# Canon again mentions a Pro EOS R body, with IBIS and dual card slots



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 24, 2019)

> I think it’s safe to say we can put to rest the idea that IBIS will be coming in a Canon DSLR. It does not look like the EOS-1D X Mark III will be equipped with it and that IBIS will be reserved for the EOS R system, at least for now. Nikon will apparently be putting IBIS in the upcoming D6 and anonymous sources may have just figured Canon was going to do it too, especially after an IBIS patent showing a DSLR drawing appeared back in July.
> Canon executives are now telling folks in the media that they are “considering” a high-end EOS R body with dual card slots and IBIS.
> A representative with Canon told Digital Camera World with careful wording that a Canon is “considering” making an high-end EOS R camera.
> There’s a high-end EOS R in consideration,” said Canon UK’s product...



Continue reading...


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 24, 2019)

It's refreshing to see a non-rumour site actually mention the source and provide direct quotes instead of the weasel words sites like DPReview use most of the time.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 24, 2019)

Except they're quoting someone using a weasel word. I think we're left in about the same situation. Perhaps there is now the benefit of knowing that Canon's confidence regarding a pro R camera being able to come out very soon is lower than some may have expected.


----------



## Chaitanya (Oct 24, 2019)

"Considering" at this point their words should have been definitely bringing high end R to market.


----------



## criscokkat (Oct 24, 2019)

The source went on to say “I’m _considering_ eating, sleeping and/or breathing sometime soon as well”


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 24, 2019)

Good news all the way around! I just wish for more $$$$. The OCD guy in me likes the idea of a UWA that doesn't overlap the 28-70. So my zoom Trinity would be: RF 14-28m f/2L, RF 28-70mm f/2L, RF 70-135mm f/2L. Purrrrrfect. Makes me want to get a cat Mr. Don Haines. 

After that, time to conquer all the f/1.2L primes!


----------



## Punio (Oct 24, 2019)

What is this Pro EOS R body? A 1DX3 or 5D4 Equivalent? ..or even a 5DS R equivalent??


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 24, 2019)

Punio said:


> What is this Pro EOS R body? A 1DX3 or 5D4 Equivalent? ..or even a 5DS R equivalent??


That's what people say. I happen to think it to be any body/lens used by a person to make his/her primary living. Body or lens can only be as good as the user... whether enthusiast or professional, and many enthusiasts are better than professionals. There are also far more enthusiasts than professionals.


----------



## Refurb7 (Oct 24, 2019)

The R should have had dual slots. Come on Canon, dual slots are not some high end feature. Sony offers dual slots in the A7iii. Fuji offers dual slots in their X-T3.


----------



## Canon1966 (Oct 24, 2019)

I'm looking forward to a Pro Level Canon Mirrorless with IBIS to compete with the Sony A7R4. However, I think I may stick to my EF glass and use the adapter as I think the RF glass although awesome from what I hear is very expensive. Hopefully RF glass will eventually come down in price down the road or get refurbs.


----------



## zonoskar (Oct 24, 2019)

“If we do, it _will_ have dual card slots, it will be that sort of level, and under development is in-body image stabilization. So we _are_ looking at this technology, it _is_ in development with us.” 

It might be me not understanding English well enough, but I read that as 2 separate things: The high-end RF will have 2 card slots. And they are developing IBIS. The high-end RF will probably have that, but I don't read that. IBIS could come sooner or later than the high-end RF


----------



## Randywayne (Oct 24, 2019)

If they are in the "considering it" stage does that mean it's 3 to 4 years out?


----------



## wockawocka (Oct 24, 2019)

Canon1966 said:


> I'm looking forward to a Pro Level Canon Mirrorless with IBIS to compete with the Sony A7R4. However, I think I may stick to my EF glass and use the adapter as I think the RF glass although awesome from what I hear is very expensive. Hopefully RF glass will eventually come down in price down the road or get refurbs.



TBH using adapted EF glass is the way right now. The RF50, 85 and 28-70 are the only RF lenses really worth using. The other offerings are only equal to the existing EF glass. Not better.


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 24, 2019)

Chaitanya said:


> "Considering" at this point their words should have been definitely bringing high end R to market.


Maybe they don't want to risk reducing R body sales by implying that potential buyers might want to wait a little while for something better. As others have pointed out, "considering" could imply a wait of several years.


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Oct 24, 2019)

Canon1966 said:


> I'm looking forward to a Pro Level Canon Mirrorless with IBIS to compete with the Sony A7R4. However, I think I may stick to my EF glass and use the adapter as I think the RF glass although awesome from what I hear is very expensive. Hopefully RF glass will eventually come down in price down the road or get refurbs.





wockawocka said:


> TBH using adapted EF glass is the way right now. The RF50, 85 and 28-70 are the only RF lenses really worth using. The other offerings are only equal to the existing EF glass. Not better.



I'm glad you both said that because I've been thinking about how this would all play out with my EF glass. I'll probably move to full-frame mirrorless when this R body comes out, but I have a decent collection of EF glass (L 2.8 trinity, a few fast primes, tilt-shift, macro, etc). I have no idea what the resale market is for EF lenses, as I've kept all the lenses I've purchased. If anybody has experience selling their EF glass, please feel free to chime in. I don't mind using an adapter, but I'd also like to take advantage of the size benefits of native RF glass.


----------



## wockawocka (Oct 24, 2019)

Travel_Photographer said:


> I'm glad you both said that because I've been thinking about how this would all play out with my EF glass. I'll probably move to full-frame mirrorless when this R body comes out, but I have a decent collection of EF glass (L 2.8 trinity, a few fast primes, tilt-shift, macro, etc). I have no idea what the resale market is for EF lenses, as I've kept all the lenses I've purchased. If anybody has experience selling their EF glass, please feel free to chime in. I don't mind using an adapter, but I'd also like to take advantage of the size benefits of native RF glass.


I hate to be the one to say this but other than the 70-200 everything is bigger and heavier even factoring in the adapter!


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Oct 25, 2019)

wockawocka said:


> I hate to be the one to say this but other than the 70-200 everything is bigger and heavier even factoring in the adapter!



Interesting! You're right, that seems to be the case. I never looked up the specs, just figured they'd be smaller and / or lighter. That actually makes me feel a bit better. If I want, I can move to a FF mirrorless body and not feel like my current EF lens collection is so much bigger than native RF, hanging off the front of an R body. I can move to RF native for image quality purposes or to get image stabilization if I feel that's necessary going forward. Thanks.


----------



## TAF (Oct 25, 2019)

And I am considering buying it if it has IBIS. If not, I'll consider keeping my money until that feature appears.


----------



## navastronia (Oct 25, 2019)

TAF said:


> And I am considering buying it if it has IBIS. If not, I'll consider keeping my money until that feature appears.



Agreed, and yeah, I just don't see how much longer they can hold out when 1) everyone else is offering it, and 2) their best and fastest lenses aren't stabilized.


----------



## edoorn (Oct 25, 2019)

EF lenses will work great; possibly even better results than on a dslr.
The high end RF glass is not cheap, but it is in line with what Sony/Nikon is asking for their 2.8 zooms. More 1.8 prime options would be very welcome.
I tried the RF 15-35 and 24-70 and shot a bunch of raw files. In the center the sharpness is essentially the same but it does have better corner performance. Plus, the focus is even faster due to nano usm and probably more accurate than adapted glass. Plus IS is a very good addition too.
In my case I’d like to get that 24-70 and 70-200; I do use them to make a living so a purchase is easier justified


----------



## Aussie shooter (Oct 25, 2019)

If the specs for the 1dx3 are on point then there is little doubt canon now has the ability to make whatever mirrorless it wants. It's just a matter of when they choose to do it. I guess from.a business perspective that is a tricky issue. It will be a balancing act to stop them wasting too much in development costs and frustrating impatient customers. But I think Sony is probably looking over their shoulders. It is abundantly clear that canon has the best video capabilities if they want to use them and they are not lagging in other areas either(especially if they have managed a slight improvement in their AF algorithms).


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 25, 2019)

edoorn said:


> EF lenses will work great; possibly even better results than on a dslr.
> The high end RF glass is not cheap, but it is in line with what Sony/Nikon is asking for their 2.8 zooms. More 1.8 prime options would be very welcome.
> I tried the RF 15-35 and 24-70 and shot a bunch of raw files. In the center the sharpness is essentially the same but it does have better corner performance. Plus, the focus is even faster due to nano usm and probably more accurate than adapted glass. Plus IS is a very good addition too.
> In my case I’d like to get that 24-70 and 70-200; I do use them to make a living so a purchase is easier justified



In terms of AF protocols, there is no "adaptation" of EF lenses on RF cameras. The adapter is mostly just a spacer. The RF camera has the capability of communicating directly with the EF lens the same way an UHS-II card reader can read an old SD card using only some of its contact pins. They're all EOS. There's no need to "translate" instructions from a Sony E-mount protocol to a Canon EOS protocol between the body and lens. The RF protocol expands on the capabilities of the EF protocol and enables faster communication between an RF body and RF lens, but the RF protocol is an extension of the EF protocol and EF lenses lose absolutely none of their capability when used on an RF camera as compared to when they are used on an EF body. If an RF lens is more accurate than a comparable EF lens when used on an RF body it's because that lens is simply more accurate, just as some EF lenses are more accurate than other EF lenses when used on the same EF body.


----------



## edoorn (Oct 25, 2019)

Interesting, thanks for explaining! So it's just the nano USM that makes a difference. I do can tell that works very fast and silent, and in general the RF lens had a better focus experience than the EF version. But newer EF lenses like my 35mm and 85 also focus better; the 24-70 II is already 7 yrs old so that explains a bit


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Oct 25, 2019)

If Nikon comes with a pro DSLR with IBIS, and Canon still will not offer IBIS in the 1D X Series, I am seriously considering switching to Nikon when the time to replace my already quite ancient 1D X arrives. IBIS makes such a big difference, if you combine it with all the wonderful Sigma Art lenses for example. Just imagine having the Sigma 20mm f/1.4 Art in combinantion with an IBIS that is worth five stops. That would mean 32 times cleaner images at least for not moving subjects when shooting handheld at night. If would rather get rid of all video capabilities instead of having another camera without IBIS. Nikon already is far ahead of Canon at dark noise, because Nikon uses Sony sensors. 

Can anybody explain why they should include IBIS in the EOS R, but not in the EOS system? For me it seems they just want to push people away from EOS towards EOS R. Instead they might push many people towards Sony. If you already have Sigmy Art lenses for Canon, you can send them to Sigma and let them be converted to the Nikon mount for $100 or so per lens. In the past lenses were the major advantage of Canon compared to Sony or Nikon, but those times are long over. 

I still do not really see the need to buy an EOS R and those extremely overpriced new RF lenses. Nothing can replace seeing your subject with your own eyes through an optical viewfinder.


----------



## Kit. (Oct 25, 2019)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Can anybody explain why they should include IBIS in the EOS R, but not in the EOS system?


It's a really bad idea to include _the first generation_ of IBIS implementation into a pro sports body.

If you remember, Canon's first image stabilized lens wasn't a pro lens either.


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Oct 25, 2019)

edoorn said:


> EF lenses will work great; possibly even better results than on a dslr.
> The high end RF glass is not cheap, but it is in line with what Sony/Nikon is asking for their 2.8 zooms. More 1.8 prime options would be very welcome.
> I tried the RF 15-35 and 24-70 and shot a bunch of raw files. In the center the sharpness is essentially the same but it does have better corner performance. Plus, the focus is even faster due to nano usm and probably more accurate than adapted glass. Plus IS is a very good addition too.
> In my case I’d like to get that 24-70 and 70-200; I do use them to make a living so a purchase is easier justified



I'm sure I'd migrate to RF glass over time for the reasons you suggest, but for me personally, a big draw was thinking that all the glass might be 10 - 20% smaller. I can't blame anyone for thinking that, the below screenshot is straight from the Canon website specifically marketing the smaller footprint (including lens), so one could easily believe that type of size reduction was universal across all RF glass.

Don't get me wrong, I'll likely still go there, the lenses look awesome, but at least my expectation is set as far as size / weight. I shoot primarily travel so weight is a big factor for me. I have an M6, 22mm, 32mm, 55-200, and kit 15-45mm and that camera has been awesome for me compared to previous APS-C bodies. I can bring my M6 out for scouting or casual non-client work and for that purpose the results are outstanding. It's my current all-around "favorite" camera to use and carry because of its tiny size and light weight.

Anyway, thanks everyone for the insight.


----------



## marioslrzn (Oct 25, 2019)

I think we’ll see a pro R after the 1DX iii, I rather wait cause it’ll be better for the camera cause would prefer to have the new digic9 and new sensor technology, hopefully around 40mp 10fps continous, ibis and dual card slot $3500, video add 120fps 1080p, 4k full frame, and I think all the sony fanboys would finally stfu about video specs. I enjoy my R and collecting the RF lens


----------



## marioslrzn (Oct 25, 2019)

Travel_Photographer said:


> I'm sure I'd migrate to RF glass over time for the reasons you suggest, but for me personally, a big draw was thinking that all the glass might be 10 - 20% smaller. I can't blame anyone for thinking that, the below screenshot is straight from the Canon website specifically marketing the smaller footprint (including lens), so one could easily believe that type of size reduction was universal across all RF glass.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'll likely still go there, the lenses look awesome, but at least my expectation is set as far as size / weight. I shoot primarily travel so weight is a big factor for me. I have an M6, 22mm, 32mm, 55-200, and kit 15-45mm and that camera has been awesome for me compared to previous APS-C bodies. I can bring my M6 out for scouting or casual non-client work and for that purpose the results are outstanding. It's my current all-around "favorite" camera to use and carry because of its tiny size and light weight.
> 
> ...


 The zooms are lighter and have IS with better performance and the primes well if you want the best image quality it’s going to take a lot of glass for f1.2, just look at the 35mm f1.8 it’s smaller and faster than the canon ef35 f2 so yes It’s definitely smaller and lighter but with higher image quality required now the lenses are going to get bigger because the quality is also going up, if the quality was the same then the lenses would definitely be smaller, just look how much sharper the RF50 is , it’s not even close, that’s why there’s 2 options f1.2 for best quality and f1.8 for the convenience


----------



## edoorn (Oct 25, 2019)

I would like to see high end (as in: high quaility build) light primes. If not from Canon, I’m sure other brands like Tamron could produce these


----------



## DBounce (Oct 25, 2019)

The Canon ecosystem feels fragmented to atm. If you choose RF lenses, you cannot use them on any of the Cinema (C) series bodies. This makes it not as attractive to go full in on RF. I find myself using adapted EF glass. This also give me the ability to use the ND pop-in filter. Which cannot be used when I use native RF glass. It's a strange place that Canon has left us.


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Oct 25, 2019)

marioslrzn said:


> The zooms are lighter and have IS with better performance and the primes well if you want the best image quality it’s going to take a lot of glass for f1.2, just look at the 35mm f1.8 it’s smaller and faster than the canon ef35 f2 so yes It’s definitely smaller and lighter but with higher image quality required now the lenses are going to get bigger because the quality is also going up, if the quality was the same then the lenses would definitely be smaller, just look how much sharper the RF50 is , it’s not even close, that’s why there’s 2 options f1.2 for best quality and f1.8 for the convenience



I thought the zooms were smaller and lighter too, that's why I was glad to see one of the previous posters point out that wasn't correct. The RF 24-70 is both heavier and larger than the EF version. The RF 15-35mm is heavier than the EF 16-35 and about the same size. I only took a look at one prime (85mm F1.2) and the RF version was heavier than the EF. Again, not a problem, just something I wasn't aware of and glad that I'm aware of it now.



DBounce said:


> This also give me the ability to use the ND pop-in filter. Which cannot be used when I use native RF glass. It's a strange place that Canon has left us.



I was just looking at that! It looks great, and for me is an incentive to use adapted glass as I use ND filters all the time. Was just reading though that you need to buy the "clear" filter separately to put in the adapter when not using the ND filter. Seems a little silly they didn't include that with the adapter.


----------



## edoorn (Oct 25, 2019)

the 24-70 is heavier, although it is only 95gr. Did have the lens in my hand to shoot a bit this week amd it felt allright. The 70-200 is a surprise though, 400 grams lighter


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Oct 25, 2019)

edoorn said:


> the 24-70 is heavier, although it is only 95gr. Did have the lens in my hand to shoot a bit this week amd it felt allright. The 70-200 is a surprise though, 400 grams lighter



Yeah the 70-200 is a bit of a game changer. That's awesome.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 25, 2019)

When Canon is considering something, it usually means they have prototypes being tested and want to get feedback from select pro's. Then, marketing looks at the cost versus projected sales. That's going to be a tough one to justify with sales dropping.


----------



## richperson (Oct 25, 2019)

Travel_Photographer said:


> I thought the zooms were smaller and lighter too, that's why I was glad to see one of the previous posters point out that wasn't correct. The RF 24-70 is both heavier and larger than the EF version. The RF 15-35mm is heavier than the EF 16-35 and about the same size. I only took a look at one prime (85mm F1.2) and the RF version was heavier than the EF. Again, not a problem, just something I wasn't aware of and glad that I'm aware of it now.



Didn't the RF versions both add IS, which must weight something?


----------



## mpmark (Oct 25, 2019)

This is really stupid, they really have to tell us they will be considering a "high end" R body? They are making high end lenses for the R mount!!! Who do they expect to use those lenses? I would buy the lenses today if a high end R camera was available. The EOS R does nothing for me, I'm sure others feel the same.

My take on this is that they use this wording because, if they tell us now that they are going to be making a high end R mount camera then they may hurt the 1DX III sales before it even leaves the ground. But we all know at some point you will make a R camera equvalant to the 1D line, the R mount lenses coming out prove that.


----------



## HikeBike (Oct 25, 2019)

I'll be interested to see what happens with the R down the line, once a clearer body hierarchy is established. If the pro-level R is to be a mirrorless 5D/5Ds (dual slots, IBIS, new sensor, more MP, faster processor(s), more FPS, etc.), then I'm guessing the R Mk II gets IBIS, a new processor, and some other relatively minor tweaks. In short, I'm curious about the differentiation strategy.

In terms of the hierarchy itself...Rebel R-RP-R-Ra-R7-R5-R1? I'm assuming Canon will eventually kill off the M line.


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Oct 25, 2019)

mpmark said:


> This is really stupid, they really have to tell us they will be considering a "high end" R body? They are making high end lenses for the R mount!!! Who do they expect to use those lenses? I would buy the lenses today if a high end R camera was available. The EOS R does nothing for me, I'm sure others feel the same.
> 
> My take on this is that they use this wording because, if they tell us now that they are going to be making a high end R mount camera then they may hurt the 1DX III sales before it even leaves the ground. But we all know at some point you will make a R camera equvalant to the 1D line, the R mount lenses coming out prove that.


On the other hand, does anyone really doubt there will eventually be one (or more) coming, given the quality glass being produced? And I'd reckon most of those contemplating a 1DxIII would be savvy enough to realise with all the quality RF glass being announced, there will be a Hi-End/Pro-R too, if that's where they were minded to go. 

I think the only real doubt is 'when' rather than 'if'.


----------



## FTb-n (Oct 26, 2019)

Punio said:


> What is this Pro EOS R body? A 1DX3 or 5D4 Equivalent? ..or even a 5DS R equivalent??


Good question. My guess is that a Pro EOS R must:

-- appeal to wedding and portrait photographers
-- compete with Sony A9 II
-- not compete with the 1Dx3

I think that its feature set will live somewhere between a 5D4/1Dx2 and the 1Dx3.


----------



## -pekr- (Oct 26, 2019)

FTb-n said:


> Good question. My guess is that a Pro EOS R must:
> 
> -- appeal to wedding and portrait photographers
> -- compete with Sony A9 II
> ...



Or Canon will "suprise" us and produce just some high-mpx body, single card slot again ....


----------



## addola (Oct 26, 2019)

Refurb7 said:


> The R should have had dual slots. Come on Canon, dual slots are not some high end feature. Sony offers dual slots in the A7iii. Fuji offers dual slots in their X-T3.



I agree, but Canon was being Canon... the 6D & 6D Mark II didn't have dual slots. I thought Nikon would do dual card slots on the Z6 & Z7 since some of their lower-end Nikon DSLRs like D610 (FF), and D7200 (APS-C) had dual card slots.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 26, 2019)

addola said:


> I agree, but Canon was being Canon... the 6D & 6D Mark II didn't have dual slots. I thought Nikon would do dual card slots on the Z6 & Z7 since some of their lower-end Nikon DSLRs like D610 (FF), and D7200 (APS-C) had dual card slots.


Nikon obviously realised that inclusion of dual card slots was a misguided decision for the market segment those cameras are sold in.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 26, 2019)

HikeBike said:


> I'll be interested to see what happens with the R down the line, once a clearer body hierarchy is established. If the pro-level R is to be a mirrorless 5D/5Ds (dual slots, IBIS, new sensor, more MP, faster processor(s), more FPS, etc.), then I'm guessing the R Mk II gets IBIS, a new processor, and some other relatively minor tweaks. In short, I'm curious about the differentiation strategy.
> 
> In terms of the hierarchy itself...Rebel R-RP-R-Ra-R7-R5-R1? I'm assuming Canon will eventually kill off the M line.



The EOS M line is the best selling interchangeable mirrorless camera system in the world. Why would they kill it off?


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 26, 2019)

I'd love to see al these shots people are missing because of camera movement instead of subject movement that necessitates IBIS and for which IS simply isn't good enough or an option.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 26, 2019)

A lot of the noise about IBIS comes from people who show their creative credentials by using artisan, small manufacture lenses without in-lens IS.

Or am I being cynical?


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 26, 2019)

Mikehit said:


> A lot of the noise about IBIS comes from people who show their creative credentials by using artisan, small manufacture lenses without in-lens IS.
> 
> Or am I being cynical?


Yes to me is just sounds like excuses. Previously we had the DR meme, "I'd buy one but for the lack of DR", even though people never showed their images that had been ruined by the lack of a stop or so of DR, now that meme has been laid to rest we have the IBIS trope, "I'd buy one but I need dual card slots and IBIS".....


----------



## unfocused (Oct 26, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> I'd love to see al these shots people are missing because of camera movement instead of subject movement that necessitates IBIS and for which IS simply isn't good enough or an option.


I think that a very credible case can be made by video shooters that IBIS is an important, possible critical, feature. I've read all the arguments from stills shooters and I find them much less compelling. But, then again, I'm also not convinced that memory cards are so unreliable that any camera without dual card slots is worthless.


----------



## deleteme (Oct 26, 2019)

wockawocka said:


> TBH using adapted EF glass is the way right now. The RF50, 85 and 28-70 are the only RF lenses really worth using. The other offerings are only equal to the existing EF glass. Not better.


The RF lenses named are splendid but are exotics. The fact is that ALL EF lenses are excellent and work well with the Canon adapters. My only beef with the adapted lenses is that they seem oddly bulky when attached to any R body. I use mine with the RF24-105 and it seems better scaled to the body. The new RF 70-200 seems to be more compact but my 17TS-E and 16-35 seem enormous.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 26, 2019)

unfocused said:


> I think that a very credible case can be made by video shooters that IBIS is an important, possible critical, feature. I've read all the arguments from stills shooters and I find them much less compelling. But, then again, I'm also not convinced that memory cards are so unreliable that any camera without dual card slots is worthless.


I'd like to agree but the truth is anybody shooting video without a gimbal, which come in a frightening array of sizes and prices, just isn't taking themselves seriously, a gimbal will do a lot more for your video footage than IBIS ever will.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Oct 26, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> I'd love to see al these shots people are missing because of camera movement instead of subject movement that necessitates IBIS and for which IS simply isn't good enough or an option.


It's funny. I have actually seen some examples(either been shown by someone or seen them on yootoob) of shots taken with IBIS that simply would not have been possible without. 2 1/2 sec handheld exposures etc. Guess what? They were [email protected]&t.For two reasons. Anything in the image that was not bolted down moved. And the IBIS cannot compensate for the amount of movement during an exposure that long. I guess it helps in video more than stills although having said that if you were a halfway serious video shooter your camera should be on a gimbal. It's not like you can't get small, light and cheap gimbals nowadays.
OOps. ^ Just realised you beat me to the gimbal comment.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 26, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> I'd like to agree but the truth is anybody shooting video without a gimbal, which come in a frightening array of sizes and prices, just isn't taking themselves seriously, a gimbal will do a lot more for your video footage than IBIS ever will.




I agree. That was the reason that Panasonic felt comfortable excluding IBIS from the GH5s and Panasonic seem to have become the benchmark for video performance.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Oct 26, 2019)

Aussie shooter said:


> It's funny. I have actually seen some examples(either been shown by someone or seen them on yootoob) of shots taken with IBIS that simply would not have been possible without. 2 1/2 sec handheld exposures etc. Guess what? They were [email protected]&t.For two reasons. Anything in the image that was not bolted down moved. And the IBIS cannot compensate for the amount of movement during an exposure that long. I guess it helps in video more than stills although having said that if you were a halfway serious video shooter your camera should be on a gimbal. It's not like you can't get small, light and cheap gimbals nowadays.
> OOps. ^ Just realised you beat me to the gimbal comment.


2.5 exposure is probably a too extreme case. If IBIS is said to compensate 3 stops, for example, you can shoot at 1/25 where you'd have shot at 1/200, and obviously without compensating the subject's motion blur.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 27, 2019)

Aussie shooter said:


> It's funny. I have actually seen some examples(either been shown by someone or seen them on yootoob) of shots taken with IBIS that simply would not have been possible without. 2 1/2 sec handheld exposures etc. Guess what? They were [email protected]&t.For two reasons. Anything in the image that was not bolted down moved. And the IBIS cannot compensate for the amount of movement during an exposure that long. I guess it helps in video more than stills although having said that if you were a halfway serious video shooter your camera should be on a gimbal. It's not like you can't get small, light and cheap gimbals nowadays.
> OOps. ^ Just realised you beat me to the gimbal comment.




I'm no video pro but even I have a Ronin-S for my 1DX MkII, and damn do they keep upgrading the firmware for it! DJI started slow but it has become an incredibly powerful and useful tool.


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Oct 27, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> I'd like to agree but the truth is anybody shooting video without a gimbal, which come in a frightening array of sizes and prices, just isn't taking themselves seriously, a gimbal will do a lot more for your video footage than IBIS ever will.



Agreed 100%. I'm traditionally a stills shooter, but I starting shooting video with my M6. Bought a Zhiyun Crane M2 for it (which is stout enough for even the (relatively) heavy 32mm 1.4) and the videos are absolutely amazing. No IBIS in the world could possibly compensate for me walking, running, climbing and all the other things I do with it and the videos are rock-solid steady. I programmed all the axes using the app to match my style and the footage is incredible.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Oct 27, 2019)

You will not find many wide angle primes with IS today. So a five stop IBIS like in the Sony A9 means that you can use ISO 800 instead of ISO 25600 for a hand held night shot. In both cases you can take the picture, but of course with ISO 800 it looks much cleaner. 

My favourite subjects are skyscrapers and very often you are not allowed to use a tripod at the plaza in front of a skyscraper. In Dubai for example the whole downtown area around Burj Khalifa - even including streets and sidewalks - is owned by the company Emaar. They do not allow tripods anywhere in that area, unless you have a written permission and paid a high fee. Observation decks are another problem. Empire State Building is a good place for night shots of Manhattan, but you can't use a tripod there. And then there are even cities like London or Paris, where tripods technically are forbidden anywhere, unless you have a special permission.

Of course there are some options of wide angle zooms like the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 with IS, but how cool would it be, if you could just use ANY lens on your camera and it was stabilized? For example that super sharp 17mm tilt and shift lens from Canon.

For me it just makes much more sense to have Image stabilisation in the camera than having it in every lens, which of course makes every lens more expensive.


----------



## HikeBike (Oct 27, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> The EOS M line is the best selling interchangeable mirrorless camera system in the world. Why would they kill it off?


I think Canon will eventually (and I mean in several years) switch over the Rebel line to the RF mount, and also create a 7D equivalent in the R series. Along with that, I think they will create RF-S glass for those APS-C sensors. If that happens, RF-S will be in direct conflict with M, and M will lose that battle. Obviously all heavy speculation...but just my two cents.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 27, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> I'd love to see al these shots people are missing because of camera movement instead of subject movement that necessitates IBIS and for which IS simply isn't good enough or an option.


It really does, most of the time, come down to discipline as to how one presses the shutter button and holds the camera. Without that, even IBIS nor IS helps much. Sometimes people expect a camera/lens to overcome their own incompetence. They are in for a rude awakening... but it will be Canon's, or Nikon's, or Sony's fault, not theirs.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 27, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> It really does, most of the time, come down to discipline as to how one presses the shutter button and holds the camera. Without that, even IBIS nor IS helps much. Sometimes people expect a camera/lens to overcome their own incompetence. They are in for a rude awakening... but it will be Canon's, or Nikon's, or Sony's fault, not theirs.


Couldn't agree more, just like the 1DX MkII AF being crap for BIF because it is so easily distracted by busy backgrounds. Funny because I have series after series of BIF with busy backgrounds and no AF issues, now I do admit I don't work at the highest levels of BIF photography and I accept that those that do might well find the limits of the AF algorithms, but I also believe the vast majority of users who have 'issues' are making excuses for their poor technique and lack of time trying and customizing the AF to their personal shooting style.


----------



## TinTin (Oct 27, 2019)

Skyscraperfan said:


> ... And then there are even cities like London or Paris, where tripods technically are forbidden anywhere, unless you have a special permission.



I live in Britain, and I don't for one moment believe that to be true!


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 27, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> It really does, most of the time, come down to discipline as to how one presses the shutter button and holds the camera. Without that, even IBIS nor IS helps much. Sometimes people expect a camera/lens to overcome their own incompetence. They are in for a rude awakening... but it will be Canon's, or Nikon's, or Sony's fault, not theirs.



Maybe "most of the time" technique is involved, if you are judging the world's population of photographers. On the other hand, even among pros, semi-pros, and enthusiastic and highly skilled amateurs, there is a factor we call "aging." Then there are people who aren't too old but have hands that aren't steady. You might argue along the lines of, "Well, Canon shouldn't make cameras just for left-handed photographers because that would be a feature I don't need and it would drive up the price." That would be an interesting analogy. But overcoming left-handedness starts early in life; shaky hands come later in most cases.

I believe there is a growing demand for IBIS, which Canon would like to address, and the demand is growing most among people who most need IBIS just as they enter retirement years and now have the time and money to spend on higher end gear. Add this market to that of the video-shooters who, in some situations, prefer IBIS to gimbles, etc., and the numbers start to add up.

I also believe Canon will implement IBIS only if their approach equals or exceeds anything else on the market. And that is why they are taking their time with Rf-mount bodies.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 28, 2019)

HikeBike said:


> I think Canon will eventually (and I mean in several years) switch over the Rebel line to the RF mount, and also create a 7D equivalent in the R series. Along with that, I think they will create RF-S glass for those APS-C sensors. If that happens, RF-S will be in direct conflict with M, and M will lose that battle. Obviously all heavy speculation...but just my two cents.



As long as we're blatantly speculating here, the opposite possibility is that they'll push ALL APS-C towards the M mount (they'd need more EF-M lenses to do that, though, and those lenses would have to be of greater diameter than the ones so far). They've already got an enthusiast body for the M, so it seems to make some sense that they could start doing enthusiast lenses for it, in addition to the lenses intended to be compact (making larger lenses wouldn't negate the ones that are out there already). (At this point,, someone is going to jump in here and tell me that "marketing" has decided that no matter how awesome an EF-M camera might be it's targeted to beginners. To which I say, 1) you _don't _know what they're thinking, 2) "marketing" can change their mind and decide there's an opportunity in making the M series more enthusiast friendly, and 3) we don't know that they _haven't_ _already_ changed their mind and such lenses are in the pipeline.)

With those additional lenses, it would be doable, the only people left hanging would be some in the 7D crowd. (Some would be satisfied with an enthusiast M camera and adapting EF and EF-S lenses.) And I suspect there could be a hi-res R camera out there with a mode to "pretend" it's an APS-C for the benefit of very high-end users of APS-C. That would allow them to use the RF lenses that they're pining for while still keeping their crop factor (and relatively smaller file sizes). The downside, of course, would be bulk and expense; they'd be paying for a full frame sensor they don't have as much use for (though they might find uses for it once they have it).

On the R end of things I see room for an 83 MP High Res (their 32MP APS-C scaled up to full frame) and something in the 40-60 MP range as a "mid res" (still higher than almost anything else they have). With a lot more speed than the present-day sensors!


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 28, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Maybe "most of the time" technique is involved, if you are judging the world's population of photographers. On the other hand, even among pros, semi-pros, and enthusiastic and highly skilled amateurs, there is a factor we call "aging." Then there are people who aren't too old but have hands that aren't steady. You might argue along the lines of, "Well, Canon shouldn't make cameras just for left-handed photographers because that would be a feature I don't need and it would drive up the price." That would be an interesting analogy. But overcoming left-handedness starts early in life; shaky hands come later in most cases.
> 
> I believe there is a growing demand for IBIS, which Canon would like to address, and the demand is growing most among people who most need IBIS just as they enter retirement years and now have the time and money to spend on higher end gear. Add this market to that of the video-shooters who, in some situations, prefer IBIS to gimbles, etc., and the numbers start to add up.
> 
> I also believe Canon will implement IBIS only if their approach equals or exceeds anything else on the market. And that is why they are taking their time with Rf-mount bodies.


I'm not against IBIS or IS at all. Hope I didn't come across that way. I'd love to have either. My hands also shake as I get older (56). However, when I see people talk about how with today's very fast expensive glass and cameras that IBIS or IS is a given expectation, I have to disagree with them. If I am shooting into the sun through a 6 stop ND filter at f/1.2 (or even f/1.8) and 1/8000 sec, ISO 100, and can't get a sharp photo, then the problem is me. If I am in a dark venue, shooting wide open and expect to keep ISO 100 and a slow shutter speed with moving targets... the problem is me. So really, it is that sort of thing I was addressing. Not the things people can't help, but the things they could help with proper technique and settings.  Some people really do think that IBIS or IS will solve problems that really have nothing to do with either technology being there or not.

The most helpful things I ever learned to achieve sharp photos are proper settings and proper technique for the situation. My biggest problem was, and sometimes still is, mashing too hard on the shutter button. I still find myself constantly repeating, "light touch, light touch, light touch..."


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 28, 2019)

HikeBike said:


> I think Canon will eventually (and I mean in several years) switch over the Rebel line to the RF mount, and also create a 7D equivalent in the R series. Along with that, I think they will create RF-S glass for those APS-C sensors. If that happens, RF-S will be in direct conflict with M, and M will lose that battle. Obviously all heavy speculation...but just my two cents.



I think you are incorrect that "Rebel" class mirrorless cameras will use the RF mount. Canon has made it pretty clear the EOS M mount is their consumer grade mirrorless mount.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 28, 2019)

SteveC said:


> As long as we're blatantly speculating here, the opposite possibility is that they'll push ALL APS-C towards the M mount (they'd need more EF-M lenses to do that, though, and those lenses would have to be of greater diameter than the ones so far). They've already got an enthusiast body for the M, so it seems to make some sense that they could start doing enthusiast lenses for it, in addition to the lenses intended to be compact (making larger lenses wouldn't negate the ones that are out there already). (At this point,, someone is going to jump in here and tell me that "marketing" has decided that no matter how awesome an EF-M camera might be it's targeted to beginners. To which I say, 1) you _don't _know what they're thinking, 2) "marketing" can change their mind and decide there's an opportunity in making the M series more enthusiast friendly, and 3) we don't know that they _haven't_ _already_ changed their mind and such lenses are in the pipeline.)
> 
> With those additional lenses, it would be doable, the only people left hanging would be some in the 7D crowd. (Some would be satisfied with an enthusiast M camera and adapting EF and EF-S lenses.) And I suspect there could be a hi-res R camera out there with a mode to "pretend" it's an APS-C for the benefit of very high-end users of APS-C. That would allow them to use the RF lenses that they're pining for while still keeping their crop factor (and relatively smaller file sizes). The downside, of course, would be bulk and expense; they'd be paying for a full frame sensor they don't have as much use for (though they might find uses for it once they have it).
> 
> On the R end of things I see room for an 83 MP High Res (their 32MP APS-C scaled up to full frame) and something in the 40-60 MP range as a "mid res" (still higher than almost anything else they have). With a lot more speed than the present-day sensors!



But, but, but...

Canon ALWAYS introduces lenses before bodies in new lens mounts so we can complain about not having any high end bodies for new, high end lenses instead of complaining about not having any any mid-grade/enthusiast lenses to use with mid-grade/enthusiast level cameras!


----------



## Quirkz (Oct 28, 2019)

Travel_Photographer said:


> I'm sure I'd migrate to RF glass over time for the reasons you suggest, but for me personally, a big draw was thinking that all the glass might be 10 - 20% smaller. I can't blame anyone for thinking that, the below screenshot is straight from the Canon website specifically marketing the smaller footprint (including lens), so one could easily believe that type of size reduction was universal across all RF glass.
> 
> Anyway, thanks everyone for the insight.
> View attachment 187225


i’m surprised this image is from the canon website, as it’s inaccurate. Even the RP is not this small next to the 5d4. These images are not to the same scale. You can see it most obviously if you compare the size of the hot shoe. 

The 24-105 is a little more compact on an R series, mostly because the camera plus lens is smaller overall.


----------



## Kit. (Oct 28, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> My biggest problem was, and sometimes still is, mashing too hard on the shutter button. I still find myself constantly repeating, "light touch, light touch, light touch..."


For nearly stationary subjects, burst mode helps a lot.


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Oct 28, 2019)

Quirkz said:


> i’m surprised this image is from the canon website, as it’s inaccurate. Even the RP is not this small next to the 5d4. These images are not to the same scale. You can see it most obviously if you compare the size of the hot shoe.
> 
> The 24-105 is a little more compact on an R series, mostly because the camera plus lens is smaller overall.



That's pretty deceptive then. Here's the link, you can see the size comparison front and center in the Features section. 









EOS R Body


RF Mount Compatible with RF Lenses and EF/EF-S Lenses*.30.3 Megapixel Full-frame CMOS Sensor and DIGIC 8 Image Processor. Dual Pixel CMOS AF with 5,655 Manually Selectable AF Points**.4K 30p with Canon Log and 10-bit 4:2:2 HDMI Output.Built-in EVF with 3.69 Million Dots, Vari-angle Touchscreen...




www.usa.canon.com





It would be one thing if the two cameras were just side by side "more casually", but they went through all the trouble of lining them up and drawing the size-comparison lines.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 29, 2019)

Kit. said:


> For nearly stationary subjects, burst mode helps a lot.



If your second frame in bursts is almost always sharper than your first, that's a good indicator you're causing camera movement when you press the shutter button.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 29, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> If your second frame in bursts is almost always sharper than your first, that's a good indicator you're causing camera movement when you press the shutter button.


That is a very smart observation. In my case my second image is normally my worst, first and third are split and fourth and on are generally a waste of electrons.


----------



## Kit. (Oct 29, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> If your second frame in bursts is almost always sharper than your first, that's a good indicator you're causing camera movement when you press the shutter button.


That's why it helps.

I guess lightweight cameras with poor ergonomics are generally more in need of IBIS than pro bodies.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 29, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> That is a very smart observation. In my case my second image is normally my worst, first and third are split and fourth and on are generally a waste of electrons.



The good news is, electrons are perfectly recyclable.


----------



## Quirkz (Oct 30, 2019)

Travel_Photographer said:


> That's pretty deceptive then. Here's the link, you can see the size comparison front and center in the Features section.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It’s crazy, right? Someone really messed up. I’m sure it’s not intentional, but it’s a pretty serious mistake. 
You can see a side by side photo of the lenses here: 









Canon RF 24-105mm f/4 vs EF 24-105mm f/4 II – The complete comparison - Mirrorless Comparison


When the Canon EOS R was launched in late 2018, it was accompanied by four native RF lenses whose focal lengths cover the basic needs of most photographers, from the fast 35mm 1.8 Macro and 50mm 1.2 primes to the standard 24-70mm f/2 and 24-105mm f/4 zooms. The final lens ... Read more




mirrorlesscomparison.com


----------



## Quirkz (Oct 30, 2019)

Travel_Photographer said:


> That's pretty deceptive then. Here's the link, you can see the size comparison front and center in the Features section.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I also just reported this to canon. They need to fix it.


----------



## Memdroid (Oct 30, 2019)

I hope the next R body has the button placement fixed to the 1dx and 5div standards. Everything feels just a little out of the way, especially the back buttons.


----------



## gouldopfl (Nov 20, 2019)

Canon1966 said:


> I'm looking forward to a Pro Level Canon Mirrorless with IBIS to compete with the Sony A7R4. However, I think I may stick to my EF glass and use the adapter as I think the RF glass although awesome from what I hear is very expensive. Hopefully RF glass will eventually come down in price down the road or get refurbs.


RF glass at this point is very expensive in comparison to EF. All of my telezooms are Tamron G2 and they compare favorably to Canon and Sigma lenses. I do have some Canon primes. My fear is that when the EOS R pro comes out, the EF glass will take a huge hit on the used market. There is little reason that I can see to switch except for some newer lenses announced with larger apertures and the weight of the new RF lenses are lighter.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Nov 20, 2019)

Memdroid said:


> I hope the next R body has the button placement fixed to the 1dx and 5div standards. Everything feels just a little out of the way, especially the back buttons.


Not going to happen. Smaller bodies simply do not have the real estate to match button type and placement.


----------



## Memdroid (Nov 20, 2019)

Aussie shooter said:


> Not going to happen. Smaller bodies simply do not have the real estate to match button type and placement.



Losing the touch bar and moving the buttons lightly to the left will do wonders.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Nov 20, 2019)

Memdroid said:


> Losing the touch bar and moving the buttons lightly to the left will do wonders.


 That is only one tiny change. To match a 1d or 5d body you would need wholesale changes. And there is not enough room


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 20, 2019)

Memdroid said:


> Losing the touch bar and moving the buttons lightly to the left will do wonders.


I've found good use for the touch bar. Left tap = level on/off. Right tap = histogram on/off. Swipe = magnify.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 20, 2019)

Here is a more accurate edit.


----------



## richperson (Nov 21, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I've found good use for the touch bar. Left tap = level on/off. Right tap = histogram on/off. Swipe = magnify.



This is what I do was well.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 21, 2019)

Skyscraperfan said:


> You will not find many wide angle primes with IS today. So a five stop IBIS like in the Sony A9 means that you can use ISO 800 instead of ISO 25600 for a hand held night shot. In both cases you can take the picture, but of course with ISO 800 it looks much cleaner.
> 
> My favourite subjects are skyscrapers and very often you are not allowed to use a tripod at the plaza in front of a skyscraper. In Dubai for example the whole downtown area around Burj Khalifa - even including streets and sidewalks - is owned by the company Emaar. They do not allow tripods anywhere in that area, unless you have a written permission and paid a high fee. Observation decks are another problem. Empire State Building is a good place for night shots of Manhattan, but you can't use a tripod there. And then there are even cities like London or Paris, where tripods technically are forbidden anywhere, unless you have a special permission.
> 
> ...



I'm still trying to find those very high end lenses without IS made for systems with IBIS that are demonstrably cheaper than their counterparts made for other systems that use IS when focal length, aperture, image quality, etc. is taken into account.


----------



## Kit. (Nov 22, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> I'm still trying to find those very high end lenses without IS made for systems with IBIS that are demonstrably cheaper than their counterparts with IS when focal length, aperture, image quality, etc. is taken into account.


Isn't the whole point of "very high end lenses without IS" to have _no_ "counterparts with IS when focal length, aperture, image quality, etc. is taken into account"?


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 22, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Isn't the whole point of "very high end lenses without IS" to have _no_ "counterparts with IS when focal length, aperture, image quality, etc. is taken into account"?



No. I'm talking about lenses in one system from one manufacturer with IS lenses and no IBIS and corresponding lenses from other systems with IBIS made by other manufacturers that have no IS. Where is the cheaper 85mm non-IS lens made to go with an IBIS system that optically performs as well as, say, the Canon EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS? Even in the more budget lens category, where are the cheaper 24mm f/2.8 lenses made for cameras with IBIS that optically perform as well as the EF 24mm f/2.8 IS?


Or where are the cheaper 70-200mm f/2.8 non-IS lenses for IBIS systems that are optically as good as the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II/III or the Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8E FL VR? In the second case, even manufacturers of systems with IBIS are beginning to include IS in longer focal length lenses because the effectiveness of IBIS diminishes for the same amount of sensor movement as the field of view narrows.


----------



## Kit. (Nov 22, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> No. I'm talking about lenses in one system from one manufacturer with IS lenses and no IBIS and corresponding lenses from other systems with IBIS made by other manufacturers that have no IS. Where is the cheaper 85mm non-IS lens made to go with an IBIS system that optically performs as well as, say, the Canon EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS?


That's what I'm talking about. Why do you think that "cheaper" is a factor for the target market of "very high end lenses without IS"?

For example, do you think "cheaper" was a factor in not adding IS to TS-E 17?


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Nov 22, 2019)

I understand Michael's point. He was referencing earlier posts.

His point, for example is that the Canon RF 24-70mm goes for around $2200 - $2300 give or take. It has image stabilization because there is no IBIS in Canon bodies.

The Sony 24-70mm doesn't need Image Stabilization because the Sony body has IBIS. But the Sony lens is about the same price as the Canon lens, even though it doesn't have IS. Why isn't the Sony significantly less expensive since it doesn't have IS?

That's the general point. Among the universe of high-end lenses, you would think the lenses that don't have Image Stabilization, that are made for IBIS bodies, should be considerably less expensive. But apparently they're not.

Edit: ...Additionally some lenses may not exist at all for the IBIS bodies, like a relatively inexpensive but high quality non-IS fast prime at a certain focal length


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Nov 22, 2019)

Canon's EF 135 f2 would benefit considerably from a couple stops of IS from an IBIS body. Even one stop would be very helpful. That lens has very nice IQ, almost ideal Canon color, is very affordable and doesn't really have a an IS analog in Canon's lens catalog. If an RF/IS version shows up it going to be a close to a $3000 lens. That alone would move me towards buying any Canon body with IBIS.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 23, 2019)

Kit. said:


> That's what I'm talking about. Why do you think that "cheaper" is a factor for the target market of "very high end lenses without IS"?
> 
> For example, do you think "cheaper" was a factor in not adding IS to TS-E 17?



Because I was responding to a comment that claimed:

"For me it just makes much more sense to have Image stabilisation in the camera than having it in every lens, which of course makes every lens more expensive."

If IS makes every lens that has it "more expensive", why are similar lenses that do not have IS no less expensive?


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 23, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Because I was responding to a comment that claimed:
> 
> "For me it just makes much more sense to have Image stabilisation in the camera than having it in every lens, which of course makes every lens more expensive."
> 
> If IS makes every lens that has it "more expensive", why are similar lenses that do not have IS no less expensive?



Now we are trying to get into the minds of the folks who set prices. With Sony, my first guess is volume. Historically, they have not sold nearly the volume of FF lenses as Canon (and perhaps they still don't), and they probably don't have as much infrastructure for production of high-end FF lenses. (Or they might be having other companies make them?) So they would need to charge more per unit to profit. Plus, from a marketing standpoint, if the company believes the lenses must have a certain cachet, and they want to put in customers minds that a Sony lens is every bit as good as a Canon lens, they wouldn't make it a priority to set a lower price and point out that Sony is lacking a feature that Canon has.

Just brainstorming.


----------



## Kit. (Nov 23, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Because I was responding to a comment that claimed:
> 
> "For me it just makes much more sense to have Image stabilisation in the camera than having it in every lens, which of course makes every lens more expensive."
> 
> If IS makes every lens that has it "more expensive", why are similar lenses that do not have IS no less expensive?


Because you were asking about "very high end lenses", for which such small parts of their BoM costs don't really affect their market price, as they are expected to be high margin products anyway.

Maybe you should look at pancake lenses and their IS-having equivalents (or explain a lack thereof).


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 24, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Now we are trying to get into the minds of the folks who set prices. With Sony, my first guess is volume. Historically, they have not sold nearly the volume of FF lenses as Canon (and perhaps they still don't), and they probably don't have as much infrastructure for production of high-end FF lenses. (Or they might be having other companies make them?) So they would need to charge more per unit to profit. Plus, from a marketing standpoint, if the company believes the lenses must have a certain cachet, and they want to put in customers minds that a Sony lens is every bit as good as a Canon lens, they wouldn't make it a priority to set a lower price and point out that Sony is lacking a feature that Canon has.
> 
> Just brainstorming.



That still makes the statement that putting IBIS in the camera "so that every lens will be cheaper" to be false.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 24, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Because you were asking about "very high end lenses", for which such small parts of their BoM costs don't really affect their market price, as they are expected to be high margin products anyway.
> 
> Maybe you should look at pancake lenses and their IS-having equivalents (or explain a lack thereof).



I was replying to a comment that said "... which of course makes *every lens *more expensive."


It did not say "some" lenses. It did not say "low cost" lenses. It said _*every*_ lens.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 24, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> I was replying to a comment that said "... which of course makes *every lens *more expensive."
> 
> 
> It did not say "some" lenses. It did not say "low cost" lenses. It said _*every*_ lens.



Apparently you hate *ALL* absolutes. I get a little grammatically tedious myself from time to time, rhetorically speaking.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 24, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Because you were asking about "very high end lenses", for which such small parts of their BoM costs don't really affect their market price, as they are expected to be high margin products anyway.
> 
> Maybe you should look at pancake lenses and their IS-having equivalents (or explain a lack thereof).



Again, I'm not making any sort of claim that IBIS is not useful and there aren't use cases where it may be a better solution to a problem (such as making lenses smaller and lighter, even if they are not the best in terms of optical performance -ergo your pancake lenses). I'm disputing the claim that putting IBIS in the camera instead of putting IS in the lens unequivocally makes *all* IS lenses more expensive than their non-IS counterparts.

Where are all of these non-IS lenses for cameras with IBIS that are always cheaper than IS lenses for cameras without IBIS (when focal length, maximum aperture, optical performance, etc. compare at the same level)?


----------



## Joules (Nov 24, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> I'm disputing the claim that putting IBIS in the camera instead of putting IS in the lens unequivocally makes *all* IS lenses more expensive than their non-IS counterparts.


You may even go a step further and make the argument that lenses designed for a system with IBIS are likely to be more expensive. The reason for that is that the sensor _ moves_, therefore the lens has to have a greater image circle and has to be more optimized towards even performance across the frame, unless IBIS is allowed to degrade the image quality.

Nonetheless, the inability to point out the lenses you're asking for is no counter evidence for the point you were arguing against. Pricing is influenced by so many factors, we really can't draw much from it. One big factor is how many units are expected to be sold, and with the market leader not having any IBIS cameras, any comparison between their prices and the ones for systems with IBIS are already muddied. Maybe it could be said that IS is unlikely to have a big impact on production cost based on such evidence.

I agree that making absolute statements is often not a good idea, and in this particular case I believe we simply lack the knowledge about the involved topics (markets as well as the technological side of things) to prove or falsify them.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Nov 25, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> I'm still trying to find those very high end lenses without IS made for systems with IBIS that are demonstrably cheaper than their counterparts made for other systems that use IS when focal length, aperture, image quality, etc. is taken into account.



Canon might not have those lenses, but third party manufacturers have them. For example that whole Sigma Art lineup does not have an IS. 

Canon on the other hand has some very expensive prime lenses that many people will not buy, because they do to have an IS. For example the 35mm f/1.4. Just imagine that lens with IBIS! IS seems to be very expensive or technically difficult at lens with very fast lenses. So they usally are a stop slower. The 35mm f/1.4 does not have IS, but the 35mm f/2 does. The 24-70mm f/2.8 does not have IS, but the 24-70mm f/4 does. 

You will also find some examples where the IS version of a Canon zoom lens is much more expensive than the non IS version. Just look at all the 70-200 lenses from Canon! There are versions with f/4 and f/2.8 each with IS and without IS and the IS versions are much more expensive.


----------



## Daner (Nov 26, 2019)

wockawocka said:


> TBH using adapted EF glass is the way right now. The RF50, 85 and 28-70 are the only RF lenses really worth using. The other offerings are only equal to the existing EF glass. Not better.



I disagree. The RF 24-105 is considerably sharper and has better IS than either model of the EF 24-105. I also find that for my purposes, the greater range, lighter weight, smaller size, and IS make it a better all-around single lens for travel than the EF 24-70 f/2.8.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 26, 2019)

Daner said:


> I disagree. The RF 24-105 is considerably sharper and has better IS than either model of the EF 24-105. I also find that for my purposes, the greater range, lighter weight, smaller size, and IS make it a better all-around single lens for travel than the EF 24-70 f/2.8.



And the RF24-240 doesn't have an EF counterpart, the EF versions of the 24-70 and 15-25 lack IS, the new 70-200 is a lot lighter, etc.


----------



## flip314 (Nov 26, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> And the RF24-240 doesn't have an EF counterpart, the EF versions of the 24-70 and 15-25 lack IS, the new 70-200 is a lot lighter, etc.



The closest is the EF 28-300L, but that is over twice the weight of the RF superzoom, and is significantly more expensive since the target market is entirely different.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 26, 2019)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Canon might not have those lenses, but third party manufacturers have them. For example that whole Sigma Art lineup does not have an IS.
> 
> Canon on the other hand has some very expensive prime lenses that many people will not buy, because they do to have an IS. For example the 35mm f/1.4. Just imagine that lens with IBIS! IS seems to be very expensive or technically difficult at lens with very fast lenses. So they usally are a stop slower. The 35mm f/1.4 does not have IS, but the 35mm f/2 does. The 24-70mm f/2.8 does not have IS, but the 24-70mm f/4 does.
> 
> You will also find some examples where the IS version of a Canon zoom lens is much more expensive than the non IS version. Just look at all the 70-200 lenses from Canon! There are versions with f/4 and f/2.8 each with IS and without IS and the IS versions are much more expensive.




Those cheaper Sigma Art lenses also do not AF worth a flip on Canon bodies, either. So they are not exactly "equivalent" other than whether they have IS or not.

The reason Canon included IS on "consumer grade" lenses like the EF 35mm f/2 IS but not on the EF 35mm f/1.4 L II is because 1) They didn't think true pros want/need IS in the 35mm focal length range 2) the way IS works (by slightly misaligning the lens) means it would compromise IQ and 3) The lower overall optical performance of the consumer grade lenses means IS doesn't impose as significant a hit on IQ. (IBIS can also compromise IQ in a different way because the image circle center is no longer directly over the center of the sensor.)

As for the Canon 70-200mm series, the non-IS EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L is a 1995 design with 18 lens elements in 15 groups that does not perform near as well optically as the 2010/2018 EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II/III with 23 elements in 19 groups. The non-IS EF 70-200mm f/4 L is a 1999 16 element/13 groups design that does not perform near as well optically as the EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS (2006) with 20 elements in 15 groups, or the EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS II (2018) that also has 20 element/15 groups that are slightly different from the previous version as well as having two stops better IS. There are more optical differences than just the presence or absence of IS. They're all totally different optical formulae (other than the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II/III which do share the same optical formula apart from lens coatings) that give varying levels of IQ as well.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 26, 2019)

Joules said:


> You may even go a step further and make the argument that lenses designed for a system with IBIS are likely to be more expensive. The reason for that is that the sensor _ moves_, therefore the lens has to have a greater image circle and has to be more optimized towards even performance across the frame, unless IBIS is allowed to degrade the image quality.
> 
> Nonetheless, the inability to point out the lenses you're asking for is no counter evidence for the point you were arguing against. Pricing is influenced by so many factors, we really can't draw much from it. One big factor is how many units are expected to be sold, and with the market leader not having any IBIS cameras, any comparison between their prices and the ones for systems with IBIS are already muddied. Maybe it could be said that IS is unlikely to have a big impact on production cost based on such evidence.
> 
> I agree that making absolute statements is often not a good idea, and in this particular case I believe we simply lack the knowledge about the involved topics (markets as well as the technological side of things) to prove or falsify them.



I think you argue fairly convincingly that no one has conclusively shown that IS makes _all _lenses made for non-IBIS cameras systems more expensive than comparable non-IS lenses designed for IBIS systems.

Which is the same thing I'm saying:

The notion that _all_ non-IS lenses with otherwise equivalent optical performance made by companies that have IBIS are _always_ cheaper than IS lenses with otherwise equivalent optical performance made by companies that do not have IBIS in their camera bodies is a myth.


----------



## PeterG1967 (Dec 1, 2019)

All I know is a lot of my Canon user friends are changing away from the brand to Sony and Olympus. I remember loving my Blackberry phone for the little keyboard and way it worked but when Blackberry went to touchscreen I went to apple as they had been doing that technology for years already. Sony has been doing mirrorless for a while now so Canon needs to offer something far more interesting or exciting than the current or rumoured offering to keep people loyal? I have had my 5D3 and 7d2 for several years now and feel like treating myself but I can't get excited about the 5d4 maybe 1dxmk2 but weight/feel is an issue. Other brands have a lot of in camera software (stacking etc) which Canon aren't including, this focus adjust post taking in the 5d4 which sounds amazing is a red herring?


----------



## SecureGSM (Dec 4, 2019)

Sound like a nightmare to me ) imaging your mirror stuck on the way up while sensor was moving forward in the RF position. Bang! )


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Dec 4, 2019)

Well, considering that I've _never_ had a mirror stick on the way up on a Canon DSLR, no, I can't really imagine this.


SecureGSM said:


> Sound like a nightmare to me ) imaging your mirror stuck on the way up while sensor was moving forward in the RF position. Bang! )


Sorry I realized I put my last post in the wrong thread, so I deleted it and posted it elsewhere, which now makes your post not make sense.


----------



## hmatthes (Dec 6, 2019)

I've not had a moment's regret with my R and two RF lenses. All of my EF lenses work perfectly. Now, with proper adapter, I'm shooting M glass on my R as well. What's to complain about?

Well I also shoot a Leica SL with M lenses. It has a joystick and dual cards (both SD like they should be!)

I'll sell the SL when Canon brings out a dual card R with joystick. Yes, I hope that it has IBIS and more pixels (45 would be fine) but 2 cards & joystick please!

I've shot the RF24-105 side-by-side with the EF24-105 and Canon improved this "kit" L lens very nicely. Still big but I often only carry one lens.

And for all the Sony lovers here, I applaud you for figuring out the worst UI and buttons collection that I've ever seen! You guys rock! BTW: the Leica SL might have the finest UI anywhere: Four main buttons and very logical menus.
Canon R is close but not having a joystick is ridiculous!


----------



## SteveC (Dec 7, 2019)

hmatthes said:


> I've not had a moment's regret with my R and two RF lenses. All of my EF lenses work perfectly. Now, with proper adapter, I'm shooting M glass on my R as well. What's to complain about?
> 
> Well I also shoot a Leica SL with M lenses. It has a joystick and dual cards (both SD like they should be!)



M lens? You had me going there fore a moment! (My first thought was "impossible" and my second thought was "why bother using an EF-M lens on a full-frame?")


----------



## hmatthes (Dec 7, 2019)

SteveC said:


> M lens? You had me going there fore a moment! (My first thought was "impossible" and my second thought was "why bother using an EF-M lens on a full-frame?")


I'm so sorry SteveC, I've been calling Leica Rangefinder lenses "M Glass" for over 50 years... I keep forgetting that Canon, too, has "M:" lenses for APSc.


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 8, 2019)

hmatthes said:


> I've not had a moment's regret with my R and two RF lenses. All of my EF lenses work perfectly. Now, with proper adapter, I'm shooting M glass on my R as well. What's to complain about?
> 
> Well I also shoot a Leica SL with M lenses. It has a joystick and dual cards (both SD like they should be!)
> 
> ...


I'd take a close look at the SL 2 .
I did so, and started saving....Leica is back!


----------



## hmatthes (Dec 18, 2019)

I came within inches of ordering the Panasonic S1 but then sanity took over!
All of my Canon EF glass works perfectly on the R -- they suck on SL via lousy adapters. Why try a Sigma adapter on a Panasonic body?
Both of my RF lenses are just incredible on the R.
All my Leica M lenses are beautiful on the R. Focus assist tools work extremely well.
My one SL mount lens? It will be sold with the SL.
The SL2 is magnificent but we buy Leica for its lenses.
I'm staying with Canon R and praying that Canon R2 is a professional body with dual cards and joystick...


----------



## Optics Patent (Dec 19, 2019)

Travel_Photographer said:


> I have no idea what the resale market is for EF lenses, as I've kept all the lenses I've purchased. If anybody has experience selling their EF glass, please feel free to chime in. I don't mind using an adapter, but I'd also like to take advantage of the size benefits of native RF glass.



I just sold all my Nikon gear. Go to eBay and filter by Sold Items to see actual sale prices. But don’t sell until you find a substitute you like better.


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Dec 19, 2019)

Optics Patent said:


> I just sold all my Nikon gear. Go to eBay and filter by Sold Items to see actual sale prices. But don’t sell until you find a substitute you like better.



Thanks, appreciated. I just finished selling a few items to B&H and MPB and that worked well. I got quotes from a few places and went with the highest quote for each item.

I wound up buying an EOS RP with the holiday sales. That little camera is *amazing*. I've been using it adapted with a variety of lenses, but my favorite is the 85mm F1.8 with eye-detect AF. i have an RF 35mm F1.8 arriving in the mail today!

Thanks again.


----------



## GoldWing (Feb 29, 2020)

Refurb7 said:


> The R should have had dual slots. Come on Canon, dual slots are not some high end feature. Sony offers dual slots in the A7iii. Fuji offers dual slots in their X-T3.


It should be a basic. Too many reasons to list.


----------

