# Canon will do a Livestream for the EOS R5 and EOS R6 official announcement [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 28, 2020)

> I have been told that Canon will be doing simultaneous live streams in the USA and Europe for the announcement of the Canon EOS R5 and Canon EOS R6 on July 9, 2020, if true, I suspect we’ll be seeing a teaser for the event very soon.
> The same source claims that the RF teleconverters will work with any RF lens (I’m not sure about this claim). I’m also not sure if things will work differently with adapted EF lenses.
> I have also been told that there will be more “cool” adapters and lens add-ons coming later this year. I wasn’t told any more than that.



Continue reading...


----------



## mbike999 (Jun 28, 2020)

> The same source claims that the RF teleconverters will work with any RF lens. I’m not sure if things will work differently with adapted EF lenses.


I am not seeing how that would be possible given the protrusions on the teleconverters and the position of the rear element on many current RF lenses.


----------



## peters (Jun 28, 2020)

I'll make a public viewing in my backyard to celebrate this!


----------



## Fast351 (Jun 28, 2020)

It would be interesting to know if RF 1.4 + RF-EF + EF telephoto would work. 

When I switch from my current crop sensor I will probably want a 1.4 or maybe 2.0 converter to go with my 100-400. I was planning on buying an EF converter, but if an RF converter would work the same with the only difference what end of the teleconverter the RF to EF conversion happens, that would make the RF teleconverter a much more appealing purchase since it would work with both RF and EF lenses.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 28, 2020)

mbike999 said:


> I am not seeing how that would be possible given the protrusions on the teleconverters and the position of the rear element on many current RF lenses.



I don't know, maybe they collapse somehow. We'll see soon!


----------



## BakaBokeh (Jun 28, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> The same source claims that the RF teleconverters will work with any RF lens (I’m not sure about this claim).


Please let this be true!


----------



## CaMeRa QuEsT (Jun 28, 2020)

No words yet on when the M5 MkII and the EF-M 53mm f/2.0 STM will be announced?


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 28, 2020)

mbike999 said:


> I am not seeing how that would be possible given the protrusions on the teleconverters and the position of the rear element on many current RF lenses.


What you've already seen that were presented (not really) as the new teleconverters in photos(with almost zero details) might not be what really is. Canon says, "Psych!" on announcement day.


----------



## sanj (Jun 28, 2020)

Curious why this is not CR3.


----------



## geffy (Jun 28, 2020)

high quality speed booster for the m system please


----------



## The3o5FlyGuy (Jun 28, 2020)

This already sounds super expensive


----------



## carina_r31 (Jun 28, 2020)

So the event will propably take place in the late afternoon/evening here in Europe. Means after work for me  Yay!


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jun 28, 2020)

mbike999 said:


> I am not seeing how that would be possible given the protrusions on the teleconverters and the position of the rear element on many current RF lenses.



I still think we were seeing mockups that put an RF shell over the old EF TCs. Betting the RF TCs are flush with the ends.

There’s really no other way around it if it’s going to work with any of the current f/1.2 primes that have the rear elements so far back, unless maybe in firmware they limit the close focusing distances (Ex: RF 50 f/1.2 + RF 2x TC becomes RF 100 but with a minimum focusing distance of 2m).

If the TCs have a collapsible section holding the elements, Canon would need to use the IBIS mechanism to move the sensor rearward — not sure there’s enough room in the camera body to accommodate this. Or they could collapse in sections to keep it all flush on both ends.

Given how creative Canon is with lens design, anything is possible. But flat TCs would be the simplest explanation.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 28, 2020)

Something tells me there are people here that would happily "pay per view" this.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 28, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> I still think we were seeing mockups that put an RF shell over the old EF TCs. Betting the RF TCs are flush with the ends.
> 
> There’s really no other way around it if it’s going to work with any of the current f/1.2 primes that have the rear elements so far back, unless maybe in firmware they limit the close focusing distances (Ex: RF 50 f/1.2 + RF 2x TC becomes RF 100 but with a minimum focusing distance of 2m).
> 
> ...


Yeah, I wouldn't see the point of collapsible sections when the thing could be built flat to begin with. I think "collapsible" is people grabbing at straws that aren't there.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jun 28, 2020)

Regarding the “cool” adapters coming, this has got to be 1.4x and 2x flip-switch TCs for EF big whites. Then all eventual RF big whites would have a removable rear segment to reveal an EF mount so they could be used on a DSLR (at the slower EF mount communication protocol) or accept the flip TCs that engage the extra RF connections.

RF Big Whites:
All intact — RF mount
Rear segment removed — becomes EF mount
Rear segment removed — accepts flip-TCs

This way there would additional functionally added to EF big whites, making those that use them want to switch to R bodies. And Canon could wait to make RF big whites until the next planned upgrade cycle for each lens since the urgency to deliver big white RFs would be removed.


----------



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

Excellent, both about the live stream and the potential for the TC's to be compatible with the RF glass!

I only hope the live stream has better streaming than the last one, it kept cutting out and freezing even with a full fibre connection


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Jun 28, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Something tells me there are people here that would happily "pay per view" this.


Considering some of the pent-up frustration/excitement/call-it-what-you-will that has been in evidence here the last few months, combined with lock-down stir-crazy, I think you are absolutely right! Good call.


----------



## Twinix (Jun 28, 2020)

sanj said:


> Curious why this is not CR3.


I think half/the first is CR3 and the rest is CR2 (also said etc). But thats just what I think, we have no info why it’s actually CR2 and not CR3.


----------



## sanj (Jun 28, 2020)

Twinix said:


> I think half/the first is CR3 and the rest is CR2 (also said etc). But thats just what I think, we have no info why it’s actually CR2 and not CR3.


I think you are right. Thx.


----------



## dwarven (Jun 28, 2020)

Got my B&H credit ready to go, now for the sick note for work.


----------



## OutWithIt (Jun 29, 2020)

RF 70-200 may be able to use the TCs? is this not the best news we could hear this year so far (70-200 owners?)
All RF lenses to boot? Canon working some real magic this year.


----------



## Skux (Jun 29, 2020)

Why even do simultaneous live streams? What's the difference even gonna be, one with a British accent and another with an American accent?


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 29, 2020)

If the RF 70-200 f2.8 L IS can work with the 2x converter, then I hope it will result in a good IQ for 140-400 f5.6. If so, then it would take some pressure off of trying to decide which (current or future) long tele zoom to get. All in all, it's *great* news!


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jun 29, 2020)

OutWithIt said:


> RF 70-200 may be able to use the TCs? is this not the best news we could hear this year so far (70-200 owners?)
> All RF lenses to boot? Canon working some real magic this year.



Absolutely.

I was going to get the 100-500, but now I think I may go another route, especially if the 100-500 is not f/5.6 at 400mm:

RF 70-200 f/2.8 (already own) + 2x TC = 140-400 f/5.6
RF 600 & 800 (possibly with 1.4x TC)

I don't know. I'll probably pre-order everything separately so I can cancel what I don't want after watching/reading the reviews.


----------



## scottkinfw (Jun 29, 2020)

mbike999 said:


> I am not seeing how that would be possible given the protrusions on the teleconverters and the position of the rear element on many current RF lenses.


maybe if you put on the EF to RF adaptor first?


----------



## scottkinfw (Jun 29, 2020)

geffy said:


> high quality speed booster for the m system please


?


----------



## scottkinfw (Jun 29, 2020)

I for one am as excited as a kid on Christmas Eve!


----------



## Max TT (Jun 29, 2020)

Are we there yet!


----------



## Etienne (Jun 29, 2020)

scottkinfw said:


> maybe if you put on the EF to RF adaptor first?



The teleconverter has to go on the body. It wouldn't fit otherwise, and it wouldn't work even if it did fit.


----------



## Etienne (Jun 29, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> Regarding the “cool” adapters coming, this has got to be 1.4x and 2x flip-switch TCs for EF big whites. Then all eventual RF big whites would have a removable rear segment to reveal an EF mount so they could be used on a DSLR (at the slower EF mount communication protocol) or accept the flip TCs that engage the extra RF connections.
> 
> RF Big Whites:
> All intact — RF mount
> ...



Removing a rear segment from an RF mount to reveal an EF mount, is not even possible.


----------



## Danglin52 (Jun 29, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> Regarding the “cool” adapters coming, this has got to be 1.4x and 2x flip-switch TCs for EF big whites. Then all eventual RF big whites would have a removable rear segment to reveal an EF mount so they could be used on a DSLR (at the slower EF mount communication protocol) or accept the flip TCs that engage the extra RF connections.
> 
> RF Big Whites:
> All intact — RF mount
> ...


Don’t forget, the 300 2.8 II, 500 f4 II and 200-400 f4 were not updated in the last EF round. I think these will be our first big whites for RF with weight reduction and slightly improved optics. Maybe, the 200-400 will be stretched to 200-500 f4 and they dont bother updating to a RF 500f4 IS.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 29, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


More cool adapters? That’s... cool.
x3 teleconverter any one?
And your RF 70-200/2.8 becomes what? 210-600/8? There were plenty of x3 teleconverters back in the film day.


----------



## dichterDichter (Jun 29, 2020)

the rf 70-200 2.8 is described as not compatible with extenders on the canon website. Im wondering why they say that every lens will work. this would be great.


----------



## CvH (Jun 29, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> If the RF 70-200 f2.8 L IS can work with the 2x converter, then I hope it will result in a good IQ for 140-400 f5.6. If so, then it would take some pressure off of trying to decide which (current or future) long tele zoom to get. All in all, it's *great* news!



If it works then I would sell my EF70-200 F2.8 and EF100-400 and get the RF70-200 F2.8 and both RF converters.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jun 29, 2020)

Etienne said:


> Removing a rear segment from an RF mount to reveal an EF mount, is not even possible.



You mean like when you remove the current EF EOS R Mount Adapter off an EF big white?

You’re missing the logic: All Canon RF big whites could continue to be EF lenses with an RF adapter on them, only the adapter would be matching white and perhaps more rugged or have some sort of additional locking mechanism for added strength. Simply remove the adapter and replace it with a flip-TC also in white. Simply remove the adapter and use it on a DSLR. Leave the adapter on and it works on R bodies just like the EF lenses do now.

I’m basically saying they make a more pro white EF-RF adapter than what they already make — and bundle it with every big white lens, already attached. It makes the lens seem more like a modular RF lens than calling it an EF lens with an included RF adapter.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jun 29, 2020)

Danglin52 said:


> Don’t forget, the 300 2.8 II, 500 f4 II and 200-400 f4 were not updated in the last EF round. I think these will be our first big whites for RF with weight reduction and slightly improved optics. Maybe, the 200-400 will be stretched to 200-500 f4 and they dont bother updating to a RF 500f4 IS.



Yeah, for sure there would be some big whites to prioritize for improvements. It’s just a flip-TC RF adapter for EF big whites would help reduce the urgency of calls to see RF big whites released while adding a huge feature that would draw DSLR big white owners over to the R system.

I do hope the first RF big white is either the 300 2.8 or the 200 f2.


----------



## Joules (Jun 29, 2020)

Somehow "to good to be true" sounds like the motto of the upcoming announcement.

Compatible with all RF lenses sounds unrealistic. Don't some of them already protrude into the body? Once the MP counts climb up even further, TCs may not be necessary for most people. But until then, it would be best not to compromise their quality for compatibility with lenses that don't make much sense anyway.

The only interesting new adapter that comes to my mind would indeed be an RF to EF-M speedbooster. Since you need glass in the adapter anyway for that mount combination, making it useful would be very welcome. I doubt they'll do it though, despite the patent they have. Just too good to be true.


----------



## Starting out EOS R (Jun 29, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> If the RF 70-200 f2.8 L IS can work with the 2x converter, then I hope it will result in a good IQ for 140-400 f5.6. If so, then it would take some pressure off of trying to decide which (current or future) long tele zoom to get. All in all, it's *great* news!


Totally agree. I'm new to using longer lenses, not that the 70-200mm is classed as a long lens lol. also great for the 24-105 as an even more useful walk around lens, albeit reducing the F to f8.

my only concern after reading some TC reviews is how it may affect AF as some have said the AF doesn't work as well. That would be a pain for the odd occasion I do wildlife but the benefits would still outweigh it.


----------



## Proscribo (Jun 29, 2020)

Starting out EOS R said:


> my only concern after reading some TC reviews is how it may affect AF as some have said the AF doesn't work as well. That would be a pain for the odd occasion I do wildlife but the benefits would still outweigh it.


This has mostly been a limitation of DSLRs as their AF systems have so little light to work with (and I think they need larger cone anyway). Sony's A9 does fine(ish?) at f/13 for example.

Anyhow not believing until I see that they work with every lens. Those protrusions haven't been there just for fun.


----------



## geffy (Jun 29, 2020)

scottkinfw said:


> maybe if you put on the EF to RF adaptor first?


speed booster is an adaptor that turns a 1.4 lens to an f1 omn an m camera not an rf, new stuff from canon is not just for the R system


----------



## scyrene (Jun 29, 2020)

geffy said:


> speed booster is an adaptor that turns a 1.4 lens to an f1 omn an m camera not an rf, new stuff from canon is not just for the R system



Did you just post the same message three times?


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jun 29, 2020)

Etienne said:


> Removing a rear segment from an RF mount to reveal an EF mount, is not even possible.


It's just a different way of describing an adapter, so it's obviously possible. What I'm hoping is that Canon has a way to route the RF protocols through the pins on an EF mount, so the EF lenses which were released in the EOS R era can behave like an actual RF lens when adapted - maybe using a special control ring adapter sold for this purpose. This would apply to the 400/2.8L IS II, 600/4L IS III (which I have, so personal interest here), and possibly the 70-200/2.8L IS III and 70-200/4L IS II. As it happens they are all white lenses, so a white adapter would be appropriate - and no doubt hugely expensive...


----------



## AlanF (Jun 29, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> It's just a different way of describing an adapter, so it's obviously possible. What I'm hoping is that Canon has a way to route the RF protocols through the pins on an EF mount, so the EF lenses which were released in the EOS R era can behave like an actual RF lens when adapted - maybe using a special control ring adapter sold for this purpose. This would apply to the 400/2.8L IS II, 600/4L IS III (which I have, so personal interest here), and possibly the 70-200/2.8L IS III and 70-200/4L IS II. As it happens they are all white lenses, so a white adapter would be appropriate - and no doubt hugely expensive...


The current adapters are designed for full compatibility of EF on an R mount so in what way would a new adapter differ?


----------



## Eclipsed (Jun 29, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> Regarding the “cool” adapters coming, this has got to be 1.4x and 2x flip-switch TCs for EF big whites. Then all eventual RF big whites would have a removable rear segment to reveal an EF mount so they could be used on a DSLR (at the slower EF mount communication protocol) or accept the flip TCs that engage the extra RF connections.
> 
> RF Big Whites:
> All intact — RF mount
> ...



I’ve been advocating much of this for a long time. I have a pending patent application on a converter with an internal release so that it cant be released from the lens when attached. I could see a line of “converters” for the EF big whites, each with a control ring and color matched. Some could have fixed TC magnification or a switchable. There could be dozens.


----------



## Eclipsed (Jun 29, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> You mean like when you remove the current EF EOS R Mount Adapter off an EF big white?
> 
> You’re missing the logic: All Canon RF big whites could continue to be EF lenses with an RF adapter on them, only the adapter would be matching white and perhaps more rugged or have some sort of additional locking mechanism for added strength. Simply remove the adapter and replace it with a flip-TC also in white. Simply remove the adapter and use it on a DSLR. Leave the adapter on and it works on R bodies just like the EF lenses do now.
> 
> I’m basically saying they make a more pro white EF-RF adapter than what they already make — and bundle it with every big white lens, already attached. It makes the lens seem more like a modular RF lens than calling it an EF lens with an included RF adapter.


Simply put, they can sell RF lenses with adapters that remove for EF.


----------



## Eclipsed (Jun 29, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> Yeah, for sure there would be some big whites to prioritize for improvements. It’s just a flip-TC RF adapter for EF big whites would help reduce the urgency of calls to see RF big whites released while adding a huge feature that would draw DSLR big white owners over to the R system.
> 
> I do hope the first RF big white is either the 300 2.8 or the 200 f2.


200f2 with switchable TC would be very useful


----------



## Etienne (Jun 29, 2020)

Eclipsed said:


> Simply put, they can sell RF lenses with adapters that remove for EF.


They already have that. In fact they have three versions. Why would they include an RF to EF adapter with every lens when no one needs more than one adapter? It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jun 29, 2020)

AlanF said:


> The current adapters are designed for full compatibility of EF on an R mount so in what way would a new adapter differ?


Using the current adapters, an EF lens on an RF-mount body should behave just as it does on an EF-mount body, which is already a great benefit of course. Being able to fit any of my EF and EF-S lenses to an R5 without any worries over compatibility is one of the things which makes the switch to mirrorless viable. In addition, optical performance will be just as good as before. But the RF mount also offers benefits from the increased communication speed, which improves image stabilisation and (I believe) EVF performance. It would be good to have that if possible.


----------



## Bambel (Jun 29, 2020)

dichterDichter said:


> the rf 70-200 2.8 is described as not compatible with extenders on the canon website. Im wondering why they say that every lens will work. this would be great.



I guess as right now there is no (RF-)TC, it says no compatibility. To which TC should it be compatible at this point? So i guess when the TCs are announced they will change that. 

i mean: why release TCs of there would be no compatible lenses?


----------



## arbitrage (Jun 29, 2020)

My guess is that if the source is actually legit that the message got a bit mixed up and when the source says "all RF lenses" it actually means "all RF lenses released/announced alongside the TCs on July 9th". From the Nokishita leaks it seems the only lenses that will be fully announced with price/release dates will be the 100-500, 600DO and 800DO. The other three lenses will just be roadmapped or development announcements (70-200, 50, 85). I would expect that the 100-500 and 600/800DO lenses will be the only lenses that work with the TCs for now and the ones I'd expect to work.

I see no way that the RF TCs will be compatible with all RF lenses. I don't think Canon released a fake image of them and they are a radically different design and I don't think they are collapsable.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 29, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> You mean like when you remove the current EF EOS R Mount Adapter off an EF big white?
> 
> You’re missing the logic: All Canon RF big whites could continue to be EF lenses with an RF adapter on them, only the adapter would be matching white and perhaps more rugged or have some sort of additional locking mechanism for added strength. Simply remove the adapter and replace it with a flip-TC also in white. Simply remove the adapter and use it on a DSLR. Leave the adapter on and it works on R bodies just like the EF lenses do now.
> 
> I’m basically saying they make a more pro white EF-RF adapter than what they already make — and bundle it with every big white lens, already attached. It makes the lens seem more like a modular RF lens than calling it an EF lens with an included RF adapter.



You're forgetting about all those people out there who'd rather die than use an adapter. We have a few of them here prepared to defend their positions most vociferously.


----------



## Stuart (Jun 29, 2020)

" “cool” adapters and lens add-ons " - Tripod collars, Lens hoods, focus pullers, rain camo sleeves, Macro speedlights.


----------



## Paul Nordin (Jun 29, 2020)

mbike999 said:


> I am not seeing how that would be possible given the protrusions on the teleconverters and the position of the rear element on many current RF lenses.


Maybe your assumptions that a product few of us have actually seen yet will have protrusions that preclude it's use on the majority of lenses its designed for is false?


----------



## Eclipsed (Jun 29, 2020)

Etienne said:


> They already have that. In fact they have three versions. Why would they include an RF to EF adapter with every lens when no one needs more than one adapter? It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.



Juggling adapters is a headache, and not suitable for all users, especially those who use $10,000 lenses. I keep a $200 adapter on each $1000-2000+ lens. I have thought about grinding off the switch to make it hard to accidentally activate.
RF will be supplanting EF over time, so fewer and fewer will have to throw away the adapter.
The detachable adapter manufacturing cost is small ($20-40?) relative to a $10,000 lens.
It's hard to sell a new $10,000+ lens that is of the "wrong" format and requires an adapter. Adapters are for lenses you already have. 
Having a detachable adapter means one product SKU in inventory, not two, to cover RF and EF customers. That saves much more than the little tube costs.
As noted elsewhere, the adapter can provide the benefit of being replaced with a more advanced (TC, switchable, filter) replacement element for RF or EF users. More benefits to all. 
I hope you find the "slightest bit of sense" in one or more of those reasons.


----------



## dichterDichter (Jun 29, 2020)

Bambel said:


> I guess as right now there is no (RF-)TC, it says no compatibility. To which TC should it be compatible at this point? So i guess when the TCs are announced they will change that.
> 
> i mean: why release TCs of there would be no compatible lenses?


This is also what i thought but the pictures, canon is showing as the RF extenders, are looking like they wont fit any rf glass. Maybe the pictures are showing extenders which work as EF Adapters at the same time. We will see.


----------



## Eclipsed (Jun 29, 2020)

Predictions (wishes) that might or might not be hinted with the TC announcement:

RF big white lens (possible 300 F2.8 lightened like 400&600III) will be reverse compatible with EF with removable rear collar element (not sure if EF can use control ring, if not that would be on detach-adapter.
A forest of RF big whites (400 and 600 III) will be announced at the same time, either a detach-adapter, or separate dedicated RF (of Canon's internals show RF will take over the the existing EF will last long enough). These require only minor rear housing change so can be done any time - maybe launch of R1.
For the EF base of new big whites (v. III), they will offer either mount conversions (replacing rear housing for RF) or a collection of dedicated design/color matching semi-permanent adapters (maybe internal release). Possibly very dedicated for each lens with contour and color match.


----------



## Dragon (Jun 29, 2020)

geffy said:


> high quality speed booster for the m system please


For EF lenses, the Viltrox and Metabones work fine. For RF lenses, not happening. You need the extra flange distance to make a speed booster work.


----------



## Eclipsed (Jun 29, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> It's (removable mount) just a different way of describing an adapter, so it's obviously possible. What I'm hoping is that Canon has a way to route the RF protocols through the pins on an EF mount, so the EF lenses which were released in the EOS R era can behave like an actual RF lens when adapted - maybe using a special control ring adapter sold for this purpose. This would apply to the 400/2.8L IS II, 600/4L IS III (which I have, so personal interest here), and possibly the 70-200/2.8L IS III and 70-200/4L IS II. As it happens they are all white lenses, so a white adapter would be appropriate - and no doubt hugely expensive...



To my psychology, an element that is designed for and sold with a lens isn't an "adapter" in the same way as a tube that connects a separately-designed lens to a new body with a different mount. Especially if a detachable converter is not intended to be used on other lenses. Dedicated is the key.


----------



## bsbeamer (Jun 29, 2020)

The last Canon livestream was horrible, couldn't even watch. Dropping connection every 20-30 seconds and quality was abysmal. Maybe they should just use YouTube like everyone else does?


----------



## Etienne (Jun 29, 2020)

Eclipsed said:


> Juggling adapters is a headache, and not suitable for all users, especially those who use $10,000 lenses. I keep a $200 adapter on each $1000-2000+ lens. I have thought about grinding off the switch to make it hard to accidentally activate.
> RF will be supplanting EF over time, so fewer and fewer will have to throw away the adapter.
> The detachable adapter manufacturing cost is small ($20-40?) relative to a $10,000 lens.
> It's hard to sell a new $10,000+ lens that is of the "wrong" format and requires an adapter. Adapters are for lenses you already have.
> ...



I seriously doubt that Canon will design its RF lenses to be basically EF lenses with an adapter added to it. That completely eliminates the engineering teams ability to optimize the design taking advantage of the new mount.
Everything they have done for RF has been brand new designs taking full advantage of the new mount, resulting in entirely new and innovative lenses like the 24-70 f/2, and the much smaller and lighter RF 70-200 f/2.8L. The RF mount is the future. They said they will continue to support EF, and DSLRs for some time, and they might put out an RF-EF adapter with a built-in switchable teleconverter, which is cool, but they have shown no indication to prioritize the EF mount compatibility in their designs of RF lenses.... quite the opposite.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 29, 2020)

Etienne said:


> I seriously doubt that Canon will design its RF lenses to be basically EF lenses with an adapter added to it. That completely eliminates the engineering teams ability to optimize the design taking advantage of the new mount.
> [..]



I completely agree with that, but IMO there are a few lenses that would hugely benefit from new coatings, improved motors and distance encoders. That would seem like low-hanging fruit. But maybe it's so low-hanging Canon doesn't want to explain why they didn't do that for the EF versions already


----------



## LensFungus (Jun 29, 2020)

"Cool adapters" means we can finally attach an ice cream maker to the Canon EOS R cameras.


----------



## BakaBokeh (Jun 29, 2020)

Joules said:


> The only interesting new adapter that comes to my mind would indeed be an RF to EF-M speedbooster. Since you need glass in the adapter anyway for that mount combination, making it useful would be very welcome. I doubt they'll do it though, despite the patent they have. Just too good to be true.



I would like that to come true also. Maybe also one that just has optics to fit, but not speedboost so that would satisfy the APS-C shooters that like the crop.

But I'm chuckling at the thought of a RF28-70 mounted on an M50. It's like, "why are you carrying just a lens around? Oh, I didn't realize there was a body on there."


----------



## Eclipsed (Jun 29, 2020)

Etienne said:


> I seriously doubt that Canon will design its RF lenses to be basically EF lenses with an adapter added to it. That completely eliminates the engineering teams ability to optimize the design taking advantage of the new mount.
> Everything they have done for RF has been brand new designs taking full advantage of the new mount, resulting in entirely new and innovative lenses like the 24-70 f/2, and the much smaller and lighter RF 70-200 f/2.8L. The RF mount is the future. They said they will continue to support EF, and DSLRs for some time, and they might put out an RF-EF adapter with a built-in switchable teleconverter, which is cool, but they have shown no indication to prioritize the EF mount compatibility in their designs of RF lenses.... quite the opposite.



I agree, but even as an industry optics expert, I defer to those real lens design exp[erts who say that for long lenses (Big Whites) the difference in mounts is essentially irrelevant for lens design. WHen discussing adapters and converters, and $10k lenses, I'm talking only about those. Not the zooms and wider lenses you discuss.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 29, 2020)

OutWithIt said:


> RF 70-200 may be able to use the TCs? is this not the best news we could hear this year so far (70-200 owners?)
> All RF lenses to boot? Canon working some real magic this year.


Provided I can keep my RF 85.... this news is fantabulous!


----------



## Eclipsed (Jun 29, 2020)

BakaBokeh said:


> I would like that to come true also. Maybe also one that just has optics to fit, but not speedboost so that would satisfy the APS-C shooters that like the crop.
> 
> But I'm chuckling at the thought of a RF28-70 mounted on an M50. It's like, "why are you carrying just a lens around? Oh, I didn't realize there was a body on there."



Now add a 2x teleconverter for the nastiest 56-140 f4 imaginable!


----------



## SteveC (Jun 29, 2020)

BakaBokeh said:


> I would like that to come true also. Maybe also one that just has optics to fit, but not speedboost so that would satisfy the APS-C shooters that like the crop.
> 
> But I'm chuckling at the thought of a RF28-70 mounted on an M50. It's like, "why are you carrying just a lens around? Oh, I didn't realize there was a body on there."



I did briefly put a friend's Sigma 500 onto my M50; we were pretty much just clowning around. And I have a truly hideous picture of his nose hairs from 50 feet away to show for it.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 29, 2020)

geffy said:


> speed booster is an adaptor that turns a 1.4 lens to an f1 omn an m camera not an rf, new stuff from canon is not just for the R system


Speed boosters are so M43.


----------



## brad-man (Jun 29, 2020)

Eclipsed said:


> I agree, but even as an industry optics expert, I defer to those real lens design exp[erts who say that for long lenses (Big Whites) the difference in mounts is essentially irrelevant for lens design. WHen discussing adapters and converters, and $10k lenses, I'm talking only about those. Not the zooms and wider lenses you discuss.


There may not be as much optical improvement for long RF primes, but the increased data throughput and improved algorithms will likely yield impressive results. Time will tell.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 29, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> I completely agree with that, but IMO there are a few lenses that would hugely benefit from new coatings, improved motors and distance encoders. That would seem like low-hanging fruit. But maybe it's so low-hanging Canon doesn't want to explain why they didn't do that for the EF versions already


Thy explained why they were able to accurately encode distance with RF, its due to the ability to exchange much more information with the camera.

Canon and the whole industry is always trying to develop new lens coatings. Its difficult to find one that is a improvement and does not cause unwanted issues. We have seen new motors developed and used in EF lenses, like anything else, we'd always like more. Right now, the emphasis is on sound elimination.

No change to a lens design is low hanging fruit. Every aspect from lens production thru servicing is potentially impacted. Even slight changes to the color of the paint upset some people.


----------



## Max TT (Jun 29, 2020)

Dear Canon,

I just want to know how much this is going to set me back:
EOS R6 + RF 24-105 f4 (Kit)
RF 70-200 f4
RF 85 f2

Please, thank you, much obliged, appreciated etc etc etc 

PS. Here is my money!


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jun 29, 2020)

SteveC said:


> You're forgetting about all those people out there who'd rather die than use an adapter. We have a few of them here prepared to defend their positions most vociferously.



No, you're forgetting how I originally described the design – big white RF lens with removable segment (white and more rugged + locking mechanism) to convert to EF or to accept flip-TCs. I just called it an adapter so you could understand the concept. It would be marketed as a modular RF lens.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 29, 2020)

Etienne said:


> I seriously doubt that Canon will design its RF lenses to be basically EF lenses with an adapter added to it. That completely eliminates the engineering teams ability to optimize the design taking advantage of the new mount.
> Everything they have done for RF has been brand new designs taking full advantage of the new mount, resulting in entirely new and innovative lenses like the 24-70 f/2, and the much smaller and lighter RF 70-200 f/2.8L. The RF mount is the future. They said they will continue to support EF, and DSLRs for some time, and they might put out an RF-EF adapter with a built-in switchable teleconverter, which is cool, but they have shown no indication to prioritize the EF mount compatibility in their designs of RF lenses.... quite the opposite.



I don't disagree with the gist of what you're saying, but is it not the case that the new 70-200 is smaller only because they went with a non-internal zoom design (and indeed it's no smaller zoomed out)? That has nothing to do with RF per se, they could have done it with an EF lens. It's usually said that the benefits of mirrorless mounts like RF are only for designing wider-angle lenses; I think Canon feels freed up with new designs, but it's not a technical issue, rather a change in philosophy.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 29, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> No, you're forgetting how I originally described the design – big white RF lens with removable segment (white and more rugged + locking mechanism) to convert to EF or to accept flip-TCs. I just called it an adapter so you could understand the concept. It would be marketed as a modular RF lens.



I haven't forgotten that at all.

Remember these are die-hard anti-adapter people; they'll simply call this an adapter and refuse to use it.

(One of their complaints about an adapter is that it's another "joint" in the system...and that's true for your suggestion as well, even if it is beefed up.)


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jun 30, 2020)

Etienne said:


> They already have that. In fact they have three versions. Why would they include an RF to EF adapter with every lens when no one needs more than one adapter? It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.



No, they don't have an adapter that is more rugged, matches the big white lenses, locks more securely, etc. It wouldn't be called an adapter – it would simply be a removable segment of every RF big white.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jun 30, 2020)

SteveC said:


> I haven't forgotten that at all.
> 
> Remember these are die-hard anti-adapter people; they'll simply call this an adapter and refuse to use it.



It literally comes as a part of the lens. You'd use it as-delivered, and it would operate at full RF communication speed.

What you need to remember about big white users is they would run excitedly with their hands flailing in the air throwing cash wildly at Canon to have the ability to swap in flip-TCs.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 30, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> It literally comes as a part of the lens. You'd use it as-delivered, and it would operate at full RF communication speed.
> 
> What you need to remember about big white users is they would run excitedly with their hands flailing in the air throwing cash wildly at Canon to have the ability to swap in flip-TCs.



Looks like you began to reply before I edited my comment, so I'll just respond with what I added as an edit.

One of the anti-adapter complaints is the additional mechanical joint, which you'd necessarily still have with your idea. They'd therefore simply dismiss it as "an adapter" and turn their noses up at it.

To be clear, I am not criticizing your idea personally (I think it makes some degree of sense), but I expect that significant numbers of people will have an objection to it (some of them can be quite irrational about it). Since Canon must take that into account when they decide how much of a market the lens will have, they may be reluctant to adopt your idea. (Also, if I understand you correctly, removing the thingamabob will result in them placing an RF set of contacts directly onto an EF mount, and I don't know how well that would work. I imagine it could be worked around, but I'd not be 100% sure of that.)


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jun 30, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Looks like you began to reply before I edited my comment, so I'll just respond with what I added as an edit.
> 
> One of the anti-adapter complaints is the additional mechanical joint, which you'd necessarily still have with your idea. They'd therefore simply dismiss it as "an adapter" and turn their noses up at it.
> 
> To be clear, I am not criticizing your idea personally (I think it makes some degree of sense), but I expect that significant numbers of people will have an objection to it (some of them can be quite irrational about it). Since Canon must take that into account when they decide how much of a market the lens will have, they may be reluctant to adopt your idea. (Also, if I understand you correctly, removing the thingamabob will result in them placing an RF set of contacts directly onto an EF mount, and I don't know how well that would work. I imagine it could be worked around, but I'd not be 100% sure of that.)



I'm thinking the EF end of the RF big white could have two complete sets of electronic connections on opposite sides of the mount – or they simply add the extra RF connection points that work when the segment is attached and are simply not used when connected to a DSLR. Not sure if that's possible, though.

Simplest and most likely design would be to forget about backward EF compatibility, and the removable segment would only be used to swap in the flip-TCs. So in that scenario, it's all RF – no "fears" that you're technically buying an EF lens. Big white users already use TCs, so a strong, modular flip-TC segment would be even more secure than that. I'm positive Canon would over-engineer the #$%^ out of it. Look at how creative Canon was designing the new RF 70-200 with a built-in dust filter to soothe the fears photographers have over extending lenses and dust induction. Look at how they over-engineered the barrel extension mechanism (as per the Lens Rentals tear-down).


----------



## Etienne (Jun 30, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> No, they don't have an adapter that is more rugged, matches the big white lenses, locks more securely, etc. It wouldn't be called an adapter – it would simply be a removable segment of every RF big white.



I don't see it happening, so I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.
Canon is more likely to want to push these high end buyers into including a new R5 in their purchase order.
We'll have to wait and see.. In my opinion, if that's what you're waiting on, you better have a lot of patience and tolerance for frustration.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jun 30, 2020)

Etienne said:


> I don't see it happening, so I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.
> Canon is more likely to want to push these high end buyers into including a new R5 in their purchase order.
> We'll have to wait and see.. In my opinion, if that's what you're waiting on, you better have a lot of patience and tolerance for frustration.



No waiting required "if" Canon already has this coming. They could release the flip-TCs that work with EF now and not later – that would sell R bodies. Waiting for RF big whites is what's going to take patience.


----------



## Otara (Jun 30, 2020)

I can see how they'd love to sell you an EF camera and an RF camera to be able to use one RF lens, big white or not.

It does sound awfully fiddly in practise though. RF cameras need to be able to use an EF lens for backwards compatibility. The lens doesnt need to be RF and EF compatible electronically, and building it to do both seems like extra work for a subgroup of sales.


----------



## melgross (Jun 30, 2020)

Anybody have any idea where these streams will be available from, if not on You Tube. I wasn’t even aware of the earlier ones. Will they be available here? That would be cool.


----------



## BakaBokeh (Jun 30, 2020)

Yeah, that's one i'd file in the unlikely bin.

Also, why all the talk of the 'flip' teleconverter as if it's part of this new announcement? I know there's a patent out there for said "Flip TC", but the CR3 Rumor and the leaked photo clearly show two distinct 1.4X and 2X TC's. This Flip converter being banked on, (as well as a no basis for idea that it can somehow work with RF and EF without an adapter) seems like a reach. There is no patent on it anywhere. The DSLR that can take EF and RF lenses is more probable then this dream TC since there's at least a patent for that.


----------



## Etienne (Jun 30, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> No waiting required "if" Canon already has this coming. They could release the flip-TCs that work with EF now and not later – that would sell R bodies. Waiting for RF big whites is what's going to take patience.


I admire your optimism.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 30, 2020)

Etienne said:


> I admire your optimism.


I don’t, speculation has turned optimism into delusion.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jun 30, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> I don’t, speculation has turned optimism into delusion.



Show me on the chart where the delusion hurt you 

It wasn’t that long ago that the R5 specs sounded delusional.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jun 30, 2020)

BakaBokeh said:


> Yeah, that's one i'd file in the unlikely bin.
> 
> Also, why all the talk of the 'flip' teleconverter as if it's part of this new announcement? I know there's a patent out there for said "Flip TC", but the CR3 Rumor and the leaked photo clearly show two distinct 1.4X and 2X TC's. This Flip converter being banked on, (as well as a no basis for idea that it can somehow work with RF and EF without an adapter) seems like a reach. There is no patent on it anywhere. The DSLR that can take EF and RF lenses is more probable then this dream TC since there's at least a patent for that.
> 
> View attachment 191057



Did you even read the article?



> ...I have also been told that there will be more “cool” adapters and lens add-ons coming later this year....



Not “banking” on anything — simply said what it might be, then everyone started digging into how a flip-TC wouldn’t be feasible or wouldn’t make sense.

What else should we be discussing while we’re in limbo until the 9th?


----------



## davo (Jun 30, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> More cool adapters? That’s... cool.
> x3 teleconverter any one?
> And your RF 70-200/2.8 becomes what? 210-600/8? There were plenty of x3 teleconverters back in the film day.


The first thing I thought of by "Adapters" were the EF-RF adapters.


----------



## davo (Jun 30, 2020)

The first thing that came to mind regarding more cool adapters were the EF-RF adapters. What more abilities could they give is with those???


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 30, 2020)

davo said:


> The first thing that came to mind regarding more cool adapters were the EF-RF adapters. What more abilities could they give is with those???



Lensbaby style aperture inserts: hearts, stars, clouds


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jun 30, 2020)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Even slight changes to the color of the paint upset some people.


Yes! I went through the trauma of the last colour change, but I'm one of the lucky ones because for a long time my MkIII Extenders matched most of my white lenses. Then I spend almost as much as my first house on a 600 Mark III, only to find they've changed the *&^%# colour again!!!

But maybe this is an indication that the EF 600 Mark III has some sort of enhanced compatibility with the RF mount...


----------



## Eclipsed (Jun 30, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Remember these are die-hard anti-adapter people; they'll simply call this an adapter and refuse to use it.
> (One of their complaints about an adapter is that it's another "joint" in the system...and that's true for your suggestion as well, even if it is beefed up.)



You seem to be speaking on behalf of those you disagree with - not a good play. 

I'm the die hard anti-adapter person who returned a new 400 f2.8 III because I couldn't stomach the adapter. And a removable-for-EF tail section is NOT an "adapter" in my eyes because:

It was made with and for the lens.
It is contoured and colored for that lens.
It does not detach from the lens accidentally or as easily as the lens detaches from the body.
It is not intended for use with other lenses.
It should have more robust mechanical and environmental characteristics that a mount intended for thousands of cycles of comfortable action.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 30, 2020)

Eclipsed said:


> You seem to be speaking on behalf of those you disagree with - not a good play.
> 
> I'm the die hard anti-adapter person who returned a new 400 f2.8 III because I couldn't stomach the adapter. And a removable-for-EF tail section is NOT an "adapter" in my eyes because:
> 
> ...



I'll happily stand corrected in your case, then!

(But you're not the only one.)


----------



## Eclipsed (Jun 30, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> No waiting required "if" Canon already has this coming. They could release the flip-TCs that work with EF now and not later – that would sell R bodies. Waiting for RF big whites is what's going to take patience.



I probably say this too often, but an RF version of the new 400 and 600 II models takes only the work of a summer engineering intern to stretch the rear housing. Those awesome new design lenses are not hobbled on RF, and it's merely a buyer psychology issue impeding purchase of a "wrong" format lens. 

As I have predicted bnefore, the R1 release may be accomnied by a "forest of RF big whites". Whether with dematable rear ends for EF, or dedicated rear housings. And presumably with one or two new lightened designs like the 300 2.8.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jun 30, 2020)

Eclipsed said:


> I probably say this too often, but an RF version of the new 400 and 600 II models takes only the work of a summer engineering intern to stretch the rear housing. Those awesome new design lenses are not hobbled on RF, and it's merely a buyer psychology issue impeding purchase of a "wrong" format lens.
> 
> As I have predicted bnefore, the R1 release may be accomnied by a "forest of RF big whites". Whether with dematable rear ends for EF, or dedicated rear housings. And presumably with one or two new lightened designs like the 300 2.8.



I imagine they might upgrade the electronics to take advantage of the faster RF protocol. But maybe that’s not needed outside of the mount connection, and all they‘d have to do is optimize the firmware for RF. But yeah, at least there’s not a lot of work involved since the closer RF flange distance is of less/little/no value to the longer telephoto focal lengths.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jun 30, 2020)

Eclipsed said:


> You seem to be speaking on behalf of those you disagree with - not a good play.
> 
> I'm the die hard anti-adapter person who returned a new 400 f2.8 III because I couldn't stomach the adapter. And a removable-for-EF tail section is NOT an "adapter" in my eyes because:
> 
> ...



And if they wanted to (or needed to) leave out EF compatibility, they could use all that empty space at the back of the RF big whites to design the flip-TCs as a drop-in mechanism, much like the drop-in filters at the rear. The lenses would have a removable side plate where you could slide in the flip-TC and secure it with a thumb screw(s) or lever(s). The RF 200-400 (and every RF big white) could be ordered with or without a flip-TC, and the flip-TCs could be sold separately for upgrade later on. Less versatile than the EF compatible segment/adapter route, but it might be more profitable for Canon while avoiding an additional rear connection point.


----------



## H. Jones (Jul 2, 2020)

I've been thinking about this for a bit and I'm almost 100% sure what the source is referring to is full compatibility with all EF lenses. Maybe if you put an extender behind an EF-RF adapter you just might be able to extend any EF lens you want, which would definitely be *interesting.*

Consider that the R5 fully focuses down to F/11, I could see being able to stack the EF and RF teleconverters together to make some impressive combinations with full AF, which would be an additional incentive for me to buy an EF supertelephoto... 400mm f/2.8L IS III with EF 2x, 800 5.6, and then RF 2x behind the adapter to give a 1600mm f/11 with full AF. That would be fun(and light) to bird with..


----------



## Ale_F (Jul 3, 2020)

My 2c:

In the video lineup you can convert EF to PL, it's a simple question of physical mount.

I hope in the future for big whites the same possibility, you can buy the 400 2.8 IV with RF or EF mount and change the mount.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 3, 2020)

Whenever I see discussions like these I recall Albert Einstein: "I never think of the future - it comes soon enough."


----------



## Cory (Jul 5, 2020)

I do LOVE my original 6D for photos. I use it for my YouTube channel, too, but would really appreciate a dedicated video camera. Might the R6/15-35 be it?
Thanks.


----------

