# New Canon 600mm f/4 Design Uses Spotting Scope Trick



## [email protected] (Apr 4, 2022)

> Just a month after the Canon R5 came out in 2020, Canon filed a patent application – published only this morning – That attempts to make a smaller 600mm f/4, without resorting to fresnel DO optics and avoiding catadioptric designs that use a central mirror that blocks some light and causes doughnut bokeh.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Chaitanya (Apr 4, 2022)

Current Canon Super tele lenses are a big middle finger from Canon to RF users.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 4, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> Current Canon Super tele lenses are a big middle finger from Canon to RF users.


While I agree (and thus am not planning to upgrade my EF 600/4 II), I also believe they have other, higher priority design priorities than updating the supertele lenses with truly new designs.


----------



## mxwphoto (Apr 4, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> While I agree (and thus am not planning to upgrade my EF 600/4 II), I also believe they have other, higher priority design priorities than updating the supertele lenses with truly new designs.


Fine to have higher priorities, but when the additional teleconverter premium on the 800 and 1200 amounts to $4-6k, it is hard to see it as anything but that slap in the face. It is a rare disappointment in Canon's otherwise stellar RF lens lineup.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Apr 4, 2022)

Bring on those higher priorities (and let's see if they match with CR members wish lists)


----------



## AccipiterQ (Apr 4, 2022)

I think the recently introduced lenses were clearly stop-gaps, right? It's like the R and the RP back a few years. I'm curious what the other priorities are though....R7 maybe?


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 4, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> Continue reading...


This patent for sure will be shorter, but I am yet to see if that new bulky lens design is more convenient because of center of gravity closer to the body or if it is too bulky to be convenient


----------



## melgross (Apr 4, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> Bring on those higher priorities (and let's see if they match with CR members wish lists)


It doesn’t matter what our wish lists are. What matters is what the majority buying public buys. Unfortunately for us, that rarely matches our desires.


----------



## Fischer (Apr 4, 2022)

Next time there's a big white announcement that's not about the RF 300mm L IS I'll probably faint.


----------



## robinlee (Apr 4, 2022)

I really hope Canon announces something that rival Nikon's 500mm and 800mm PF designs. With current ISO performance there's no need for f4 lenses.


----------



## mbike999 (Apr 4, 2022)

I don't need fancy design, don't really care about the length either. Just want an updated 500/4 and 300/2.8 with the modern 400/2.8, 600/4 EF/RF weight reduction treatment, focus motors, etc.


----------



## entoman (Apr 4, 2022)

robinlee said:


> I really hope Canon announces something that rival Nikon's 500mm and 800mm PF designs.


I think there will be plenty of serious wildlife photographers, and probably a bucketload of sports photographers, who are seriously considering switching to Nikon. We can only hope that Canon can quickly respond to the 500mm and 800mm PF designs, with lenses that are equally light and compact, equally good optically AND sell at a competitive, sane price.


----------



## entoman (Apr 4, 2022)

robinlee said:


> With current ISO performance there's no need for f4 lenses.


It's not all about light-gathering ability and fast shutter speeds. One of the major reasons why F4 super-teles are so popular with sports and wildlife photographers is the greatly reduced depth of field, which causes the subject to "pop" out from the background.

But F5.6 or F6.7 lenses would be a step in the right direction, forming a sensible and relatively affordable compromise between the 600mm F4 and the 600mm F11. The gap between these lenses is huge, and needs very much to be bridged.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 4, 2022)

entoman said:


> But F5.6 or F6.7 lenses would be a step in the right direction, forming a sensible and relatively affordable compromise between the 600mm F4 and the 600mm F11. The gap between these lenses is huge, and needs very much to be bridged.


I suspect many people fill that gap with the RF 100-500L without or with the 1.4x TC.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 4, 2022)

mxwphoto said:


> Fine to have higher priorities, but when the additional teleconverter premium on the 800 and 1200 amounts to $4-6k, it is hard to see it as anything but that slap in the face. It is a rare disappointment in Canon's otherwise stellar RF lens lineup.


My point is that there was not much intensive design work needed to bolt on an RF adapter or a 2x TC with it. The new lenses are ‘halo’ products, and if you feel like they’re a slap in your face they probably weren’t for you anyway.

To me, the RF 400/600/800/1200 supertele lenses seem like Canon going after the low-hanging fruit from a design standpoint. The EF 400 and 600 were recently redesigned with many changes from the MkII. The 300 and 500 didn’t get that overhaul, so perhaps Canon will design them from the ground up, maybe with a built-in 1.4x or something else novel. But that’s more work, meaning more time, and Canon would rather develop products with a wider market first.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 4, 2022)

This looks like a neat alternative to mirror lenses. A bit of an odd shape, but, in the end, about the same size and weight as a mirror lens without the doughnuts or loss of t stop relative to f stop. The mirrors need to be accurately placed, but flat mirrors are cheap compared to lenses or even spherical mirrors. The drawing suggests the larger tube on the top, but it could equally well be on the bottom and that would be better for subject visibility and flash. The text of the patent also allows for the use of a DO element which would make the lens even smaller.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Apr 4, 2022)

melgross said:


> It doesn’t matter what our wish lists are. What matters is what the majority buying public buys. Unfortunately for us, that rarely matches our desires.Tongue in cheek Mel, Tongue in cheek.


Tongue in cheek Mel, Tongue in cheek. My sentiment is exactly the same as your response, I just am always smirking at the general forum selfish perspective on the launches and announcements.


----------



## mbike999 (Apr 4, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> Tongue in cheek Mel, Tongue in cheek. My sentiment is exactly the same as your response, I just am always smirking at the general forum selfish perspective on the launches and announcements.


The vast majority of the public buys 800/5.6 and 1200/F8's?


----------



## AlanF (Apr 4, 2022)

entoman said:


> It's not all about light-gathering ability and fast shutter speeds. One of the major reasons why F4 super-teles are so popular with sports and wildlife photographers is the greatly reduced depth of field, which causes the subject to "pop" out from the background.
> 
> But F5.6 or F6.7 lenses would be a step in the right direction, forming a sensible and relatively affordable compromise between the 600mm F4 and the 600mm F11. The gap between these lenses is huge, and needs very much to be bridged.


Agreed about the dof, and also with a high resolution sensor like the R5's, you will get better IQ with the lower diffraction from the f/4 and significantly lower iso required. What surprised me was that my RF 100-500mm at f/7.1 on the R5 gave virtually indistinguishable IQ from my Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF on a D850 or D500. Accordingly, I wouldn't be interested in a RF 500 f/5.6 as any small IQ advantages would, for me, be much less important than the versatility of a close focussing zoom. But, the extra stop of a 500/4 might swing it for me for more specialised use.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Apr 4, 2022)

mbike999 said:


> The vast majority of the public buys 800/5.6 and 1200/F8's?


I truly missed with context on that, sorry. I was trying to say that a majority here want/ask/demand things Canon rarely produces and does launch other lenses which sell very well but may not be what this small niche desire. Then there's the 50 1.4 pleas which skew my entire joke premise.

Moving on....


----------



## entoman (Apr 4, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I suspect many people fill that gap with the RF 100-500L without or with the 1.4x TC.


Yes, that's what I aim to do, but I'd like to have a wider max aperture at the tele end than is available with the 1.4x.


----------



## melgross (Apr 4, 2022)

mbike999 said:


> The vast majority of the public buys 800/5.6 and 1200/F8's?


The vast majority of people who shoot subjects where those lenses are desirable. And, of course, who can afford to rent or buy them. But those lenses are pretty expensive,with good profitability.

Canon is the worlds most successful camera/lens manufacturer. Obviously they know what their customers and potential customers want.


----------



## arbitrage (Apr 4, 2022)

One typo in the article....the Nikon 400S with its built in TC should be 560mm f/4 (not 600 f/5.6).


----------



## mbike999 (Apr 4, 2022)

melgross said:


> The vast majority of people who shoot subjects where those lenses are desirable. And, of course, who can afford to rent or buy them. But those lenses are pretty expensive,with good profitability.
> 
> Canon is the worlds most successful camera/lens manufacturer. Obviously they know what their customers and potential customers want.


I don't think I've read a single post where someone said they wanted those lenses, especially not in their current form, but I get the point that the forums aren't an accurate read of the market.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 4, 2022)

melgross said:


> The vast majority of people who shoot subjects where those lenses are desirable. And, of course, who can afford to rent or buy them. But those lenses are pretty expensive,with good profitability.
> 
> Canon is the worlds most successful camera/lens manufacturer. Obviously they know what their customers and potential customers want.


Ford became the best selling car in 1906. In 1909, Henry Ford said they can have any color as long as it is black. http://oplaunch.com/blog/2015/04/30/the-truth-about-any-color-so-long-as-it-is-black/ so maybe it’s not obvious.


----------



## Czardoom (Apr 4, 2022)

AccipiterQ said:


> I think the recently introduced lenses were clearly stop-gaps, right? It's like the R and the RP back a few years. I'm curious what the other priorities are though....R7 maybe?


I agree completely, especially if this patent represents a reality where Canon is looking at new types of designs for super-telephotos. I think there was a recent article linked here that discussed just how long it takes to design a lens - I think 3 years minumum and often considerably more. While forum users continually act as if they need new products right away - or foolishly think that camera companies can design and produce a lens right away in response to what their competitors have just released - it will be years before we can decide whether Canon's recently released super-teles are a slap in the face or a raised middle finger, or just a stop gap measure.


----------



## Del Paso (Apr 5, 2022)

While I can understand the redesign of the RF 800 and 1200, I still find it hard to swallow their price.
On the other hand, who am I to criticize lenses which I would never even consider buying????
What actually matters, is what actual users think about them, and whether they'll buy or reject.
It's true that this forum's needs and demands are sometimes a bit "off- reality".
And it's also true that Canon has, in the past, proven that they know what they are doing...


----------



## Birdshooter (Apr 5, 2022)

robinlee said:


> I really hope Canon announces something that rival Nikon's 500mm and 800mm PF designs. With current ISO performance there's no need for f4 lenses.


I disagree, as a F/4 600 owner... lol
Maybe you like losing a stop of light to higher iso's, but not me.


----------



## Birdshooter (Apr 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I suspect many people fill that gap with the RF 100-500L without or with the 1.4x TC.


Ya, and shoot 7.1 with super high iso values.
No matter what people say about how good the iso is on new bodies, it still degrades the image.
And then there is the Bokeh.... and for me 7.1 or 6.3 as my base aperture would be a no go as I don't venture into that space very often and prefer fast glass when ever possible. Everyone is different and so are their images.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 5, 2022)

Birdshooter said:


> Ya, and shoot 7.1 with super high iso values.
> No matter what people say about how good the iso is on new bodies, it still degrades the image.
> And then there is the Bokeh.... and for me 7.1 or 6.3 as my base aperture would be a no go as I don't venture into that space very often and prefer fast glass when ever possible. Everyone is different and so are their images.


Have you shot with the RF 100-500mm? Have you used modern noise reduction software? If you haven't, I can tell you you won't detect any noticeable image degradation at iso 800. On a sunny day for fast birds in flight, a typical exposure for me would be 1/3200s, f/7.1, iso 800. You can shoot a couple of stops of iso higher than that and still not worry about image degradation. And how often does bokeh, @Birdshooter, seriously affect your bird photos? For close-ups, you have to stop down anyway because the depth of field is so shallow at 500mm. It's only when it it gets really dark would I appreciate an f/4. Anyway, f/7.1 and even f/11 is good enough for me, but, fair enough, might not be good enough for you.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 5, 2022)

Birdshooter said:


> I disagree, as a F/4 600 owner... lol
> Maybe you like losing a stop of light to higher iso's, but not me.





Birdshooter said:


> Ya, and shoot 7.1 with super high iso values.
> No matter what people say about how good the iso is on new bodies, it still degrades the image.
> And then there is the Bokeh.... and for me 7.1 or 6.3 as my base aperture would be a no go as I don't venture into that space very often and prefer fast glass when ever possible. Everyone is different and so are their images.


A current sensor paired with the right RAW converter can produce excellent images from what used to be unthinkably high ISOs.

Also, not everyone can afford —or carry— a 600/4.

When I use a 2x TC with my 600/4, the base aperture is f/8, and I don’t find that to be a no-go at all.


----------



## Alam (Apr 5, 2022)

Is it possible to design lens like this with this binocular-ish design?
: 600mm 5.6 on top/ left and 400mm f4 on the right, with a lever to switch,

Since jt will be weird to have lens only one tube bending on one direction i think it's possible,


----------



## entoman (Apr 5, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Have you shot with the RF 100-500mm? Have you used modern noise reduction software? If you haven't, I can tell you you won't detect any noticeable image degradation at iso 800. On a sunny day for fast birds in flight, a typical exposure for me would be 1/3200s, f/7.1, iso 800. You can shoot a couple of stops of iso higher than that and still not worry about image degradation. And how often does bokeh, @Birdshooter, seriously affect your bird photos? For close-ups, you have to stop down anyway because the depth of field is so shallow at 500mm. It's only when it it gets really dark would I appreciate an f/4. Anyway, f/7.1 and even f/11 is good enough for me, but, fair enough, might not be good enough for you.


Not to mention the fact that the zoom is a lot lighter and easier to manoeuvre for BIF than a wide 600mm or 800mm prime. The big primes, unless you happen to be a body-builder, really need to be used with a strong tripod and a gimbal, neither of which are practical if you have to walk any distance.

Topaz DeNoise AI makes a vast difference to image quality at medium-high ISO settings. I normally shoot at 800-1000 ISO and with Topaz "tuned" correctly it completely eliminates noise, and actually increases the amount of fine detail rendered. It's absolutely night and day, compared to LR and PS, and simple to use.

Having said all this, given the choice, I'd go for a lower ISO and a faster shutter speed in almost all cases (with BIF), and if it was possible to get F4 bokeh and subject isolation (for perching birds) in the form of a lightweight, compact and relatively affordable 800mm prime, I'd jump at it.

My bird and mammal season is roughly October to March - (for the rest of the year I usually switch to photographing insects), so I'm not in a hurry to upgrade from my existing EF 100-400mm and 1.4x, but I agree that the 100-500mm is the best compromise between 600mm F4 quality, and the low price and lightweight of a high quality zoom.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 5, 2022)

Alam said:


> Is it possible to design lens like this with this binocular-ish design?
> : 600mm 5.6 on top/ left and 400mm f4 on the right, with a lever to switch,
> 
> Since jt will be weird to have lens only one tube bending on one direction i think it's possible,


Binoculars with a 107mm front element on one side and a 100mm front element on the other? Good luck with that. Also, it would be massively heavy and the shape would be very uncomfortable to handhold, like a waiter supporting a 9-lb platter.


----------



## bbasiaga (Apr 5, 2022)

If this could get me a 600 F/4 for close to the price of the 150-500, I'd be down. I'm sure it would be 20k USD though. Smaller than the current 600mm L offering = higher value in Canon's mind. 

Really need some 3rd party lenses to come along and fill that middle ground price point on the RF mount. Canon's stuff is great, but getting unaffordable. Luckily there are millions of used EF units out there that work great. 

-Brian


----------



## AlanF (Apr 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> A current sensor paired with the right RAW converter


= DxO PL5


----------



## AJ (Apr 5, 2022)

Looks like Canon is thinking of creative ways to get rid of excess mirrors.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 5, 2022)

entoman said:


> Not to mention the fact that the zoom is a lot lighter and easier to manoeuvre for BIF than a wide 600mm or 800mm prime. The big primes, unless you happen to be a body-builder, really need to be used with a strong tripod and a gimbal, neither of which are practical if you have to walk any distance.
> 
> Topaz DeNoise AI makes a vast difference to image quality at medium-high ISO settings. I normally shoot at 800-1000 ISO and with Topaz "tuned" correctly it completely eliminates noise, and actually increases the amount of fine detail rendered. It's absolutely night and day, compared to LR and PS, and simple to use.
> 
> ...


The real pros (top amateur) BIF guys do use the 600mm f/4 hand held, but they are in a different league or two from the likes of us, and all I can do is to admire their skill and images. Remarkably, Chelsea Northrup can hand hold a 600mm! I once went on a Puffin shoot with 400mm f/4 DO II on a 5DIV and got 100s of keepers as they belted past with sand eels in their beaks but the guys with 1DXs and 400mm f/2.8s on tripods got close to zero. I'd use the bare 100-500mm on the R5 if I get the opportunity to go again.


----------



## MiJax (Apr 5, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> I agree completely, especially if this patent represents a reality where Canon is looking at new types of designs for super-telephotos. I think there was a recent article linked here that discussed just how long it takes to design a lens - I think 3 years minumum and often considerably more. While forum users continually act as if they need new products right away - or foolishly think that camera companies can design and produce a lens right away in response to what their competitors have just released - it will be years before we can decide whether Canon's recently released super-teles are a slap in the face or a raised middle finger, or just a stop gap measure.


I can understand why you guys see these as stop gaps, but I don't think I'd give them that much credit. A stop gap suggests they plan to come right back and correct it. I feel like this was purely a cost saving measure. They developed two lenses and turned them in to six. Six for the cost of 2 or 3 lenses is an accountant's win as well it freed up the designers to start work on the 200mm, 300mm, and 500mm lenses much sooner than a set of conventional designs would have allowed.


----------



## Alam (Apr 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Binoculars with a 107mm front element on one side and a 100mm front element on the other? Good luck with that. Also, it would be massively heavy and the shape would be very uncomfortable to handhold, like a waiter supporting a 9-lb platter.


Well, the design promise lighter construction and shorter length, I think possible but who knows


----------



## Birdshooter (Apr 5, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Have you shot with the RF 100-500mm? Have you used modern noise reduction software? If you haven't, I can tell you you won't detect any noticeable image degradation at iso 800. On a sunny day for fast birds in flight, a typical exposure for me would be 1/3200s, f/7.1, iso 800. You can shoot a couple of stops of iso higher than that and still not worry about image degradation. And how often does bokeh, @Birdshooter, seriously affect your bird photos? For close-ups, you have to stop down anyway because the depth of field is so shallow at 500mm. It's only when it it gets really dark would I appreciate an f/4. Anyway, f/7.1 and even f/11 is good enough for me, but, fair enough, might not be good enough for you.


To answer your question, yes I have shot with the 100-500 and its a nice sharp lens.
Don't talk to me like I don't know what I am doing... lol
My base ISO for wildlife since the Canon Eos 1D Mark IV was 800 ISO with no modern noise reduction software like Topaz or On1 NoNoise.

My issue is with shooting at 7.1. Now you as a seasoned pro, might enjoy that aperture but I myself do not. 

Oh, and I have been shooting birds for around 15 years now if that qualifies me to the club. 
And I did own a 100-400 that lens was always on the long end, so dumped that for a EF 300 2.8 and a 500 f/4 which I sold when the 600 f4 II came out.

Also I probably shoot a bit earlier in the morning and later in the evening than you.

Cheers


----------



## Birdshooter (Apr 5, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The real pros (top amateur) BIF guys do use the 600mm f/4 hand held, but they are in a different league or two from the likes of us, and all I can do is to admire their skill and images. Remarkably, Chelsea Northrup can hand hold a 600mm! I once went on a Puffin shoot with 400mm f/4 DO II on a 5DIV and got 100s of keepers as they belted past with sand eels in their beaks but the guys with 1DXs and 400mm f/2.8s on tripods got close to zero. I'd use the bare 100-500mm on the R5 if I get the opportunity to go again.


I'm, over 60 and hand hold the 600 f/4... lol


----------



## AlanF (Apr 5, 2022)

Birdshooter said:


> My issue is with shooting at 7.1. Now you as a seasoned pro, might enjoy that aperture but I myself do not.
> 
> Oh, and I have been shooting birds for around 15 years now if that qualifies me to the club.


To qualify to the CR club, post some shots in the two bird threads. I am not a seasoned pro, quite the opposite, and said so:


AlanF said:


> The real pros (top amateur) BIF guys do use the 600mm f/4 hand held, but they are in a different league or two from the likes of us, and all I can do is to admire their skill and images. Remarkably, Chelsea Northrup can hand hold a 600mm!


So, it would be really nice if you as a 600mm f/4 user posted here.


----------



## MiJax (Apr 5, 2022)

Alam said:


> Well, the design promise lighter construction and shorter length, I think possible but who knows


I would think its definitely shorter, but I'm not sure it would be more portable and easier to handle. I wouldn't think it would be lighter without giving up something in IQ as well, because you are effectively having to do the same corrections and adding more glass to correct (mirrors). So, unless the optical formula is expected to be a lower quality, or use DO optics, I'd imagine it would be heavier. I just don't see a solid market for it. For example, think of maneuvering this thing around with a substantial top heavy balance. Its just an odd idea IMO, but I'll let them do their work and see where it goes. Personally, I don't think we'll get this type of large aperture spotting scope super tele lenses, I can see something like this leading to a new ideas that could be interesting.


----------



## melgross (Apr 5, 2022)

mbike999 said:


> I don't think I've read a single post where someone said they wanted those lenses, especially not in their current form, but I get the point that the forums aren't an accurate read of the market.


It doesn’t matter what you read, right? Very few pro photographers post on these forums. The handful who do can’t be counted on as being representative. But even some of them will want these. do people really think that Canon’s manufacture of lenses like these over many decades is done out of a lack of substantial sales and profits on them?

so yes, you get the point I’m trying to make. People in any forum aren’t usually representative of the overall market.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 5, 2022)

AlanF said:


> ...Remarkably, Chelsea Northrup can hand hold a 600mm!...


I think she is a better photographer than her husband.


----------



## melgross (Apr 5, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Ford became the best selling car in 1906. In 1909, Henry Ford said they can have any color as long as it is black. http://oplaunch.com/blog/2015/04/30/the-truth-about-any-color-so-long-as-it-is-black/ so maybe it’s not obvious.


And?


----------



## MiJax (Apr 5, 2022)

Birdshooter said:


> To answer your question, yes I have shot with the 100-500 and its a nice sharp lens.
> Don't talk to me like I don't know what I am doing... lol
> My base ISO for wildlife since the Canon Eos 1D Mark IV was 800 ISO with no modern noise reduction software like Topaz or On1 NoNoise.
> 
> ...


I really wanted to like the 100-500L, even tried to force myself to buy it a couple of times, but the lack of speed is a big deal. That and I like to shoot in full manual mode, so I'd have to do a crazy rain dance on the dials or shoot everything at f/7.1 to keep the exposure correct. Too many compromises for me in a nearly $3,000 lens, even though it is pretty good.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 5, 2022)

melgross said:


> And?


... top manufacturers who dominate the market have sold what they wanted and not the customers! And, the link goes to an interesting article about marketing and product development.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 5, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I think she is a better photographer than her husband.


At the risk of sounding petty, that’s a rather low bar.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Apr 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> At the risk of sounding petty, that’s a rather low bar.


I wonder if the Northrups ever have the Rockwells over.


----------



## northlarch (Apr 6, 2022)

Count me among those who are pretty bitter about the slap in the face on the RF superteles. Overpriced. Out of touch. And lacking effort. At this point, seeing that new 800PF MTF chart and pricing, the Z9 and pricing, I’m shifting some budget this year to the Z mount for wildlife. I’m not really sure what Canon is thinking at this point, honestly. The pricing is out of control and it always feels like Canon is holding a little something back so they can sucker you later, giving us just enough to keep us spending. Love the R5. Love the 100-500. Will remain here and invested in the RF system, but Canon spending is officially on hold and going to Nikon for now.


----------



## mxwphoto (Apr 6, 2022)

northlarch said:


> Count me among those who are pretty bitter about the slap in the face on the RF superteles. Overpriced. Out of touch. And lacking effort. At this point, seeing that new 800PF MTF chart and pricing, the Z9 and pricing, I’m shifting some budget this year to the Z mount for wildlife. I’m not really sure what Canon is thinking at this point, honestly. The pricing is out of control and it always feels like Canon is holding a little something back so they can sucker you later, giving us just enough to keep us spending. Love the R5. Love the 100-500. Will remain here and invested in the RF system, but Canon spending is officially on hold and going to Nikon for now.


I saw the MTF and pricing of the Nikon 800 6.3PF. For roughly the price of RF 800mm 5.6, you can buy the entire PF lineup of 300, 500, 800, add a Z9 to boot, AND have better sharpness and versatility. I have much love for Canon but it looks like this round Nikon soundly knocks out team red.


----------



## Birdshooter (Apr 6, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> A current sensor paired with the right RAW converter can produce excellent images from what used to be unthinkably high ISOs.
> 
> Also, not everyone can afford —or carry— a 600/4.
> 
> When I use a 2x TC with my 600/4, the base aperture is f/8, and I don’t find that to be a no-go at all.


Actually you should be around F11 with the 2x extender as you lose 2 stops of light with it.
I have a 2x III as well but don' t often use it, as it does soften the images.

And I know everyone can't afford a 600, but after shooting long glass with creamy bokeh and dof as thin as paper I doubt I could stomach shooting 7.1 for birds in all situations.

Canon should be looking at 5.6 lenses like Nikon's PF designs. But 7.1 can cause some ugly busy backgrounds for sure.

Cheers


----------



## Birdshooter (Apr 6, 2022)

AlanF said:


> To qualify to the CR club, post some shots in the two bird threads. I am not a seasoned pro, quite the opposite, and said so:
> 
> So, it would be really nice if you as a 600mm f/4 user posted here.


Sorry I saw Pro under your name badge. 
And I am not too interested in posting images to a photo rumor site.... lol
Do you believe in rumors.... 
Have a nice day, and good shooting.


----------



## tarjei99 (Apr 6, 2022)

entoman said:


> I think there will be plenty of serious wildlife photographers, and probably a bucketload of sports photographers, who are seriously considering switching to Nikon. We can only hope that Canon can quickly respond to the 500mm and 800mm PF designs, with lenses that are equally light and compact, equally good optically AND sell at a competitive, sane price.



I think that the OM-1 with a 100-400 zoom will also be a contender. The combination will have an effective reach of up to 800mm.

Particularly for beginners this should be an excellent starting point for bird photography. It will not be bad for people with experience. However, it might not be that attractive if you have lots of long EF or RF glass.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 6, 2022)

I


tarjei99 said:


> I think that the OM-1 with a 100-400 zoom will also be a contender. The combination will have an effective reach of up to 800mm.
> 
> Particularly for beginners this should be an excellent starting point for bird photography. It will not be bad for people with experience. However, it might not be that attractive if you have lots of long EF or RF glass.


It doesn't have an effective reach of 800mm - it has an effective field of view of 800mm, which is very different. Reach depends on pixel size combined with focal length (amongst other factors). The pixel pitch of the OM-1 is 3.72µ. The R5 for example has 4.38µ. So, the effective reach of 400mm on the OM-1 is 400x4.38/3.72 = 471mm on the R5. The 100-500mm on an R5 gives 6% longer reach and 100% wider fov than a 100-400mm on the OM-1, fully extended. It is important for beginners to understand this when choosing cameras and lenses.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Apr 6, 2022)

robinlee said:


> I really hope Canon announces something that rival Nikon's 500mm and 800mm PF designs. With current ISO performance there's no need for f4 lenses.


Hmmm, the good old Canon marketing Kool-Aid about how photographers can lower their standards (shoot higher ISO, pay the same money for darker lenses) without any loss in performance because of "ISO performance". Why do people believe this marketing garbage???

It looks like many people aren't aware that as ISO increases on a digital sensor, the noise floor increases, and the dynamic range decreases. 

I thought that the internet holy wars were fought over dynamic range in photography forums long ago, and everyone was incessantly ranting about how important an EV or two of difference was. Does it not matter any more now?

The new sensors may have less noise, but cranking up the ISO on an expensive Canon R5 is a good way to reduce its much lauded dynamic range down to the level of an entry level Canon RP.

The simple fact is that there is no substitute for more light, but we compromise for lens weight and price.

From https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm


----------



## LogicExtremist (Apr 6, 2022)

AlanF said:


> To qualify to the CR club, post some shots in the two bird threads. I am not a seasoned pro, quite the opposite, and said so:
> 
> So, it would be really nice if you as a 600mm f/4 user posted here.


I think this guy knows his stuff, so lets treat each other with a bit more respect here. 

Search, and you shall receive! There are lots of photos on DPR in Birdshooter's posts - https://www.dpreview.com/search/forums?query=birdshooter


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 6, 2022)

Birdshooter said:


> Don't talk to me like I don't know what I am doing...
> 
> Oh, and I have been shooting birds for around 15 years now if that qualifies me to the club.





neuroanatomist said:


> When I use a 2x TC with my 600/4, the base aperture is f/8, and I don’t find that to be a no-go at all.





Birdshooter said:


> Actually you should be around F11 with the 2x extender as you lose 2 stops of light with it.


Sorry, but it’s hard not to talk to you like you don’t know what you’re doing, when your own statements show that you don’t know what you’re doing.

Maybe try a Scott Kelby or Michael Freeman book. I hear there’s this thing called YouTube that has a tutorial or two on exposure basics.

Or shoot in P mode and let your camera handle the exposure calculations, since you seem to have trouble with them.

Two stops down from f/4 is f/8.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 6, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> I think this guy knows his stuff, so lets treat each other with a bit more respect here.
> 
> Search, and you shall receive! There are lots of photos on DPR in Birdshooter's posts - https://www.dpreview.com/search/forums?query=birdshooter


I haven't treated him in any way with any disrespect - I just asked him to post here as it would be nice. Perhaps, you should treat people with respect by not making supercilious comments like that.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Apr 6, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sorry, but it’s hard not to talk to you like you don’t know what you’re doing, when your own statements show that you don’t know what you’re doing.
> 
> Maybe try a Scott Kelby of Michael Freeman book. I hear there’s this thing called YouTube that has a tutorial or two on exposure basics.
> 
> ...


Cmon Neuro, you know that one gotcha moment on a calculation doesn't negate the guy's whole knowledge and experience...

To keep this educational for readers, the f/stops represent a doubling of light at each step, and run in the order of f/1.4, f/2.0, f/2.8, f/4.0, f/5.6, f/8.0, f/11, f/16
Each step increases x1.4 
Teleconverters increase effective focal length, but sacrifice light, as there's no such thing as a free lunch. They also add additional lens elements in the light path, which can soften the image.
A 2x teleconverter drops the light down by 2 stops, so you count two up the scale as Neuro mentioned in his correction. A 1.4x teleconverter drops the light down by 1 stop.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Apr 6, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I haven't treated him in any way with any disrespect - I just asked him to post here as it would be nice. Perhaps, you should treat people with respect by not making supercilious comments like that.


With respect Alan, it honestly did look like a challenge of Birdshooter's credentials. His images are out there for the public to view so I posted a link on DPR to be helpful, and prevent a potential ego war from brewing.

I wouldn't have said anything, but your comment didn't come across right, which is out of character as you're one of the most helpful and respected members on this forum that sets the standard here. The way I see it, we have two people who know their bird photography stuff here. If they bicker, they just reinforce stereotypes about older guys on forums, if they compare experience in a civil manner, us newbies to bird photography have a lot to learn from such an opportunity.

If there are different approaches to bird photography, and there's a sound rationale for them, we learners are all ears!


----------



## AlanF (Apr 6, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> With respect Alan, it honestly did look like a challenge of Birdshooter's credentials. His images are out there for the public to view so I posted a link on DPR to be helpful, and prevent a potential ego war from brewing.
> 
> I wouldn't have said anything, but your comment didn't come across right, which is out of character as you're one of the most helpful and respected members on this forum that sets the standard here. The way I see it, we have two people who know their bird photography stuff here. If they bicker, they just reinforce stereotypes about older guys on forums, if they compare experience in a civil manner, us newbies to bird photography have a lot to learn from such an opportunity.
> 
> If there are differences in the way bird photography can be done, and there's a sound rationale, we learners are all ears!


You jumped to an unjustified conclusion and are now doubling down. You are now making it worse and turning it into something confrontational: ego wars, come off it.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Apr 6, 2022)

AlanF said:


> You jumped to an unjustified conclusion and are now doubling down. You are now making it worse and turning it into something confrontational: ego wars, come off it.


I just reported what I perceived, and offered an explanation after that, in order to clear up any misunderstanding. 
No problem, continue as you were if I made a false assumption about potential conflict brewing. I may be mistaken, but it didn't look like your conversation got off on a good start. Hoping I'm wrong, as I'm looking forward to the constructive discussion between you guys who have plenty of experience in the same photography genre. Peace


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 6, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> With respect Alan, it honestly did look like a challenge of Birdshooter's credentials.


I didn’t see anything condescending about Alan’s earlier reply, although it seems @Birdshooter took it that way.

My reply, OTOH, was intentionally condescending. I make no apologies for that. When someone says ‘I have 15 years experience as a photographer, don’t treat me like an idiot’, then goes out of his way to ‘correct’ an accurate statement by posting something that is factually incorrect involving a very basic principle of photography, I feel some condescension is warranted.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 6, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Cmon Neuro, you know that one gotcha moment on a calculation doesn't negate the guy's whole knowledge and experience...
> 
> To keep this educational for readers, the f/stops represent a doubling of light at each step, and run in the order of f/1.4, f/2.0, f/2.8, f/4.0, f/5.6, f/8.0, f/11, f/16
> Each step increases x1.4
> ...


Teleconverters don't sacrifice light - they let in the same amount of light, but spread it over a larger area. This is not splitting hairs but goes down a fundamental principle of S/N in images: double the focal length of a lens with a teleconverter and you still have the same number of photons hitting a duck even though you have doubled the f-number and possibly cranked up the iso 4x - it's the statistical fluctuation in number of photons that determines the light noise, not the iso number. It's important to understand this fact. For example, the 800mm f/11 gets attacked because f/11 needs higher isos. But, it has the same entrance pupil as a 400mm f/5.6 and so gives the same S/N under limiting light in the cropped image of a duck at 4x the iso of the 400/5.6.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 6, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I didn’t see anything condescending about Alan’s earlier reply, although it seems @Birdshooter took it that way.


It's the usual jumping to conclusions without actually reading though a post (or in other cases understanding it). I had clearly written that I was in the lower league of bird photographers and admired the guys (and gal) who handled 600/4s, but birdshooter had missed that and mistook the "CR Pro" under the avatar, which just means you have paid not to view ads, as being I was a Pro, which I am not.


----------



## robinlee (Apr 6, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Hmmm, the good old Canon marketing Kool-Aid about how photographers can lower their standards (shoot higher ISO, pay the same money for darker lenses) without any loss in performance because of "ISO performance". Why do people believe this marketing garbage???
> 
> It looks like many people aren't aware that as ISO increases on a digital sensor, the noise floor increases, and the dynamic range decreases.
> 
> ...


Lmao...


----------



## entoman (Apr 6, 2022)

tarjei99 said:


> I think that the OM-1 with a 100-400 zoom will also be a contender. The combination will have an effective reach of up to 800mm.
> 
> Particularly for beginners this should be an excellent starting point for bird photography. It will not be bad for people with experience. However, it might not be that attractive if you have lots of long EF or RF glass.


In theory I'd agree with you. I don't want to start yet another M43 vs FF debate, but what I'll mention is this:

M43 only goes to 20MP (OM) or 25MP (Panny). If a photographer is extremely competent at locating, framing and following a bird in flight with marksman-like skill, these lower resolutions are fine.

But birds can move very fast, and their flight direction and speed is often quite unpredictable (even for experienced birders), so it can be very difficult (especially for a beginner) to keep the bird in the frame. This means that most people will probably prefer to leave a safety margin of space around the bird at the time of shooting, and then compose and crop in post. Which demands more MP, and that in turn means going for a FF sensor.

(for context, I've been photographing BIF for about 2 years, with a high degree of success, but I'm a general naturalist not a bird specialist)


----------



## Otara (Apr 7, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Hmmm, the good old Canon marketing Kool-Aid about how photographers can lower their standards (shoot higher ISO, pay the same money for darker lenses) without any loss in performance because of "ISO performance". Why do people believe this marketing garbage???
> 
> It looks like many people aren't aware that as ISO increases on a digital sensor, the noise floor increases, and the dynamic range decreases.


You are making the assumption that most peoples concern in this area is primarily with maximising DR.

It isnt really - its avoiding noise that is visibly apparent in the final picture, which with modern NR and sensors is easily removed, while still retaining good levels of apparent detail. 

If all was equal I doubt many would miss out on an F4, but when you can get a 6.3 for a 1/3 of the price, theres a reason this has only been released by Nikon, and it certainly wont be because Canon thinks the performance loss is too great. Its far more likely that it would be too close from the markets perspective.


----------



## tarjei99 (Apr 7, 2022)

entoman said:


> In theory I'd agree with you. I don't want to start yet another M43 vs FF debate, but what I'll mention is this:
> 
> M43 only goes to 20MP (OM) or 25MP (Panny). If a photographer is extremely competent at locating, framing and following a bird in flight with marksman-like skill, these lower resolutions are fine.
> 
> ...



Most photographers seems to exaggerate the difference in resolution between something like a R5 and a R6. But if you plot the resolution as rectangles with a common center, you should realize that the difference is not as great as imagined. Most probably think of the difference as if the R5 has a 80Mpx sensor. 80Mpx means 50% increase in pixels on all sides compared to the R6. For the R5 it is around 25%. It is a difference, but not a dramatic one.

The Olympus Capture Pro mode may be devastatingly effective in getting difficult shots which depends on reaction time, since it captures both before and after the shutter is fully pressed. As I understand, it has very good slow motion video.

There is a number of professional photographers which uses Micro Four Thirds cameras. They appears to not complain much about the quality of their images.

I am fully invested in Canon EF glass. If that changes, my interest in something like the OM-1 will rise dramatically.


----------



## entoman (Apr 7, 2022)

tarjei99 said:


> Most photographers seems to exaggerate the difference in resolution between something like a R5 and a R6. But if you plot the resolution as rectangles with a common center, you should realize that the difference is not as great as imagined. Most probably think of the difference as if the R5 has a 80Mpx sensor. 80Mpx means 50% increase in pixels on all sides compared to the R6. For the R5 it is around 25%. It is a difference, but not a dramatic one.
> 
> The Olympus Capture Pro mode may be devastatingly effective in getting difficult shots which depends on reaction time, since it captures both before and after the shutter is fully pressed. As I understand, it has very good slow motion video.


Yes, some people mistakenly believe that they're doubling the linear width when going from 20MP to 40MP, when it is only increasing 50%. But 50% is still a lot.

I have a 30MP 5dMkiv as well as a 45MP R5, and the difference in pixel width is even less, but as far as I'm concerned, the more pixels the better (provided it doesn't impact on fps or IQ).

For landscapes, portraits and many other types of photography, where it's much easier to frame the subject tightly, 20MP is fine, and I agree about the value of Pro capture. But for wildlife, especially BIF, it can be very difficult to keep a fast-moving subject tightly framed, so it's extremely useful to be able to leave space around the subject at the time of shooting, and crop in post.

I've used M43, APS and FF. I've owned cameras ranging from 8MP to 50MP. While there are certainly advantages to M43 in some circumstances, for wildlife including insects and BIF, I'll take a hi-res FF every time. If others find M43 or APS suits them better, or are happy with lower MP that's absolutely fine, I wouldn't try to steer people away from gear they are happy with.


----------



## entoman (Apr 7, 2022)

tarjei99 said:


> There is a number of professional photographers which uses Micro Four Thirds cameras. They appears to not complain much about the quality of their images.


Yes, there are a small number of professionals using M43 for wildlife and BIF.

But note 2 things -

Firstly, they are in your own words "professionals", which means that they will have acquired considerably more skills and "marksmanship" in locating and following a rapidly and erratically moving subject, and keeping that rapidly and erratically moving subject nicely positioned in the frame for a good composition, compared to the average CR reader. So they can "get away" with lower resolutions, whereas many amateurs prefer the safety margin of hi-res, and crop more heavily in post.

Secondly, you have to consider the end usage of their photographs. Most of their images will end up as smallish reproductions in books, magazines or on the internet, and for such purposes even 10MP is more than adequate. I've had many images reproduced in books and 10MP is more than enough for full page A4. So 20MP is fine. Also consider that most of a pro's clients will not be photographers, and will in most cases not even notice differences in image quality. This is all very different from the world that many here live in - where people pride themselves on getting the sharpest image possible, with minimal noise. Serious hobbyists tend to be much more demanding than the non-photographer clients of most professionals.


----------



## melgross (Apr 12, 2022)

AlanF said:


> ... top manufacturers who dominate the market have sold what they wanted and not the customers! And, the link goes to an interesting article about marketing and product development.


Nonsense! If you don’t oroduce what your customers want, then you aren’t successful. Look at Pentax, or Olympus, or even Nikon, which has been slipping significantly over the years, even before mirrorless.


----------



## neonlight (Apr 12, 2022)

northlarch said:


> Count me among those who are pretty bitter about the slap in the face on the RF superteles. Overpriced. Out of touch. And lacking effort. At this point, seeing that new 800PF MTF chart and pricing, the Z9 and pricing, I’m shifting some budget this year to the Z mount for wildlife. I’m not really sure what Canon is thinking at this point, honestly. The pricing is out of control and it always feels like Canon is holding a little something back so they can sucker you later, giving us just enough to keep us spending. Love the R5. Love the 100-500. Will remain here and invested in the RF system, but Canon spending is officially on hold and going to Nikon for now.


Seems I am not the only one rather disappointed with the new lens announcements. 
From the published MTF curves it appeared that the EF600 III was not quite as good as the mk II and the RF seems to be the EFIII with a bit cut off the back end and the RF mount stuck on. And maybe a small mod in the lens arrangements.
I was hoping for an intermediate priced 600 not the f/11, and as for the new RF600, 800 1200 they're well out of my price range. The 600 is now £12k or more in the UK. 
Something like a 600f/6.3 costing less than £5k would have been nice. 
Maybe I'll have to aim for the 100-500 when updating my 100-400II, though an RF body focussing fast with the 1.4x might work.
On the other hand it seems Nikon have sensed a gap in Canon's marketing strategy. Too much Canon stuff for me to change at the moment though.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2022)

neonlight said:


> Maybe I'll have to aim for the 100-500 when updating my 100-400II, though an RF body focussing fast with the 1.4x might work.
> On the other hand it seems Nikon have sensed a gap in Canon's marketing strategy. Too much Canon stuff for me to change at the moment though.


The 100-500 performs very well with the TCs.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 12, 2022)

melgross said:


> Nonsense! If you don’t oroduce what your customers want, then you aren’t successful. Look at Pentax, or Olympus, or even Nikon, which has been slipping significantly over the years, even before mirrorless.


The gist of the link, if you didn't read it, is that that a very successful manufacturer can sell a product that is not fully what the customer wants.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 12, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The gist of the link, if you didn't read it, is that that a very successful manufacturer can sell a product that is not fully what the customer wants.


Hmm, so that's what happened to me... more than once! Sure wish I knew how to avoid it. 

Jack


----------



## melgross (Apr 12, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The gist of the link, if you didn't read it, is that that a very successful manufacturer can sell a product that is not fully what the customer wants.


I’m going by what was said in the post.


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Apr 24, 2022)

AccipiterQ said:


> I think the recently introduced lenses were clearly stop-gaps, right? It's like the R and the RP back a few years. I'm curious what the other priorities are though....R7 maybe?


I would think the camera body engineers (software & electronic) are largerly different group than the lens engineers (optics) with the sensor enginners having to have both. The mechanical group are now focused ( pun) on stabilization of the system... probably a restask of the shutter folks. Kind of interesesting overlaps came to mind as I wrote this comment.


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Apr 24, 2022)

I have been shooting BIF with a friend who has a sony a1 and pretty much an unlimited budget... He gave me the heads up on the red dot sight for bif.

We where both chuckling that canon has a $1000 f11 800. And the next step is $20000 for f 5.6. 2 stops is $19000.

If the nikon 600 6.3 is really good, that white space (pun) is really an big hole in product offering.

As to the mark up of the tc adapter when 'built in'.... yea that is obnoxious as the lens tc combo is cheaper and more flexible than the higher priced 'built in' it would be one thing if it could be flipped out of the way. A true lack of thought on that one. The R5 doesnt weigh enough to put much stress on the tc/adapter stack.


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Apr 24, 2022)

Birdshooter said:


> I'm, over 60 and hand hold the 600 f/4... lol


I find my CF varizoom crows foot mono pod to be a net strength/maneuverability advantage. Either shooting from simgle or slow walk locations taking all the load off is darn handy. The friction settings on all the moving parts keep the swings under control when this birds come blasting past.

Took awhile to learn how to dance with it, I am no Fred Astair (sp?) 

I dont use it as a still tripod or leave it un handed for more than a few seconds, once balanced the effort to keep it aligned/standing is minimal


----------

