# Further clarification of what will be announced by Canon next month



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 26, 2020)

> Some of this information has been reported already, but there is some additions here. Most notably a wireless transmitter and a battery grip for the Canon EOS R5 (and hopefully EOS R6)
> 
> Canon EOS R5 Body
> Canon EOS R5 24-105 USM Kit
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Roy Hunte (Jun 26, 2020)

I wonder if the battery grip works for both bodies. Would be nice.


----------



## Starting out EOS R (Jun 26, 2020)

That's one heck of a shopping list.  Just the R5 please and maybe one of the extenders if it is compatible with either of my lenses. There seem to be differing opinions on that so we'll just wait and see.


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 26, 2020)

Thanks for keeping us up-to-date.

If you hear of anything regarding a software neutral density feature in the R5(6) it'd be good to hear about it. I really hope that they add this (a lot of other cameras have added it already) or else add it in a firmware update.


----------



## Ziz (Jun 26, 2020)

Starting out EOS R said:


> That's one heck of a shopping list.


Can anyone else remember a tech company releasing so much new kit all at once - especially with so much riding on its success.


----------



## Dmcavoy (Jun 26, 2020)

Fingers crossed the new 50/85 come along pretty soon. Dying to get my hands on that 85!


----------



## Starting out EOS R (Jun 26, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Thanks for keeping us up-to-date.
> 
> If you hear of anything regarding a software neutral density feature in the R5(6) it'd be good to hear about it. I really hope that they add this (a lot of other cameras have added it already) or else add it in a firmware update.


Like your train of thought. I've heard about these but never seen one in action. Can a graduated filter be software as well I wonder??
Would be great if these were available and would save a lot of messing around and carrying loads of breakable stuff!


----------



## JustUs7 (Jun 26, 2020)

Ziz said:


> Can anyone else remember a tech company releasing so much new kit all at once - especially with so much riding on its success.



It's a lot of stuff. But to be fair - this announcement breaks it up into piece meal. One lens which comes with a hood vs. One lens and One hood. Ooh! Two things! A battery? A new battery grip is to be expected with something like the R5. New hoods were needed for all the lenses. 

As for the announcement - wonder how long we'll be waiting on the 50 and 85 non-L's then? I was testing the focal distances for our usual birthday pictures in the living room just last night trying to see which one would be best. Have to shoot 85 in portrait for solo and keep the 35 for family shots. 50's not wide enough for the whole sofa and not close enough for individuals.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 26, 2020)

Has there been any rumour yet about whether the extenders will work with the new f/11 lenses. 

I mean as in physically fit, not whether there's any point in it.


----------



## Chaitanya (Jun 26, 2020)

Those lens cases seem like they are optional accessory for the tele lenses which is a bummer.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 26, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> Those lens cases seem like they are optional accessory for the tele lenses which is a bummer.



Completely expected for non-L lenses: no hood, no pouch, no case included.


----------



## koch1948 (Jun 26, 2020)

The list does not mention an EOS M5 Mark II.


----------



## LDS (Jun 26, 2020)

I'm awaiting anxiously the Extender lens cap RF.


----------



## janhalasa (Jun 26, 2020)

If there is a wireless transmitter, does it mean that at least one of R5/R6 will not have a wifi built-in? It doesn't sound good.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 26, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Completely expected for non-L lenses: no hood, no pouch, no case included.



I know its extra profit for companies but a lens case literally costs 5-6 dollars to manufacture.
They could easily include it for a 1000 dollars lens just like Sigma does with much cheaper lenses.


----------



## Rpaulsen (Jun 26, 2020)

I hope they announce the 85/2 soon. I’m a wedding photographer who loves the 35/85 pairing, with a 135 in my bag as an option, and so I’m beginning to think that my idea kit that I’m going to try to build to is:

35/1.8 RF (already own) - readily available for quick candids during Prep, close ups on very tight dance floors

15-35 RF - Portraits, ceremony, dance floor

50/1.2RF - Prep, Portrai

Rumored 85/2 - Macro, dance floor close ups to keep camera weight down on shoulder harness

Rumored 70-135/2 - Portraits, Ceremony


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 26, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I know its extra profit for companies but a lens case literally costs 5-6 dollars to manufacture.
> They could easily include it for a 1000 dollars lens just like Sigma does with much cheaper lenses.



I completely agree, which is why I use 3rd party hoods, I don't want to spend €70 on a hood for a €400 lens. Even €20 for the 3rd party ones feels a big high to me, but it's still a whoooooooole lot cheaper than Canon.


----------



## WOODS (Jun 26, 2020)

Is there a new *Canon Speedlite 600EX-RX *coming too?
https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-speedlite-600ex-ii-rt-replacement-coming-soon-cr2/


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 26, 2020)

janhalasa said:


> If there is a wireless transmitter, does it mean that at least one of R5/R6 will not have a wifi built-in? It doesn't sound good.


Not necessarily, the 1DX MkIII has WiFi built in 2.4GHz but also has a dongle WFT to enable 5GHz.


----------



## Sibir Lupus (Jun 26, 2020)

koch1948 said:


> The list does not mention an EOS M5 Mark II.



This announcement is only for RF based products. Seeing as Canon is announcing all of this at once, there's a good chance they'll have an announcement later this year for the EF-M based products as well (rumored M5 Mark II, M50 Mark II, rumored lenses, etc).


----------



## Viggo (Jun 26, 2020)

Built in WiFi is limited in both speed and range, the transmitter solves that. I’m glad I don’t HAVE to buy the transmitter in order to transfer files and use my phone as a remote.


----------



## BillB (Jun 26, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I know its extra profit for companies but a lens case literally costs 5-6 dollars to manufacture.
> They could easily include it for a 1000 dollars lens just like Sigma does with much cheaper lenses.


And then we hearfrom the people who don’t want to pay for useless stuff they don‘t want.


----------



## TracerHD (Jun 26, 2020)

I hope we get something like AC-E6N and DR-E6


----------



## MadisonMike (Jun 26, 2020)

Just a few things on that list. Very impressive. Where was this when I actually had some money to spend?


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jun 26, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Has there been any rumour yet about whether the extenders will work with the new f/11 lenses.
> 
> I mean as in physically fit, not whether there's any point in it.


I hope they are compatible just because someone will think it's useful and doesn't mind shooting at f/16 and f/22. LOL jk

I personally can't wait to hear why on earth Canon spent R&D money to develop a lens like this. I can't wait to hear their explanation on who or what it's for. I'm personally hoping the lenses have some hidden feature we don't know about yet like a built-in speedbooster (reverse teleconverter) or something like that. Like it's an 800 f/11 on the long end, but with the flip of a switch like they have with the 200-400, it becomes a 400mm 5.6 and 580mm f/8? I don't even know if that's something that's possible...but I also know that I am certainly not the target market for an 800mm f/11. An f/11 aperture just doesn't make any sense to me...it will be the king of diffraction on the RF mount. haha


----------



## Boblblawslawblg (Jun 26, 2020)

koch1948 said:


> The list does not mention an EOS M5 Mark II.


I just want this. View finder, same sensor as my M6ii and IBIS.


----------



## fox40phil (Jun 26, 2020)

How about some small fixed aperture DO-zoom lenses?!
200-400 f/4.0 with 1,4x DO...or something with more mm.
It feels that the designers are drunk ...with those crappy daaaaark f/11 tele lenses!
They don't fit into the lineup I think... pro bodys like the R5 & maybe R6... Those f/11 lenses could be sweet for a cheap APS-C R body.

I don't have much hope for the 100-500! Because the features are hm... weak! only 2 options for the focus distance! The Sigma 150-600 C has 3! The near one is the best I think! My Tamron has only 2 (>15m and everything). But a option to only have a close setting would be awesome! (under 5-6m maybe)


----------



## amorse (Jun 26, 2020)

LSXPhotog said:


> I hope they are compatible just because someone will think it's useful and doesn't mind shooting at f/16 and f/22. LOL jk
> 
> I personally can't wait to hear why on earth Canon spent R&D money to develop a lens like this. I can't wait to hear their explanation on who or what it's for. I'm personally hoping the lenses have some hidden feature we don't know about yet like a built-in speedbooster (reverse teleconverter) or something like that. Like it's an 800 f/11 on the long end, but with the flip of a switch like they have with the 200-400, it becomes a 400mm 5.6 and 580mm f/8? I don't even know if that's something that's possible...but I also know that I am certainly not the target market for an 800mm f/11. An f/11 aperture just doesn't make any sense to me...it will be the king of diffraction on the RF mount. haha


Honestly, I think it's for the instagram influencer crowd. The clearest unhindered use in my mind is making backgrounds look huge against a non-moving subject. I'm thinking photographers pressing a subject up against the moon or getting a close up of an eclipse. Those images were so popular on social media after the last eclipse it seems like there could be a market for a (relatively) cheap and slow lens to do that, as the price for entry to those types of images right now is pretty high.


----------



## Whowe (Jun 26, 2020)

Boblblawslawblg said:


> I just want this. View finder, same sensor as my M6ii and IBIS.


I agree with the M5ii. And maybe a little more rugged/ weather sealed. (i.e. 7Dii replacement) We just may have to wait a little while for that to come out...


----------



## Viggo (Jun 26, 2020)

amorse said:


> Honestly, I think it's for the instagram influencer crowd. The clearest unhindered use in my mind is making backgrounds look huge against a non-moving subject. I'm thinking photographers pressing a subject up against the moon or getting a close up of an eclipse. Those images were so popular on social media after the last eclipse it seems like there could be a market for a (relatively) cheap and slow lens to do that, as the price for entry to those types of images right now is pretty high.


You’re going to shoot a subject with the moon as background at f11? Better have your flash ready


----------



## bbasiaga (Jun 26, 2020)

I'm actually kind of interested in the 800 F/11. Outside at the zoo on a summer day it should be fine. Esp with the new high ISO performance from many cameras (easily back to the 5DIII), plus the autofocus ability with the mirrorless system. And at a fraction of the cost of big white, it'll be my only real option at a long tele like that. 

-Brian


----------



## twoheadedboy (Jun 26, 2020)

I hope the 2.0x and 1.4x extenders will stack but I'm not hopeful considering the 3rd gen models. I want to move to the RF 70 - 200 f/2.8 but I don't want to do it until I can get 560mm f/5.6 with teleconverters; right now I'm stacking the 2nd gen Canon's on a EF 70–200mm f/2.8L IS III and it's very loooooong.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 26, 2020)

twoheadedboy said:


> I hope the 2.0x and 1.4x extenders will stack but I'm not hopeful considering the 3rd gen models. I want to move to the RF 70 - 200 f/2.8 but I don't want to do it until I can get 560mm f/5.6 with teleconverters; right now I'm stacking the 2nd gen Canon's on a EF 70–200mm f/2.8L IS III and it's very loooooong.



The RF70-200 f/2.8L Isn't compatible with extenders. The rearmost element is flush with the mount, so no place for the extender to go in.


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 26, 2020)

Starting out EOS R said:


> Like your train of thought. I've heard about these but never seen one in action. Can a graduated filter be software as well I wonder??
> Would be great if these were available and would save a lot of messing around and carrying loads of breakable stuff!


Yes, a graduated filter is just as possible as a neutral density one. In fact, since it's just software, you could do almost anything beyond that if it's done by a quick software algorithm! I may not be a photography professional, but I was a high speed video programming professional my entire career.

If fact, there would be nothing stopping a programmer from fetching multiple frames of raw data and accumulating them into a doubly big raw output (such as 24 or 32 bits per pixel element) as long as the stabilizaiton and slight image movement allowed. After all, that's really what they're doing with a software neutral density algorithm, except they're throwing away all the low bits of the accumulated data since they can't store it all when they output a combined single raw file in the same raw format.


----------



## Chaitanya (Jun 26, 2020)

LSXPhotog said:


> I hope they are compatible just because someone will think it's useful and doesn't mind shooting at f/16 and f/22. LOL jk
> 
> I personally can't wait to hear why on earth Canon spent R&D money to develop a lens like this. I can't wait to hear their explanation on who or what it's for. I'm personally hoping the lenses have some hidden feature we don't know about yet like a built-in speedbooster (reverse teleconverter) or something like that. Like it's an 800 f/11 on the long end, but with the flip of a switch like they have with the 200-400, it becomes a 400mm 5.6 and 580mm f/8? I don't even know if that's something that's possible...but I also know that I am certainly not the target market for an 800mm f/11. An f/11 aperture just doesn't make any sense to me...it will be the king of diffraction on the RF mount. haha


Even I find f/11 aperture weird decision and I live in a place where except for monsoons there is abundant sunlight available. But apparently Tony Northrup sees there maybe a niche such small aperture tele lenses among beginner wildlifers.


----------



## martin_ (Jun 26, 2020)

Come on, Canon! we need more information and images of the R6 !!! pleaseeeeeeeeee


----------



## amorse (Jun 26, 2020)

Viggo said:


> You’re going to shoot a subject with the moon as background at f11? Better have your flash ready


It's often done as a silhouette - I see no reason why it wouldn't work at f/11. Examples below:
1, 2, 3


----------



## Whowe (Jun 26, 2020)

twoheadedboy said:


> I hope the 2.0x and 1.4x extenders will stack but I'm not hopeful considering the 3rd gen models. I want to move to the RF 70 - 200 f/2.8 but I don't want to do it until I can get 560mm f/5.6 with teleconverters; right now I'm stacking the 2nd gen Canon's on a EF 70–200mm f/2.8L IS III and it's very loooooong.


I'm not sure you can get 560 @ f/5.6 with a 70-200, f/2.8. Add a 2X tele and you add 2 stops to the aperture and double the focal range. That gives you [email protected] f/5.6 if I'm doing my math right...

Add the additional 1.4x and you get 560mm @ f/8.0.


----------



## Boblblawslawblg (Jun 26, 2020)

Whowe said:


> I agree with the M5ii. And maybe a little more rugger/ weather sealed. (i.e. 7Dii replacement) We just may have to wait a little while for that to come out...


Im ready when ever they are ready.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jun 26, 2020)

Don’t want to read too much into it, but the lack of an included hood with the new tele’s doesn’t seem too encouraging as far a quality goes. Of course I suppose it’s very encouraging on price. I know Canon doesn’t typically include hoods on non L lenses but who doesn’t use a hood on an 800mm lens? I could care less about the case.


----------



## 3serious (Jun 26, 2020)

I still can’t believe the F/11 teles. It is so disappointing that this is what canon is giving us amateur wildlife photographers who want something in the 600mm to 800mm range, but don’t/can’t pony up $13k for a new 600mm f/4 or 800 f/5.6. F/11, are you kidding me? I guess if you want to shoot between 1030-11:15 AM, great.


----------



## ChrisCwmbran (Jun 26, 2020)

If we assume the image to be an R mount range image, it features the R, the RP, the R5, the R6 and?

What is the fifth camera body?


----------



## 3serious (Jun 26, 2020)

ChrisCwmbran said:


> If we assume the image to be an R mount range image, it features the R, the RP, the R5, the R6 and?
> 
> What is the fifth camera body?


Ra


----------



## ChrisCwmbran (Jun 26, 2020)

Ah yes! I forgot all about the Ra!

Shame! I'm waiting for the alleged high mega-pix one!


----------



## JustUs7 (Jun 26, 2020)

3serious said:


> I still can’t believe the F/11 teles. It is so disappointing that this is what canon is giving us amateur wildlife photographers who want something in the 600mm to 800mm range, but don’t/can’t pony up $13k for a new 600mm f/4 or 800 f/5.6. F/11, are you kidding me? I guess if you want to shoot between 1030-11:15 AM, great.



It was either here or over at DPReview. Someone uploaded a few bird photos at 840mm intentionally shot at f/11. It’s not as bad as you might think. 

That said, Sigma and Tamron both have adaptable options at 150-600 f/5-6.3. F/11 is 1 2/3’s stops worse than 6.3. Same number of stops between 2.2 and 4.


----------



## Aregal (Jun 26, 2020)

janhalasa said:


> If there is a wireless transmitter, does it mean that at least one of R5/R6 will not have a wifi built-in? It doesn't sound good.


I think it will expand the strength and capabilities of the R5/R6 WiFi just like the 1Dx3; it has built-in WiFi but the external WiFi module expands its capabilities.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 26, 2020)

FamilyGuy said:


> It was either here or over at DPReview. Someone uploaded a few bird photos at 840mm intentionally shot at f/11. It’s not as bad as you might think.


I did the same with a 300 f2.8 a 2 xTC for 600 f5.6 and then a 1.4 TC on that for an 840mm f8, it wasn't good. I'm sure some people will get impressive results, I'm equally sure many people will be very disappointed with it, f11 is a big compromise.


----------



## padam (Jun 26, 2020)

__





RF 600mm F11 DO and 800mm F11 DO


Canon rumours says these lenses are coming this year. I cant help but think how incredibly small these will be if they come indeed. In case of 600...



www.fredmiranda.com





If f/11 is not enough for you, you are not interested in shooting video, you are shooting fast action and/or in lower light and you are happily paying 10000$+ on a fast tele prime and carry it everywhere, then nobody is forcing you to buy it.

As Olympus m43 cameras and lenses seems to be going away, it is nice to know that there is still an alternative to the 300/4 IS Pro lens with a 1.4x extender attached, with possibly even better image quality and even less weight and a similarly strong image stabilisation. There are lots of image examples out there and it does not look unusable to me.

Having a faster lens as opposed to image stabilisation is much more useful, there is no doubt about it.
It is also nice to have more flexibility with zooms and teleconverters etc. but that also comes with its own compromises.


----------



## JustUs7 (Jun 26, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> I did the same with a 300 f2.8 a 2 xTC for 600 f5.6 and then a 1.4 TC on that for an 840mm f8, it wasn't good. I'm sure some people will get impressive results, I'm equally sure many people will be very disappointed with it, f11 is a big compromise.



Yeah, but doesn’t stacking teleconverters introduce more glass and compromise image quality in more ways than just aperture? I’ve got no experience with it. Just what I’ve read.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 26, 2020)

FamilyGuy said:


> Yeah, but doesn’t stacking teleconverters introduce more glass and compromise image quality in more ways than just aperture? I’ve got no experience with it. Just what I’ve read.


Yes, and I wouldn’t necessarily compare the IQ or focus speeds, but the ISO’s I was forced into meant I wouldn’t use the results even if they had been up to the task.


----------



## Starting out EOS R (Jun 26, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Yes, a graduated filter is just as possible as a neutral density one. In fact, since it's just software, you could do almost anything beyond that if it's done by a quick software algorithm! I may not be a photography professional, but I was a high speed video programming professional my entire career.
> 
> If fact, there would be nothing stopping a programmer from fetching multiple frames of raw data and accumulating them into a doubly big raw output (such as 24 or 32 bits per pixel element) as long as the stabilizaiton and slight image movement allowed. After all, that's really what they're doing with a software neutral density algorithm, except they're throwing away all the low bits of the accumulated data since they can't store it all when they output a combined single raw file in the same raw format.


Wow, glad someone was paying attention at school. I always think software can do more than it can and then find it cant, mainly due to the physical restrictions of the hardware.

I suppose there is much more scope to play with stuff with digital cameras.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 26, 2020)

The big unknowns for the R5 remain:
1) Will the autofocus, particularly continuous AF, work at all close to Sony's in terms of object tracking? Eye tracking has advanced quite nicely in the EOS R with firmware upgrades, but object tracking remains rudimentary. If you're after birds at a distance, your camera is going to think they're objects.
2) Megapickles. 

I bought a refurbished R last week to experiment again with the platform in preparation for coming back to Canon with the R5. The AF is pretty bad relative to my A9 and A7r4. I'm sure the R5 will be better than the R, but this transition period has made me nervous. It's my #1 concern, and I doubt we'll have any insight until the cameras are in our hands.


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Jun 26, 2020)

ChrisCwmbran said:


> If we assume the image to be an R mount range image, it features the R, the RP, the R5, the R6 and?
> 
> What is the fifth camera body?


RA the astro version of the R


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Jun 26, 2020)

Starting out EOS R said:


> Wow, glad someone was paying attention at school. I always think software can do more than it can and then find it cant, mainly due to the physical restrictions of the hardware.
> 
> I suppose there is much more scope to play with stuff with digital cameras.


I like that idea.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jun 26, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Yes, and I wouldn’t necessarily compare the IQ or focus speeds, but the ISO’s I was forced into meant I wouldn’t use the results even if they had been up to the task.


Not even in Florida? I usually try and get down there sometime during the dry season and that was one place I though you might get away with f11. I agree those lenses are going to be a challenge unless you are very comfortable with high ISO’s.


----------



## padam (Jun 26, 2020)

[email protected] said:


> The big unknowns for the R5 remain:
> 1) Will the autofocus, particularly continuous AF, work at all close to Sony's in terms of object tracking? Eye tracking has advanced quite nicely in the EOS R with firmware upgrades, but object tracking remains rudimentary. If you're after birds at a distance, your camera is going to think they're objects.







This is probably more similar to how the R5 and R6 will perform (in electronic shutter mode at least, mechanical is 12fps instead of 20fps), unfortunately there is no comparison video on flying birds, but the Animal AF should provide a considerable improvement.


----------



## koch1948 (Jun 26, 2020)

Rpaulsen said:


> I hope they announce the 85/2 soon. I’m a wedding photographer who loves the 35/85 pairing, with a 135 in my bag as an option, and so I’m beginning to think that my idea kit that I’m going to try to build to is:
> 
> 35/1.8 RF (already own) - readily available for quick candids during Prep, close ups on very tight dance floors
> 
> ...


That seems to be a nice choice of lenses. Do you use two camera bodies at all times?


----------



## GoldWing (Jun 26, 2020)

-zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Wake me when something worth spending money on comes out of Canon. Getting very scared that Canon is dumbing things down from a resolution perspective.


----------



## puffo25 (Jun 26, 2020)

Nothing new from previous announcemts. Honestly I am very disappointed since I did not see any concrete news about the R5 after late January. In fact all updates have been very vagues and very general. We still do not know technical details of the shape of the camera, max ISO, and so on.... All leaks have been way too vague and nothing new has been added. Even the final street market price or precise date to get a body have not been released. So why keeping adding so vague news???


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 26, 2020)

3serious said:


> I still can’t believe the F/11 teles. It is so disappointing that this is what canon is giving us amateur wildlife photographers who want something in the 600mm to 800mm range, but don’t/can’t pony up $13k for a new 600mm f/4 or 800 f/5.6. F/11, are you kidding me? I guess if you want to shoot between 1030-11:15 AM, great.



Those primes are not a problem and will be great for amateurs and young people who want to get into wildlife photography for cheap.
I hope they will release a 200-600 type of lens in the future with 5.6 aperture. 

In the meantime you have the R5 and 100-500 which cropped 1.2X can get you a 100-600 lens at 30MP.


----------



## H. Jones (Jun 26, 2020)

3serious said:


> I still can’t believe the F/11 teles. It is so disappointing that this is what canon is giving us amateur wildlife photographers who want something in the 600mm to 800mm range, but don’t/can’t pony up $13k for a new 600mm f/4 or 800 f/5.6. F/11, are you kidding me? I guess if you want to shoot between 1030-11:15 AM, great.



I don't get why people talk about these things as if they limit Canon from doing anything else. There have been perpetual rumors of Canon releasing a 200-500 F/5.6, and I fully expect that they'll complete their line-up with something similar sometime soon.

For all we know, and I honestly wouldn't be surprised, these lenses could literally be about $600 bucks. These are much more on tier with a 100-300 f/5.6 STM lens than they are even the 100-400mm f/5.6, and I see that as a far more exciting thing for people who can't even consider a $2000 lens, nevertheless the $12,000 lenses. 

It's literally just like a brand-name mirror lens, except with good autofocus and image stabilization. Mirror lenses never stopped anyone from making a 200-500 F/5.6, or anything of the like. Same as the 400 f/2.8 didn't stop Canon from releasing a 400 F/4 and a 400 F/5.6. Canon has obviously made huge strides to fill out their high-end workhorse lenses, and this is their wave of consumer lenses. 

I look forward to using my 100-400 F/4.5-5.6L IS II and 1.4x extender on the R5 in its 1.6 crop mode at around 18 megapixels(if it is 45mp) to get even more reach than I get right now on my 1DX2, and that in itself is exciting.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 26, 2020)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Not even in Florida? I usually try and get down there sometime during the dry season and that was one place I though you might get away with f11. I agree those lenses are going to be a challenge unless you are very comfortable with high ISO’s.


Well I was focusing on hummingbirds and they are most active early and late, at this time of year you are lucky to see a gopher tortoise or basking alligator during the heat of the day.


----------



## alexis (Jun 26, 2020)

Sibir Lupus said:


> This announcement is only for RF based products. Seeing as Canon is announcing all of this at once, there's a good chance they'll have an announcement later this year for the EF-M based products as well (rumored M5 Mark II, M50 Mark II, rumored lenses, etc).


Sure hope so - I feel decidedly ignored and left-out by Canon at the moment - we (those that embraced the EF-M format and gave Canon the No1 slot in Japananese mirrorless camera sales in the M50) are not all future would-be RF adopters. Clearly NOT EVERYONE is going to drop their EF-M kit and rush to buy the R bodies and their ridiculously heavy and expensive RF lenses.... Please don't ignore us Canon - Sigma saved your skin (with the launch of their beautiful trio of f/1.4 lenses) but Sony is waiting round the corner with open opens for would-be Canon refugees.


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 26, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Those primes are not a problem and will be great for amateurs and young people who want to get into wildlife photography for cheap.
> I hope they will release a 200-600 type of lens in the future with 5.6 aperture.
> 
> In the meantime you have the R5 and 100-500 which cropped 1.2X can get you a 100-600 lens at 30MP.


Out of curiosity, how much do you think a RF 200-600 f/?-5.6 L IS would weigh? The max aperture would be 107mm, but the outer lens might have to be more than that to illuminate the corners of the frame without too much vignetting. Any idea how wide the filter thread would be for it? I think I might really want to get one of them if they came out with it, even if the weight and price would have scared me off before (maybe old age is making me reckless!)


----------



## Eclipsed (Jun 26, 2020)

3serious said:


> I still can’t believe the F/11 teles. It is so disappointing that this is what canon is giving us amateur wildlife photographers who want something in the 600mm to 800mm range, but don’t/can’t pony up $13k for a new 600mm f/4 or 800 f/5.6. F/11, are you kidding me? I guess if you want to shoot between 1030-11:15 AM, great.


1. I wouldn’t assume these will be the only offerings.
2. EF lenses on an adapter offer many choices Don’t forget the great values in used lenses for cheap speed.


----------



## bbasiaga (Jun 26, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> I don't get why people talk about these things as if they limit Canon from doing anything else. There have been perpetual rumors of Canon releasing a 200-500 F/5.6, and I fully expect that they'll complete their line-up with something similar sometime soon.
> 
> For all we know, and I honestly wouldn't be surprised, these lenses could literally be about $600 bucks. These are much more on tier with a 100-300 f/5.6 STM lens than they are even the 100-400mm f/5.6, and I see that as a far more exciting thing for people who can't even consider a $2000 lens, nevertheless the $12,000 lenses.
> 
> ...



They gotta have something to complain about. Everyone wants 200-400 w/ 1.4TC F4 performance, but few want to pay the price. They want good high iso performance, which we have in spades for the last several years, but then don't want to use it on a slower lens. 

I remain optimistic about these lenses in the new mirrorless system. They built this lens with a use case in mind. We'll learn more about what that is when they release it. Maybe it will be for me, maybe it wont. Or maybe for many, or maybe just a few. We'll see. 

Also, is this confirmed as a mirror lens? I thought the patents I saw were not mirrored lenses. Of course, that doesn't mean this lens matches those patents posted here before. 

-Brian


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 26, 2020)

I like how someone on Facebook just commented about the release, asking why Canon does not innovate and make a "lightweight" 600mm F2 or 800mm 2.8 instead


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 26, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Out of curiosity, how much do you think a RF 200-600 f/?-5.6 L IS would weigh? The max aperture would be 107mm, but the outer lens might have to be more than that to illuminate the corners of the frame without too much vignetting. Any idea how wide the filter thread would be for it? I think I might really want to get one of them if they came out with it, even if the weight and price would have scared me off before (maybe old age is making me reckless!)



Probably around 2kg like the Sony one, which is an excellent lens. Sharp and its even an internal zoom


----------



## bbasiaga (Jun 26, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Out of curiosity, how much do you think a RF 200-600 f/?-5.6 L IS would weigh? The max aperture would be 107mm, but the outer lens might have to be more than that to illuminate the corners of the frame without too much vignetting. Any idea how wide the filter thread would be for it? I think I might really want to get one of them if they came out with it, even if the weight and price would have scared me off before (maybe old age is making me reckless!)



the 200-400 F4 w/ TC is 3.6kg, or about 8lbs. Hard to guess the effects of going down a stop, and removing the TC. But I'd think half would be the best possible. 

-Brian


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 26, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> They gotta have something to complain about. Everyone wants 200-400 w/ 1.4TC F4 performance, but few want to pay the price. They want good high iso performance, which we have in spades for the last several years, but then don't want to use it on a slower lens.
> 
> I remain optimistic about these lenses in the new mirrorless system. They built this lens with a use case in mind. We'll learn more about what that is when they release it. Maybe it will be for me, maybe it wont. Or maybe for many, or maybe just a few. We'll see.
> 
> ...


No, it's not a mirror. The patent makes that pretty clear. In fact, in the patent there's really very few lenses in it and the last 40% or so (near the mount) has no lenses at all. But then again, the patent doesn't show any IS elements, so it has to be somewhat different than the patent shows.


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 26, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I like how someone on Facebook just commented about the release, asking why Canon does not innovate and make a "lightweight" 600mm F2 or 800mm 2.8 instead


The only thing "lightweight" about a 600mm F2 or 800mm f2.8 will be your wallet and bank account afterwards!


----------



## JustUs7 (Jun 26, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I like how someone on Facebook just commented about the release, asking why Canon does not innovate and make a "lightweight" 600mm F2 or 800mm 2.8 instead



Non-L and under $1,000 too. I’d buy that.

All you’d have to do is make it 800mm equivalent, auto-crop the sensor to 1/8th and you have a nice 50mm diameter barrel. Easy-peasy. Where’s the innovation?

0.4 megapixels on the RP - but you have to expect some compromise.


----------



## JustUs7 (Jun 26, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> The only thing "lightweight" about a 600mm F2 or 800mm f2.8 will be your wallet and bank account afterwards!



Cardboard funnel with glass at each end, fixed aperture, focus with your feet. 

Outside the box folks! Come on!


----------



## magarity (Jun 26, 2020)

I do hope the one battery grip can be used on either the R5 or R6. The 6 will be in my price and feature range and I really like having a vertical grip.


----------



## Canon-Chas (Jun 26, 2020)

LSXPhotog said:


> I hope they are compatible just because someone will think it's useful and doesn't mind shooting at f/16 and f/22. LOL jk
> 
> I personally can't wait to hear why on earth Canon spent R&D money to develop a lens like this. I can't wait to hear their explanation on who or what it's for. I'm personally hoping the lenses have some hidden feature we don't know about yet like a built-in speedbooster (reverse teleconverter) or something like that. Like it's an 800 f/11 on the long end, but with the flip of a switch like they have with the 200-400, it becomes a 400mm 5.6 and 580mm f/8? I don't even know if that's something that's possible...but I also know that I am certainly not the target market for an 800mm f/11. An f/11 aperture just doesn't make any sense to me...it will be the king of diffraction on the RF mount. haha


Agree entirely, F11 is a joke, how much use can anyone get out of it unless they are happy with iso 25,000 most of the time ? Some might be happy with it, not for me though


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 26, 2020)

padam said:


> This is probably more similar to how the R5 and R6 will perform (in electronic shutter mode at least, mechanical is 12fps instead of 20fps), unfortunately there is no comparison video on flying birds, but the Animal AF should provide a considerable improvement.



Do you mean to say that the R5 is getting the 1DX III live view AF system? If that is the case, I'll be pretty happy. Reviews have been great for it. I'm just assuming (from being trained by Canon for two decades) that the 5 series is going to get something less.


----------



## jvillain (Jun 26, 2020)

Is it weird that the thing I am most interested in is "Canon LP-E6NH"


----------



## neurorx (Jun 26, 2020)

padam said:


> This is probably more similar to how the R5 and R6 will perform (in electronic shutter mode at least, mechanical is 12fps instead of 20fps), unfortunately there is no comparison video on flying birds, but the Animal AF should provide a considerable improvement.


I’m hoping it’s better. The Sony seems to still have a better AF.


----------



## HarryFilm (Jun 27, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Thanks for keeping us up-to-date.
> 
> If you hear of anything regarding a software neutral density feature in the R5(6) it'd be good to hear about it. I really hope that they add this (a lot of other cameras have added it already) or else add it in a firmware update.



===

There really is no "Software Neutral Density Filter" as that is just a simple LUMINANCE REDUCTION FILTER applied on every RGB/YCbCr pixel. What IS coming from Canon within two to three years however, is FAST-SWITCHING electrochromic glass that will be put in front of the sensor which will serve as a proper solid-form image sensor protection and anti-dust plate AND will also function as a 256-level (i.e. 0-to-255 levels) TRULY VARIABLE neutral density filter.

The SAME TYPE of technology used in the windows of the USA's B2 Bomber as nuclear flash protection is now coming to sunglasses, house and commercial windows AND camera and smartphone lenses!

*High-contrast and fast electrochromic switching enabled by plasmonics*

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms10479

Smart Glass Technology overview:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_glass


The fastest electrochromic glass I know of has a 100 microsecond switch time (i.e. 1/10,000th of a second) from fully transparent to pure white fully opaque. They can change the chromism to switch to FULL black instead of solid white by varying the orientation AND chemical nature of the microstructures that change orientation and/or actual translucency based upon applied electrical current levels.

And based upon the AMOUNT of continuously applied current you can set the AMOUNT OF TRANSPARENCY as the microstructures twist in orientation only partially blocking light at specific current levels. This makes a TRULY VARIABLE neutral density filter possible AND at 1/10,000th of a second, it also makes an INCREDIBLY FAST GLOBAL SHUTTER which bodes very well for sports, action and wildlife stills and video photography.

Unfortunately, the COST has been prohibitive so far but with the recent advances in microstructure replication technology using a combination of pulsed lasers and microwaves, such a FAST-SWITCHING 256 level combined neutral density filter and electronic global shutter filter assemblies will come down to around $100 in actual manufacturing cost, so about $150 to $200 US in retail cost will added onto your camera. I have no problem with that sort of added-cost if it gives me a 1/10,000th of a second global shutter AND a 256 level ND filter! This plate is simply put in front of the image sensor itself which means it gives you ADDED dust and water protection!

What's not to like about that?!

V


----------



## Rpaulsen (Jun 27, 2020)

koch1948 said:


> That seems to be a nice choice of lenses. Do you use two camera bodies at all times?



Basically

During Prep, portraits, and ceremony I’m mostly on one camera, but keep a second set up and close if I need a really quick change.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jun 27, 2020)

3serious said:


> I still can’t believe the F/11 teles. It is so disappointing that this is what canon is giving us amateur wildlife photographers who want something in the 600mm to 800mm range, but don’t/can’t pony up $13k for a new 600mm f/4 or 800 f/5.6. F/11, are you kidding me? I guess if you want to shoot between 1030-11:15 AM, great.


Just go the sigma. It may not be a native canon but it still works well enough. The 100-500 may be a good piece of kit despite the 7.1 max ap but it will still come in at 3k which means the sigma is likely to remain a better buy


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jun 27, 2020)

Ok, just a bit of news from my local camera store (official Canon dealer). What the store manager told me....
.
.
.
(...drums getting tense...)
.
.
.
he doesn't know when the R5 will come out and his guess is as good as mine. So is this thread, IMO. Bummer.


----------



## Bahrd (Jun 27, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> The RF70-200 f/2.8L Isn't compatible with extenders. The rearmost element is flush with the mount, so no place for the extender to go in.


Do we know for the fact that RF extenders haven’t been designed to be compatible with this very lens?


----------



## Starting out EOS R (Jun 27, 2020)

Bahrd said:


> Do we know for the fact that RF extenders haven’t been designed to be compatible with this very lens?


The more comments I see about the new RF extenders, the more confused I get. 

if, as some say, the RF 70-200mm isn't compatible due to the lens elements being too close to the mount leaving no room for the extender, will this not effect most of the RF glass range as the whole point of the RF mount is to reduce distance between the sensor, flange and 1st element?? 

Are the RF extenders therefore going to be like the RF drop in filter mounts, where they can only be used with EF glass?

If so, this is pretty poor for anyone with native RF lenses. I suppose all will be revealed on 09/07/20.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jun 27, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> They gotta have something to complain about. Everyone wants 200-400 w/ 1.4TC F4 performance, but few want to pay the price. They want good high iso performance, which we have in spades for the last several years, but then don't want to use it on a slower lens.
> 
> I remain optimistic about these lenses in the new mirrorless system. They built this lens with a use case in mind. We'll learn more about what that is when they release it. Maybe it will be for me, maybe it wont. Or maybe for many, or maybe just a few. We'll see.
> 
> ...



No. They want a 150-600 non L like the tamron or sigmas but native and not third party. The 100-500 might be nice but it will be 3k.


----------



## padam (Jun 27, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> No. They want a 150-600 non L like the tamron or sigmas but native and not third party. The 100-500 might be nice but it will be 3k.


This is highly unlikely for the near future. Nikon will have a 200-600 zoom at some point to match Sony, while Canon went for a different route (at least for now).

With the recent introduction of the Sigma 100-400mm designed for mirrorless, it suggests that third parties might offer a lens like that in a few years' time as well.


----------



## Maarten (Jun 27, 2020)

The R5 is seen in the latest Peter McKinnon YouTube video


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jun 27, 2020)

Ive used the EF 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS USM II with & without the 1.4 teleconverter with the EOS R many times and its practically native to use. Because the combo is relative large anyway the EOS R adaptor really doesn't make any difference.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jun 27, 2020)

Starting out EOS R said:


> if, as some say, the RF 70-200mm isn't compatible due to the lens elements being too close to the mount leaving no room for the extender, will this not effect most of the RF glass range as the whole point of the RF mount is to reduce distance between the sensor, flange and 1st element??


In short, yes. But teleconverters on anything except long, fast lenses have always been a poor substitute for having the correct lens for the job. Sure there is a case for occasional use, but with 45 MP to play with I would often choose a 1.4x crop in preference to a 1.4x TC. That way I get to shoot with a bare lens and still get a 22.5 MP image which is more than enough for many purposes - bearing in mind this is an occasional use thing. I know there will be situations where a TC would be useful, and maybe a better choice, but if it's happening often then maybe you have the wrong lens.

The other point I would make is admittedly a little self-serving, but still valid I think: I want Canon to offer the best possible Extenders, optimised for the RF big whites starting with the 100-500. I don't want performance to be compromised by making them compatible with smaller lenses.


----------



## Starting out EOS R (Jun 27, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> In short, yes. But teleconverters on anything except long, fast lenses have always been a poor substitute for having the correct lens for the job. Sure there is a case for occasional use, but with 45 MP to play with I would often choose a 1.4x crop in preference to a 1.4x TC. That way I get to shoot with a bare lens and still get a 22.5 MP image which is more than enough for many purposes - bearing in mind this is an occasional use thing. I know there will be situations where a TC would be useful, and maybe a better choice, but if it's happening often then maybe you have the wrong lens.
> 
> The other point I would make is admittedly a little self-serving, but still valid I think: I want Canon to offer the best possible Extenders, optimised for the RF big whites starting with the 100-500. I don't want performance to be compromised by making them compatible with smaller lenses.


Makes sense, Ive never used extenders / teleconverters so was only looking at these as a new option instead of forking out a large sum of money for a big white I may only use rarely.

You make a good point about cropping when using a smaller lenses like the one's I have. I just need to sort out my ability to focus on the subject a little more and refine which AF modes / points Im using lol. Looks like the R5's IBIS combined with the RF Glass IBIS could be a massive help with this when handheld.


----------



## 12Broncos (Jun 27, 2020)

Unless I missed it somewhere, I want to see what the ISO range is, how many AF points there will be and how long it will take for me to save up for it.


----------



## derekbez (Jun 27, 2020)

Has there been any news whether the EOS R lens adapter (to use EF/EF-S lenses) might be included in the R5/R6 box?


----------



## TAF (Jun 27, 2020)

alexis said:


> Sure hope so - I feel decidedly ignored and left-out by Canon at the moment - we (those that embraced the EF-M format and gave Canon the No1 slot in Japananese mirrorless camera sales in the M50) are not all future would-be RF adopters. Clearly NOT EVERYONE is going to drop their EF-M kit and rush to buy the R bodies and their ridiculously heavy and expensive RF lenses.... Please don't ignore us Canon - Sigma saved your skin (with the launch of their beautiful trio of f/1.4 lenses) but Sony is waiting round the corner with open opens for would-be Canon refugees.



Or maybe Canon and Sony had a meeting in some smoke filled back room and Canon agreed to throw Sony a bone in the form of the tiny mirror less market, since Canon clearly has plans for the regular (full?) size mirrorless market.

That would be one way to avoid antitrust issues.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 27, 2020)

Viggo said:


> You’re going to shoot a subject with the moon as background at f11? Better have your flash ready


And stop down enough to get both in focus.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jun 27, 2020)

12Broncos said:


> Unless I missed it somewhere, I want to see what the ISO range is, how many AF points there will be and how long it will take for me to save up for it.


- ISO range is just a marketing thing - you can be sure that the top end will be almost unusable.
- More AF points than you could possibly want. My worry is that (unless Canon has a new technology they haven't leaked yet) there will be no cross-type points so focusing could be iffy on certain subjects.
- Yeah we all want to know the price and availability!


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 27, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> Those lens cases seem like they are optional accessory for the tele lenses which is a bummer.






Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Don’t want to read too much into it, but the lack of an included hood with the new tele’s doesn’t seem too encouraging as far a quality goes. Of course I suppose it’s very encouraging on price. I know Canon doesn’t typically include hoods on non L lenses but who doesn’t use a hood on an 800mm lens? I could care less about the case.



Maybe.

The fact that they list the new LP-E6NH battery as a distinct product does not preclude that a single copy of the new battery is included with the camera, does it?

After all, one can also separately buy the cases and hoods for all of the "L" lenses which are supplied with cases and hoods. It just means Canon will have a separate SKU for the individual hoods, cases, and batteries in addition to including some of them with the SKU for certain lenses or camera bodies.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 27, 2020)

janhalasa said:


> If there is a wireless transmitter, does it mean that at least one of R5/R6 will not have a wifi built-in? It doesn't sound good.




Not necessarily. The EOS1D X Mark III has built in WiFi and also an optional external WFT for when a transmitter with more power is needed for greater distances.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 27, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Not necessarily, the 1DX MkIII has WiFi built in 2.4GHz but also has a dongle WFT to enable 5GHz.



Doesn't the 1D X Mark III also have built-in 5GHz? Just that it is very range limited at 5GHz due to the reduced power of the internal transmitter? 

The built-in transmitter is not as powerful as the external WFT's transmitter. Even with a "full" (as in FCC limited) power transmitter, 5GHz range is fairly limited compared to 2.4GHz. I'd be surprised if the external WFT works very well at 5GHz further than about 30 feet/10 meters, even less if there are any walls involved.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 27, 2020)

TracerHD said:


> I hope we get something like AC-E6N and DR-E6



Any LP-E6 form AC coupler will fit and work in a camera that uses any of the LP-E6 variants. Why would you need an AC adapter specifically for the higher capacity version of a battery when the adapter is plugged into a wall socket that does not have limited capacity (in terms of how long it will last)?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 27, 2020)

Boblblawslawblg said:


> I just want this. View finder, same sensor as my M6ii and IBIS.






Boblblawslawblg said:


> Im ready when ever they are ready.



Everything on this list is an RF product. The more consumer oriented EF-M products will likely be announced closer to the holiday shopping season. That's when Canon usually introduces consumer level products.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 27, 2020)

fox40phil said:


> How about some small fixed aperture DO-zoom lenses?!
> 200-400 f/4.0 with 1,4x DO...or something with more mm.
> It feels that the designers are drunk ...with those crappy daaaaark f/11 tele lenses!
> They don't fit into the lineup I think... pro bodys like the R5 & maybe R6... Those f/11 lenses could be sweet for a cheap APS-C R body.
> ...



Is your near delirious rambling referring to focus limiters or AFMA?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 27, 2020)

LSXPhotog said:


> I hope they are compatible just because someone will think it's useful and doesn't mind shooting at f/16 and f/22. LOL jk
> 
> I personally can't wait to hear why on earth Canon spent R&D money to develop a lens like this. I can't wait to hear their explanation on who or what it's for. I'm personally hoping the lenses have some hidden feature we don't know about yet like a built-in speedbooster (reverse teleconverter) or something like that. Like it's an 800 f/11 on the long end, but with the flip of a switch like they have with the 200-400, it becomes a 400mm 5.6 and 580mm f/8? I don't even know if that's something that's possible...but I also know that I am certainly not the target market for an 800mm f/11. An f/11 aperture just doesn't make any sense to me...it will be the king of diffraction on the RF mount. haha







amorse said:


> Honestly, I think it's for the instagram influencer crowd. The clearest unhindered use in my mind is making backgrounds look huge against a non-moving subject. I'm thinking photographers pressing a subject up against the moon or getting a close up of an eclipse. Those images were so popular on social media after the last eclipse it seems like there could be a market for a (relatively) cheap and slow lens to do that, as the price for entry to those types of images right now is pretty high.



These lenses are to entice the APS-C crowd shooting with 150-600 lenses, and even the Micro Four-Thirds crowd shooting with 400/5.6 lenses, over to FF RF.

In terms of angle of view and light collection, a FF 800/11 is "equivalent" to an µ4/3 400/5.6 or an APS-C 500/8.
In terms of angle of view and light collection, a FF 600/11 is "equivalent" to an µ4/3 300/5.6 or an APS-C 375/8.

These lenses will sell a LOT of RP and R6 bodies to current Rebel and µ4/3 shooters.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 27, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Doesn't the 1D X Mark III also have built-in 5GHz? Just that it is very range limited at 5GHz due to the reduced power of the internal transmitter?
> [..]


As far as I can see from the manual, no, only 2.4GHz in the body.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 27, 2020)

Viggo said:


> You’re going to shoot a subject with the moon as background at f11? Better have your flash ready



Silhouette.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 27, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> I'm actually kind of interested in the 800 F/11. Outside at the zoo on a summer day it should be fine. Esp with the new high ISO performance from many cameras (easily back to the 5DIII), plus the autofocus ability with the mirrorless system. And at a fraction of the cost of big white, it'll be my only real option at a long tele like that.
> 
> -Brian



How do you propose to get infinity focus putting an RF 800mm f/11 STM lens in front of an EF mount camera?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 27, 2020)

twoheadedboy said:


> I hope the 2.0x and 1.4x extenders will stack but I'm not hopeful considering the 3rd gen models. I want to move to the RF 70 - 200 f/2.8 but I don't want to do it until I can get 560mm f/5.6 with teleconverters; right now I'm stacking the 2nd gen Canon's on a EF 70–200mm f/2.8L IS III and it's very loooooong.



You might be able to do it by placing a 12mm extension tube in between them. I know a few EF shooters that do it with EF III extenders and Super Telephotos and they still get pretty long focus distances (measured in hundreds of feet), even if they don't get infinity focus for things like the moon.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 27, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Yes, a graduated filter is just as possible as a neutral density one. In fact, since it's just software, you could do almost anything beyond that if it's done by a quick software algorithm! I may not be a photography professional, but I was a high speed video programming professional my entire career.
> 
> If fact, there would be nothing stopping a programmer from fetching multiple frames of raw data and accumulating them into a doubly big raw output (such as 24 or 32 bits per pixel element) as long as the stabilizaiton and slight image movement allowed. After all, that's really what they're doing with a software neutral density algorithm, except they're throwing away all the low bits of the accumulated data since they can't store it all when they output a combined single raw file in the same raw format.



The whole point of an ND filter is to protect the highlights. Software ND filters do nothing for that. They're only useful if highlights are not a concern and one needs to output to a non-raw format immediately without any additional post processing.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 27, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> Those lens cases seem like they are optional accessory for the tele lenses which is a bummer.



I'm not so sure. The extender lens cap is not an optional accessory, possibly neither are the lens cases.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 27, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Doesn't the 1D X Mark III also have built-in 5GHz? Just that it is very range limited at 5GHz due to the reduced power of the internal transmitter?
> 
> The built-in transmitter is not as powerful as the external WFT's transmitter. Even with a "full" (as in FCC limited) power transmitter, 5GHz range is fairly limited compared to 2.4GHz. I'd be surprised if the external WFT works very well at 5GHz further than about 30 feet/10 meters, even less if there are any walls involved.


No, internal WiFi is 2.4GHz only, 5GHz is only available via the WFT, which interestingly drops Camera Connect App functionality!


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 27, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> Even I find f/11 aperture weird decision and I live in a place where except for monsoons there is abundant sunlight available. But apparently Tony Northrup sees there maybe a niche such small aperture tele lenses among beginner wildlifers.



Tony is rarely right, but here he seems to be. Not everyone can afford a 600/4 or 800/5.6.


----------



## Dragon (Jun 27, 2020)

koch1948 said:


> The list does not mention an EOS M5 Mark II.


Of course not. You have to buy an R5 before you can have an M5 II. .


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 27, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> The whole point of an ND filter is to protect the highlights. Software ND filters do nothing for that. They're only useful if highlights are not a concern and one needs to output to a non-raw format immediately without any additional post processing.


Nothing for that? The Canon programmers can't read the sensor and adjust exposure parameters accordingly? They can't adjust the levels of the read pixel elements in any way they see fit? They can't take as many exposures as they want and combine them in any way they want? They can't output to any bit-size format they want?

I guess we better tell Canon that you know best.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 27, 2020)

Boblblawslawblg said:


> Im ready when ever they are ready.





3serious said:


> I still can’t believe the F/11 teles. It is so disappointing that this is what canon is giving us amateur wildlife photographers who want something in the 600mm to 800mm range, but don’t/can’t pony up $13k for a new 600mm f/4 or 800 f/5.6. F/11, are you kidding me? I guess if you want to shoot between 1030-11:15 AM, great.



I can't believe the folks that expect Rolls-Royce to sell them a Bentley at a Toyota price.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 27, 2020)

FamilyGuy said:


> Yeah, but doesn’t stacking teleconverters introduce more glass and compromise image quality in more ways than just aperture? I’ve got no experience with it. Just what I’ve read.






privatebydesign said:


> Yes, and I wouldn’t necessarily compare the IQ or focus speeds, but the ISO’s I was forced into meant I wouldn’t use the results even if they had been up to the task.



I don't have time to go through all 84 pages of this post at Photography on the Net and pick out the ones made using the 1D X Mark III in LV with stacked extenders at f/9 and f/11, but the OP has posted more than a few that are fairly impressive, both in terms of technique and IQ. I guess one could look through his Flickr photostream and find them easier.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 27, 2020)

[email protected] said:


> The big unknowns for the R5 remain:
> 1) Will the autofocus, particularly continuous AF, work at all close to Sony's in terms of object tracking? Eye tracking has advanced quite nicely in the EOS R with firmware upgrades, but object tracking remains rudimentary. If you're after birds at a distance, your camera is going to think they're objects.
> 2) Megapickles.
> 
> I bought a refurbished R last week to experiment again with the platform in preparation for coming back to Canon with the R5. The AF is pretty bad relative to my A9 and A7r4. I'm sure the R5 will be better than the R, but this transition period has made me nervous. It's my #1 concern, and I doubt we'll have any insight until the cameras are in our hands.



You should be able to draw some insight from the performance of the 1D X Mark III in Live View. Using eye AF it tracks bird eyes just as well as human eyes. Even using the OVF, though it does not claim Eye AF, it seems to be fairly impressive at tracking bird eyes even with busy backgrounds that have typically been a problem for previous EOS cameras. Remember, the new PDAF sensor for the 1D X Mark III using the OVF is not like any previous line PDAF sensor, it's more like a second imaging sensor with both rows and columns.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 27, 2020)

puffo25 said:


> Nothing new from previous announcemts. Honestly I am very disappointed since I did not see any concrete news about the R5 after late January. In fact all updates have been very vagues and very general. We still do not know technical details of the shape of the camera, max ISO, and so on.... All leaks have been way too vague and nothing new has been added. Even the final street market price or precise date to get a body have not been released. So why keeping adding so vague news???




Yeah, it sure would be nice if Canon had revealed a lot more about the video capabilities in late March when the NAB convention/trade show was supposed to take place, or let a few industry reviewers/reporters see and take pictures of actual examples of pre-production R5 bodies...

Oh, wait... they did that, didn't they? That's not even counting the info that has been released by certification agencies and apparently approved leaks of things such as this image:


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 27, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Out of curiosity, how much do you think a RF 200-600 f/?-5.6 L IS would weigh? The max aperture would be 107mm, but the outer lens might have to be more than that to illuminate the corners of the frame without too much vignetting. Any idea how wide the filter thread would be for it? I think I might really want to get one of them if they came out with it, even if the weight and price would have scared me off before (maybe old age is making me reckless!)



Well, the EF 200-400mm f/4 + 1.4X IS is about 134 ounces/3780 grams with hood and tripod ring. With the built-in extender engaged, it's a 280-560mm f/5.6, so presumably a 200-600mm f/5.6 would weigh slightly more. That is, unless they do the same thing as what they did with the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS and give it an extending barrel.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 27, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> They gotta have something to complain about. Everyone wants 200-400 w/ 1.4TC F4 performance, but few want to pay the price. They want good high iso performance, which we have in spades for the last several years, but then don't want to use it on a slower lens.
> 
> I remain optimistic about these lenses in the new mirrorless system. They built this lens with a use case in mind. We'll learn more about what that is when they release it. Maybe it will be for me, maybe it wont. Or maybe for many, or maybe just a few. We'll see.
> 
> ...



SInce they are DO lenses, I doubt there will be any mirrors in them. No one with any credibility has even hinted that they are mirror lenses.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 27, 2020)

[email protected] said:


> Do you mean to say that the R5 is getting the 1DX III live view AF system? If that is the case, I'll be pretty happy. Reviews have been great for it. I'm just assuming (from being trained by Canon for two decades) that the 5 series is going to get something less.



The 5D Mark III had the same AF hardware as the 1D X. The 5D Mark IV had the same AF hardware as the 1D X Mark III. Both didn't have as many software options and both seemed to be a TAD, but not by much, less consistent from shot to shot. I think most of us are expecting the AF performance of the R5 to be very close but not quite equal to that of the 1D X Mark III in LV. Even at that level, it will be a massive improvement over the EOS R.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 27, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Ok, just a bit of news from my local camera store (official Canon dealer). What the store manager told me....
> .
> .
> .
> ...



If he told you what he knows and Canon found out, he could lose his status as an authorized dealer. His contract with Canon is full of NDAs and gives CAnon all the leverage on whether he gets to be a Canon dealer or not.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 27, 2020)

Starting out EOS R said:


> The more comments I see about the new RF extenders, the more confused I get.
> 
> if, as some say, the RF 70-200mm isn't compatible due to the lens elements being too close to the mount leaving no room for the extender, will this not effect most of the RF glass range as the whole point of the RF mount is to reduce distance between the sensor, flange and 1st element??
> 
> ...



Canon has never made wide angle or even normal lenses compatible with extenders. For prime lenses, nothing shorter than 135mm can handle an extender. For zoom lenses, the EF 70-200 series and the EF 100-400 series allow extenders, but that is based on the assumption that users will be at the longer ends of the focal length range when extenders are attached.

The big benefit of having a shorter registration distance is for wider angle lenses. Normal lenses benefit some, but not as much as wide angle lenses do. 70mm is right on the line between normal and telephoto. Anything past 85-100mm is not going to see much benefit from shorter registration distances in terms of image quality. A lens in that focal length range might see a benefit in terms of overall size and weight.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 27, 2020)

jeffa4444 said:


> Ive used the EF 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS USM II with & without the 1.4 teleconverter with the EOS R many times and its practically native to use. Because the combo is relative large anyway the EOS R adaptor really doesn't make any difference.



Which is exactly why Canon is introducing lenses with no EF counterpart before they introduce what basically amounts to EF lenses with 24mm more tube at the back in the RF mount.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 27, 2020)

LSXPhotog said:


> I personally can't wait to hear why on earth Canon spent R&D money to develop a lens like this. I can't wait to hear their explanation on who or what it's for.



Here's something that might surprise you. Canon don't release anything until it's been through a rigorous round of field testing with their photographers worldwide. 

So, enough of them must have reported back that the lens was useful that they decided to put it in production. Let's wait and see. If you don't like f/11 there are, of course, more expensive big white options available.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 27, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> No, internal WiFi is 2.4GHz only, 5GHz is only available via the WFT, which interestingly drops Camera Connect App functionality!
> View attachment 191025



Fair enough.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 27, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Nothing for that? The Canon programmers can't read the sensor and adjust exposure parameters accordingly? They can't adjust the levels of the read pixel elements in any way they see fit? They can't take as many exposures as they want and combine them in any way they want? They can't output to any bit-size format they want?
> 
> I guess we better tell Canon that you know best.



They can't increase the full well capacity of a photosite/sensel/pixel well. Once enough photons have struck it to bring it to full charge, there is nothing software can do to enable it to record additional photons that might strike it. Nothing.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jun 27, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> If he told you what he knows and Canon found out, he could lose his status as an authorized dealer. His contract with Canon is full of NDAs and gives CAnon all the leverage on whether he gets to be a Canon dealer or not.



Of course.
But they've already started taking pre-orders, so I thought it wouldn't do any harm if I asked.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 27, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Of course.
> But they've already started taking pre-orders, so I thought it wouldn't do any harm if I asked.



And your dealer thought that there could be potential harm in violating the terms of their contract with Canon by answering it with what they know.

They probably know the exact date and time that the embargo will be lifted after Canon makes the official announcement. They may not yet know the exact date they will receive bodies, or the exact date they will be allowed to distribute them to their customers.

There's nothing in their contract that says they can't have a waiting list for a model that has had an official development announcement.


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 27, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> They can't increase the full well capacity of a photosite/sensel/pixel well. Once enough photons have struck it to bring it to full charge, there is nothing software can do to enable it to record additional photons that might strike it. Nothing.


You just have to read the sensor before the full well capacity is reached. Then you can immediately start another exposure and add/combine with the previous ones, etc. If the time between exposures can be kept small then it effectively becomes an arbitrarily long exposure with arbitrarily deep well capacity. Of course read noise is repeated, but it's always in an exposure anyway so it won't be any worse than normal, and it can even be subtracted out as the average read noise over many reads becomes much more predictable, and *all* of the photons are counted for the exposures (excluding read intervals) instead of ignoring almost all of them when using a strong physical neutral density filter. You can even get fancier by changing the duration of the various exposures which then becomes something like a quick HDR stack into a higher bit capacity raw format. Software can do practically anything given a fast enough graphics processor and minimal read timing.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jun 27, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> The 5D Mark III had the same AF hardware as the 1D X. The 5D Mark IV had the same AF hardware as the 1D X Mark III. Both didn't have as many software options and both seemed to be a TAD, but not by much, less consistent from shot to shot. I think most of us are expecting the AF performance of the R5 to be very close but not quite equal to that of the 1D X Mark III in LV. Even at that level, it will be a massive improvement over the EOS R.


Same hardware, yes. But the 1D series always had better processing power with dedicated chips for autofocus while the 5D shares image processing and AF on the same chip.


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 27, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Well, the EF 200-400mm f/4 + 1.4X IS is about 134 ounces/3780 grams with hood and tripod ring. With the built-in extender engaged, it's a 280-560mm f/5.6, so presumably a 200-600mm f/5.6 would weigh slightly more. That is, unless they do the same thing as what they did with the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS and give it an extending barrel.


Yes, I do assume/hope that they'd do the same as their RF 70-200 f2.8 and get the size & weight of a RF 200-600 f5.6 L IS down to something that didn't have to be towed behind my car on a trailer.  Heck, they might even get it light enough for me to backpack it with my other gear and tripod.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 27, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> I don't have time to go through all 84 pages of this post at Photography on the Net and pick out the ones made using the 1D X Mark III in LV with stacked extenders at f/9 and f/11, but the OP has posted more than a few that are fairly impressive, both in terms of technique and IQ. I guess one could look through his Flickr photostream and find them easier.


I’m just reporting on my experiences with my equipment. As I said I’m sure others will get great results from the f11 lenses, I personally wouldn’t buy them and I am equally sure many people will be disappointed in the results they get from them purely because of the iso needed to get the shutter speed up high enough to get a sharp image of whatever they are shooting.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 27, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Software can do practically anything given a fast enough graphics processor and minimal read timing.



You also need a sensor with fast enough readout or that become a limiting factor. If, for example, one is already recording video at a Tv that is the same as the required amount of time to read the sensor, then your multiple image method is of no benefit.


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 27, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> You also need a sensor with fast enough readout or that become a limiting factor. If, for example, one is already recording video at a Tv that is the same as the required amount of time to read the sensor, then your multiple image method is of no benefit.


OK - With the latest high speed R5 video speed demon or future cameras, you still don't see the potential in a software ND filter feature? What about this? :

Olympus EM1X and EM1_III have a software ND filter. They mention:
*"Why Use Internal ND Instead of a Traditional Filter?*
The benefit to the internal ND filters are that it requires less equipment and less transition in shooting the desired image. Not having to add on an external filter provides for quicker image set up and mobilization. Given that I am shooting moving features such as water or clouds, timing can sometimes be critical in the process."

From the EM1 III manual:
"Slowing the Shutter in Bright Light (Live ND Shooting)
The camera makes a series of exposures and combines to create a single photo that appears to have been taken at a slow shutter speed."
"Choose an ND filter type; the camera will convert it to an exposure value and reduce exposure by that amount. Options are available in increments of 1 EV:
[ND2 (1EV)], [ND4 (2EV)], [ND8 (3EV)], [ND16 (4EV)], [ND32 (5EV)]"

Another article states:
"Another addition, available currently only on one mirrorless camera, but due to appear on others very soon, is the Live ND feature. With this, you can take long exposure shots without having to use ND filters. Linked to image stabilization, taking pictures hand-held becomes easy. There is no need for a tripod, filters, or lengthy exposure times."

When people want smooth waterfalls, they take extra long exposures but to keep their desired aperture they avoid overexposure by using ND filters. But now you can do the same thing with software ND filters. And you could do it even better by keeping all the photons (instead of throwing them away in the filter) by storing the result into a higher bit raw file for drastically better IQ. You could also just do continuous image stacking with normal exposure which accumulates into higher bit raw files so that you could display the merged image and stop the accumulation at any time with the properly exposed image in the appropriately larger bit raw file. Or you could store it to a normal size raw file but reduce the noise for the non-moving imagery by a factor of 10x or more.

Of course, if the R5 doesn't have this feature then I'll just have to wait until they come out with a firmware update for it, just like a lot of people had to wait for firmware updates that suddenly gave them an intervalometer function where it didn't exist before. Come on, Canon!


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 28, 2020)

LSXPhotog said:


> Same hardware, yes. But the 1D series always had better processing power with dedicated chips for autofocus while the 5D shares image processing and AF on the same chip.



Not according to Chuck Westfall before he passed away. The 5D Mark III had the same additional processor as the 1D X MArk II did to handle AF functions.

Please read this article at The-Digital-Picture were Chuck responded to a questionnaire from Bryan about comparing the 1D X, 5D Mark III, and 7D Mark II AF systems. With regard to AF speed, Chuck said, "AF calculation speeds will vary with all three cameras based on the number of active focusing points, ambient light levels, subject contrast, subject distance, lens focal length, maximum aperture, etc. But when all else is equal, all three cameras are virtually equal in terms of AF calculation speed _*because they all use a similar if not identical AF processor*_."

In this interview in 2012, Chuck said, "Both the 1D X and the 5D Mark III use dedicated AF microprocessors; these AF microprocessors are not DIGIC chips.*"*


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jun 28, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> The whole point of an ND filter is to protect the highlights.


Not really. If you fit, say, a three stop ND, the metering system will simply add three stops to the exposure to take you right back where you were wrt the brightness of any highlights. Depending on the circumstances that may result in a larger aperture (useful when you want a very large aperture for e.g. shallow depth of field portraits in bright sunlight), or a slow shutter speed (blurring moving water is the classic example).

To protect highlights you have to reduce the exposure, either by dialling in some negative exposure compensation or by making an adjustment to a manual exposure setting. Most of the time you can do this without recourse to an ND filter.

Another way to protect highlight detail is to use the lowest available ISO setting, as this will give you maximum dynamic range. This is the exact opposite of using an ND filter!


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 28, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> Not really. If you fit, say, a three stop ND, the metering system will simply add three stops to the exposure to take you right back where you were wrt the brightness of any highlights. Depending on the circumstances that may result in a larger aperture (useful when you want a very large aperture for e.g. shallow depth of field portraits in bright sunlight), or a slow shutter speed (blurring moving water is the classic example).
> 
> To protect highlights you have to reduce the exposure, either by dialling in some negative exposure compensation or by making an adjustment to a manual exposure setting. Most of the time you can do this without recourse to an ND filter.
> 
> Another way to protect highlight detail is to use the lowest available ISO setting, as this will give you maximum dynamic range. This is the exact opposite of using an ND filter!



Not always. If I want to shoot at f/1.8 without an ND filter and even at base ISO and 1/8000 the highlights will blow and the entire image will be three stops overexposed, then using a three stop ND filter will allow me to use base ISO at 1/8000 and f/1.8 and get a result that is three stops darker.

Or with video, if I am determined to use a 180° shutter and f/1.8, and even at base ISO I'm three stops too bright, then using a three stop filter allows me to use the shutter angle and aperture I want while reducing exposure three stops.


----------



## sanj (Jun 28, 2020)

amorse said:


> It's often done as a silhouette - I see no reason why it wouldn't work at f/11. Examples below:
> 1, 2, 3


Clap clap


----------



## twoheadedboy (Jun 28, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> You might be able to do it by placing a 12mm extension tube in between them. I know a few EF shooters that do it with EF III extenders and Super Telephotos and they still get pretty long focus distances (measured in hundreds of feet), even if they don't get infinity focus for things like the moon.



I did try that but I need infinity for NASCAR super speedways.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jun 28, 2020)

Starting out EOS R said:


> That's one heck of a shopping list.  Just the R5 please and maybe one of the extenders if it is compatible with either of my lenses. There seem to be differing opinions on that so we'll just wait and see.


And the only things desirable are the R5 and R6, the lens offerings are crap.


----------



## canonnews (Jun 28, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> OK - With the latest high speed R5 video speed demon or future cameras, you still don't see the potential in a software ND filter feature? What about this? :



you don't need a feature in the camera to do this you know. you can already do this with most cameras.
you simply rattle off a burst and combine in photoshop.

the LiveND though is really cool.


----------



## canonnews (Jun 28, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> And the only things desirable are the R5 and R6, the lens offerings are crap.


----------



## canonnews (Jun 28, 2020)

koch1948 said:


> The list does not mention an EOS M5 Mark II.


I think the rumor stated later in the year. I had to hazzard a guess maybe sept/oct announcement.


----------



## Kyo- (Jun 28, 2020)

I think Canon needs to release one with rangefinder styled body a.k.a EVF in the corner..It just doesn’t make sense to put the EVF in the middle on Mirrorless camera anymore.


----------



## canonnews (Jun 28, 2020)

Kyo- said:


> I think Canon needs to release one with rangefinder styled body a.k.a EVF in the corner..It just doesn’t make sense to put the EVF in the middle on Mirrorless camera anymore.


it kind of does for the flash mount.

If you use a corner EVF, you have make the entire camera bigger, OR use a 16:9 LCD.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 28, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Canon has never made wide angle or even normal lenses compatible with extenders. For prime lenses, nothing shorter than 135mm can handle an extender. For zoom lenses, the EF 70-200 series and the EF 100-400 series allow extenders, but that is based on the assumption that users will be at the longer ends of the focal length range when extenders are attached.
> 
> The big benefit of having a shorter registration distance is for wider angle lenses. Normal lenses benefit some, but not as much as wide angle lenses do. 70mm is right on the line between normal and telephoto. Anything past 85-100mm is not going to see much benefit from shorter registration distances in terms of image quality. A lens in that focal length range might see a benefit in terms of overall size and weight.


+++ Canon has never made wide angle or even normal lenses compatible with extenders.

uhm. Tilt and shift lenses inclusive?


----------



## dolina (Jun 28, 2020)

I hope these new products will make Canon's still camera business feasible.


----------



## Starting out EOS R (Jun 28, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> And the only things desirable are the R5 and R6, the lens offerings are crap.


Yup, mostly not interested apart from the bodies and maybe the 100-500l but then only if I win the lottery lol.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jun 28, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> The 5D Mark III had the same AF hardware as the 1D X. The 5D Mark IV had the same AF hardware as the 1D X Mark III. Both didn't have as many software options and both seemed to be a TAD, but not by much, less consistent from shot to shot. I think most of us are expecting the AF performance of the R5 to be very close but not quite equal to that of the 1D X Mark III in LV. Even at that level, it will be a massive improvement over the EOS R.


And apparently the R6 will have the same AF system as the R5. THAT could well be the most amazing thing that comes out of these releases


----------



## Skux (Jun 28, 2020)

Thank god they are releasing extender lens caps, they had me worried for a while there.


----------



## degos (Jun 28, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Here's something that might surprise you. Canon don't release anything until it's been through a rigorous round of field testing with their photographers worldwide.



Here's something that might surprise you: junk like the 50mm STM and 24-240 still gets released.

The Explorers of Light et al are guinea pigs for the pro lenses, not the consumer junk


----------



## Joules (Jun 28, 2020)

degos said:


> Here's something that might surprise you: junk like the 50mm STM and 24-240 still gets released.
> 
> The Explorers of Light et al are guinea pigs for the pro lenses, not the consumer junk


"consumer junk"? Do you consider products junk because they are aimed at market segments that don't have or can't justify the budget for high end gear?

I am grateful for the diversity of products Canon is putting out there. Photography is a hobby for many and for lots of people lenses like the ones you mention get them access to the joys that come with this hobby at reasonable prices. Using derogatory expressions for those products comes off as an insult to its buyers to me.

Keep in mind that low end sales also contribute to R&D that is used for L lenses. And that somebody may move upmarket as they skill and economic situation improve over time.


----------



## gzroxas (Jun 28, 2020)

I’m most curious about the 85mm (to compare f2 but macro and IS vs the Samyang 1.4) and... THE BATTERIES! I really hope the new extra capacity battery can be adapted to the original R, because battery life is one of my main gripes with it!


----------



## panosopc1 (Jun 28, 2020)

The best for a walk... Canon 50 stm


----------



## dichterDichter (Jun 28, 2020)

im really interrested in the r6 and a 70-200 f4 or f2.8. A very interresting thing will be nattery live. my a7ii has a very poor battery live.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jun 28, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Not according to Chuck Westfall before he passed away. The 5D Mark III had the same additional processor as the 1D X MArk II did to handle AF functions.
> 
> Please read this article at The-Digital-Picture were Chuck responded to a questionnaire from Bryan about comparing the 1D X, 5D Mark III, and 7D Mark II AF systems. With regard to AF speed, Chuck said, "AF calculation speeds will vary with all three cameras based on the number of active focusing points, ambient light levels, subject contrast, subject distance, lens focal length, maximum aperture, etc. But when all else is equal, all three cameras are virtually equal in terms of AF calculation speed _*because they all use a similar if not identical AF processor*_."
> 
> In this interview in 2012, Chuck said, "Both the 1D X and the 5D Mark III use dedicated AF microprocessors; these AF microprocessors are not DIGIC chips.*"*



I may stand corrected here. But I also find it hard to believe because it's not what I've been told by anyone from Canon and I can't find anything online to confirm it - only evidence that goes against it. When I had issues with the


Michael Clark said:


> Not according to Chuck Westfall before he passed away. The 5D Mark III had the same additional processor as the 1D X MArk II did to handle AF functions.
> 
> Please read this article at The-Digital-Picture were Chuck responded to a questionnaire from Bryan about comparing the 1D X, 5D Mark III, and 7D Mark II AF systems. With regard to AF speed, Chuck said, "AF calculation speeds will vary with all three cameras based on the number of active focusing points, ambient light levels, subject contrast, subject distance, lens focal length, maximum aperture, etc. But when all else is equal, all three cameras are virtually equal in terms of AF calculation speed _*because they all use a similar if not identical AF processor*_."
> 
> In this interview in 2012, Chuck said, "Both the 1D X and the 5D Mark III use dedicated AF microprocessors; these AF microprocessors are not DIGIC chips.*"*



I am very curious about this statement. The 1DX Mark II has Dual Digic 6+ processors and a single regular Digic 6 for metering and AF. The original 1DX had Dual Digic 5+ processors and a single Digic 4 for metering and AF. The 5D Mark IV uses a single Digic 6+ and a single Digic 6 for metering and AF. The 5D Mark III used a single Digic 5+ for everything. The Canon 7D Mark II has dual Digic 6 processors. This comes directly from Canon's press material.

So we know for a fact, they have different processing hardware inside - there are photos of their main boards online to support that as well. His comments made in 2012 appear to be incorrect because the original 1D had a total of 3 processors on board wearing the Digic name and the 5D Mark III only made use of a single Digic. I really have no idea why he would make these comments and contradict what Canon has stated as a company and what the physical hardware indicates.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jun 28, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Not always. If I want to shoot at f/1.8 without an ND filter and even at base ISO and 1/8000 the highlights will blow and the entire image will be three stops overexposed, then using a three stop ND filter will allow me to use base ISO at 1/8000 and f/1.8 and get a result that is three stops darker.


But you said (my emphasis) "The _whole point_ of an ND filter is to protect the highlights." No it isn't. It's to allow you to use a larger aperture (as in your example above, which I had already given), or a slower shutter speed (for creative reasons) than you would otherwise be able to. That's not "protecting the highlights", which is something you achieve by ensuring you don't expose too far to the right - more often than not without using an ND filter. In the most extreme cases - my f/1.4 lenses wide open in bright sunlight - an ND filter might be the only way to do this, but this is an edge case and in no way "the whole point of" an ND filter.



Michael Clark said:


> Or with video, if I am determined to use a 180° shutter and f/1.8, and even at base ISO I'm three stops too bright, then using a three stop filter allows me to use the shutter angle and aperture I want while reducing exposure three stops.


Yes, video typically uses slower shutter speeds than stills so an ND filter is a useful tool - but once again this is not "to protect highlights", it's to allow a suitable exposure of all tones at the required shutter speed..


----------



## canonnews (Jun 28, 2020)

degos said:


> Here's something that might surprise you: junk like the 50mm STM and 24-240 still gets released.
> 
> The Explorers of Light et al are guinea pigs for the pro lenses, not the consumer junk


wow. elitist much?

there's a ton of L glass for the RF mount, canon needs diversity - and I'll have you know ..some of those consumer STM lenses are the best bang for the buck you can buy for lenses. it's a shame you sniff and ignore it.


----------



## JustUs7 (Jun 28, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> And the only things desirable are the R5 and R6, the lens offerings are crap.



The only things desirable are the affordable lenses. The R5 and R6 are just spec monsters that most wont be willing to spend money on.


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 28, 2020)

canonnews said:


> you don't need a feature in the camera to do this you know. you can already do this with most cameras.
> you simply rattle off a burst and combine in photoshop.
> 
> the LiveND though is really cool.


Yes, you can do this. But you'd end up with a hundred or so photos you'd have to worry about the names, and store on camera, and transfer, and clean up, and combine, and go back and delete the old ones, etc. 

With the in-camera feature you'd get a single raw file (or raw file with all individual images if you want, or raw file with a single image if you want). That's a drastic difference to store and work with.

And yes, the LiveND feature (stopping merging photos anytime) would be really cool. As I said before, with a fast enough graphics processor and fast enough sensor read times you could do almost anything, hence my new motto:

"*Smart* programming ain't just for *Smart*Phones!"


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 28, 2020)

canonnews said:


> wow. elitist much?
> 
> there's a ton of L glass for the RF mount, canon needs diversity - and I'll have you know ..some of those consumer STM lenses are the best bang for the buck you can buy for lenses. it's a shame you sniff and ignore it.


I think the more valid point is that previously even Canon’s non L glass has had respect for its capabilities, lenses like the EF 85 f1.8, the EF 35 f2 IS etc mean that even those who can’t or don’t want to spend the money can get really good results, further, until recently Canon didn’t fiddle their RAW files to make their cameras and lenses look better. Well now that isn’t true because every other manufacturer does things like make lenses that have horrific uncorrected distortions and artificially suppress noise in high RAW iso images it means Canon has to to stay competitive on price, which is one of the biggest purchasing decision for people in this market.

From a technical perspective the 24-240 is a dud the old 28-300 was not, Canon could do way better than they did but they are building it down to a price and making compromises they haven’t made in fF cameras before, the f11 lenses are also duds, you can do just as well with a $100 Opteka off eBay.

You might not like the verbiage but there is a valid point to be made when you consider the change of direction Canon has taken and how that will inevitably creep up the ladder.


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 28, 2020)

Kyo- said:


> I think Canon needs to release one with rangefinder styled body a.k.a EVF in the corner..It just doesn’t make sense to put the EVF in the middle on Mirrorless camera anymore.


I completely agree! No mirrorbox? - Why duplicate the mirrorbox look and stub your nose on the LCD?

Well, to be fair, I wonder if manufacturers ever did extensive user tests with various models both ways to see which ones they'd initiall buy, as well as which ones they'd prefer after several days of heavy use? If they did, and mentioned it to us, then I could understand that they found that extensive research shows better sales if you stay with it in the center.


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 28, 2020)

canonnews said:


> it kind of does for the flash mount.
> 
> If you use a corner EVF, you have make the entire camera bigger, OR use a 16:9 LCD.


Yes, if you pull the LCD out then you have the same issue either way.
But if your LCD is stowed into the body (either front or back facing) then it is (IMHO) more comfortable to have the EVF on the left.

I'm curious: Why would you think you have to use a 16:9 LCD or make the camera bigger?
And why would you care if the flash is mounted on the left of the camera as opposed to the middle? It'd still be in the same position relative to your head either way.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 28, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> I think the more valid point is that previously even Canon’s non L glass has had respect for its capabilities, lenses like the EF 85 f1.8, the EF 35 f2 IS etc mean that even those who can’t or don’t want to spend the money can get really good results, further, until recently Canon didn’t fiddle their RAW files to make their cameras and lenses look better. Well now that isn’t true because every other manufacturer does things like make lenses that have horrific uncorrected distortions and artificially suppress noise in high RAW iso images it means Canon has to to stay competitive on price, which is one of the biggest purchasing decision for people in this market.
> 
> From a technical perspective the 24-240 is a dud the old 28-300 was not, Canon could do way better than they did but they are building it down to a price and making compromises they haven’t made in fF cameras before, the f11 lenses are also duds, you can do just as well with a $100 Opteka off eBay.
> 
> You might not like the verbiage but there is a valid point to be made when you consider the change of direction Canon has taken and how that will inevitably creep up the ladder.



++++ I think the more valid point is that previously even Canon’s non L glass has had respect for its capabilities.....

Thank you . and here is an excellent example:

*Canon EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Lens Distortion:*

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Distortion.aspx?Lens=961


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 28, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> I think the more valid point is that previously even Canon’s non L glass has had respect for its capabilities, lenses like the EF 85 f1.8, the EF 35 f2 IS etc mean that even those who can’t or don’t want to spend the money can get really good results, further, until recently Canon didn’t fiddle their RAW files to make their cameras and lenses look better. Well now that isn’t true because every other manufacturer does things like make lenses that have horrific uncorrected distortions and artificially suppress noise in high RAW iso images it means Canon has to to stay competitive on price, which is one of the biggest purchasing decision for people in this market.
> 
> From a technical perspective the 24-240 is a dud the old 28-300 was not, Canon could do way better than they did but they are building it down to a price and making compromises they haven’t made in fF cameras before, the f11 lenses are also duds, you can do just as well with a $100 Opteka off eBay.
> 
> You might not like the verbiage but there is a valid point to be made when you consider the change of direction Canon has taken and how that will inevitably creep up the ladder.



I'm sure those F11 lenses will be L quality optically and have top AF and stabilisation. Try to do that with $100 Opteka.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 28, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I'm sure those F11 lenses will be L quality optically and have top AF and stabilisation. Try to do that with $100 Opteka.


I'm certain they won't have L quality optics, nor AF or IS, having said that reasonably high IQ 600 and 800 mm telephotos are not complicated or exotic lenses to design at such modest apertures. 








Tamron 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Tamron 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com





I'm also sure we will see many reviewers posting 'comparison' images between the much more expensive and faster EF siblings that show how brilliant the new lenses are and how you don't need to spend $10,000 to shoot at that focal length now, and it will be true from the cherry picked well illuminated examples. As will the reality for owners when they realize the compromises f11 lenses force them into regarding shutter speed and or iso,


----------



## Czardoom (Jun 28, 2020)

Funny how the elitist snobs are so upset with in-camera and in-software automatic correction. How dare Canon make a lens _*that otherwise could not be made as small, as light and as inexpensive. *_Of course, price matters not to an elitist snob - the more expensive the better! Although, come to think of it, smaller and lighter might be beneficial to many users. Of course, let's not forget - as apparently they do - that a consumer grade lens is not going to have the optical quality of an "L" lens. So, for some, the 24-240mm lens may be a dud (then don't buy it), but for others it offers the chance to have a one-lens solution for almost all shooting scenarios. And on a standard monitor - or printing 8 x 10's - you most likely won't see any difference between the results from that lens and the 24-105 f/4 L. But who cares about actual real life results? Well, many of us mere consumers. Who cares about giving photographers lots of different lens choices? Well, many of us mere consumers. 

Is there any evidence that by making these cheaper, smaller and lighter lenses Canon is taking the same approach to their RF L lenses and that compromises are "creeping up the ladder?" Obviously not, based on the almost universal praise the new RF lenses are getting from reviewers and photographers.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 28, 2020)

degos said:


> Here's something that might surprise you: junk like the 50mm STM and 24-240 still gets released.
> 
> The Explorers of Light et al are guinea pigs for the pro lenses, not the consumer junk



Neither of those lenses are junk. The 50mm STM is still a fantastic lens and possibly the best value lens Canon (or anyone else) make. I actually prefer it to the 50mm f/1.4. 

The 24-240 isn't a fantastic lens, but it's a compromise lens and pretty much as good as it can get for an affordable full frame 10x zoom.

It's not just the pro 'explorers of light' who test these things.


----------



## Mbell75 (Jun 28, 2020)

WTF? Where are the 50 and 85 lenses? If they aren't announced and released by Oct, Im switching back to Sony. Its ridiculous its taking this long to release affordable RF primes.


----------



## PN5X5 (Jun 28, 2020)

How much do you guys think the 'Canon EOS R5 24-105 USM Kit' will be?


----------



## Starting out EOS R (Jun 28, 2020)

PN5X5 said:


> How much do you guys think the 'Canon EOS R5 24-105 USM Kit' will be?


Wild guess, probably about £5100 including taxes (UK 20%) giving about £150 / £200 discount on individual prices.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 28, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> I can't believe the folks that expect Rolls-Royce to sell them a Bentley at a Toyota price.


To add to the confusion, BMW owns Rolls-Royce, and VW owns Bentley. The history is more complicated.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 28, 2020)

Since it is optically impossible to shoot at f/11 or smaller, why do they still include those in the lenses they make?

(Asking for someone who has shot hundreds of pictures at f/11 and f/16.)


----------



## Kyo- (Jun 29, 2020)

canonnews said:


> it kind of does for the flash mount.
> 
> If you use a corner EVF, you have make the entire camera bigger, OR use a 16:9 LCD.



Most Rangefinder cameras or rangefinder-styled one always have hot shoe in the middle.Not above the viewfinder.


----------



## Joules (Jun 29, 2020)

Mbell75 said:


> WTF? Where are the 50 and 85 lenses? If they aren't announced and released by Oct, Im switching back to Sony. Its ridiculous its taking this long to release affordable RF primes.


How dare they be affected by a global pandemic! Canon should produce anything I want, and I want it right NOW! ******* 


Seriously though.

If you are running out of patience, best just go ahead and make the switch. There is a lot of uncertainty at the moment, so you can't be sure when you'll be able to get a copy even when the lenses are announced. If going Sony is such a small issue for you that you would rather do that than wait a little, I would say go for it.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 29, 2020)

Mbell75 said:


> WTF? Where are the 50 and 85 lenses? If they aren't announced and released by Oct, Im switching back to Sony. Its ridiculous its taking this long to release affordable RF primes.



Yeah, switch back and forth from Sony for 1 lens  
Like that's not a waste of time and money.
Instead just buy a used 50mm 1.8 STM for $50 and sell it when you got the RF 50.


----------



## bbasiaga (Jun 29, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> How do you propose to get infinity focus putting an RF 800mm f/11 STM lens in front of an EF mount camera?


My implication was that the ISO performance of even the 5DIII opens up a lot of possibilities for shooting at F/11 that weren't there before. And with the new cameras having further improved performance, and now (it seems) autofocus at those apertures it's even more usable. The EF-RF adaptation only works in that direction. So this new lens will only be usable on the current generation of cameras. 

-Brian


----------



## bergstrom (Jun 29, 2020)

The queue to see the lens hoods will go on for miles


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 29, 2020)

bergstrom said:


> The queue to see the lens hoods will go on for miles


It will likely go clear around the world, since its a streaming event.


----------



## Whowe (Jun 29, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I like how someone on Facebook just commented about the release, asking why Canon does not innovate and make a "lightweight" 600mm F2 or 800mm 2.8 instead


Could you imagine a 12+ inch front element? Great for BIF....


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 29, 2020)

Whowe said:


> Could you imagine a 12+ inch front element? Great for BIF....


Yeah! It's called a *12" Telescope!*


----------



## bergstrom (Jun 29, 2020)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> It will likely go clear around the world, since its a streaming event.



damn, when my sarcasm backfired, oops. Good point.


----------



## flip314 (Jun 29, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Completely expected for non-L lenses: no hood, no pouch, no case included.



I never care about the cases, but Canon's pricing on lens hoods is becoming ridiculous. I just about choked when I saw that the ET-74B (70-300mm IS II USM) is a $45 piece of plastic. No felt flocking, no nothing.

I'm usually one to just fork out the little bit extra for OEM equipment, but that was one place I was much happier with the $14 3rd party substitute.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 29, 2020)

flip314 said:


> I never care about the cases, but Canon's pricing on lens hoods is becoming ridiculous. I just about choked when I saw that the ET-74B (70-300mm IS II USM) is a $45 piece of plastic. No felt flocking, no nothing.
> 
> I'm usually one to just fork out the little bit extra for OEM equipment, but that was one place I was much happier with the $14 3rd party substitute.



It's a bit more expensive here in .nl and the 3rd party equivalents aren't in stock anywhere. I got a good enough deal on an in-store display unit that I bought the Canon hood for that lens. It's crazy that the hood accounted for like 20% of the total order price.

And since I payed sum a stupidly large sum of money for it: don't talk bad about this superior lens hood!


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 29, 2020)

flip314 said:


> I never care about the cases, but Canon's pricing on lens hoods is becoming ridiculous. I just about choked when I saw that the ET-74B (70-300mm IS II USM) is a $45 piece of plastic. No felt flocking, no nothing.
> 
> I'm usually one to just fork out the little bit extra for OEM equipment, but that was one place I was much happier with the $14 3rd party substitute.


I paid $49.95 for the hood for my $300 EF35mm f2 IS. I think Canon know I am a hood kinda guy...


----------



## Viggo (Jun 29, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> I paid $49.95 for the hood for my $300 EF35mm f2 IS. I think Canon know I am a hood kinda guy...


Just a tip guys, don’t check the price of a 400 f2.8 hood


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 29, 2020)

Viggo said:


> Just a tip guys, don’t check the price of a 400 f2.8 hood


Nor the price for the trunk! I've actually got two old ones too...


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 7, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> +++ Canon has never made wide angle or even normal lenses compatible with extenders.
> 
> uhm. Tilt and shift lenses inclusive?



Not officially. From the Canon USA info page for the EF 2X III:

"This lens is only compatible with fixed focal length L-series lenses 135mm and over, as well as the EF 70-200/2.8L, EF 70-200/2.8L IS, EF 70-200/4L, and EF 100-400/4.5-5.6L. Additionally, please see the lens and/or camera body manual for full compatibility information with the Extender EF 2X III."

Here's a link to the pdf manual for the version III extenders which list all compatible lenses at time of introduction. No TS-E lens nor the MPE-65mm are included on the list.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 7, 2020)

LSXPhotog said:


> I may stand corrected here. But I also find it hard to believe because it's not what I've been told by anyone from Canon and I can't find anything online to confirm it - only evidence that goes against it. When I had issues with the
> 
> 
> I am very curious about this statement. The 1DX Mark II has Dual Digic 6+ processors and a single regular Digic 6 for metering and AF. The original 1DX had Dual Digic 5+ processors and a single Digic 4 for metering and AF. The 5D Mark IV uses a single Digic 6+ and a single Digic 6 for metering and AF. The 5D Mark III used a single Digic 5+ for everything. The Canon 7D Mark II has dual Digic 6 processors. This comes directly from Canon's press material.
> ...



Please reread Canon's press releases and marketing material very carefully. They don't always say exactly what some people think they see when they read them.

I've read a comment he made elsewhere that I couldn't find when I wrote the above that said the AF chip used with the 5D Mark IV and 1D X Mark II that had DiG!C 6+ main processing chip(s) used a chip that was _approximately equivalent_ to a DiG!C 5 chip, but was not an actual DiGiC 5 chip proper. A lot of folks will read marketing materials that say something like "... uses a dedicated AF processing chip that has the same power as DiG!C 5..." and then endlessly repeat "It has a DiG!C 5 AF processor" on the internet until everyone believes it as fact.

Just like when Canon says a product includes "weather sealing components" and then everyone (except Canon) claims the camera is "weather sealed."


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 7, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> But you said (my emphasis) "The _whole point_ of an ND filter is to protect the highlights." No it isn't. It's to allow you to use a larger aperture (as in your example above, which I had already given), or a slower shutter speed (for creative reasons) than you would otherwise be able to. That's not "protecting the highlights", which is something you achieve by ensuring you don't expose too far to the right - more often than not without using an ND filter. In the most extreme cases - my f/1.4 lenses wide open in bright sunlight - an ND filter might be the only way to do this, but this is an edge case and in no way "the whole point of" an ND filter.
> 
> 
> Yes, video typically uses slower shutter speeds than stills so an ND filter is a useful tool - but once again this is not "to protect highlights", it's to allow a suitable exposure of all tones at the required shutter speed..




In general, when one wants to protect the highlights, one decreases exposure. Saying that something is for "decreasing exposure" but not for "protecting highlights" is like saying drinking cold water is for cooling one's body, but not for preventing one's body to overheat.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 7, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Yes, if you pull the LCD out then you have the same issue either way.
> But if your LCD is stowed into the body (either front or back facing) then it is (IMHO) more comfortable to have the EVF on the left.
> 
> I'm curious: Why would you think you have to use a 16:9 LCD or make the camera bigger?
> And why would you care if the flash is mounted on the left of the camera as opposed to the middle? It'd still be in the same position relative to your head either way.



When properly supporting the weight of the camera and lens by the left hand cupped under the lens, moving the VF to the left edge would move the lens to the right by the same amount, as well as move the right side of the camera and the right hand holding it out by the same distance. So now the centerline of the lens would not be aligned with the center of the photographer's face and (usually) body. We'd be holding the camera halfway to in front of our right shoulder. This would make keeping both elbows in close a lot more difficult for many photographers.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 7, 2020)

stevelee said:


> To add to the confusion, BMW owns Rolls-Royce, and VW owns Bentley. The history is more complicated.



As far back as i can remember, Rolls owned Bentley. When did they divest it?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 7, 2020)

Mbell75 said:


> WTF? Where are the 50 and 85 lenses? If they aren't announced and released by Oct, Im switching back to Sony. Its ridiculous its taking this long to release affordable RF primes.



See 'ya!


----------



## navastronia (Jul 7, 2020)

If Canon is going to surprise us by disabling/not including a feature (thus, living up to its reputation -- if you want to supply the pejorative we all know, now's the time), my money is on the R6 not taking a battery grip. With a grip, it would be too powerful, and might dissuade users from purchasing the eventual R1, or even in some cases, the 1DX Mk. III, a camera that costs nearly 3 times as much as this likely will.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 7, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> As far back as i can remember, Rolls owned Bentley. When did they divest it?


It got complicated. In 1998 VW bought the company, but BMW wound up owning the name and design. BMW started making Rolls in 2003 (having supplied engines for years). The company under VW continues to make Bentleys. That’s the quick version.


----------



## usern4cr (Jul 7, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> When properly supporting the weight of the camera and lens by the left hand cupped under the lens, moving the VF to the left edge would move the lens to the right by the same amount, as well as move the right side of the camera and the right hand holding it out by the same distance. So now the centerline of the lens would not be aligned with the center of the photographer's face and (usually) body. We'd be holding the camera halfway to in front of our right shoulder. This would make keeping both elbows in close a lot more difficult for many photographers.


"A lot more difficult?" 1 to 1.5 inches to the right? OK, I guess that settles it - You wouldn't like it, period - that's fine. However, I don't like having my nose hitting the camera and would welcome the EVF on the left so I could comfortably face forward with my left eye open to see the overall scene and my right eye comfortably on the EVF. I think I could manage holding the camera 1 to 1.5 inches further right just fine.

Different strokes for different folks. But it looks like inertia wins this battle and things will stay the way they were back when it had to be that way. I'll just have to adapt as I've always had to. There are a lot more important camera issues that this, so I'm not going to sweat it.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 9, 2020)

stevelee said:


> It got complicated. In 1998 VW bought the company, but BMW wound up owning the name and design. BMW started making Rolls in 2003 (having supplied engines for years). The company under VW continues to make Bentleys. That’s the quick version.



Yeah, it seems BMW got the name and some trademarks/iconic aesthetic design shapes but Bentley got to keep the overall designs (other than the RR logo, grill, and hood ornament shapes) of both the existing RR and Bentley products at the time of the transactions. The BMW RR models are new designs, while the Bentleys made since the split are based on previous model evolution from both the RR & Bentley model lines.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 9, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> "A lot more difficult?" 1 to 1.5 inches to the right? OK, I guess that settles it - You wouldn't like it, period - that's fine. However, I don't like having my nose hitting the camera and would welcome the EVF on the left so I could comfortably face forward with my left eye open to see the overall scene and my right eye comfortably on the EVF. I think I could manage holding the camera 1 to 1.5 inches further right just fine.
> 
> Different strokes for different folks. But it looks like inertia wins this battle and things will stay the way they were back when it had to be that way. I'll just have to adapt as I've always had to. There are a lot more important camera issues that this, so I'm not going to sweat it.



OK, so "a bit more difficult". An inch or two may not seem like much, but for us old dogs that have been shooting SLRs for several decades, we don't like it when someone makes us change our entire shooting stance.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 9, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Yeah, it seems BMW got the name and some trademarks/iconic aesthetic design shapes but Bentley got to keep the overall designs (other than the RR logo, grill, and hood ornament shapes) of both the existing RR and Bentley products at the time of the transactions. The BMW RR models are new designs, while the Bentleys made since the split are based on previous model evolution from both the RR & Bentley model lines.


I bought an Audi A4 in December. So maybe I have a poor man's Bentley or a rich man's VW. Either way, I really like it and wish there was somewhere to go. A guy on line said it feels like he is 16 again: gas is cheap, and he is grounded.

Around 1300 miles the car said it needed an oil change. I knew that was unlikely, but I called the service department, and they agreed, but said they'd check it out, and at least reset the service interval messages. They brought me an A6 with even more bells and whistles and just 300 miles on it. I had it overnight and just went as far as the grocery store. I did get admiring comments in the parking lot. I didn't take time to figure out all the features, but I did turn on the adaptive cruise control to drive through town. When I turned off the street with a 25mph limit on to one with a 35mph limit, the cruise control reset itself accordingly.

This is vaguely on topic, because the new car is one of many reasons for me not to buy a new 5D IV.


----------



## bbb34 (Jul 10, 2020)

We are done with the R5. 

Now it's time for 5D5 and M5.2 rumors!


----------

