# Here is the official Canon EOS R system white paper



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 5, 2018)

> Canon has released a whole bunch of resources alongside the new Canon EOS R system. One of the more interesting reads, if you’re into the technical stuff, is the official Canon EOS R system white paper.
> The white paper also discusses the technical limitations of EF and why the RF lens mount is a positive step forward for creators. Along with a ton of information about the four RF mount lenses announced today.
> You can download the official Canon EOS R white paper from Canon directly here.



Continue reading...


----------



## syyeung1 (Sep 5, 2018)

Lens data looks really impressive.


----------



## fullstop (Sep 5, 2018)

excellent white paper, especially as far as lens data goes. Have not seen Canon themselves so openly compare new lenses vs. previous ones - clearly spelling out strength and weaknesses. 

Also interesting is the part on new "Thin-type" nano USM on RF 24-105.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2018)

> There's no direct, mechanical connection at all to the group(s) of elements that move the focusing element. Rotating the focus ring sends a series of very specific, fine signals to these contacts. These are converted into signals to the same focus motor (USM, Nano USM, etc.) that's used for autofocus.



RF lenses – even the L-series USM lenses – are all focus-by-wire. Ugh.


----------



## Aaron D (Sep 5, 2018)

Absolutely breathtaking.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 5, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> RF lenses – even the L-series USM lenses – are all focus-by-wire. Ugh.



Briefly what negatives come with this - I assume some positives??

Found this to be a very educational paper for an amateur.

Jack


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2018)

Jack Douglas said:


> Briefly what negatives come with this - I assume some positives??


Negatives are lack of tactile feedback, no hard stop at infinity or the MFD (for macro and astro, its common to just set to one end of the focal range), and that the lens needs to be mounted to a powered-on body to change the focus. The last one really only matters with lenses where the front element extends with focusing (like the 85L), where you have to remember to retract the front element before unmounting the lens. I don’t know of the RF 50/1.2L has an extending front element, but the focusing group comprises the front 2/3 of the elements (the front 11 of 15 elements).

Positives are that you can change the direction of focus (presumably via a camera setting), not sure why you’d want to.

Mixed is the focus throw can be variable (it is on STM lenses, I presume it will be/can be for RF lenses). I’ll just copy this bit from my review of the M18-150: With a fast manual rotation speed, the focus ring must be rotated 150° to rack the lens through the full focusing range, while a slow rotation speed requires a rotation of 240° to cover the same range. The idea behind this is to allow faster manual focusing with a shorter focus throw when moving between close and distant subjects, while also allowing precise fine-tuning of manual focus with a longer focus throw. I call it mixed because while it sounds nice in theory, in practice some find it annoying and difficult to get used to.


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 5, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Negatives are lack of tactile feedback, no hard stop at infinity or the MFD (for macro and astro, its common to just set to one end of the focal range), and that the lens needs to be mounted to a powered-on body to change the focus. The last one really only matters with lenses where the front element extends with focusing (like the 85L), where you have to remember to retract the front element before unmounting the lens. I don’t know of the RF 50/1.2L has an extending front element, but the focusing group comprises the front 2/3 of the elements (the front 11 of 15 elements).


If you depend on the lens physical stop to set infinity focus, you usually miss sharp focus slightly.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 5, 2018)

Thanks Neuro!

Jack


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 5, 2018)

RF 24-105L IS USM = Nano USM, and from the looks of this, a Nano USM 2.0 if you will.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 5, 2018)

RF 50 f/1.2L USM = Ring USM, but it still could be FBW (there are some ring USM EF lenses that are FBW).

The 28-70 f/2 USM does not state what type of USM it has.

- A


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Sep 5, 2018)

Just read through the 43 pages, and, based on the MTF, the 28-70/2 at f/2 is sharper than both 24-70/2.8 & 24-70/4 at both ends of the zoom, the RF 50/1.2 is waaayyy sharper than the EF 50/1.2 and 50/1.8, the RF 24-105/4 is slightly worse in some parts of the frame than the EF 24-105/4 Mk.II, and roughly equal to the 24-105/3.5-5.6 in others. The RF 35/1.8 IS Macro is slightly worse than the EF 35/1.4L but better than EF 35/2 IS USM overall.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 5, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> RF lenses – even the L-series USM lenses – are all focus-by-wire. Ugh.




Neuro, is this confirmed? Jordan Drake from DPR said the same at the event last night but I could only confirm it (of the three USM lesnses coming) in this document for the RF 24-105.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 5, 2018)

Mark D5 TEAM II said:


> The RF 35/1.8 IS Macro is slightly worse than the EF 35/1.4L but better than EF 35/2 IS USM overall.




w.r.t. to MTF charts, sure. But I'll still kill that RF 35mm with a hammer because it's STM. 

35 f/2 IS = Ring USM + mechanical focusing override ftw.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 5, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> RF lenses – even the L-series USM lenses – are all focus-by-wire. Ugh.




+1 on ugh. Soulless, robotic = 

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Neuro, is this confirmed? Jordan Drake from DPR said the same at the event last night but I could only confirm it (of the three USM lesnses coming) in this document for the RF 24-105.


I haven’t confirmed it for the other RF lenses, but the new EF 400/2.8 III and 600/4 III are both FBW. I use MF on my 600 II frequently, and not that I planned on getting the MkIII, but FBW pretty much nails that coffin shut.


----------



## Kit. (Sep 5, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> RF 50 f/1.2L USM = Ring USM, but it still could be FBW (there are some ring USM EF lenses that are FBW).
> 
> The 28-70 f/2 USM does not state what type of USM it has.


If it is ring USM and can be commanded from the body to change the sensitivity (and even direction) of the focusing ring, it must be FBW.


----------



## markhbfindlay (Sep 5, 2018)

A very useful explanation of their new tech, as well as MTF details for the lenses. Even though the 24-105 is shown in some areas to be a bit worse than the EF model, when I can afford it I may well get the kit. It will be a while though! £3k plus, and then probably a post-Brexit premium 

The focus-by-wire? I guess we will have to see how well it works in practice.


----------



## miketcool (Sep 5, 2018)

Built-in stereo microphone. I can finally get two channels on my onboard audio without using an external mic.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 5, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> you have to remember to retract the front element before unmounting the lens. I don’t know of the RF 50/1.2L has an extending front element, but the focusing group comprises the front 2/3 of the elements (the front 11 of 15 elements).



According to DPR, all the lenses are internally focusing except the 24-105 which is 'rear' (not sure what that means - it extends into the body maybe?), I wonder if this is why?


----------



## nitram (Sep 5, 2018)

Mark D5 TEAM II said:


> Just read through the 43 pages, and, based on the MTF, the 28-70/2 at f/2 is sharper than both 24-70/2.8 & 24-70/4 at both ends of the zoom, the RF 50/1.2 is waaayyy sharper than the EF 50/1.2 and 50/1.8, the RF 24-105/4 is slightly worse in some parts of the frame than the EF 24-105/4 Mk.II, and roughly equal to the 24-105/3.5-5.6 in others. The RF 35/1.8 IS Macro is slightly worse than the EF 35/1.4L but better than EF 35/2 IS USM overall.



I reached the same conclusion for the 24-105 after comparing the MTF charts. It is somewhat unfortunate that the resolving power isn't a full step up from the EF mk II version, but it seems that the intention was to reduce size and weight. If not looking for specialty lenses, these benefits will likely be what most people starting out in FF mirrorless photography will appreciate the most.


----------



## Rogue Tog (Sep 5, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Negatives are lack of tactile feedback, no hard stop at infinity or the MFD (for macro and astro, its common to just set to one end of the focal range), and that the lens needs to be mounted to a powered-on body to change the focus. The last one really only matters with lenses where the front element extends with focusing (like the 85L), where you have to remember to retract the front element before unmounting the lens. I don’t know of the RF 50/1.2L has an extending front element, but the focusing group comprises the front 2/3 of the elements (the front 11 of 15 elements).
> 
> Positives are that you can change the direction of focus (presumably via a camera setting), not sure why you’d want to.
> 
> Mixed is the focus throw can be variable (it is on STM lenses, I presume it will be/can be for RF lenses). I’ll just copy this bit from my review of the M18-150: With a fast manual rotation speed, the focus ring must be rotated 150° to rack the lens through the full focusing range, while a slow rotation speed requires a rotation of 240° to cover the same range. The idea behind this is to allow faster manual focusing with a shorter focus throw when moving between close and distant subjects, while also allowing precise fine-tuning of manual focus with a longer focus throw. I call it mixed because while it sounds nice in theory, in practice some find it annoying and difficult to get used to.




The new lenses are focus by wire,* BUT* are* linear focus*, so throw does not change with speed (I assume a firmware update could add the option to do so though)

Jordan Drake confirmed:

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1037243429460176896
Also, to those shooting strobes, the camera focuses with aperture *wide open ALWAYS*. No AF hunting when shooting in a low lit studio at F11.

Again Jordan confirmed this:

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1037261690742566912


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2018)

Rogue Tog said:


> The new lenses are focus by wire,* BUT* are* linear focus*, so throw does not change with speed (I assume a firmware update could add the option to do so though)


Linear focus in that context probably refers to the actual focus motor. Canon indicates in the white paper that the 24-105 uses NanoUSM with a linear motor. That says nothing about how the lens is programmed to interpret the movement of the focus ring encoder and translate that to driving the focus motor.


----------



## CafferyPhoto (Sep 5, 2018)

The new RF mount makes possible greater lens design flexibilities:
1. Large diameter rear lens elements that are much closer to the full frame image sensor — enhancing overall optical performance (in particular, tighter control over optical aberrations at image extremities)
2. Lenses having the same specifications for focal length and  maximum aperture as current EF mount lenses—but having significantly higher image quality — within the same size and weight
3. High optical performance, large aperture (F1.2) prime lenses for full frame cameras
4. Zoom lenses of higher brightness with constant aperture over their focal ranges — while still modest in size and weight


----------



## sebakunstpaul (Sep 5, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> RF lenses – even the L-series USM lenses – are all focus-by-wire. Ugh.


It appears to me that this new system release, reveals why in last years some tech appeared in only few releases from Canon. I think to Nano USM used in only 2 lenses ... that is kind of hybrid between USM and STM. Many asked why not used in more lenses.


----------



## CafferyPhoto (Sep 5, 2018)

In the new EOS R system the lens embodies new technologies that combine with the IS system in the camera to implement an augmented control over the image blurring that can be caused by shaking and vibration of the lens-camera system. This is empowered by an interactive data communication between the two. Within the lens a dual gyro sensor system detects any inadvertent physical movements of the system and this data is reported across lens-camera communication to the DIGIC 8 processor. At the same time the image sensor is “seeing” any blur stimulated by these same movements and it also reports this image data to the DIGIC 8 processor. These two data reports are algorithmically processed at very high speed and a compensation control signal is generated and sent back at high speed to the lens to actuate the IS optical element that counteracts the disturbance.


----------



## CafferyPhoto (Sep 5, 2018)

"This paper has discussed details of the new RF lens mount. The advantages of this new mount design are immediately evident in the designs of the first four lenses of the RF lens family — as outlined in this paper."

Ha! I would have written that conclusion sentence as a middle schooler.


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 5, 2018)

CafferyPhoto said:


> The new RF mount makes possible greater lens design flexibilities:
> 1. Large diameter rear lens elements that are much closer to the full frame image sensor — enhancing overall optical performance (in particular, tighter control over optical aberrations at image extremities)
> 2. Lenses having the same specifications for focal length and maximum aperture as current EF mount lenses—but having significantly higher image quality — within the same size and weight
> 3. High optical performance, large aperture (F1.2) prime lenses for full frame cameras
> 4. Zoom lenses of higher brightness with constant aperture over their focal ranges — while still modest in size and weight


#2 is implying we will be seeing significantly Better lenses coming for the R mount. Should I be dumping the old punk lenses now?


----------



## fullstop (Sep 5, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Positives are that you can change the direction of focus (presumably via a camera setting), not sure why you’d want to.



to make the switch easier for fogmer Nikon customers? ;-)


----------



## fullstop (Sep 5, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Linear focus in that context probably refers to the actual focus motor. Canon indicates in the white paper that the 24-105 uses NanoUSM with a linear motor.



agree. no more rotational drive, no more gears needed, including manual focus, thanks to focus by wire. so almost no mechanical moving parts. good! 

focus group just slides directly driven by a "Ultrasonic/vibration device" in linear motion along a guiding rod (in optical axis , Z dimension).

not sure from the white paper/ illustrations whether there is only one or more guiding rods/drive "actuators" in the rf 24-105. really good lenses gave 2, 3 or 4 rods.

personally i would think 3 spaced at 120 degrees to be most stable solution against any decentering of focus group and ultra-fast operation. will also depend on size/weight of glass to be moved.

i'd expect future rf 2.8 "pro" zooms to come with such 3-rods/3 actuator LEM drives.

Sony and Fuji are doing it already (in some lenses). more info in roger cicala article on LEM drive lenses.


----------



## Act444 (Sep 5, 2018)

Interesting, thanks for sharing.

I was hoping the RF 24-105 would (also) be optically superior to its EF brother, but clearly the optical potential touted didn’t quite make it to that one. Still, it might be good enough for travel use if the size/weight is enough of a reduction, we’ll see.

On the other hand, the 50 1.2 looks awesome. Can’t wait to see actual images from it.


----------



## Rogue Tog (Sep 5, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Linear focus in that context probably refers to the actual focus motor. Canon indicates in the white paper that the 24-105 uses NanoUSM with a linear motor. That says nothing about how the lens is programmed to interpret the movement of the focus ring encoder and translate that to driving the focus motor.




Fair enough. I hope this clears the matter further for you then:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1037407517221912576


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2018)

Rogue Tog said:


> Fair enough. I hope this then clears the matter further for you then:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1037407517221912576


It does, thanks.


----------



## bbasiaga (Sep 5, 2018)

The link no longer works? Anyone got a copy they can share?


----------



## Lurker (Sep 5, 2018)

nitram said:


> I reached the same conclusion for the 24-105 after comparing the MTF charts. It is somewhat unfortunate that the resolving power isn't a full step up from the EF mk II version, but it seems that the intention was to reduce size and weight. If not looking for specialty lenses, these benefits will likely be what most people starting out in FF mirrorless photography will appreciate the most.



Be careful when looking at and comparing MTF charts. There was a discussion on the new 600 f/4 that the new charts may be using a different standard. The new 600 III MTF looks bad when compared to the MTF charts released with the 600 II. The RF 24-105 has the new "Look", it only has 4 lines instead of the 8 used in the old charts for the EF 24-105. Not sure what it all means or what's changed. Canon Japan had the new charts for both the 600 II and III and they showed an improvement in the corners for the 600 III.


----------



## Act444 (Sep 6, 2018)

Lurker said:


> Be careful when looking at and comparing MTF charts. There was a discussion on the new 600 f/4 that the new charts may be using a different standard. The new 600 III MTF looks bad when compared to the MTF charts released with the 600 II. The RF 24-105 has the new "Look", it only has 4 lines instead of the 8 used in the old charts for the EF 24-105.



Going by pages 24-26 in the "white paper", it appears the "new" charts are used in all of the comparisons. By Canon's own words, there are aspects where the RF version is _worse_ than the EF one (and likewise, others where the RF is a little better). We'll have to wait for the tests to see how that translates to actual images, but personally, not too encouraging TBH.


----------



## gmrza (Sep 6, 2018)

I wonder if this provides more of an indication that EF-M is a dead end? The fact that the electronic interface has been updated significantly is an important note. My understanding is that EF-M uses the same electronic interface as EF, with the same pins. Assuming that is the case, EF-M will never support the data transfer that RF is capable of. That means that EF-M will get left behind.
Canon must have acted in the knowledge that people will interpret the EOS R and RF launch as the death knell of the EOS M. - Unless I am reading things totally wrong.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 6, 2018)

I found it interesting that the paper regularly referred to full frame cameras for the RF mount. Will they continue aps-c cameras or move full frame further down the family? In which case, will there be fewer EOS cameras?


----------



## mb66energy (Sep 6, 2018)

CanonRumors Guy: Thank you for providing that paper/link to the paper.

I was a little bit tired waiting for the release of a FF mirrorless. But it was maybe the quiet before a storm.

Now I am confident that Canon has not left the route of holistically optimized camera SYSTEMS:
- I always hoped that Canon will exploit the freedom to place lens elements in mirrorless systems
and I am satisfied now. I really expect e.g. a compact RF 2.8 16mm or similar with stellar IQ at
a reasonable price of ~ 800 EUR/$ within the next two years!
- EF-adapter with ring to set parameters: Bravo! The left hand has not much to do if you use primes
and AF so very good move.
- Seamless integration of EF lenses is promised and it still works with the EOS M system
- The section about lens optimization parameters shows that Canon wants to offer different mixes
of properties and that the size of a lens is ONE optimization criterion - the RF 1.8 35 seems to be a
great lens (what a pity that it will not work on M50).
- Bringing out a medium specced camera and two high end & two medium end lenses is a good move
providing solutions to different photographic priorities.
- The high quality adapters with sealing - the simple one at just ~100 EUR/$ - is a commitment to the
EF lenses and if I think about a pro photographer who wants to use RF 28-70, RF 1.2 50 +
EF 2.8 70-200 and EF 2.8 300 and use only one mount: Buy two adapters for the EF lenses and you
have effectively one lens mount to work with. 200 bucks is nothing compared to the ~12 000 bucks
for the lenses. And maybe this will be the standard route because there is no mirrorless advantage for
telephoto lenses.

If Canon can put its new products into the market in the next months in non-homeopathic doses they win a large part of the FF mirrorless market.


----------



## syyeung1 (Sep 6, 2018)

gmrza said:


> I wonder if this provides more of an indication that EF-M is a dead end? The fact that the electronic interface has been updated significantly is an important note. My understanding is that EF-M uses the same electronic interface as EF, with the same pins. Assuming that is the case, EF-M will never support the data transfer that RF is capable of. That means that EF-M will get left behind.
> Canon must have acted in the knowledge that people will interpret the EOS R and RF launch as the death knell of the EOS M. - Unless I am reading things totally wrong.



On paper, it looks less than ideal. In reality though, the impact is not significant. No one has huge investment in EF-M lenses. Even if they just stay as is, those cameras/lenses remain excellent tool as back up (for its size and quality, and they don't cost an arm and a leg).


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Sep 6, 2018)

> A significant new innovation is incorporated into the design of these lenses—a special knurled control ring, which _in the initial
> RF lens embodiments is positioned at the very front of the lens_—before thefocusing control ring...



I do hope that later RF lenses have the control ring at the rear of the lens so that it would be in the same position when an EF lens is mounted with the Control Ring Mount Adapter EF-EOS R, as it would help with muscle memory.

Also, I wonder if there is a way to integrate both the control ring and drop-in filter holder into one adapter while maintaining the required flange focal distance? I'm guessing 24mm is too thin to have both, unless the control ring is reduced to a very narrow ring around the adapter & the associated sensor & microprocessor for it can be crammed into the remaining adapter space...


----------



## chik0240 (Sep 6, 2018)

The new lens does looked impressive, but tbh personally the optical viewfinder can’t be replaced in some cases by full electronic ones, (in the field with very cold environment shooting northern lights, I had experience that after 3 hours the LCD of all cameras in the team got frozen and lags big or even dies off, that’s where ovf rocks) and it will be a sad thing if that sounds like canon is going all in the rf mount and fades out the ef series


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 6, 2018)

Mark D5 TEAM II said:


> I do hope that later RF lenses have the control ring at the rear of the lens so that it would be in the same position when an EF lens is mounted with the Control Ring Mount Adapter EF-EOS R, as it would help with muscle memory.



I hope not! It seems the position on the current RF lenses is the most sensible.


----------



## fullstop (Sep 6, 2018)

i would prefer the ring on the body around the mount, especially when the mount sticks out as much from the body as on the EOS R. 

i prefer implementation 1 time (on body) instead of on every single lens. way more economical. that way Canon could lower the ridiculously high RF lens orices by 10-15%. wheathersealing much easier. ring close to body (like classical aperture rings) are more ergonomical than on front if lens.


----------



## Kit. (Sep 6, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> I hope not! It seems the position on the current RF lenses is the most sensible.


Not for big whites.


----------



## nitram (Sep 7, 2018)

chik0240 said:


> The new lens does looked impressive, but tbh personally the optical viewfinder can’t be replaced in some cases by full electronic ones, (in the field with very cold environment shooting northern lights, I had experience that after 3 hours the LCD of all cameras in the team got frozen and lags big or even dies off, that’s where ovf rocks) and it will be a sad thing if that sounds like canon is going all in the rf mount and fades out the ef series



Interesting insight for a specialized field of photography. Tbh though, all electronics have a temperature limit. More likely than not, if the LCD goes, so too does the cmos sensor’s power electronics. Yes, while it is good to have the sensor ideally just above absolute zero to reduce or eliminate dark current, the non-heated parts within the camera would shut down. What I want to say is that for all electronic components, there will always be a temperature range for which a given system operates nominally. If more extreme conditions are encountered (such as your northern lights example), customized or adapted photography tools are required such as heating elements etc. 

Btw, this isn’t directly on topic but I just learned about this company. Fascinating results regarding noise performance... wow! http://www.centralds.net/cam/?cat=46


----------



## Kit. (Sep 7, 2018)

nitram said:


> More likely than not, if the LCD goes, so too does the cmos sensor’s power electronics.


No, LCD just generally slows down at colder temperatures. If instead it were a LED array, it would work just fine (as long as you have a steady supply of warm batteries, that is).


----------



## criscokkat (Sep 7, 2018)

I think it's interesting that they've maximized the amount of room inside the flange. The electrical contacts produce very minimally. Larger than full frame sensors seem very possible, especially with R lenses.


----------



## chik0240 (Sep 7, 2018)

Kit. said:


> No, LCD just generally slows down at colder temperatures. If instead it were a LED array, it would work just fine (as long as you have a steady supply of warm batteries, that is).


Exactly, it goes very slow at -29 C for three hours, and at that moment only the mirror slippers still works and the A7 in the team is basically unworkable


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 7, 2018)

Lurker said:


> Be careful when looking at and comparing MTF charts. There was a discussion on the new 600 f/4 that the new charts may be using a different standard. The new 600 III MTF looks bad when compared to the MTF charts released with the 600 II. The RF 24-105 has the new "Look", it only has 4 lines instead of the 8 used in the old charts for the EF 24-105. Not sure what it all means or what's changed. Canon Japan had the new charts for both the 600 II and III and they showed an improvement in the corners for the 600 III.



We're all just waiting for Uncle Roger to do real MTF charts anyway. No one will know anything until does an apples-to-apples test comparison. And snarks.


----------

