# Another announcement cycle is out of the way, so what’s next from Canon for the EOS R system?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 7, 2022)

> With the announcement of the Canon EOS R6 Mark II and Canon RF 135mm f/1.8L IS USM out of the way, we can look forward to what Canon has planned next for the EOS R lineup.
> EOS R System
> *Canon EOS R100*
> The Canon EOS R100 seems to be the camera that is most likely to be announced next from Canon. It will take on the form factor of the EOS M lineup and sport an RF mount. If Canon is indeed moving on from EOS M, they will need to replace the form factor. The Canon EOS R10 doesn’t fill the void of a small ILC...



Continue reading...


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 7, 2022)

I am very happy that new articles now get posted during my breakfast


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 7, 2022)

Also, if we assume Canon counts lens releases with "when people get their pre-order delivered", we're still due one lens to get to 8 new lenses in 2022. I wouldn't be surprised if that eighth lens gets pushed into next year due to the global situation still being a dumpster fire.


----------



## Joel C (Nov 7, 2022)

I would love to see the release of the long rumored XC20 with an RF mount. That would be great.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 7, 2022)

With the R6 II and its sensor being not that exiting (compared to the price) it seems I'll lean back and hope for an EOS RP successor - even though that is not mentioned yet (or might never come with the APS-C bodies - as some say).


----------



## HMC11 (Nov 7, 2022)

Hoping to see a RF lens roadmap in the near future for the F1.4 primes, particularly 24, 35 & 85mm.


----------



## dennishensphoto (Nov 7, 2022)

A while ago there was also a rumour on a small form factor 28-70mm f2.8 without IS any update on this? I would be highly interested


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Nov 7, 2022)

"It will take on the form factor of the EOS M lineup"

I'm curious about how they can put an R mount on the M100 body ... It's physically impossible !
Only a camera sized like the EOS M6 Mark II (or an M50 pushing form factor with the EVF) can handle it. That's just physics. Or may be they will make the cameras more "squared" to reduce global size (with a printer in it... wait !) ...

That, plus the fact they have to offer lenses like the 22mm, 11-22mm and 32mm with same size and weight to make the concept of "small R" interesting, to my sense + open R mount to Sigma, in order to have a decent, affordable and usable 56mm f/1.4 on this mount.

There is more chance they won't be a valuable replacement of M concept if they stop making it...

On the other hand, we can live without it... especially if you already own EOS M6 Mark II and the lenses I've listed above : they will probably last enough years with a good care, before they need to and can be replaced with something else... and probably else than Canon or even standard camera gears then


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Nov 7, 2022)

So what happened to rumors of an EOS R replacement? A new fullframe camera that will "sit below the Canon EOS R6" and maybe to be named R8?
Just curious. I'm not potential buyer.


----------



## R5boy (Nov 7, 2022)

What about Firmware updates for the R5, we definitely need the AF improvements of the R6II


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 7, 2022)

I keep wondering how AF will work with TS lenses, before or after decentering.
With MF, TSE lenses, focusing must (should?) take place before any shifting.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 7, 2022)

Stig Nygaard said:


> So what happened to rumors of an EOS R replacement? A new fullframe camera that will "sit below the Canon EOS R6" and maybe to be named R8?
> Just curious. I'm not potential buyer.


I figure they first had to release the R6mkii and will address the R successor later in 2023.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 7, 2022)

I wonder how or why canon manages to have no rumors leaking about future lenses at the moment. The road map which appeared two years ago on CR was very precise and had quite a big outlook, even though there were surprises. 

New information for the next one or two years would be helpful, especially concerning F1.4 primes or the F2 (trinity) lenses. 

I know canon handles things differently than Nikon, but often companies spread rumors intentionally to get the information out there without being held accountable to actually deliver a rumored lense. I hope for that to happen again.


----------



## Benjamin_L (Nov 7, 2022)

R5boy said:


> What about Firmware updates for the R5, we definitely need the AF improvements of the R6II


I seriously hope Canon will do this


----------



## Sharlin (Nov 7, 2022)

Pierre Lagarde said:


> "It will take on the form factor of the EOS M lineup"
> 
> I'm curious about how they can put an R mount on the M100 body ... It's physically impossible !
> Only a camera sized like the EOS M6 Mark II (or an M50 pushing form factor with the EVF) can handle it. That's just physics. Or may be they will make the cameras more "squared" to reduce global size (with a printer in it... wait !) ...


"Form factor" has nothing to do with having the exact same dimensions. It means same general shape, ergonomics and approximate size. Here it means "has no viewfinder bump" plus likely only a very modest grip. The mount size will constrain the height of the body, sure, but even that can be worked around to some extent.


----------



## whothafunk (Nov 7, 2022)

R5 firmware to remove 30 minute record for f*cks sake, every other R camera has it.

Its like Apple with iPhone lightning port while every other gadget of their making has USB-C (iPad, Macbook,..).


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Nov 7, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Canon also needs to fill out the ‘big white’ lineup by addressing 300mm and 500mm. We’re hoping for an RF 300mm f/2.8L IS 1.4x, which would be a massive hit.


A 300/2.8 1.4x would receive huge critical acclaim, but I think a little longer and a stop slower would find a bigger market. I'm sure I'm not alone in wanting to see a 400/4 1.4x or even better a 500/5 1.4x DO.


----------



## STARS84 (Nov 7, 2022)

I really need a fast RF-S 32mm 1.4 or a 56mm 1.4 like that one from Sigma for EF-M for my R10..


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Nov 7, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I figure they first had to release the R6mkii and will address the R successor later in 2023.



Yes, but I was referring to the original CR-posting which does not mention/expect any "R successor" (?)


----------



## vangelismm (Nov 7, 2022)

STARS84 said:


> I really need a fast RF-S 32mm 1.4 or a 56mm 1.4 like that one from Sigma for EF-M for my R10..


In 10 years you will get one, maybe.


----------



## Tom W (Nov 7, 2022)

The 35 is coming reasonably soon. I'm guessing here BTW.
The 300/2.8 and 500/4 will probably be announced together as I suspect that they'll share some technology and a few parts. 

Canon does need to round out the wide primes, and add an ultra wide or two. Also, it would be reasonable to assume that they'll be bringing a couple of the EF-M lenses into the RF-S mount.

I suspect that the 18-45 would be an FR-S, but 15-45 would be a ton more useful on the APS-C bodies.

AF tilt-shift lenses would be a very big deal. Probably a very expensive deal too.


----------



## Swurre (Nov 7, 2022)

A replacement for the EF 200 f/2, like the rumored RF 250mm would be nice


----------



## Mr.Cell (Nov 7, 2022)

Wasn't the Canon 100+ megapixel a CR3 news/source?

Or is it now a pipe dream, a unicorn??


----------



## Anthny (Nov 7, 2022)

I have an R5 and use the RF100-500 for photographing birds etc. I sometimes use the 1.4 extender but find it cumbersome to add/remove in the field. I would really like an RF100-700 with about the same specs as the RF100-500 or alternatively an RF100-500 with a built-in 1.4 extender.


----------



## fox40phil (Nov 7, 2022)

Please.... bring the 300 2.8 TC!!! I love my new 300mm (also with 1,4 and 2.0TC). But sometimes you need more or less focal lengths..in just some seconds! 
But... I should start save for it.. would be instantly a 7-8k€ lense . I payed 3600€ für my mk II. 

I m also in the boat of wide angle EF lenses... because of the filter adapter. But the TS-E sounds so nice... I still want the 17mm. 

Go go Canon ! (Go go money )


----------



## GoranS (Nov 7, 2022)

Maybe Canon can put this new 24mpx sensor in a cheap body, cripple the video side and fps (10 mech/ 10 elec) - all for 999 usd or less. Et voila - RP successor.


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 7, 2022)

Where is the RF-S 11-22 zoom and all the other M-mount lenses that should be ported to RF-S?


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 7, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> Where is the RF-S 11-22 zoom and all the other M-mount lenses that should be ported to RF-S?


Canon insists they have scheduled the release of 9 new lenses between now and 31-12-2023, that could fit a bunch of converted EF-M lenses. Imagine that the R100 is indeed M6II sized and gets announced with RF-S 11-22mm, 22mm f/2, 32mm f/1.4 lenses


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 7, 2022)

Pierre Lagarde said:


> "It will take on the form factor of the EOS M lineup"
> 
> I'm curious about how they can put an R mount on the M100 body ... It's physically impossible !
> Only a camera sized like the EOS M6 Mark II (or an M50 pushing form factor with the EVF) can handle it. That's just physics. Or may be they will make the cameras more "squared" to reduce global size (with a printer in it... wait !) ...
> ...


How is it impossible? It will be an APS-C camera. It will also likely omit the EVF. There will obviously be more small form-factor RF-S lenses converted from the EF-M lineup as well as new ones.

The RF mount is only 7mm wider than the EF-M mount,

One just needs to look at the Sigma fp, which is 3-4 millimeters bigger in size than an M200. Since the R100 will be APS-C, Canon will have more real estate inside the camera than Sigma did with the fp.


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 7, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> Canon insists they have scheduled the release of 9 new lenses between now and 31-12-2023, that could fit a bunch of converted EF-M lenses. Imagine that the R100 is indeed M6II sized and gets announced with RF-S 11-22mm, 22mm f/2, 32mm f/1.4 lenses


And a 15 f/2 or f/2.8 please.


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 7, 2022)

Steve Balcombe said:


> A 300/2.8 1.4x would receive huge critical acclaim, but I think a little longer and a stop slower would find a bigger market. I'm sure I'm not alone in wanting to see a 400/4 1.4x or even better a 500/5 1.4x DO.


Don't worry, the usual trolls would just criticize the in-built 1,4 X extender as long as Sonys don't have one.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 7, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> And a 15 f/2 or f/2.8 please.


I don't see how that would be significantly different from the existing, already small RF 16mm f/2.8.


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Nov 7, 2022)

Sharlin said:


> "Form factor" has nothing to do with having the exact same dimensions.


Ok, but still, an EOS M100 is something you won't have with R, at all. And dimensions/weight are the first interest of EOS M system, so yes it has to do with dimensions and that's what most users of this system appreciate : that it can be very small and light with lenses. With 20% more matter in the mount, the "small and light" gear concept is invalidated from the start. But, hey, let see how they will handle that anyway.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 7, 2022)

Mr.Cell said:


> Wasn't the Canon 100+ megapixel a CR3 news/source?
> 
> Or is it now a pipe dream, a unicorn??


It's coming, when is the unknown.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 7, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> How is it impossible? It will be an APS-C camera. It will also likely omit the EVF. There will obviously be more small form-factor RF-S lenses converted from the EF-M lineup as well as new ones.
> 
> The RF mount is only 7mm wider than the EF-M mount,


The M100 is only ~6 mm taller than the outer diameter of the M mount, 67mm high, while the outer diameter of the RF mount is ~69mm. So, technically impossible unless Canon makes a camera where the the mount surface of lenses stick out above and/or below the camera. 

Likely about the smallest height Canon could achieve for an RF mount camera is 71-72mm (similar to the Sigma FP, where the camera is only a few mm taller than the mount; the L mount is 2.5mm smaller than RF). That would make the hypothetical smallest RF camera only 1-2mm taller than the M6II, for example.


----------



## SnowMiku (Nov 7, 2022)

I wonder how big the RAW files will be on the R5S?


----------



## ERHP (Nov 7, 2022)

Still waiting on the super niche RF600 f/4L w/1.4x. The Nikon variant just released looks pretty nice.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 7, 2022)

Anthny said:


> I have an R5 and use the RF100-500 for photographing birds etc. I sometimes use the 1.4 extender but find it cumbersome to add/remove in the field. I would really like an RF100-700 with about the same specs as the RF100-500 or alternatively an RF100-500 with a built-in 1.4 extender.


120-700








Canon Patent Application: Canon RF 100-600 and RF 100-700mm


This next patent application describes what probably is a competing lens to the Canon RF 100-500mm L lens. This patent application deals with a Canon RF 100-600mm Lens and Canon RF 100-700mm lens. Would this be developed now that the 100-500 is coming out? It's really hard to say - is there...



www.canonnews.com


----------



## Anthny (Nov 7, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> 120-700
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I missed this. Hope canon develops this sooner rather than later.


----------



## GAOP (Nov 7, 2022)

Steve Balcombe said:


> A 300/2.8 1.4x would receive huge critical acclaim, but I think a little longer and a stop slower would find a bigger market. I'm sure I'm not alone in wanting to see a 400/4 1.4x or even better a 500/5 1.4x DO.


Agreed a RF 300 2.8 is due. Personally would rather see if without a 1.4x. Without a TC, the RF 300 2.8 should be light enough to hand hold for a reasonable duration. Plus if I have enough light for f4 I'd use the 200-400. It's a little shorter than a 300x1.4 but gives me more composition options. Sadly an RF 200-400 f4 hasn't been talked about anywhere I've looked. The decade old 200-400 design is due for an upgrade. And why not dream big, how about a 120-300 f2.8 (to match Sigma and Nikon's offerings) with the possibility of a TC.


----------



## Avenger 2.0 (Nov 7, 2022)

Stig Nygaard said:


> So what happened to rumors of an EOS R replacement? A new fullframe camera that will "sit below the Canon EOS R6" and maybe to be named R8?
> Just curious. I'm not potential buyer.


I do not believe in a R successor, just makes no sense. Unless it's called that because of the missing IBIS, joystick, single card slot and to make fun of us they include a new touch bar


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 7, 2022)

Maximilian said:


> With the R6 II and its sensor being not that exiting (compared to the price) it seems I'll lean back and hope for an EOS RP successor - even though that is not mentioned yet (or might never come with the APS-C bodies - as some say).


If I were you, I'd wait for the first reliable R 6II sensor reviews. There might be a surprise.


----------



## bf (Nov 7, 2022)

We will laugh hard if a an M6 mK3 shows up!


----------



## scyrene (Nov 7, 2022)

Anthny said:


> I missed this. Hope canon develops this sooner rather than later.


Given there are already two RF telephoto zooms, I would be very surprised.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 7, 2022)

bf said:


> We will laugh hard if a an M6 mK3 shows up!


I hope it will not be like the M50→M50II changes. I would very much like to see a Digic X or newer in future bodies.


----------



## bf (Nov 7, 2022)

I also like to see a range finder style full frame R similar to Sony 7C. That would help me justifying to take such camera instead of what I use M setup for.

IMO, only high-res RFS bodies make sense for using for sport/wildlife. If I want to carry that big ring, It's better be for a full-frame sensor.


----------



## USMarineCorpsVet (Nov 7, 2022)

How about some telephoto primes that rival Nikons PF lenses?


----------



## kcimer (Nov 7, 2022)

bf said:


> We will laugh hard if a an M6 mK3 shows up!


That would be great! Let it be 24mpix and stabilized!


----------



## john1970 (Nov 7, 2022)

I would be interested in hearing more about the R1, 300 mm f2.8, 500 mm f4 and 35 mm f1.2 when things get closer. Honestly, I do not expect any reliable rumors until late Q1 early Q2 2023. 

From the latest announcement cycle I ordered the RF 135 mm f1.8 and the EL-5 flash.


----------



## entoman (Nov 7, 2022)

A "R5s" with a 90MP+ sensor would be nice, but only if there was an option to also shoot *uncropped* 45MP and 22MP RAWs.

Personally I'd much rather just have a R5 Mkii with a state-of-art 45MP-ish sensor, a new more powerful processor, a higher-res EVF with zero lag, and with the lockups and freezes of the original R5 fixed. Oh, and *don't* change any of the dials or buttons PLEASE!


----------



## bergstrom (Nov 7, 2022)

Man, where is that RP2


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 7, 2022)

Still dreaming of an RF 70-135mm f/2 zoom to complement the RF 28-70mm f/2. Those two together would be awesome. What a killer combo!


----------



## chrysoberyl (Nov 7, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> I don't see how that would be significantly different from the existing, already small RF 16mm f/2.8.


The RF 16mm has heavy vignette and distortion. I would like to see a 15, 16 or 17mm f/2 or faster without the heavy vignette and distortion. Yes, it would be heavier and more expensive, but much more interesting to me.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Nov 7, 2022)

GAOP said:


> Agreed a RF 300 2.8 is due. Personally would rather see if without a 1.4x. Without a TC, the RF 300 2.8 should be light enough to hand hold for a reasonable duration. Plus if I have enough light for f4 I'd use the 200-400. It's a little shorter than a 300x1.4 but gives me more composition options. Sadly an RF 200-400 f4 hasn't been talked about anywhere I've looked. The decade old 200-400 design is due for an upgrade. And why not dream big, how about a 120-300 f2.8 (to match Sigma and Nikon's offerings) with the possibility of a TC.


The built in TC just fills in what would otherwise we a long empty stem. Since all the lenses with built in TCs are significantly lighter than the predecessors to date, what weight the TC is adding, isn’t the make or break on if you can hand hold it. The Nikon 400 f/2.8 TC is very hand holdable, but we are more likely to see a 120-300 f/2.8 and something like a 200-500 f/4.0 instead of the primes so you have no choice but to buy a £10,000+ lens that doesn’t eat sales from the 400 and 600.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 7, 2022)

Avenger 2.0 said:


> I do not believe in a R successor, just makes no sense. Unless it's called that because of the missing IBIS, joystick, single card slot and to make fun of us they include a new touch bar


I read somewhere that the touch bar will be replaced with 6 dip switches.


----------



## bbasiaga (Nov 7, 2022)

GAOP said:


> Agreed a RF 300 2.8 is due. Personally would rather see if without a 1.4x. Without a TC, the RF 300 2.8 should be light enough to hand hold for a reasonable duration. Plus if I have enough light for f4 I'd use the 200-400. It's a little shorter than a 300x1.4 but gives me more composition options. Sadly an RF 200-400 f4 hasn't been talked about anywhere I've looked. The decade old 200-400 design is due for an upgrade. And why not dream big, how about a 120-300 f2.8 (to match Sigma and Nikon's offerings) with the possibility of a TC.





Photo Bunny said:


> The built in TC just fills in what would otherwise we a long empty stem. Since all the lenses with built in TCs are significantly lighter than the predecessors to date, what weight the TC is adding, isn’t the make or break on if you can hand hold it. The Nikon 400 f/2.8 TC is very hand holdable, but we are more likely to see a 120-300 f/2.8 and something like a 200-500 f/4.0 instead of the primes so you have no choice but to buy a £10,000+ lens that doesn’t eat sales from the 400 and 600.


Would love a 120-300 2.8 from canon. That one might even be less than $10k USD. I assume they'll push the 300 3.8 price point up to $8-9k, a TC version would be $12k (similar to the 400 2.8, or maybe just a bit less). Either way, it'll remain a dream only lens for me. I think the Sigma 120-300 2.8 last retialed for about $3500USD, so add a decade of inflation, plus some Canon improvements, and maybe $5-7k for that one from Canon? Also not really an option for me. 

-Brian


----------



## PhotoGenerous (Nov 7, 2022)

Nice. That's even better than expected. I thought they were going to try for an RP successor with the R100, but if they want it to be the M successor, I'm all for that. I want to see how small they can go.


----------



## justawriter (Nov 7, 2022)

Honestly what I could use is more selection at the lower end of the price range, or at least Canon taking their foot off the throat of third party developers. I can budget about a grand a year for new glass, and that doesn't buy much in the RF lineup.


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 7, 2022)

chrysoberyl said:


> The RF 16mm has heavy vignette and distortion. I would like to see a 15, 16 or 17mm f/2 or faster without the heavy vignette and distortion. Yes, it would be heavier and more expensive, but much more interesting to me.


Also, the RF 16 f/2.8 is for a FF sensor and Sigma makes a 16 f/1.4 for 1.5X APS-C that is optically very good but a little large.


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 7, 2022)

Ozarker said:


> I read somewhere that the touch bar will be replaced with 6 dip switches.


Don't you ever touch the touch-bar, even if I'm its only user! (also ).


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 7, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> If I were you, I'd wait for the first reliable R 6II sensor reviews. There might be a surprise.


I think I posted something like that in the announcement thread.
I am sure the sensor isn‘t just old tech but modern design.
But the pricing still makes me gasp.


----------



## entoman (Nov 7, 2022)

Maximilian said:


> I think I posted something like that in the announcement thread.
> I am sure the sensor isn‘t just old tech but modern design.
> But the pricing still makes me gasp.


It's amazing value. It's a professional level camera. The 5DMkiii and 5DMkiv were both launched at USD3499. The R6 Mkii is far superior and far more versatile than either, and is an absolute bargain at USD2599. I'm extremely tempted to get one as a backup to my R5 - the only thing that stops me is that the R5 will probably get an upgrade next year, so I'm hanging in for that instead.


----------



## entoman (Nov 7, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Don't you ever touch the touch-bar, even if I'm its only user! (also ).


Some liked it but most apparently did not. The touch bar was one of Canon's regular experiments with ergonomics. I'm in two minds about Canon's "experimentation" policy. I can't think of a single Canon DSLR or MILC that has bad ergonomics, but they are striving for the perfect control layout.

Things get moved around on every successive model. Most models have some experimental control (R touch bar, 1Dxiii AF control nipple, R5 mode dial, R6ii power switch etc etc) and the merry-go-round never stops.

For people with only one camera it's fine because after a few days they'll adapt to the new controls. But for people with two or more cameras, who switch back and forth between them, the "muscle memory" delay in finding the control in the "right" place can cause lost shots.


----------



## amorse (Nov 7, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> It's coming, when is the unknown.






J/K, I'll take all the hope I can get on an R5S


----------



## definedphotography (Nov 7, 2022)

R5boy said:


> What about Firmware updates for the R5, we definitely need the AF improvements of the R6II



Not sure if this is possible given the R5 has older hardware. It may be able to add a few of the new shiny AF things, but this is Canon. They will save it for a refreshed camera.



whothafunk said:


> R5 firmware to remove 30 minute record for f*cks sake, every other R camera has it.



The R6 has the limit, as does the R & RP.
As much as I'd like the limit gone, I don't see it happening. Expect the R5 II to not have a limit.


----------



## Z-06 (Nov 7, 2022)

I would like to see an RF 50 1.4 to replace the dinosaur EF 50 1.4 without being L and reasonably priced while taking advantage of the newer IS and optics.

Always brings a chuckle when I read its review by Lens Rentals' owner:

"There is an old urban legend, that when NASA first started sending up astronauts, they quickly discovered that ballpoint pens would not work in zero gravity. NASA scientists spent $2 billion to develop a pen that writes in zero gravity, upside down, and at temperatures ranging from below freezing to 300 degrees Celsius. The Russians used a pencil.

This is the pencil of 50mm lenses. You can spend a lot more and get something cool and fancy. This just does the job efficiently and at a good price. Small enough to fit in your pocket, it’s nice to carry around “just in case I need a wide aperture.” This one’s a very nice lens at a bargain price. The AF motor is a bit buzzy and not the quickest or most accurate, though."


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 7, 2022)

entoman said:


> It's amazing value. It's a professional level camera. The 5DMkii and 5DMkiv were both launched at USD3499. The R6 Mkii is far superior and far more versatile than either, and is an absolute bargain at USD2599. I'm extremely tempted to get one as a backup to my R5 - the only thing that stops me is that the R5 will probably get an upgrade next year, so I'm hanging in for that instead.


If it had 30mp I'd be all over it. I got my R at release and the R6 mkII is a bargain, comparatively. It would be difficult for me to give up the megapixels. My composition skills (lack of) necessitate I have plenty of cropping room.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 7, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Don't you ever touch the touch-bar, even if I'm its only user! (also ).


I had it set up to display the level and histogram. Have not used it since.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 7, 2022)

entoman said:


> For people with only one camera it's fine because after a few days they'll adapt to the new controls. But for people with two or more cameras, who switch back and forth between them, the "muscle memory" delay in finding the control in the "right" place can cause lost shots.


Yup. Not just lost shots. Trying to switch between an R and Oly turned me into a tongues speaking Pentecostal.

Canon only from now on.


----------



## entoman (Nov 7, 2022)

Ozarker said:


> If it had 30mp I'd be all over it. I got my R at release and the R6 mkII is a bargain, comparatively. It would be difficult for me to give up the megapixels. My composition skills (lack of) necessitate I have plenty of cropping room.


Let me tell you a story. A few years ago I upgraded from a 22MP 5DMkiii to a 50MP 5DS, and immediately fell in love with the ability to shoot with a shorter lighter lens, or from further back, and then crop. But I found the slow burst speed a hindrance for some of my photography, so I added a 30MP 5DMkiv expressly for burst shooting. Funny thing was that the 5DS hardly got used afterwards, I enjoyed using the 5DMkiv more, and just adapted to shooting a bit closer and composing more carefully.

Then the R5 was released and I had the best of both worlds - fast burst shooting and a great 45MP sensor. But in my heart I know that if I took a bit more care, I could easily get away with 24MP, so I'm very tempted by the R6 Mkii, which in several regards is a significant upgrade over the R5. When the "R5 Mkii" or "R5s" is eventually announced, I've got no doubt that the MP will shoot up to around 90MP, but that means I'll need a more powerful computer and a lot more storage. Which is why I very much hope that Canon will also provide the option to shoot uncropped 45MP and 22MP flies, as well as 90MP.


----------



## jam05 (Nov 7, 2022)

Canon needs to move on from these last couple of mediocre firmware updates and roll out their stacked sensors as they have already announced. Canon and Sony both. Nikon has already proven with its Z9 3.0 release with over 20 additional functions added in one firmware update alone that Sony, Canon, and Fuji with the exception of the R3 and H2s are simply milking the obsolete hardware with 15 minute copy and paste firmware. And that's not an exageration. How do many Canon users know? Well for one it was once done by third party programers like myself and others via the storage card itself with Canon's DSLRs. A project known as "Magic Latern".


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 7, 2022)

Ozarker said:


> I had it set up to display the level and histogram. Have not used it since.


I'm still using it for the level. But I certainly agree, it's an awkward device.


----------



## whothafunk (Nov 7, 2022)

definedphotography said:


> The R6 has the limit, as does the R & RP.
> As much as I'd like the limit gone, I don't see it happening. Expect the R5 II to not have a limit.


Every new R camera, even the cheapest R10 . Fine now? This is a matter of firmware update and not a technical obstacle.


----------



## mmenno (Nov 7, 2022)

How about an rf version of the 40mm 2.8 pancake? I’d love one for my rp to carry around in my pocket.. The 50mm 1.8 is just a tiny bit too long for my taste, in both focal and physical length


----------



## entoman (Nov 7, 2022)

definedphotography said:


> Not sure if this is possible given the R5 has older hardware. It may be able to add a few of the new shiny AF things, but this is Canon. They will save it for a refreshed camera.
> 
> The R6 has the limit, as does the R & RP.
> As much as I'd like the limit gone, I don't see it happening. Expect the R5 II to not have a limit.


I think we'll have to wait until the end of 2023 for a R5 Mkii announcement. It wouldn't surprise me if it had some kind of active cooling system. I agree about the hardware issue - the AF improvements and things like 40fps, "moving subject HDR" and AF improvements found in the R6ii are apparently due to new hardware. There may be a couple more firmware updates for the R5, but I don't think there will be any more added features or capabilities - just bug fixes and very minor tweaks.


----------



## CampanellaFoto (Nov 7, 2022)

All I want is for them to copy Nikon and release a 400mm f2.8 with built in converter.


----------



## entoman (Nov 7, 2022)

whothafunk said:


> Every new R camera, even the cheapest R10 . Fine now? This is a matter of firmware update and not a technical obstacle.


Firmware can remove time limit, but firmware can't improve thermal efficiency. If your camera overheats regularly, it will almost certainly shorten its life.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 7, 2022)

jam05 said:


> …with the exception of the R3 and H2s are simply milking the obsolete hardware


You claimed that the obsolete hardware they’re using was significantly more expensive to fabricate. Why would they milk something that cuts into their profit margin? 

Are you finally ready to back up your claim with evidence, or instead simply admit you were wrong?

I suspect you will do neither, and instead, just ignore the issue. I trust you realize that makes it very easy for everyone else to write off any technical comments you might make as not credible. But perhaps even that simple logic is beyond you.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 7, 2022)

My guesses for lenses would be: 

Canon releases eight lenses: 
- RF 35mm F1.2
- one TS-R lense 
- super wide angle zoom 10-24mmm
- and four RF-s lenses (three primes, one wide angle zoom)
- one surprise consumer lense. 

Although I'd love F1.4 primes, I guess they are not as important as other lenses because you do have plenty of options (F1.8/ F1.2 and EF).

Camera-wise I'd expect a R100, R8 (R successor) and R5s.

I expect the R1 to get a development announcement in Q4/ 2023 so it is released in time for summer olympics 2024. Alongside with it, I'd guess for the RF 300mm and 500mm. 

Please note: just wild guesses from a canon fanboy


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Nov 7, 2022)

REALLY need an f2.8 zoom to go with my R7! 

What happened to the Canon RF-S 16-55mm f/2.8 IS USM rumour?!


----------



## Skux (Nov 7, 2022)

I just want a true RF 40mm pancake lens pls



bf said:


> We will laugh hard if a an M6 mK3 shows up!


I'll laugh and I'll preorder one lol. I hope we get a final 'one last ride' EOS M camera with all the bells and whistles. An EVF-less vlogging RF camera is probably on the way though, but I can't imagine how bad it will look with a huge mount on a tiny body, and those ugly tapered RF-S lenses.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 7, 2022)

definedphotography said:


> Not sure if this is possible given the R5 has older hardware. It may be able to add a few of the new shiny AF things, but this is Canon. They will save it for a refreshed camera.


Please list the "older hardware" in the R5. The processor hasn't been updated for instance.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 7, 2022)

entoman said:


> I think we'll have to wait until the end of 2023 for a R5 Mkii announcement. It wouldn't surprise me if it had some kind of active cooling system. I agree about the hardware issue - the AF improvements and things like 40fps, "moving subject HDR" and AF improvements found in the R6ii are apparently due to new hardware. There may be a couple more firmware updates for the R5, but I don't think there will be any more added features or capabilities - just bug fixes and very minor tweaks.


A 24 Mpx sensor should be able to process data per frame about 2x faster than a 45 Mpx sensor because there is about 50% less data to manage without any hardware improvement. For example, 40 fps with 24 Mpx is shifting about the same amount of data per second as 20 fps with 45 Mpx. So, what hardware improvements are there between the R5 and R6II?


----------



## entoman (Nov 7, 2022)

AlanF said:


> A 24 Mpx sensor should be able to process data per frame about 2x faster than a 45 Mpx sensor because there is about 50% less data to manage without any hardware improvement. For example, 40 fps with 24 Mpx is shifting about the same amount of data per second as 20 fps with 45 Mpx. So, what hardware improvements are there between the R5 and R6II?


Can't remember where I read it/heard it, as I've looked at several R6ii reviews, but one of them definitely stated that the improvements were the result of a "new chip" (I understand the processor is the same as in the R6, so it may refer to a sub chip of some kind, or they may have just jumped to that conclusion).


----------



## unfocused (Nov 7, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> 120-700
> 
> 
> 
> ...


While these sound interesting, they would be larger and heavier than the RF 100-500 as their maximum aperture is comparatively wider.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 7, 2022)

entoman said:


> It's amazing value. It's a professional level camera. The 5DMkiii and 5DMkiv were both launched at USD3499. The R6 Mkii is far superior and far more versatile than either, and is an absolute bargain at USD2599. I'm extremely tempted to get one as a backup to my R5 - the only thing that stops me is that the R5 will probably get an upgrade next year, so I'm hanging in for that instead.


5Div is now USD2700 and R6ii is definitely better in all ways except for battery life and perhaps a level of weather sealing. The transition from OVF to current EVF technology seems to be pretty universal now.

The R6ii's price outside of the US is definitely not a bargain compared to R5 though. 50% R5 premium in the US is not translating to the same premium outside of the US. I know which one I would take given the 10% R5 premium in Australia for instance.

There is still no replacement for full frame R/RP @ USD1800/USD1000 level. The 5Div was announced in 2016 and R in 2018. The 6Dii in 2017 and RP in 2019. Canon's ~4 year refresh cycle would mean the R is definitely up for replacement and the R6ii is way outside of that price point. If you use the sensor age though, 6 years for 5Div and 5 for 6Dii makes them quite old now. 

Does anyone have a good idea of how the R/RP stack up against their full frame competition at that price point?


----------



## unfocused (Nov 7, 2022)

entoman said:


> I think we'll have to wait until the end of 2023 for a R5 Mkii announcement. It wouldn't surprise me if it had some kind of active cooling system. I agree about the hardware issue - the AF improvements and things like 40fps, "moving subject HDR" and AF improvements found in the R6ii are apparently due to new hardware. There may be a couple more firmware updates for the R5, but I don't think there will be any more added features or capabilities - just bug fixes and very minor tweaks.


I’m happy to wait another 18 months for an R5II. Just gives Canon more time for improvements. I’d prefer longer cycles rather than the minimal changes of the R6II.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 7, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> So far, our roadmap has proven to be extremely accurate, only missing on some lens speeds.


Snort!
The "Roadmap" list is from Nov-2020 and was meant to be updated subsequent to that.
The RF5.2mm wasn't on the roadmap until it was basically released. Nokishita first tweeted it 2-Oct-2020 and announced 6-October before the roadmap post in November. Hard to claim accuracy in this case.
The RF18-45mm is still on the list but added to the RF-S list after the roadmap was updated. Should we still be expecting a RF (not RF-S) version of the 18-45mm?

The RF300mm/2.8L still isn't on the roadmap but you keep mentioning it so is it forecast? Should it be on the roadmap?

Lenses that should be on the roadmap:
There is no roadmap for a wide angle lens for an APS-C sensor eg 10-22mm copied across from the EF-S lens equivalent so there is no wide angle option for R7/R10/R100 users. It would not be a L lens a la 10-24mmL
There is no pancake lens for street shooters. The EF40mm doubles in cost and size when added to a R body.

If you want to track accuracy, add the date that the forecast lens was added to the roadmap list to compare against the announcement date 
Even add the patent date which would be great to see the evolution


----------



## entoman (Nov 7, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> 5Div is now USD2700 and R6ii is definitely better in all ways except for battery life and perhaps a level of weather sealing. The transition from OVF to current EVF technology seems to be pretty universal now.


I'd agree with that, although I still like an OVF more than an EVF. An OVF has zero lag, and shows me the world as I see it. But much of the tech found in MILCs can't be used in DSLRs, so while they continue to sell in high numbers, it's pretty clear that apart from possible "special editions", only Pentax will continue the fine tradition.


David - Sydney said:


> There is still no replacement for full frame R/RP @ USD1800/USD1000 level.


I don't expect a direct replacement for the RP - Canon will try for a sub $1000 starter model which may omit the EVF, as the younger folk have been brought up on smartphones and will prefer to compose the same way. I don't think there will be a replacement for the R - the best you can hope for is that the original R6 will drop in price to "R" level. And that is a much better camera than the old R. Just my opinion, of course. Maybe Canon see the crop R10 as an "R replacement", who knows?


David - Sydney said:


> Canon's ~4 year refresh cycle would mean the R is definitely up for replacement and the R6ii is way outside of that price point.


I think the concept of a *regular* refresh cycle is more or less obsolete. The R5 and R6 were announced on the same day, but while Canon rightly decided that the R6 needed an urgent upgrade, I can't see an R5 Mkii being announced for another year. Models will be reviewed individually, and refreshed at varying times.


----------



## entoman (Nov 7, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I’m happy to wait another 18 months for an R5II. Just gives Canon more time for improvements. I’d prefer longer cycles rather than the minimal changes of the R6II.


I'm not quite that patient - I'm happy to wait a year. But I need/want a second RF body - and a R6ii fits the bill better than an R7 or another R5. Right now there are other priorities for my money though - like travel.


----------



## Teebaybay (Nov 7, 2022)

entoman said:


> I'm not quite that patient - I'm happy to wait a year. But I need/want a second RF body - and a R6ii fits the bill better than an R7 or another R5. Right now there are other priorities for my money though - like travel.


I'm the same way as you. I decided to preorder the R6MII and will most likely sell it when the R5MII or R1 gets announced. The worst you're going to lose investment wise is about $300-500.


----------



## NKD (Nov 7, 2022)

R1 or R5s
Going to be a hard decision!

Very happy with my current 50mp stills that get downsized to 5500px on the long edge


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 7, 2022)

entoman said:


> But much of the tech found in MILCs can't be used in DSLRs, so while they continue to sell in high numbers, it's pretty clear that apart from possible "special editions", only Pentax will continue the fine tradition.


In theory, all the mirrorless tech is available when a DSLR is in live view mode. If I recall correctly, the 1DXiii has better AF performance/focus points when in liveview compared to using the OVF.


entoman said:


> I don't expect a direct replacement for the RP - Canon will try for a sub $1000 starter model which may omit the EVF, as the younger folk have been brought up on smartphones and will prefer to compose the same way.


I have no problems with a replacement RP not having an EVF similar to M200. Makes sense to keep costs down and bridge the gap with the phone users. 
The RP probably is still great value at that price point.
The key thing for me is keeping full frame as I would like a backup body but not require separate lenses for wide angle which an APS-C sensor would require.


entoman said:


> I don't think there will be a replacement for the R - the best you can hope for is that the original R6 will drop in price to "R" level. And that is a much better camera than the old R. Just my opinion, of course. Maybe Canon see the crop R10 as an "R replacement", who knows?


Without the R model, there is a massive gap in the segmentation from USD1000 to USD2500 for R6ii. I believe that bringing the R6 down to USD1800 would be an error as the difference in features between R6 and R6ii isn't that significant unless they hobbled it somehow eg frame rate.



entoman said:


> I think the concept of a *regular* refresh cycle is more or less obsolete. The R5 and R6 were announced on the same day, but while Canon rightly decided that the R6 needed an urgent upgrade, I can't see an R5 Mkii being announced for another year. Models will be reviewed individually, and refreshed at varying times.


Perhaps. All the data points we have are in the past. The R6ii is the first update within ~2 years so it is currently an outlier. Without more data we cannot assume a 4 year refresh cycle being "obsolete" when there are existing models with >4 years since their last update.


----------



## entoman (Nov 8, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> In theory, all the mirrorless tech is available when a DSLR is in live view mode. If I recall correctly, the 1DXiii has better AF performance/focus points when in liveview compared to using the OVF.


Yep, in *theory*, but in *practice* live-view on a DSLR is slow, noisy, and incredibly cumbersome. Personally I find the live-view on my 5DMkiv to be pretty awful, almost unbearable, compared to my R5. Progress is being made with EVFs, and I'm confident that within 3-4 years MILCs will have EVFs with higher resolution, faster refresh, zero blackout, more natural rendition and close to zero lag.

... but there are times when I feel like rushing out and buying a Pentax and 2 or 3 lenses, just for the pure fun of using a good old DSLR.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 8, 2022)

entoman said:


> Yep, in *theory*, but in *practice* live-view on a DSLR is slow, noisy, and incredibly cumbersome. Personally I find the live-view on my 5DMkiv to be pretty awful, almost unbearable, compared to my R5. Progress is being made with EVFs, and I'm confident that within 3-4 years MILCs will have EVFs with higher resolution, faster refresh, zero blackout, more natural rendition and close to zero lag.
> 
> ... but there are times when I feel like rushing out and buying a Pentax and 2 or 3 lenses, just for the pure fun of using a good old DSLR.


Agreed... it is interesting that I can increase the refresh rate on my R5 EVF but I haven't felt the need to do it yet. Battery life is also impacted of course.
Resolution is increasing which isn't a bad thing bar power usage.
The devil is in the details though rather than the official spec sheet ....
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1694387 shows how the EVF resolution etc on the A1 changes depending on refresh rate and even when focusing and even when in playback mode


----------



## SnowMiku (Nov 8, 2022)

entoman said:


> Yep, in *theory*, but in *practice* live-view on a DSLR is slow, noisy, and incredibly cumbersome. Personally I find the live-view on my 5DMkiv to be pretty awful, almost unbearable, compared to my R5.



On the 700D what you said is correct (No DPAF), but on the 90D the live view is very quick and not noisy, the 5DMKiv should be the same? I sometimes use live view when the OVF has trouble focusing on a subject at a far distance.


----------



## marcoj99 (Nov 8, 2022)

Stig Nygaard said:


> So what happened to rumors of an EOS R replacement? A new fullframe camera that will "sit below the Canon EOS R6" and maybe to be named R8?
> Just curious. I'm not potential buyer.


Totally agree. I would welcome a replacement of the R mainly for landscape photographers which do not need all the expensive features of a sport camera nor the advanced video features.
Also what about a multiplier compatible with the 70-200 f 2.8 ?


----------



## scottkinfw (Nov 8, 2022)

I'd like to see an R5II early summer!


----------



## wyotex43n (Nov 8, 2022)

Has there many any more rumors about some really unique telephoto lenses. I seem to remember a thread about a design that used spotting scope tech to shorten and lighten the lenses. Any rumors about any new DO super tele?


----------



## shadow (Nov 8, 2022)

Why would Canon bring to market this R100 without cheaper prime APSC lens first to address the R10 and R7? My reason for not buying the R10 and instead I bought another M50. If they want to sell the FF $2k-$3k primes already available, why bother making a low end R (No lens) and just keep the M series with some new updates for the vlog market like 4K non cropped to compete with more features than say the Sony ZV-E10? 

Then concentrate on the higher end, something in 60mpx-100mpx medium format but smaller than say the R3. Something that a prospective Leica or Hasselblad buyer might be enticed to buy instead? Just wondering aloud.

Another thing that seems no camera mfg addresses with all the vloggers complaints I hear over and over are better audio preamps for hybrid cameras so if a new M6-mk3 or R100, why allow 3rd parties microphones sticking out on top and not "one up" Sony and their deadcat stereo doo-dad? or partner with a Japanese audio company like Roland, Boss, or Tascam or Shure preamp board/chips embedded. Or built in wifi transmitter for clip on lavalier?


----------



## Joel C (Nov 8, 2022)

shadow said:


> Why would Canon bring to market this R100 without cheaper prime APSC lens first to address the R10 and R7? My reason for not buying the R10 and instead I bought another M50. If they want to sell the FF $2k-$3k primes already available, why bother making a low end R (No lens) and just keep the M series with some new updates for the vlog market like 4K non cropped to compete with more features than say the Sony ZV-E10?
> 
> Then concentrate on the higher end, something in 60mpx-100mpx medium format but smaller than say the R3. Something that a prospective Leica or Hasselblad buyer might be enticed to buy instead? Just wondering aloud.
> 
> Another thing that seems no camera mfg addresses with all the vloggers complaints I hear over and over are better audio preamps for hybrid cameras so if a new M6-mk3 or R100, why allow 3rd parties microphones sticking out on top and not "one up" Sony and their deadcat stereo doo-dad? or partner with a Japanese audio company like Roland, Boss, or Tascam or Shure preamp board/chips embedded. Or built in wifi transmitter for clip on lavalier?


What's actually kinda wild is that DJI sort of figured out the audio issue with their wireless lavalier set. It all its own charging case, and plugs directly into the side of the osmo action 3. (I don't vlog with large DSLR types anymore for reasons like this, I carry 3 action cams and wireless mics, I get three angles and audio for less than my 15-35 2.8 lol) 

I think Canon could easily make something like this to fit their cameras. They just don't seem to want to.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 8, 2022)

chrysoberyl said:


> The RF 16mm has heavy vignette and distortion. I would like to see a 15, 16 or 17mm f/2 or faster without the heavy vignette and distortion. Yes, it would be heavier and more expensive, but much more interesting to me.


In the context of crop sensors, how much distortion and vignetting are we still getting with the RF16mm?


----------



## SwissFrank (Nov 8, 2022)

Pierre Lagarde said:


> I'm curious about how they can put an R mount on the M100 body ... It's physically impossible !
> Only a camera sized like the EOS M6 Mark II (or an M50 pushing form factor with the EVF) can handle it. That's just physics. Or may be they will make the cameras more "squared" to reduce global size (with a printer in it... wait !) ...



The M100 is 67.1mm tall, while the RF 50/1.4 is 69.2mm, so an increase of 2.1mm would allow the camera to accommodate not only the 54mm mount height, but the height of an actual lens mounted on it.
I haven't seen anyone mention this but since the RF film-to-flange distance is 20mm not 16mm, the cavity in front of the sensor also must take more space. Setting those two factors aside, the total volume and weight of the camera wouldn't increase, so an increase in height would be offset by less width. If the cavity requires more depth that'd balance with yet less width again.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 8, 2022)

Pierre Lagarde said:


> Ok, but still, an EOS M100 is something you won't have with R, at all. And dimensions/weight are the first interest of EOS M system, so yes it has to do with dimensions and that's what most users of this system appreciate : that it can be very small and light with lenses. With 20% more matter in the mount, the "small and light" gear concept is invalidated from the start. But, hey, let see how they will handle that anyway.


You are making a lot of silly assumptions.

For example, the first EF 400 2.8 was 15lbs, the latest RF version is less than 7lbs. They cut the weight by half and yet added a bunch of elements and groups and IS to the design. Engineers are always finding new ways to save on weight and size as well as figuring out more efficient designs, but it doesn't stop there. Manufacturing capabilities are constantly changing and advancing, which is one area Canon is at the top of the game. There are things coming in camera manufacturing and design that we don't even know about yet.

The word "impossible" is a short-sighted one in most cases.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Nov 8, 2022)

The Monk in me wants to see an R1, R2, R4, R8 and R9 to fill the gaps. The R100 should better be called R11.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 8, 2022)

I consider the original M to be the right size, for me, as a second body to a big body (first a 7D, then an RP and now an R5). The first 2 pictures show the original M compares to the R5, the 3rd picture shows how much bigger the M6II is than the original M.

If the R100, like the rumours suggest, lacks an EVF, I would almost certainly order one. The question then is what to do with the M gear. The original M+22mm is still my go to setup when going on a stroll with the family during sunny weather, in the autumn and winter the M6II fits into the larger pockets of the non-sunny weather coats.

The EF-M22 and RF16 are roughly the same size, as are the EF-M32 and RF35, but there is no 11-22mm RF-S equivalent yet.

An M300 would of course be the option that would both fit my situation best and be the cheapest


----------



## Bonich (Nov 8, 2022)

Am I the only one missing a lens fighting the Sony 14mm 1.8?


----------



## Bonich (Nov 8, 2022)

GAOP said:


> Agreed a RF 300 2.8 is due. Personally would rather see if without a 1.4x. Without a TC, the RF 300 2.8 should be light enough to hand hold for a reasonable duration. Plus if I have enough light for f4 I'd use the 200-400. It's a little shorter than a 300x1.4 but gives me more composition options. Sadly an RF 200-400 f4 hasn't been talked about anywhere I've looked. The decade old 200-400 design is due for an upgrade. And why not dream big, how about a 120-300 f2.8 (to match Sigma and Nikon's offerings) with the possibility of a TC.


A 300 2.4 with a switchable TC 1.7x gives you the 300 needed and the 500 f4 in one lens.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 8, 2022)

Bonich said:


> A 300 2.4 with a switchable TC 1.7x gives you the 300 needed and the 500 f4 in one lens.


And would be far more expensive, weigh more and cost more with a front element the same size as a 500/4.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 8, 2022)

Bonich said:


> A 300 2.4 with a switchable TC 1.7x gives you the 300 needed and the 500 f4 in one lens.


I think Canon would rather sell 300s _and_ 500s than just one lens that covers both niches.


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Nov 8, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> You are making a lot of silly assumptions.
> 
> For example, the first EF 400 2.8 was 15lbs, the latest RF version is less than 7lbs. They cut the weight by half and yet added a bunch of elements and groups and IS to the design. Engineers are always finding new ways to save on weight and size as well as figuring out more efficient designs, but it doesn't stop there. Manufacturing capabilities are constantly changing and advancing, which is one area Canon is at the top of the game. There are things coming in camera manufacturing and design that we don't even know about yet.
> 
> The word "impossible" is a short-sighted one in most cases.


I was only talking of the camera for the M100, saying it was impossible to make it with RF... but I'm sure you understood.

Your example spots a tele lens, and of course all the manufacturers have found ways to reduce their size and weight since years.
It's vastly more difficult to find significant reduction of size and weight in wide to standard lenses line-ups, which are the main interest and nearly the content of the whole line-up of EF-M.
I simply wonder how Canon can keep the form factor of say, an EF-M 11-22mm with a bigger mount. Don't see anything silly in that..

And, you don't need to be insulting because I disagree with you, anyway.


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Nov 8, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> The M100 is 67.1mm tall, while the RF 50/1.4 is 69.2mm, so an increase of 2.1mm would allow the camera to accommodate not only the 54mm mount height, but the height of an actual lens mounted on it.
> I haven't seen anyone mention this but since the RF film-to-flange distance is 20mm not 16mm, the cavity in front of the sensor also must take more space. Setting those two factors aside, the total volume and weight of the camera wouldn't increase, so an increase in height would be offset by less width. If the cavity requires more depth that'd balance with yet less width again.


Yes, the flange is another concern indeed...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 8, 2022)

Pierre Lagarde said:


> I simply wonder how Canon can keep the form factor of say, an EF-M 11-22mm with a bigger mount. Don't see anything silly in that.


Compare the EF-M 18-150 to the RF-S 18-150. The optics inside are identical, and the form factor is the same except for the slight increase in diameter right at the mount.


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Nov 8, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Compare the EF-M 18-150 to the RF-S 18-150. The optics inside are identical, and the form factor is the same except for the slight increase in diameter right at the mount.


Indeed, they just adapted it. Which is probably a patent clue of the will to replace the EF-M line-up. 
Still, I think those models with their likely few more grams, few more millimeters on the left, the right, top and bottom won't be as valuable as were EOS Ms models for their targeted users... Some EF-M users have not buy the M6 Mark II already because they were fine with the M6 form factor (which is just slightly smaller). 
I just seriously doubt Canon can sell as many R replacement of an EOS M50(II) as they did (so well). But I can be wrong (not silly, I hope, just wrong  )
And I wish I am, to be true (wrong, not silly ). 
On the other hand, we are probably going to have some more important concerns than that in a near future..


----------



## SwissFrank (Nov 8, 2022)

OK, a drum I've beat often on this forum: Canon should be pushing out more "halo" lenses than they are. EF had the 1200/5.6 and 50/1.0. I think RF could have a 35/1.0, 50/0.7, and 135/1.0DS. These aren't even that technically challenging, I don't think. There were 50/0.7's made for Kubrik and for I think a Soviet moon orbiter.

I'm hoping the delay in the 35/1.2 is that they decided to make a 1.0 instead....


----------



## scyrene (Nov 8, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> OK, a drum I've beat often on this forum: Canon should be pushing out more "halo" lenses than they are. EF had the 1200/5.6 and 50/1.0. I think RF could have a 35/1.0, 50/0.7, and 135/1.0DS. These aren't even that technically challenging, I don't think. There were 50/0.7's made for Kubrik and for I think a Soviet moon orbiter.
> 
> I'm hoping the delay in the 35/1.2 is that they decided to make a 1.0 instead....


Why, though?


----------



## SwissFrank (Nov 8, 2022)

A 35/1.0 would have about the amount of bokeh of a 50/1.4 or 100/2.8. (They all have about a 35mm entrance pupil, the diameter of which is basically what determines the size of out-of-focus highlights relative to an in-focus subject.) If you've ever used a 50/1.4 or 100/2.8 wide-open, a 35/1.0 is that same bokeh, just in a wider shot.

There are 35/1.0 (albeit smaller sensor) on the market already. Check out some of the photos. Quite lovely.

A 50/0.7 likewise is the same as 135/2, 200/2.8, 300/4, etc., simply wider.

A 135/1.0, when stopped down to f/1.4, would have perfectly circular highlights from center to deep corner. A DS-type filter would then cut transmission another stop, so it's be very similar amount of light and amount of bokeh to a conventional 135/2.0, which, while "a lot," is hardly unusable. But instead of disks in the center turning into American football shapes in the corners, it'd be soft-edged cotton balls across the entire image. You would be able to recognize images created by this lens even when they were the size of a postage stamp. It'd be the most beautiful portrait lens in history. And it'd be expensive, but about the same as the 400/2.8 or Nikon 300/2.0. Is that a good enough reason why?


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Nov 8, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> OK, a drum I've beat often on this forum: Canon should be pushing out more "halo" lenses than they are. EF had the 1200/5.6 and 50/1.0. I think RF could have a 35/1.0, 50/0.7, and 135/1.0DS. These aren't even that technically challenging, I don't think. There were 50/0.7's made for Kubrik and for I think a Soviet moon orbiter.
> 
> I'm hoping the delay in the 35/1.2 is that they decided to make a 1.0 instead....



Yes, and that's one way that makes a difference with smartphones of course (at best it's a hardware vs "faking" software fight for the moment). Anyway, I think manufacturers are having quite a hard time to evaluate what the target users would wish to own (or not) as a camera system in the future...
They look quite spot on at the right moment (Nikon have made spectacular efforts that are paying, it seems, for instance)... but who knows ?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 8, 2022)

Pierre Lagarde said:


> Still, I think those models with their likely few more grams, few more millimeters on the left, the right, top and bottom won't be as valuable as were EOS Ms models for their targeted users... Some EF-M users have not buy the M6 Mark II already because they were fine with the M6 form factor (which is just slightly smaller).


I think the trend toward slight size increases in the M line is a hint that Canon believes a bump of a few mm and grams are well-tolerated by the market. Personally, I’ve avoided the M bodies with an EVF to keep size down, but the increase from M/M2 to M6/M6II have not bothered me. 



Pierre Lagarde said:


> I just seriously doubt Canon can sell as many R replacement of an EOS M50(II) as they did (so well). But I can be wrong (not silly, I hope, just wrong  )


If Canon does abandon the M line in favor of APS-C R bodies, it will be because _they_ believe the R replacement will be more profitable for them overall. History has shown that they tend to be right in these matters.

Note that more profitable overall does not necessarily mean selling more units of the camera. It’s possible their forecasting indicates that increased sales of RF lenses due to a wider base of relatively inexpensive crop bodies would be more profitable overall. As I said before, they have many years of data on this from DSLRs. 

I was quite surprised that they chose to make the RF mount incompatible with M bodies (they could’ve made the flange distance, slightly longer, enough to allow for an adapter). I speculated that meant their data suggested there was not a significant fraction of users who followed the “upgrade path“ from APS-C to full frame. However, it’s possible their long range plan at the time was to recapitulate the availability of that path for the RF mount. To the extent that that path is profitable for them (which it seems to me, it would be), it makes sense to drop the M line in favor of crop R cameras.


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Nov 8, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I think the trend toward slight size increases in the M line is a hint that Canon believes a bump of a few mm and grams are well-tolerated by the market. Personally, I’ve avoided the M bodies with an EVF to keep size down, but the increase from M/M2 to M6/M6II have not bothered me.
> 
> 
> If Canon does abandon the M line in favor of APS-C R bodies, it will be because _they_ believe the R replacement will be more profitable for them overall. History has shown that they tend to be right in these matters.
> ...


Ok, sorry my answer was lost with the website upgrade.

We won't agree on some points but it's not a problem. I'm perfectly on the same boat as you for the "EVF free" bodies. But my bags may disagree for the rest  
My final thoughts are, to put it clearly and simply :
- Canon probably won't address a whole photographer equivalent APS-C R system as practical and portable as EOS M was : no matter how some may consider EOS M, M3, M100, M200, M5, first M6 and M6 Mark II, they really were/are mainly photographers cameras to my sense, not vlogging cameras and one of the main interest of the system was its specific form factor and handling experience for photography.
- Canon is actually only replacing EF-S for the moment, with R7 and R10 : even if it seems they may reuse some EF-M lenses formulas to address it, why wouldn't they ? Especially considering these formulas originally addressed a mirrorless system.
- I've no hope for an EF-M 32mm F/1.4 R replacement for instance, which is a fantastic lense : for this one, I still really hope I'm wrong, and would be glad to be.
- they'll probably only offer a vlogging R small camera as Nikon did with Z30 : perhaps it will inherit from some M50 features and ergonomics, but I doubt it would be more than that.

And again I hope I'm wrong... anyway, I prefer being pessimistic and have a (some) good surprise(s). 
And only future will tell.  

Have a nice evening... and wow, the new front page is cool


----------



## entoman (Nov 8, 2022)

SnowMiku said:


> On the 700D what you said is correct (No DPAF), but on the 90D the live view is very quick and not noisy, the 5DMKiv should be the same? I sometimes use live view when the OVF has trouble focusing on a subject at a far distance.


My experiences: I have 5D Mkiv and R5, and use both for hand-held and tripod-mounted macro, outdoors with living insects, and indoors for certain botanical subjects.

I find that live-view on the 5DMkiv is significantly slower and less accurate in low light. I also find it much more cumbersome, as it has to flip up the mirror before it's activated (making it slower to start), and you're stuck with peering awkwardly at a fixed screen on the back of the camera, whereas on the R5 you can shoot at eye-level or swing out the screen.

The 5DMkiv is an excellent camera in OVF mode, but I wouldn't even consider using it in live-view, since getting the R5, which is a delight to use, whether focusing via the EVF or the flippy screen.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 8, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> A 35/1.0 would have about the amount of bokeh of a 50/1.4 or 100/2.8. (They all have about a 35mm entrance pupil, the diameter of which is basically what determines the size of out-of-focus highlights relative to an in-focus subject.) If you've ever used a 50/1.4 or 100/2.8 wide-open, a 35/1.0 is that same bokeh, just in a wider shot.
> 
> There are 35/1.0 (albeit smaller sensor) on the market already. Check out some of the photos. Quite lovely.
> 
> ...


Ok, cool.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 8, 2022)

GAOP said:


> And why not dream big, how about a 120-300 f2.8 (to match Sigma and Nikon's offerings) with the possibility of a TC


While we are dreaming, hopefully, it would be priced closer to the Sigma.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 8, 2022)

Avenger 2.0 said:


> I do not believe in a R successor, just makes no sense. Unless it's called that because of the missing IBIS, joystick, single card slot and to make fun of us they include a new touch bar


An R6 II with no IBIS and 1 card slot would make sense to me if it was significantly cheaper.
I can't see how it would be, though.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 8, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Please list the "older hardware" in the R5. The processor hasn't been updated for instance.


Sure it has.
Digic X is a family of image processors.
The R10 processor is not as capable as the one in the R3.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 8, 2022)

AlanF said:


> So, what hardware improvements are there between the R5 and R6II?


We have no idea.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 8, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Compare the EF-M 18-150 to the RF-S 18-150. The optics inside are identical, and the form factor is the same except for the slight increase in diameter right at the mount.


That starts at 18mm though
The backfocus on the 11-22 is around 11 mm.
There is no way it can be as small with the larger flange distance.


----------



## danfaz (Nov 8, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> OK, a drum I've beat often on this forum: Canon should be pushing out more "halo" lenses than they are.


I think the 28-70 was it, and this article seems to make sense as far as why we may not see anymore halo lenses.








Why Manufacturers Make a Specific Camera Lens


There is a lot of online discussion about why a manufacturer made this lens when they so obviously needed to make that other lens. Or why this manufacturer’s design is better than that manufacturer’s magical solutions. So, I thought I’d share the second-hand information I have about the process...



www.lensrentals.com


----------



## SwissFrank (Nov 8, 2022)

danfaz said:


> I think the 28-70 was it, and this article seems to make sense as far as why we may not see anymore halo lenses.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Thanks Dan. I might have read that a couple years ago and do love that guy's blogging and the site in general.

I didn't quite get the idea it said there would be NO halo lenses though.

Yes, absolutely, the 28-70/2.0 was a halo. It still looks like a typo to me, it's so extreme. And I can't see anyone would buy it given that today's low-noise sensors allow ISO in the stratosphere, IS means you can often use slower shutters, and the higher MP combined with low noise means you can now really see the blur of say an f/4 shot that in the past would be hidden in film grain. And f/2 doesn't help AF nor does it make the viewfinder brighter. (Another subject I rant about: all this means that f/4 is the new trinity; we don't need f/2.8 any more). It's real purpose is just to be a halo.

The Canon TS lenses I think are generally speaking halo lenses. At least the shift isn't REALLY necessary as you can do that stuff in photoshop, though tilt is necessary to get a variety of special shots.

The DS lenses are also basically halo lenses.

So are the crazy zooms, the 1-5x macro, or the fisheye zoom, in the old EF catalog.

They just get people deciding their next camera outfit to go Canon because, gosh, look, they've just got ALL this stuff, should I ever want it.

In the past the 50/1.0 and 1200/5.6 were like this too.

(You can also consider some special bodies, like the pellicle mirrors in the FD and EF lineups, the astro versions, or a body with a sky-high MP count.)

So really, I don't want to pick a fight with someone who's giving me this great link above, but, I'd actually say Canon IS making a certain number of halo or semi-halo lenses even now. So I guess maybe I kind of mis-stated: I'm not saying they should make halo lenses (implying they don't yet) but rather, they should make a few more spectucular ones, even if they're sold by invitation only, or only rented to top pros, or what have you. Hearing that today's most artistic director is shooting a movie with the new Canon 35/1.0 or 135/1.0DS to get this special kind of shot is the kind of article that would get Canon recognition that mere advertising couldn't buy.


----------



## danfaz (Nov 9, 2022)

@SwissFrank no fighting needed LOL
My interpretation of the article was that companies make one or two crazy lenses (as loss-leaders) just to show off their capabilities.
So I was thinking maybe the 28-70 is the only wild lens we'll see, but then again, maybe they'll surprise us! =)


----------



## jam05 (Nov 9, 2022)

Don't hold your breath for an M6 mk 2 32.5mp form factor replacement being an EOS R100. Not likely. Thats a very small compact camera with 32.5mp. This rumor site as been trying at nauseum to figure this out. Canon maybe will never replace the M6 Mk 2 with an EOS R. Personally, I think its a waste of time and resources. There is enough inventory and third party lenses as already mentioned.


----------



## GoldWing (Nov 9, 2022)

Nothing will come of the R1. Nikon's Z9 saw to that. Having shot with the Z9 and much of Nikon's lenses. As a lifelong Canon user with a major agency, Nikon really has set a bar that should hold for many years for professionals. If Nikon can fill in some glass gaps and get on a par with CPS, many major agencies are buying so much Nikon gear, that the orders now placing the agencies, sports teams, PEG and media clients at a priority over retail sales.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 9, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Sure it has.
> Digic X is a family of image processors.
> The R10 processor is not as capable as the one in the R3.


But you said that the R5 has older hardware and yet the R10/R3/R6ii/R5 and R3 all use Digic X.
The capabilities of the R5's processor are certainly still sufficient at the pointy end of the market.
Can you provide some evidence that a different processor is used? Is there a teardown than shows the chips used in each model?
Using exactly the same processor chipset make good manufacturing sense to reduce variants in inventory and batch runs in the semiconductor fab.
Firmware can certainly be used to either throttle or reduce the top line specs.

Note that the 1 series have used 2 identical processors to share the load (processing and heat) rather than having a single more powerful processor. Saves money especially given the lower volumes of the flagship bodies.


----------



## HawkValley60 (Nov 9, 2022)

I think Canon should give some thought to the mid-tier lens market. It seems they have been focusing on the opposite ends of the spectrum: high-end, costly L series, and low-end, plastic-feeling consumer-level lenses, with very slow variable f-stops in the case of zooms.

But how about some top-tier consumer/enthusiast lenses that fall in between these two extremes, in all regards? A step-up from the sub $600 offerings, with somewhat more robust build and better sealing, separate focus and control rings, IS, USM focus drives or even linear motors, and very respectable optical performance. Offerings such as a 50mm and 35mm f/1.4, a 28mm f/2 or 1.8, a 28–85/90mm f/4, and a 70–300/400mm f/4.5-5.6.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 9, 2022)

HawkValley60 said:


> I think Canon should give some thought to the mid-tier lens market. It seems they have been focusing on the opposite ends of the spectrum: high-end, costly L series, and low-end, plastic-feeling consumer-level lenses, with very slow variable f-stops in the case of zooms.
> 
> But how about some top-tier consumer/enthusiast lenses that fall in between these two extremes, in all regards? A step-up from the sub $600 offerings, with somewhat more robust build and better sealing, separate focus and control rings, IS, USM focus drives or even linear motors, and very respectable optical performance. Offerings such as a 50mm and 35mm f/1.4, a 28mm f/2 or 1.8, a 28–85/90mm f/4, and a 70–300/400mm f/4.5-5.6.


Doesn't the current EF lineup cover those focal lengths/price/performance? If you don't like adapters, then just weld one on ie don't take it off.

Or via the second hand market... eg. I have a EF24-105/4L (mark 1) for sale at a bargain price if anyone is interested  

3rd party lenses would fill the gap for anything missing eg a good quality 50mm/1.4

RF lenses are great but they are not everything to everyone and EF lenses will be around for a long time to come.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 9, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> Yes, absolutely, the 28-70/2.0 was a halo. It still looks like a typo to me, it's so extreme. And I can't see anyone would buy it given that today's low-noise sensors allow ISO in the stratosphere, IS means you can often use slower shutters, and the higher MP combined with low noise means you can now really see the blur of say an f/4 shot that in the past would be hidden in film grain.


Agree that the 28-70/2 is a halo lens. But by your logic, there’s no need for f/2 or faster primes, either. Except there’s this thing called subject isolation that some of us like to achieve in our images, and a wide aperture is the key. 

Personally, I usually shoot fast primes at ~f/2 anyway to allow sufficient DoF for a portrait subject (e.g., both eyes in focus), so for me the 28-70/2 can substitute for several fast primes. 




SwissFrank said:


> And f/2 doesn't help AF nor does it make the viewfinder brighter. (Another subject I rant about: all this means that f/4 is the new trinity; we don't need f/2.8 any more). Its real purpose is just to be a halo.


That’s probably true for many use cases. With DSLRs, I had the 24-105/4 but switched to the 24-70/2.8 II for the better AF and brighter VF. But with the R3, the 24-105/4 is my ‘walkaround’ lens for the reasons you state. 

Still, when shooting indoor events or nighttime sports an f/2.8 or faster lens is very useful. At high school football games with the RF 70-200/2.8, I’m using ISO 10000-25600 to get action-stopping shutter speeds.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 9, 2022)

danfaz said:


> So I was thinking maybe the 28-70 is the only wild lens we'll see, but then again, maybe they'll surprise us! =)


So the RF 5.2mm Dual Fisheye lens is mundane?


----------



## Pete (Nov 9, 2022)

R5boy said:


> What about Firmware updates for the R5, we definitely need the AF improvements of the R6II


Absolutely!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 9, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> That starts at 18mm though
> The backfocus on the 11-22 is around 11 mm.
> There is no way it can be as small with the larger flange distance.


Why not? The existing RF 24/1.8 has a backfocus distance of 11.0 mm.


----------



## Deleted member 393411 (Nov 9, 2022)

Benjamin_L said:


> I seriously hope Canon will do this


LOL nah. Canon CrippleHammer™ will make sure that this never happens. The R6 II is a mediocre upgrade (from a R6) at best. D- effort from Canon. edit: I don't need 40fps and don't care for video. Take those 2 aspects out, and it's a really poor upgrade from my perspective. ymmv.


----------



## danfaz (Nov 9, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> So the RF 5.2mm Dual Fisheye lens is mundane?


Oops, I forgot that one!


----------



## scyrene (Nov 9, 2022)

danfaz said:


> @SwissFrank no fighting needed LOL
> My interpretation of the article was that companies make one or two crazy lenses (as loss-leaders) just to show off their capabilities.
> So I was thinking maybe the 28-70 is the only wild lens we'll see, but then again, maybe they'll surprise us! =)


My personal understanding of "halo" is narrower than @SwissFrank's - I wouldn't include a lens like the MP-E, because it offers something valuable and unique for specialists, albeit within a minor niche, and there's no easy way of achieving the same results with other gear (plus it's not that expensive). I _would_ include the RF 1200 though - because its practical benefit is so small, and the alternatives are more appealing/cheaper for many potential customers, but it means they can claim the system offers native glass to that extreme focal length. I wouldn't be surprised to see maybe one more, perhaps a f/0.95 prime or a reborn 200mm f/1.8, but that's about it.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 9, 2022)

dpastern said:


> LOL nah. Canon CrippleHammer™ will make sure that this never happens. The R6 II is a mediocre upgrade (from a R6) at best. D- effort from Canon. edit: I don't need 40fps and don't care for video. Take those 2 aspects out, and it's a really poor upgrade from my perspective. ymmv.


"I don't personally care about the things they improved, so they didn't improve anything"


----------



## scyrene (Nov 9, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> So the RF 5.2mm Dual Fisheye lens is mundane?


It's definitely special. I'd lump it with the MP-E - a unique product that offers a way to do something that can't easily/practically be done another way, that is of great interest to a small number of potential users. I'd treat that differently to the essentially pure bragging rights "we have the widest aperture 50mm", where the difference is much more subtle, and the cost differentiator from its nearest equivalents much greater. But I'm probably splitting hairs over semantics at this point


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 9, 2022)

scyrene said:


> But I'm probably splitting hairs over semantics at this point


Yep. I’d call a ‘halo lens’ something that brings people into the system because nobody else offers it. You’d call it a more mainstream lens that ‘goes to 11’ with the fastest aperture or longest FL.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 9, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yep. I’d call a ‘halo lens’ something that brings people into the system because nobody else offers it. You’d call it a more mainstream lens that ‘goes to 11’ with the fastest aperture or longest FL.


The existence of the MP-E, as well as having 50, 100 and 180mm macro lenses and macro flashes was a strong consideration for picking Canon and the 20D when I moved from P&S to SLR.


----------



## Skux (Nov 9, 2022)

As a lucky owner of the 28-70mm f/2 it is truly god-tier and a halo lens as there is no equivalent in any other brand. My theatre photos come out so clean it's like they were shot in daylight.


----------



## entoman (Nov 9, 2022)

dpastern said:


> LOL nah. *Canon CrippleHammer™* will make sure that this never happens. The R6 II is a mediocre upgrade (from a R6) at best. D- effort from Canon. edit: I don't need 40fps and don't care for video. Take those 2 aspects out, and it's a really poor upgrade from my perspective. ymmv.


Was going to try and have a serious discussion and point out why I think you're wrong.

But decided not to feed the *troll*.

Welcome to my ignore list.


----------



## Uneternal (Nov 9, 2022)

So no word about EOS R8 (EOS R replacement)? Given that Sony has a 33 MP camera out as mainstream fullframe, I would expect an answer from Canon. And the original EOS R is also overdue for an upgrade.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 9, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Why not? The existing RF 24/1.8 has a backfocus distance of 11.0 mm.


I think it is 16 mm








Canon Patent Application: Canon RF Primes


One thing that is notably missing is the filling out of the primes for the RF mount. Not just the dizzyingly fast halo primes, but the ones for normal people. This patent application discusses aberration correction when its close focus and has the embodiments of a lot of lenses that I know...



www.canonnews.com


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 9, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> But you said that the R5 has older hardware and yet the R10/R3/R6ii/R5 and R3 all use Digic X.


Both statements are true.
Digic X is a family of processors.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 9, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> OK, a drum I've beat often on this forum: Canon should be pushing out more "halo" lenses than they are.


While I very much agree with that, Canon is also missing some RF staple lenses.
I was kind of expecting the 135 to be f/1.4 for that reason.
Although, I do have to admit f/1.8 with IS was a better choice.

Canon does have so many patents for statement lenses to draw from.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 9, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> Thanks Dan. I might have read that a couple years ago and do love that guy's blogging and the site in general.
> 
> I didn't quite get the idea it said there would be NO halo lenses though.


I think the 1.4x magnification and SA control make the RF 100 f/2.8 IS Macro a halo lens as well.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 9, 2022)

danfaz said:


> My interpretation of the article was that companies make one or two crazy lenses (as loss-leaders)


Canon is not pricing their extreme lenses as loss leaders.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 9, 2022)

GoldWing said:


> Nothing will come of the R1. Nikon's Z9 saw to that.


I would not choose the Z 9 over an R5.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 9, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yep. I’d call a ‘halo lens’ something that brings people into the system because nobody else offers it. You’d call it a more mainstream lens that ‘goes to 11’ with the fastest aperture or longest FL.


Well, Canon has an 800 mm lens that only goes to 11, so there's that.


----------



## danfaz (Nov 9, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Canon is not pricing their extreme lenses as loss leaders.


I don't think it necessarily has to be price. Quantity is what the article referred to.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 9, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I think it is 16 mm
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, you're looking at the wrong 24/1.8 patent. Here is the optical diagram for the 24/1.8 in the patent you linked:




The design that actually became the existing RF 24/1.8 is one that CR erroneously claimed was an APS-C lens patent. Here is the diagram of the 24/1.8 (actually 24.72mm f/1.85, with an 11.0 mm backfocus distance) from that patent, and below that is the block diagram of the existing RF 24/1.8 lens:




So I restate: the existing RF 24/1.8 has an 11 mm backfocus, so there's no reason the optics of the EF-M 11-22 with an 11 mm backfocus couldn't be packaged in a barrel with an RF mount for APS-C R bodies.


----------



## shadow (Nov 9, 2022)

Joel C said:


> I think Canon could easily make something like this to fit their cameras. They just don't seem to want to.


Well, audio improvement is an opportunity being overlooked imo if targeting video market, after putting all the R&D and speed improvements, oversampling, racing to crazy insane 8k, it seems obvious. But not something clunky like the huge honking XLR preamp box for the Sony FX-3 and FX-30. The tech is there, smartphone recordings for audio are pretty decent, even without a lavalier.


----------



## shadow (Nov 10, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> So I restate: the existing RF 24/1.8 has an 11 mm backfocus, so there's no reason the optics of the EF-M 11-22 with an 11 mm backfocus couldn't be packaged in a barrel with an RF mount for APS-C R bodies.



Nice explanation, so optic design transfers easily and a housing mechanical redesign- I remain baffled that these lenses were not made a year ago BEFORE the R10 and R7 came out. Same with other M optics. Probably lots of back and forth with marketing, engineering and management as to future planning and watching market changes.


----------



## shadow (Nov 10, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> The existence of the MP-E, as well as having 50, 100 and 180mm macro lenses and macro flashes was a strong consideration for picking Canon and the 20D when I moved from P&S to SLR.


Do you still use your 20D? I just decided yesterday to buy new 511a batteries and play around with it after letting it sit for past few years. Have you used the video output? I was going to try the analog video output if it's any good, found a cable.


----------



## shadow (Nov 10, 2022)

Just noticed this, 4 hrs ago uploaded. Seems Canon shows M200, discontinued in this new Canon video?


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 10, 2022)

shadow said:


> Do you still use your 20D? I just decided yesterday to buy new 511a batteries and play around with it after letting it sit for past few years. Have you used the video output? I was going to try the analog video output if it's any good, found a cable.


I do actually still use it  Once a year I check the batteries and take a few pictures with it. Right now it’s on my desk to help with figuring out how to cobble together a camera trap housing.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 10, 2022)

shadow said:


> Just noticed this, 4 hrs ago uploaded. Seems Canon shows M200, discontinued in this new Canon video?


The m200 has been discontinued in Japan.




__





ミラーレスカメラ 「キヤノンEOS M200」｜キヤノンオンラインショップ


｜キヤノンマーケティングジャパンが運営する公式通販サイトです。税込5,500円以上のご購入で送料無料。お買い物でポイントも貯まってお得。デジタルカメラ・交換レンズ・プリンター・各種アクセサリー・消耗品・パーツ等を取り扱っています。




store.canon.jp


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Nov 10, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> The m200 has been discontinued in Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Or maybe this is "Air" 200 ... sorry, silly french pun


----------



## Mr.Cell (Nov 10, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> It's coming, when is the unknown.



I am one of those photographers that are in need for a 100Mp camera.
The Fujifilm GFX 100s is a great choice but it means 60mp crop for and any lens below 85mm


----------



## entoman (Nov 10, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> The existence of the MP-E, as well as having 50, 100 and 180mm macro lenses and macro flashes was a strong consideration for picking Canon and the 20D when I moved from P&S to SLR.


Same here, but unfortunately only the 100mm macro has been redesigned for RF mount. The EF lenses are excellent, but can't match the RF 100mm macro for stabilisation, AF speed or close-focusing. And the old 180mm macro, while being a stunning lens, lacks optical stabilisation, which severely hampers its use when stalking living insects.

I find it rather sad (although understandable, as Canon will want to prioritise more popular lenses) that a stabilised version of the 180mm (preferably F5.6 to keep weight down) is still missing from the line up, with no hints or rumours of one either.


----------



## shadow (Nov 10, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> The m200 has been discontinued in Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hence why I mentioned it, new ad with a discontinued product in it? lol. I figured the webcam software advertising might be updated showing say newer cameras if it is a new ad, less than 1000 views when I saw it uploaded.


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 10, 2022)

Pierre Lagarde said:


> Or maybe this is "Air" 200 ... sorry, silly french pun


C'est du joli !
J' aurais honte...
PS: J'ai deja fait pire. Et j'en suis fier.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 11, 2022)

entoman said:


> Same here, but unfortunately only the 100mm macro has been redesigned for RF mount. The EF lenses are excellent, but can't match the RF 100mm macro for stabilisation, AF speed or close-focusing. And the old 180mm macro, while being a stunning lens, lacks optical stabilisation, which severely hampers its use when stalking living insects.
> 
> I find it rather sad (although understandable, as Canon will want to prioritise more popular lenses) that a stabilised version of the 180mm (preferably F5.6 to keep weight down) is still missing from the line up, with no hints or rumours of one either.


I’ve changed my mind a bit on how I want a 200-ish RF macro to look. The past months I’ve setting up a camera trap in the garden at night, which needs every bit of aperture to focus. The RF100 and RF85 f/2 will detect eyes, the EF180 won’t.
So f/5.6 will likely be too dark for that. But I suspect I’ll rig up a small light if an RF180 gets announced 

R5+EF180L, ISO6400, flash, cropped to 8MP, DxO PL5 to get rid of the noise.


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Nov 11, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> C'est du joli !
> J' aurais honte...
> PS: J'ai deja fait pire. Et j'en suis fier.


 on peut toujours faire pire... on ne fait que se retenir  .. enfin si j'en crois - à peu près - Freud... et ça tombe bien, je ne le crois pas - du tout.  

Merci


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 11, 2022)

shadow said:


> Hence why I mentioned it, new ad with a discontinued product in it? lol. I figured the webcam software advertising might be updated showing say newer cameras if it is a new ad, less than 1000 views when I saw it uploaded.


The EOS M200 is still for sale in the USA market.
Might as well market them until they sell out.


----------



## shadow (Nov 11, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> The EOS M200 is still for sale in the USA market.
> Might as well market them until they sell out.


I guess to sell subscription software, they are enticing low end customers... I saw that still in stock after posting, but really frustrated right now about the M thing and need to buy locally outside the US. The M was such a nice new low cost re-entry for me back into photography after years of powershot and smartphones only.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 11, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> I’ve changed my mind a bit on how I want a 200-ish RF macro to look. The past months I’ve setting up a camera trap in the garden at night, which needs every bit of aperture to focus. The RF100 and RF85 f/2 will detect eyes, the EF180 won’t.
> So f/5.6 will likely be too dark for that. But I suspect I’ll rig up a small light if an RF180 gets announced
> 
> R5+EF180L, ISO6400, flash, cropped to 8MP, DxO PL5 to get rid of the noise.
> View attachment 206282


Great shot! But out of curiosity, why such a high ISO if you were using flash?


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 12, 2022)

scyrene said:


> Great shot! But out of curiosity, why such a high ISO if you were using flash?


I set it to auto ISO to get AF to work better and with RF lenses I’d like to use the H+ drive mode and the flash needs to keep uit with 12fps. But it’s mostly AF, it is sensitive to exposure in low light.
I wonder if ‘safety shift’ is pushing up the ISO when the flash is ready, I would expect auto ISO to pick ISO 1600. Something to try when I set it up again


----------



## Deleted member 393411 (Nov 20, 2022)

scyrene said:


> "I don't personally care about the things they improved, so they didn't improve anything"



4 extra mp. LOL. No BSI sensor. Given that the Sony A7 IV has a BSI sensor and is considerably cheaper here in Australia, Canon is already lagging behind. I'll probably sell all my Canon gear and switch to a Sony A1 with the 200-600. Better AF than anything Canon produces currently (just over the R5 by all accounts) and matches or outperforms the R5 and R3. Oh, and tonnes of lenses to use unlike the RF system where Canon is doing everything in their power to use their monopoly to kill any RF competitors. Here's hoping the US DOJ investigates Canon (the ACCC is investigating them for this - you're welcome). 



entoman said:


> Was going to try and have a serious discussion and point out why I think you're wrong.
> 
> But decided not to feed the *troll*.
> 
> Welcome to my ignore list.


Oh, I love you too. Typiical Canon fanboy. Canon could release a turd and you'd be saying it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. The R6 II has an extra 4mp (whoopie doo - the A7 IV has 33mp and is $1400 AUD cheaper). I don't care for video whatsoever and I don't spray and pray, so have no need for 40fps. Prey do tell what other "upgrades" the R6 II has? Same body. Same weather sealing. Same LCD screen and EVF. No word on high ISO performance yet, cos Canon is hiding that from consumers and hoping people will fork out money for pre-orders that are non-refundable. Rolling shutter marginally better by all accounts, and the same for AF performance. A slightly redesigned UI button layout change, that doesn't really bother me in either the original R6 or R6 II - I can take it or leave it in either design layout personally. 

Perhaps the only troll here is you, since you resorted to name calling.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 20, 2022)

dpastern said:


> I'll probably sell all my Canon gear and switch to a Sony A1 with the 200-600.


H & G.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 20, 2022)

dpastern said:


> Better AF than anything Canon produces currently


That is patently false


----------



## entoman (Nov 20, 2022)

dpastern said:


> Typiical Canon fanboy. Canon could release a turd and you'd be saying it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.


Well if I'm a "Canon Fanboy" then I must also be a Sony fanboy and a Nikon fanboy and a Fujifilm fanboy and an Olympus fanboy, as I've used all of those brands...

You clearly haven't followed my posting history, in which it's pretty obvious to anyone that I give criticism where it is due, and praise where it is due, regardless of the brand under discussion.



dpastern said:


> The R6 II has an extra 4mp (whoopie doo - the A7 IV has 33mp and is $1400 AUD cheaper). I don't care for video whatsoever and I don't spray and pray, so have no need for 40fps. Prey do tell what other "upgrades" the R6 II has? Same body. Same weather sealing. Same LCD screen and EVF. No word on high ISO performance yet, cos Canon is hiding that from consumers and hoping people will fork out money for pre-orders that are non-refundable. Rolling shutter marginally better by all accounts, and the same for AF performance. A slightly redesigned UI button layout change, that doesn't really bother me in either the original R6 or R6 II - I can take it or leave it in either design layout personally.



As it happens, I agree that a jump to 24MP makes little difference, and I don't shoot video or "spray and pray" either. The R6ii is a modest upgrade but a welcome one, as it improves on the R6 by adding features that some people (not you, but you're not the only dude on the planet) will appreciate.

For me, the value of being able to shoot at 40fps is that it makes possible hand held HDR and even handheld focus-bracketing, with the necessary sequences shot in a split second, reducing movement between frames to a minimum. That feature alone is a valuable upgrade over the R6.



dpastern said:


> Perhaps the only troll here is you, since you resorted to name calling.


You were correctly referred to as a troll because you gave away your prejudices by using the expression "Canon Cripple Hammer"...


----------



## entoman (Nov 20, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> H & G.


Hurry up and Go?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 20, 2022)

entoman said:


> Hurry up and Go?


Hello & Goodbye.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 20, 2022)

dpastern said:


> 4 extra mp. LOL. No BSI sensor. Given that the Sony A7 IV has a BSI sensor and is considerably cheaper here in Australia, Canon is already lagging behind. I'll probably sell all my Canon gear and switch to a Sony A1 with the 200-600. Better AF than anything Canon produces currently (just over the R5 by all accounts) and matches or outperforms the R5 and R3. Oh, and tonnes of lenses to use unlike the RF system where Canon is doing everything in their power to use their monopoly to kill any RF competitors. Here's hoping the US DOJ investigates Canon (the ACCC is investigating them for this - you're welcome).
> 
> 
> Oh, I love you too. Typiical Canon fanboy. Canon could release a turd and you'd be saying it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. The R6 II has an extra 4mp (whoopie doo - the A7 IV has 33mp and is $1400 AUD cheaper). I don't care for video whatsoever and I don't spray and pray, so have no need for 40fps. Prey do tell what other "upgrades" the R6 II has? Same body. Same weather sealing. Same LCD screen and EVF. No word on high ISO performance yet, cos Canon is hiding that from consumers and hoping people will fork out money for pre-orders that are non-refundable. Rolling shutter marginally better by all accounts, and the same for AF performance. A slightly redesigned UI button layout change, that doesn't really bother me in either the original R6 or R6 II - I can take it or leave it in either design layout personally.
> ...


You definitely sound reasonable, balanced, and trustworthy. Bye!


----------



## Deleted member 393411 (Nov 21, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> H & G.


Yeah, nah.



EOS 4 Life said:


> That is patently false


Not according to people that I know and trust. 


entoman said:


> Well if I'm a "Canon Fanboy" then I must also be a Sony fanboy and a Nikon fanboy and a Fujifilm fanboy and an Olympus fanboy, as I've used all of those brands...
> 
> You clearly haven't followed my posting history, in which it's pretty obvious to anyone that I give criticism where it is due, and praise where it is due, regardless of the brand under discussion.
> 
> ...


A modest upgrade? A very small upgrade would be a better description imho. The hand held focus bracketing is a nice addition, and something that I might use with macrophotography, although as a nature photographer, it's not really "nature", but a manipulation of nature. 

Canon cripple hammer is real, and an accurate description of what Canon does to their products. Calling them out for ot doesn't make me a troll, it makes me a realist who's not afraid to criticise Canon where it's due.


----------



## Deleted member 393411 (Nov 21, 2022)

scyrene said:


> You definitely sound reasonable, balanced, and trustworthy. Bye!


Oh look, a perasonal attack. Post duly reported. Have a nice day.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 21, 2022)

dpastern said:


> Canon cripple hammer is real, and an accurate description of what Canon does to their products.


Silly you for buying their products, ‘eh? It’s ok, though…the majority of the camera market buys Canon products so you’re in good company. Good thing you’re smarter than everyone else, to know you’re buying gimped gear but buying it anyway.


----------



## Deleted member 393411 (Nov 21, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Silly you for buying their products, ‘eh? It’s ok, though…the majority of the camera market buys Canon products so you’re in good company. Good thing you’re smarter than everyone else, to know you’re buying gimped gear but buying it anyway.


The only new Canon gear I've bought was a very long time ago - 300mm f4, 70-200 f2.8, 1.4 and 2x TCs, 1n and 630 in the late 90s (I did buy a 60D in 2011). Oh, and a 430EZ flash in the late 90s too, folowed by a 430ex flash in the early 00s, but only cos the EZ didn't work with the used 1D that I'd bought at the time. 

So, I've given little money directly to Canon. Canon has around 40% of the market btw, not a majority. But, you keep telling yourself that Canon has a majority. Canon's losing users Left, Right and centre as they move to (mostly) Sony - a company that listens to their consumers and gives them what they want, and doesn't treat them like traash by blocking 3fd party competitors. 

I may use the recently announced R6 II to grab a used R6 at a better price. And continue buying used EF lenses ;-)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 21, 2022)

dpastern said:


> So, I've given little money directly to Canon.


Out of principle, or because you can’t afford the new gear? I suspect the latter. Personally, if a company’s goods and/or behavior no longer align with my needs, I switch to a brand that does. Yet here you are, bashing Canon while buying their second-hand gear (which most likely merely enables other users to buy new gear from Canon). 



dpastern said:


> Canon has around 40% of the market btw, not a majority. But, you keep telling yourself that Canon has a majority. Canon's losing users Left, Right and centre as they move to (mostly) Sony - a company that listens to their consumers and gives them what they want, and doesn't treat them like traash by blocking 3fd party competitors.


In 2021, Canon’s market share was 48%, while Sony’s was 22%. YoY from 2020, Sony gained 1.9% while Canon gained 2.5%. As far as installed base, that’s somewhere around 75-80% Canon. Canon dominates the ILC market currently and has led it for two decades. 

Canon leads the MILC market and dominates the DSLR market. The only place Sony leads is the full frame MILC market (which Canon entered 6 years after Sony), and Canon has been eroding their lead there, to within 5% last year. 

The data show that Canon is gaining users relative to Sony. You keep telling yourself that your opinion trumps the actual data. It doesn’t, and it never will.


----------



## entoman (Nov 21, 2022)

dpastern said:


> The only new Canon gear I've bought was a very long time ago - 300mm f4, 70-200 f2.8, 1.4 and 2x TCs, 1n and 630 in the late 90s (I did buy a 60D in 2011). Oh, and a 430EZ flash in the late 90s too, folowed by a 430ex flash in the early 00s, but only cos the EZ didn't work with the used 1D that I'd bought at the time.
> 
> So, I've given little money directly to Canon. Canon has around 40% of the market btw, not a majority. But, you keep telling yourself that Canon has a majority. Canon's losing users Left, Right and centre as they move to (mostly) Sony - a company that listens to their consumers and gives them what they want, and doesn't treat them like traash by blocking 3fd party competitors.
> 
> I may use the recently announced R6 II to grab a used R6 at a better price. And continue buying used EF lenses ;-)


If you loathe Canon so much, why don't you just carry out your "threat" and switch to Sony? They make fine cameras, as do Fujifilm, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic, Leica etc. Then you can stop whinging and be happy.

But I suspect that you'd end up on a Sony forum, slagging off their ergonomics etc.

If you're going to stay with Canon (if you indeed actually own any Canon gear), and you intend to continue here, please at least come up with some constructive criticisms and/or suggestions for improvements, rather than piling on the "cripple hammer" hype that was invented by Sony trolls.


----------



## entoman (Nov 21, 2022)

dpastern said:


> The hand held focus bracketing is a nice addition, and something that I might use with macrophotography, although as a nature photographer, it's not really "nature", but a manipulation of nature.


Why do you regard focus-bracketing as a "manipulation" of nature?

It's merely a tool to enable you to ensure that the subject is in sharp focus while at the same time ensuring that distracting elements of the background remain out of focus. In effect it's no different from using a wide aperture in portrait photography to isolate the subject.

If you think about it, *everything* in photography is "manipulation" - we live in a 3-dimensional world and we use our cameras to produce a 2-dimensional images of very carefully selected and composed elements of the world. Isn't that "manipulation"?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 21, 2022)

entoman said:


> Why do you regard focus-bracketing as a "manipulation" of nature?
> 
> It's merely a tool to enable you to ensure that the subject is in sharp focus while at the same time ensuring that distracting elements of the background remain out of focus. In effect it's no different from using a wide aperture in portrait photography to isolate the subject.
> 
> If you think about it, *everything* in photography is "manipulation" - we live in a 3-dimensional world and we use our cameras to produce a 2-dimensional images of very carefully selected and composed elements of the world. Isn't that "manipulation"?


Agree. I don't consider it manipulation in any way, it's simply capturing more DoF.

The Photographic Society of America, who's rules are followed by most if not all photography competitions in the US at least, considers focus stacking to be acceptable for both Nature and the sub-category of Wildlife.



https://psa-photo.org/page/division-definitions


----------



## Kit. (Nov 21, 2022)

dpastern said:


> Not according to people that I know and trust.


Tony Northrup?


----------



## Deleted member 393411 (Nov 22, 2022)

entoman said:


> please at least come up with some constructive criticisms and/or suggestions for improvements, rather than piling on the "cripple hammer" hype that was invented by Sony trolls.


What, 20 to 24mp with the R6 II isn't constructive criticism? As stated, I don't care for 40fps or video capability, so the R6 II is well, rather lacklustre, no? ymmv, but your view doesn't make my view incorrect. It's all a matter of perspective, no? So, from my personal requirements/wants for a camera, the R6 II is indeed, well, lacklustre and wanting. Several oinline reviewers have come to the same conclusion (when looking to upgrade from the R6 to the R6 II). Going from a DSLR to the R6 II, it's a fine upgrade. But, I am very disappointed at only 24mp, especially when it's nearest competitor the A7 IV is near 25% cheaper (and that's not on sale as some would try to argue) and has 33mp. 

BTW, can you post proof that "cripplehammer" was invented by Sony trolls? I thought not. 

Blind allegiance to a brand is a very dangerous thing.


entoman said:


> Why do you regard focus-bracketing as a "manipulation" of nature?


See below reply to neuronatomist.


neuroanatomist said:


> The Photographic Society of America, who's rules are followed by most if not all photography competitions in the US at least, considers focus stacking to be acceptable for both Nature and the sub-category of Wildlife.


Interesting - considering cloning etc is generally not accepted in competition, I'm surprised that they are allowing focus stacking. Macrophotography, at 1:1 will *always* limit your DOF (~6mm for 1:1). Using focus stacking is what I'd consider image manipulation and I know my local club would consider it that too. 


Kit. said:


> Tony Northrup?


LOL no. Local birding photographers who have used the R5/R3 and A1 and been able to compare them.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 22, 2022)

dpastern said:


> LOL no. Local birding photographers who have used the R5/R3 and A1 and been able to compare them.


The Sony A1 is marginally better than the R5, but only noticeable, if at all, to those who are indulging in the equivalent of Olympic games competitions of birds in flight. At my level, and I am an enthusiast for BIF and DIF, my skills wouldn't warrant the A1 and the R5's AF has never let me down. Further, those Sony guys cough up £6500 on the A1 and £12000 on the 600mm f/4. Even if I could or wished to spend that money I am no longer strong enough to hand hold lenses like those. The Sony 200-600mm is an excellent lens but is quite heavy for a walk around lens whereas the RF 100-500mm is relatively light and the RF 100-400mm is like a helium balloon in comparison. This paper competition between cameras is usually as relevant as fantasy football.


----------



## Deleted member 393411 (Nov 22, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The Sony A1 is marginally better than the R5, but only noticeable, if at all, to those who are indulging in the equivalent of Olympic games competitions of birds in flight. At my level, and I am an enthusiast for BIF and DIF, my skills wouldn't warrant the A1 and the R5's AF has never let me down. Further, those Sony guys cough up £6500 on the A1 and £12000 on the 600mm f/4. Even if I could or wished to spend that money I am no longer strong enough to hand hold lenses like those. The Sony 200-600mm is an excellent lens but is quite heavy for a walk around lens whereas the RF 100-500mm is relatively light and the RF 100-400mm is like a helium balloon in comparison. This paper competition between cameras is usually as relevant as fantasy football.


Do you want a camera that can grow as you acquire more skills, or limit them? With that said, the R5 is a fantastic camera and would more than suit my needs. My concern is rewarding Canon for its poor upgrades (from my point of view, ymmv), CrippleHammer™ tactics and anti competitive moves vs 3rd party lens manufacturers. Dare I mention that RF lenses are over priced? 

Most birders don't use a 600mm f4 btw. Most settle on a 500mm f4 - length and lighter weight. Most birders will use a gimbal setup too with this type of combination, especially for BIFs. I have a mark 1 500mm f4 IS L (couldn't afford a used Mark II sadly) and it is heavy. I can hand hold it for a bit, but it isn't comfortable (it is just under 4kg, ~1kg heavier than the mark II version). With that said, I have extensive lower back health problems (OEA, muscle problems and umbiliical hernia). A reasonably strong and healthy male will fare better with the mark 1 lens, and even better with the lighter mark II version. The Sony 200-600, by comparison, is ~2.1kg - much more manageable. Yes, the RF100-500 and RF100-400 are both lighter, there is no denying that. The RF 100-500 is ~AUD $1900 more expensive than the Sony lens though. That's a lot of extra money for a lens that is well, at best, on par with the Sony. 

The Canon R6 II is going for some great prices at the moment - AUD $3899 at CameraPro (Australian stock too) on pre-order. I am tempted, but suspect the R5 is a better option for me (and I can use it in crop mode, ~18mp, so same as my 60D and almost the same as my 7D II). I am tempted to wait for a R5 II, but that could be 6-12 months away. Canon typically has replaced its prosumer/consumer lines of cameras every 18 months, and pro cameras every 3 years. It's been just over 2 years since the R5 and R6 releases, so the R6 was lagging and the R5, depending upon an individuals point of view, may either be lagging, or around another 12 months before an update is released. The R6 II at 24mp is tempting, especially at AUD $3899 but it could be 6 months before I'd get the camera based on pre-order demand. Frustrating as hell.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 22, 2022)

dpastern said:


> Do you want a camera that can grow as you acquire more skills, or limit them? With that said, the R5 is a fantastic camera and would more than suit my needs. My concern is rewarding Canon for its poor upgrades (from my point of view, ymmv), CrippleHammer™ tactics and anti competitive moves vs 3rd party lens manufacturers. Dare I mention that RF lenses are over priced?
> 
> Most birders don't use a 600mm f4 btw. Most settle on a 500mm f4 - length and lighter weight. Most birders will use a gimbal setup too with this type of combination, especially for BIFs. I have a mark 1 500mm f4 IS L (couldn't afford a used Mark II sadly) and it is heavy. I can hand hold it for a bit, but it isn't comfortable (it is just under 4kg, ~1kg heavier than the mark II version). With that said, I have extensive lower back health problems (OEA, muscle problems and umbiliical hernia). A reasonably strong and healthy male will fare better with the mark 1 lens, and even better with the lighter mark II version. The Sony 200-600, by comparison, is ~2.1kg - much more manageable. Yes, the RF100-500 and RF100-400 are both lighter, there is no denying that. The RF 100-500 is ~AUD $1900 more expensive than the Sony lens though. That's a lot of extra money for a lens that is well, at best, on par with the Sony.
> 
> The Canon R6 II is going for some great prices at the moment - AUD $3899 at CameraPro (Australian stock too) on pre-order. I am tempted, but suspect the R5 is a better option for me (and I can use it in crop mode, ~18mp, so same as my 60D and almost the same as my 7D II). I am tempted to wait for a R5 II, but that could be 6-12 months away. Canon typically has replaced its prosumer/consumer lines of cameras every 18 months, and pro cameras every 3 years. It's been just over 2 years since the R5 and R6 releases, so the R6 was lagging and the R5, depending upon an individuals point of view, may either be lagging, or around another 12 months before an update is released. The R6 II at 24mp is tempting, especially at AUD $3899 but it could be 6 months before I'd get the camera based on pre-order demand. Frustrating as hell.


Most birders do not settle on a 500mm f/4 - only a minority of keen enthusiasts do and the majority of regular birders that I see are content with superzooms. Of the super enthusiasts whose work I follow and admire, the top ones use 600/4 or 400/2.8. The in-use weight of the Sony 200-600mm is 2.4 kg with the hood attached, not 2.1 kg. They feel heavy because of their construction with more weight towards the front end, and felt too heavy for me when I tried one, more so than the 400mm DO II which is shorter. I hardly ever see Sonys in the UK; Canon and Nikon are the most common and I regularly see Canons with EF 100-400mm, Sigma and Tamron 150-600mm, and now RFs with the RF 100-500mm or 100-400, and Nikons with the 200-500 and 500/5.6.

Birds in flight specialists do not in general use tripods and gimbals but hand hold.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 22, 2022)

dpastern said:


> What, 20 to 24mp with the R6 II isn't constructive criticism? As stated, I don't care for 40fps or video capability, so the R6 II is well, rather lacklustre, no? ymmv, but your view doesn't make my view incorrect. It's all a matter of perspective, no? So, from my personal requirements/wants for a camera, the R6 II is indeed, well, lacklustre and wanting. Several oinline reviewers have come to the same conclusion (when looking to upgrade from the R6 to the R6 II). Going from a DSLR to the R6 II, it's a fine upgrade. But, I am very disappointed at only 24mp, especially when it's nearest competitor the A7 IV is near 25% cheaper (and that's not on sale as some would try to argue) and has 33mp.


What makes you think the primary target market for the R6II comprises R6 owners? If you look at most in-line upgrades, the improvements are modest. Given the typical time window between upgrades vs. the typical useful life of a camera, it's reasonable to conclude that relatively few users are going to buy the very next iteration of their current camera.

Logically, the R6II is aimed at 6- and 5-series DSLR users, APS-C DSLR users, and probably to a lesser extent EOS R/RP users. For all of those, it's a significant upgrade. As I stated, the vast majority of ILCs in use today are made by Canon. Given the relatively recent shift (MILCs have outsold DSLRs for only the last few years), there are still more DSLRs in use than MILCs. Given their market dominance, most of those DSLRs are Canon. As those users switch to MILCs, most will stay with Canon.

Canon doesn't care if you're disappointed. They care how many units they sell and at what margin, and I have no doubt they'll sell many units at the margin they've chosen. History has shown that they are the best in the industry at that, and have been for many years.



dpastern said:


> Interesting - considering cloning etc is generally not accepted in competition, I'm surprised that they are allowing focus stacking. Macrophotography, at 1:1 will *always* limit your DOF (~6mm for 1:1). Using focus stacking is what I'd consider image manipulation and I know my local club would consider it that too.


Given your spelling and your posting times, I suspect you're from Australia (apologies if I'm wrong on that). The Australian Photographic Society's competition rules recapitulate those of the Photographic Society of America stating, "_Techniques that enhance the presentation of the photograph without changing the nature story or the pictorial content, or without altering the content of the original scene, *are permitted* *including* HDR, _*focus stacking*_ and dodging/burning._" If you are in Australia, I'd be surprised if your local club would choose to be more restrictive than the APS rules, as that would presumably disadvantage its members in inter-club and national-level competitions. Perhaps you should *re*consider.


----------



## entoman (Nov 22, 2022)

dpastern said:


> Blind allegiance to a brand is a very dangerous thing.


As already stated, I've used Canon, Nikon, Sony and Olympus, and I criticise/praise each of them for their (in my perception) merits, AND their failures, so "blind allegiance" is most certainly one thing that I can't be accused of. I have in fact criticised several aspects of various Canon cameras here...

Blind ignorance of the value of a camera, and of the sector at which it is aimed, while not being "dangerous" is what you are guilty of in your posts. I suggest you carefully consider the points made by @neuroanatomist above, who has pointed out the true target market for the R6ii.

Owners of Canon DSLRs, or owners of older RF models such as R and RP are who the R6ii is aimed at, NOT R6 upgraders - the latter are far more likely to be lusting after an R5 or R3.


----------



## entoman (Nov 22, 2022)

dpastern said:


> The Canon R6 II is going for some great prices at the moment - AUD $3899 at CameraPro (Australian stock too) on pre-order. I am tempted, but suspect the R5 is a better option for me (and I can use it in crop mode, ~18mp, so same as my 60D and almost the same as my 7D II). I am tempted to wait for a R5 II, but that could be 6-12 months away. Canon typically has replaced its prosumer/consumer lines of cameras every 18 months, and pro cameras every 3 years. It's been just over 2 years since the R5 and R6 releases, so the R6 was lagging and the R5, depending upon an individuals point of view, may either be lagging, or around another 12 months before an update is released. The R6 II at 24mp is tempting, especially at AUD $3899 but it could be 6 months before I'd get the camera based on pre-order demand. Frustrating as hell.


Seems a bit odd that one one hand you are criticising the R6ii, but that you now consider it "tempting".

IMO the "R5ii" is 12-18 months away. Next model in the R5 series is more likely to be the hi-res "R5s" - although they could turn out to be the same thing.

If you have long primes and don't need to crop heavily, the original R6 is probably your best bet. On the other hand if you need more reach and less weight, the R7 would probably be even better as the high pixel density will give more reach than a cropped R5 image. I have the R5, but if my *primary* interest was bird photography I'd go for the R7, and pair it with a RF 100-400mm, 600mm F11 and/or 800mm F11.


----------



## entoman (Nov 22, 2022)

dpastern said:


> I am very disappointed at only 24mp, especially when it's nearest competitor the A7 IV is near 25% cheaper (and that's not on sale as some would try to argue) and has 33mp.


Regarding price, I think most of us would agree that Canon do overprice their products, especially when compared to Nikon and Sony. But that doesn't stop people buying them, so it's rather unlikely that Canon would change it's pricing policy. It's a pill we have to swallow.

You could of course switch brands, and if you genuinely believe that doing so would improve your photography, go ahead. But very often, when people switch brands, although their new camera may be better specified, there is no discernible improvement in the technical quality of their images, and it's exceedingly unlikely that a new camera will improve the aesthetic value of their images!

It's often just new gear for the sake of new gear (not that there's anything wrong with that - we all like a new toy to play with!).

As for pixels, do you honestly believe that you could tell the difference between a 24MP shot and a 33MP shot? A 24MP sensor has a resolution of 6000x4000. A 33MP sensor has a resolution of 7008x4672. If you want to see a difference, you really need to *double* the MP, which will increase the linear resolution by 50%.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 22, 2022)

entoman said:


> If you want to see a difference, you really need to *double* the MP, which will increase the linear resolution by 50%.


I'm just being a pedant - increases linear resolution by 41.4%.


----------



## Deleted member 393411 (Nov 23, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Logically, the R6II is aimed at 6- and 5-series DSLR users, APS-C DSLR users, and probably to a lesser extent EOS R/RP users. For all of those, it's a significant upgrade.


Perhaps. I suspect that with the discounting going with the original R6, many will choose that over the R6 II, unless the R6 II has specs that they can't live without. I'm seeing the original R6 now going for as low as AUD $3899. That's a significant cost reduction that means left over money can go to cards, lenses or other accessories. 


neuroanatomist said:


> Given your spelling and your posting times, I suspect you're from Australia


Yes, you are indeed correct (quoting prices in AUD in thread also is a give away lol)


entoman said:


> If you have long primes and don't need to crop heavily, the original R6 is probably your best bet


That is not the opinion of most birders that I know. Jan [Wegener] doesn't think 20/24mp (R6/R3) is enough. And, I'm pretty sure he knows a helluva lot more than either of us do about birding photography. Neither does Duade Patton for that matter, nor does Glenn Bartley. I'm currently shooting with my 7D II/300mm f4 IS L and 1.4x TC (mark 1) and that gives me 672mm reach. It's just *about* right for most birds, unless they are very tiny, like fairy wrens. Especially if you don't have a hide handy etc. Most of us work and can't afford the luxury of spending 3 days in a hide! It'd be nice, but my photography is nowhere near good enough. The 500mm f4 on a FF body will give me only 500mm reach (700mm with the 1.4x TC, so about right). R5 and 45mp gives me some room to crop and not lose feather details. It's tempting.  

Ideally, I'd like to stay within the Canon family, as it means not losing a bucket load of money in the swapping process and not having to learn a new system. All I'm wanting is for Canon to limit their CrippleHammer™ behaviour and limit their anti competitive behaviour by licencing their RF mount tech to 3rd party lens manufacturers so there is choice for the consumer. That's not a lot to ask for.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 23, 2022)

dpastern said:


> Perhaps. I suspect that with the discounting going with the original R6, many will choose that over the R6 II, unless the R6 II has specs that they can't live without. I'm seeing the original R6 now going for as low as AUD $3899. That's a significant cost reduction that means left over money can go to cards, lenses or other accessories.
> 
> Yes, you are indeed correct (quoting prices in AUD in thread also is a give away lol)
> 
> ...


“Reach” depends on pixel density not crop factor. A 7DII has the same pixel density as a 5DSR and hardly any more than an R5. The same lens on a 7DII puts the same number of pixels on a bird as it does with a 5DSR. A 300mm + 1.4xTC is 420mm whether it is on an FF 5DSR or a crop 7DII. It doesn't give you 672mm. An RF 100-400 on an R7 will put the same number of pixels on a bird as a 510mm on a 7DII or a 540mm on an R5 or an 800mm on an R6.


----------



## Deleted member 393411 (Nov 23, 2022)

AlanF said:


> “Reach” depends on pixel density not crop factor. A 7DII has the same pixel density as a 5DSR and hardly any more than an R5. The same lens on a 7DII puts the same number of pixels on a bird as it does with a 5DSR. A 300mm + 1.4xTC is 420mm whether it is on an FF 5DSR or a crop 7DII. It doesn't give you 672mm. An RF 100-400 on an R7 will put the same number of pixels on a bird as a 510mm on a 7DII or a 540mm on an R5 or an 800mm on an R6.


I beg to differ. Reach and pixel density are NOT the same. Not even close. In an ideal world, you want BOTH reach and pixel density.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 23, 2022)

dpastern said:


> I beg to differ. Reach and pixel density are NOT the same. Not even close. In an ideal world, you want BOTH reach and pixel density.


The pixel density of a sensor, d,is defined by the number of pixels per cm of length (or dots per inch for imperial measurements). The maximum resolution of a sensor is given by the Nyquist equation to be d/2 lp/cm. It’s the resolution of the sensor that gives “reach” and determines the number of pixels per duck in your imagee for a given lens. It’s worth while getting your head around this as it helps you choose lens and body for your purposes. Other factors come in like diffraction of course and the diameter of your front lens element. But, the key point is that pixel density is the key to resolution combined with focal length and aperture. I thought the numbers I gave for different focal lengths on the 7DII, 5DSR, R7, R5, and R6 put this clearly.


----------



## Deleted member 393411 (Nov 23, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The pixel density of a sensor, d,is defined by the number of pixels per cm of length (or dots per inch for imperial measurements). The maximum resolution of a sensor is given by the Nyquist equation to be d/2 lp/cm. It’s the resolution of the sensor that gives “reach” and determines the number of pixels per duck in your imagee for a given lens. It’s worth while getting your head around this as it helps you choose lens and body for your purposes. Other factors come in like diffraction of course and the diameter of your front lens element. But, the key point is that pixel density is the key to resolution combined with focal length and aperture. I thought the numbers I gave for different focal lengths on the 7DII, 5DSR, R7, R5, and R6 put this clearly.


I'm aware of this - my point was, try taking a photo of a bird that's 10m away with a 100mm lens and a 500mm lens (edit: to clarify, with the same camera/sensor combination) - you'll get more pixels on the bird with the 500mm lens than with the 100mm lens. Ergo, reach is indeed important. Otherwise, birders wouldn't bother with big, heavy primes, would they!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 23, 2022)

dpastern said:


> I'm aware of this - my point was, try taking a photo of a bird that's 10m away with a 100mm lens and a 500mm lens (edit: to clarify, with the same camera/sensor combination) - you'll get more pixels on the bird with the 500mm lens than with the 100mm lens. Ergo, reach is indeed important. Otherwise, birders wouldn't bother with big, heavy primes, would they!


You’re the one claiming that your 7DII with a 420mm lens gives you a ‘672mm reach’ while, “500mm f4 on a FF body will give me only 500mm reach.” @AlanF is correctly stating that you’re wrong. A 500 mm f/4 on an R5 would put more ‘pixels on duck’ (i.e., have more ‘reach’) than your 7DII with a 300/4 + 1.4x.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 23, 2022)

dpastern said:


> I'm aware of this - my point was, try taking a photo of a bird that's 10m away with a 100mm lens and a 500mm lens (edit: to clarify, with the same camera/sensor combination) - you'll get more pixels on the bird with the 500mm lens than with the 100mm lens. Ergo, reach is indeed important. Otherwise, birders wouldn't bother with big, heavy primes, would they!


As sensors get more and more dense, the need for big heavy primes becomes less and less. Also, the latest AI software for upresolving is quite remarkable. In the near future, it is likely that those big primes will become less and less common and used only by the ultra enthusiasts and pros. They were necessary for low resolution sensors and film.


----------



## Deleted member 393411 (Nov 23, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> You’re the one claiming that your 7DII with a 420mm lens gives you a ‘672mm reach’ while, “500mm f4 on a FF body will give me only 500mm reach.” @AlanF is correctly stating that you’re wrong. A 500 mm f/4 on an R5 would put more ‘pixels on duck’ (i.e., have more ‘reach’) than your 7DII with a 300/4 + 1.4x.


Yes, that is potentially true, but the duck will be smaller, won't it? So, a 200mm on that R5 (even with 45mp vs 20mp) wouldn't give more "reach" would it ;-) focal length is important. I mean, pro motorsport photographers don't take images of a F1 car with a 50mm lens and then crop in just cos they're using a 45mp sensor (vs an 18mp One), do they? Are people this stupid on these forums that common sense doesn't prevail?


AlanF said:


> As sensors get more and more dense, the need for big heavy primes becomes less and less. Also, the latest AI software for upresolving is quite remarkable. In the near future, it is likely that those big primes will become less and less common and used only by the ultra enthusiasts and pros. They were necessary for low resolution sensors and film.


Have you ever heard the adage that it's "better to get it right in camera"? I guess I am old school photographer. I'm not saying that tools like Topaz Gigapixel aren't useful - they certainly can be, but it is far better to use the right tools, for the right job. For example, an 800mm (say, f5.6) lens coupled to the R5 would be the best of both worlds - combining reach and pixel density on the subject.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 23, 2022)

dpastern said:


> Yes, that is potentially true, but the duck will be smaller, won't it? So, a 200mm on that R5 (even with 45mp vs 20mp) wouldn't give more "reach" would it ;-) focal length is important. I mean, pro motorsport photographers don't take images of a F1 car with a 50mm lens and then crop in just cos they're using a 45mp sensor (vs an 18mp One), do they? Are people this stupid on these forums that common sense doesn't prevail?


If you view the ducks on the same monitor at 1:1, the duck imaged with the R5 + 500/4 will be bigger than the same duck imaged with the 7DII + 300/4 + 1.4x.

Evidently there are people on these forums with a very poor grasp of technical issues relevant to photography, you are one such person. If you want to use the word ‘stupid’ to describe them, you may.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 23, 2022)

entoman said:


> Owners of Canon DSLRs, or owners of older RF models such as R and RP are who the R6ii is aimed at,


While that is probably true, I can't see EOS R owners who did not switch to the R6 for 20 MP switching for only 24 MP.
I do know some who are making the switch for the improvements of the video though.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 23, 2022)

dpastern said:


> Yes, that is potentially true, but the duck will be smaller, won't it? So, a 200mm on that R5 (even with 45mp vs 20mp) wouldn't give more "reach" would it ;-) focal length is important. I mean, pro motorsport photographers don't take images of a F1 car with a 50mm lens and then crop in just cos they're using a 45mp sensor (vs an 18mp One), do they? Are people this stupid on these forums that common sense doesn't prevail?


Read what I wrote: I gave examples of various lenses with different sensors. Actually, as sensors become more and more dense, the less focal length becomes important and the more aperture for resolution as diffraction becomes the limiting factor.


----------



## Deleted member 393411 (Nov 23, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> If you view the ducks on the same monitor at 1:1, the duck imaged with the R5 + 500/4 will be bigger than the same duck imaged with the 7DII + 300/4 + 1.4x.
> 
> Evidently there are people on these forums with a very poor grasp of technical issues relevant to photography, you are one such person. If you want to use the word ‘stupid’ to describe them, you may.


there you go, you can ****** off. I'm outta here. CBF arguing with stupid, arrogant fuckwits.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 23, 2022)

entoman said:


> As for pixels, do you honestly believe that you could tell the difference between a 24MP shot and a 33MP shot?


People who compare numbers compare numbers.
It is very frustrating not to see any reviewers comparing images.
Surely, someone could have pitted the R6 II against the EOS R.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 23, 2022)

dpastern said:


> That is not the opinion of most birders that I know. Jan [Wegener] doesn't think 20/24mp (R6/R3) is enough.


He is not alone, but I do find it strange that before the R5 birders were perfectly happy with 20 MP.
Canon does make it easy to choose the R7 for people not wanting to choose the R6 or R6 II, so there really is no reason to accept 24 MP unless someone needs the speed of the R6 II or the R3.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 23, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> He is not alone, but I do find it strange that before the R5 birders were perfectly happy with 20 MP.
> Canon does make it easy to choose the R7 for people not wanting to choose the R6 or R6 II, so there really is no reason to accept 24 MP unless someone needs the speed of the R6 II or the R3.


I was happy with the 18 MP of the 1D X and I’m just as happy with the 24 MP of the R3. But one reason is that I can handhold and (probably more importantly) afford a 600/4. 

It’s been true for many years, and is even more true today with higher density FF sensors, that the real ‘reach advantage’ of crop cameras is that those systems are within the reach of people’s budget, and for some within reach of the strength/stamina needed to carry and use them.


----------



## entoman (Nov 23, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I was happy with the 18 MP of the 1D X and I’m just as happy with the 24 MP of the R3. But one reason is that I can handhold and (probably more importantly) afford a 600/4.
> 
> It’s been true for many years, and is even more true today with higher density FF sensors, that the real ‘reach advantage’ of crop cameras is that those systems are within the reach of people’s budget, and for some within reach of the strength/stamina needed to carry and use them.


Absolutely. I'm envious of friends who can afford and can carry (let alone hand-hold) a 600/4 or a 400/2.8 on a R3 or 1Dx. I can't do either, which is part of the reason why I use 100-500 and 100-400 on a hi-res R5, and crop when necessary.

Another advantage of using a lens with a shorter focal length and wider angle of view, is that it provides a safety margin when framing birds in flight (I'm not a great marksman), and allows a choice of compositions when cropping in post.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 24, 2022)

Deleted member 393411 said:


> Oh look, a perasonal attack. Post duly reported. Have a nice day.


How it started.


Deleted member 393411 said:


> there you go, you can ****** off. I'm outta here. CBF arguing with stupid, arrogant fuckwits.


How it's going.


----------



## R5boy (Nov 27, 2022)

It's missing a 14 mm 2.8, like the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8, I know there's the 15-35 2.8 but that's not 14


----------



## Kmccarthy (Dec 19, 2022)

I would love a lightweight RF-S 15-85mm (or longer). It would make my R10 the *perfect* single-lens travel camera. The RF-S 18-150mm is a great lens, but not quite wide enough for landscapes.


----------



## GoldWing (Dec 25, 2022)

Any news on anything but the R1 is FUBAR


----------



## masterpix (Dec 25, 2022)

The fourlet: 10-24(4), 24-70(2.8), 70-200(2.8) and 120-700(5.6-8)... which bank do I need to rob?


----------



## jam05 (Dec 25, 2022)

Sharlin said:


> "Form factor" has nothing to do with having the exact same dimensions. It means same general shape, ergonomics and approximate size. Here it means "has no viewfinder bump" plus likely only a very modest grip. The mount size will constrain the height of the body, sure, but even that can be worked around to some extent.





Sharlin said:


> "Form factor" has nothing to do with having the exact same dimensions. It means same general shape, ergonomics and approximate size. Here it means "has no viewfinder bump" plus likely only a very modest grip. The mount size will constrain the height of the body, sure, but even that can be worked around to some extent.


"Form factor" by it's definition includes dimensions. Period. That's precisely what it means. The dimensions and ability to fit and be calibrated on a compact gimbal. Common sense.


----------

