with Imaging Resource:



Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Yes, we are very serious about mirrorless. But please do not get the wrong impression, we will continue to enhance DSLR technology and products as well.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 11, 2019)

When do people think it’s time for some CR2 and CR3 rumours about the new RF lenses? What’s the normal earliest occasion we might see any of them?

I’ve sold my 85 IS and I’m just waiting on a 100 f1.4


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 13, 2019)

RF Macro lens
Most interesting lens for ME. A compact IS-less f/2.0 100mm 1:1 (extending if necessary) including focus limiter would do the job as universal short tele lens. Combined with a 50mm equiv on M50 it would be THE small high quality walkaround set for me.


----------



## Rajinder Shukla (Feb 5, 2019)

I am very eagerly looking forward for a Canon RF12-35mm f2.8 L IS USM lens with non bulbous feature which is really advantageous for using many types of filters with that kind of lens. To me a RF 15 mm super wide is not a big achievement for Canon as we have been hearing that a super wide will be wider than 16mm. 1MM WIDER? funny enough.
Holly trinity as mentioned may a tempting offer but if it’s a good trinity like
RF12-35 mm f2.8L IS USM, 
RF24-70 mm f2.8L IS USM,
RF70-200mm f2.8L IS USM. lenses could be a really holly trinity.
Again a 24-240 mm lens could be a very good choice if it was f2.8-4L IS USM or f4L IS USM single apurture lense.
RF200-600mm f4-5.6L IS USM lens is another major lens.
I don’t know how many of you agree with these thoughts of mine but to me all this is perfectly possible for Canon with RF System as this mount size and flags distance has opened many new possibilities.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 5, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Oh, and for those who suggested that the rumored bolus of RF lenses coming this year means EF is being abandoned, here’s what Canon had to say in an interview with Imaging Resource:


Also, as we enter the year 2019 Canon has 70+ EF lenses in production and 4 RF lenses.... I know where I would concentrate this year.....


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 5, 2019)

Rajinder Shukla said:


> I am very eagerly looking forward for a Canon RF12-35mm f2.8 L IS USM lens with non bulbous feature which is really advantageous for using many types of filters with that kind of lens. To me a RF 15 mm super wide is not a big achievement for Canon as we have been hearing that a super wide will be wider than 16mm. 1MM WIDER? funny enough.
> Holly trinity as mentioned may a tempting offer but if it’s a good trinity like
> RF12-35 mm f2.8L IS USM,
> RF24-70 mm f2.8L IS USM,
> ...



Is it practical to design a non-bulbous rectilinear f/2.8 lens at 12mm? Nikon now has the widest at 14mm but that is at f/4. It probably makes more sense if Canon keeps the weight down for the reported 15-35 and then comes out with something in the RF line that takes the place of the 11-24. Maybe that will get to 10mm or wider, but I don't see it being combined with a zoom range that ends at 35mm while being front filterable.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 5, 2019)

Will be interesting to see if they do a very wide prime and if it’s f4, f2.8 or 1.8.


----------



## BeenThere (Feb 5, 2019)

HarryFilm said:


> ---
> 
> You'll see it soon enough.... but I will give you a hint ... Ap??? !!!
> 
> ...


I get it. Ap??? = Apple!!! A new iPhone camera. Wow


----------



## Rajinder Shukla (Feb 5, 2019)

I hope on Canon very much to see a RF 12-35mm f2.8L IS USM lens with all the perfections very soon and again a perfect RF 200-600mm f4-5.6L IS USM lens and both are absolutely possible without any complication with R System. Any thoughts please.


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 5, 2019)

Viggo said:


> I picture HarryFilm in my head like one of those huge inflatable guys waving their arms outside a cardealership...


I won't be able to get this picture out of my head!


----------



## Viggo (Feb 5, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> I won't be able to get this picture out of my head!


----------



## Viggo (Feb 5, 2019)

... hmm, what I’m starting to be very curious about is what they’ve done to improve AF with the 85 f1.2... And if a 100 f1.4 is coming and how it compares AF wise to the 85... I might sell my house and buy them all. A tent is warm enough, right?


----------



## bhf3737 (Feb 5, 2019)

HarryFilm said:


> ---
> You'll see it soon enough.... but I will give you a hint ... Ap??? !!!


There is only one word that matches it "Appal"
Which is synonym to: horrify, shock, alarm, frighten, scare, terrify, outrage, disgust, dishearten, revolt, intimidate, dismay, daunt, sicken, astound, harrow, unnerve, petrify, scandalize. (Collins Thesaurus of the English Language)


----------



## Rajinder Shukla (Feb 5, 2019)

bhf3737 said:


> There is only one word that matches it "Appal"
> Which is synonym to: horrify, shock, alarm, frighten, scare, terrify, outrage, disgust, dishearten, revolt, intimidate, dismay, daunt, sicken, astound, harrow, unnerve, petrify, scandalize. (Collins Thesaurus of the English Language)


Very Good vocabulary. God bless you.


----------



## HarryFilm (Feb 6, 2019)

BeenThere said:


> I get it. Ap??? = Apple!!! A new iPhone camera. Wow



---

Maybe. Maybe Not! You'll see soon enough who it is....


----------

