# The first supertelephoto for the RF mount to be an RF 500mm f/4L IS [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 23, 2019)

> We were told that development for RF mount super telephoto lenses is underway and that internal documents show that an RF 500mm f/4L IS USM will be the first super telephoto lens for the RF mount.
> In the past, we’ve also been told that an RF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM was also under development, though we have yet to see any RF related patents for super telephoto lens design.
> Canon tends to announce super telephoto lenses in pairs, so an RF 300mm f/2.8L IS and RF 500mm f/4L IS being announced alongside each other wouldn’t be a surprise.
> No timeline was given for such lenses, and I wouldn’t think RF mount super telephoto lenses would come until we get that EOS-1D level EOS R body, which is still a ways away.
> Thanks Dr Grammar



Continue reading...


----------



## Tom W (May 23, 2019)

Very interesting. I've been using the 500 f/4 II IS L for a couple of years now, and was considering what move to make next. The EF 600 III is actually lighter than the II 500, and has more of the weight closer to the camera, for better balance. But it's a lot of money, like all the big whites. I'm wondering - if they make a super-tele prime in RF mount, they'd just about have to also manufacture a 1.4X and 2X teleconverter for it.


----------



## Roy Hunte (May 23, 2019)

Tom W said:


> Very interesting. I've been using the 500 f/4 II IS L for a couple of years now, and was considering what move to make next. The EF 600 III is actually lighter than the II 500, and has more of the weight closer to the camera, for better balance. But it's a lot of money, like all the big whites. I'm wondering - if they make a super-tele prime in RF mount, they'd just about have to also manufacture a 1.4X and 2X teleconverter for it.


Those teleconverters, me want one!


----------



## padam (May 23, 2019)

Roy Hunte said:


> Those teleconverters, me want one!


They will be only compatible with RF tele lenses though.


----------



## ERHP (May 23, 2019)

I had asked Canon about making an RF to EF 1.4X adapter specifically for the EF super tele's. The people in the group looked somewhat interested, notes were taken but...lol, I still don't see one.


----------



## Tom W (May 23, 2019)

ERHP said:


> I had asked Canon about making an RF to EF 1.4X adapter specifically for the EF super tele's. The people in the group looked somewhat interested, notes were taken but...lol, I still don't see one.



Its early yet. I mean, they're coming out with, what, their 5th RF lens very soon.


----------



## deletemyaccount (May 23, 2019)

With all this emphasis on RF glass, I'm really interested to see how well the R and RP and selling. This new glass is uber expensive and those of us with EF lenses , it's a hard sell to justify buying one way glass.

I'll be waiting a while longer before I consider a new body. A couple of generations might encourage a purchase.


----------



## Roy Hunte (May 23, 2019)

padam said:


> They will be only compatible with RF tele lenses though.


I know, but I want a lens too.


----------



## 3serious (May 23, 2019)

At the current trend, this thing will come in at $20,000


----------



## unfocused (May 23, 2019)

Great news. The supply of used 500mm II's seems to have increased lately, with a drop in the price as well. Maybe this will accelerate that.


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 23, 2019)

A week or two back I posted my idea of an ideal birding/wildlife lens and it is now 500. That was after shooting close to 3 straight weeks in Costa Rica with no shortage of subjects. I've been using the 400 DO II X2 primarily which is certainly pretty good (not ideal AF or IQ) but my thought is that 500 X1.4 would serve me better. And if 500 X2 were a new better RF design (good IQ), it'd be nice to have 1000 at times.

This all is predicated on the new 500 not weighing more than the 400 DO II and not being longer than 400 DO X2 and I wouldn't be surprised that's doable... and being somewhat affordable - ugh, now that's another issue.

And another thought - they need to get the MFD or these down since they can be very handy for semi-macro work with bugs, etc. Oh, and wouldn't a built-in 1.4X be just so sweet.

So far I see the 600 as just too awkward for hiking around with and not being tied to a tripod is a big plus.

Jack


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 23, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> This all is predicated on the new 500 not weighing more than the 400 DO II and not being longer than 400 DO X2 and I wouldn't be surprised that's doable... and being somewhat affordable - ugh, now that's another issue.


I suppose it could be possible on the weight standpoint (they made the 400 and 600 lenses lighter twice), I would not expect it to be shorter. For a telephoto lens, the shorter flange distance is really of no benefit (look in the back of your current supertele lenses, it’s just an empty tube at the back and that empty tube would merely be a little longer because of the shorter flange).


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 23, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I suppose it could be possible on the weight standpoint (they made the 400 and 600 lenses lighter twice), I would not expect it to be shorter. For a telephoto lens, the shorter flange distance is really of no benefit (look in the back of your current supertele lenses, it’s just an empty tube at the back and that empty tube would merely be a little longer because of the shorter flange).


I meant shorter than 400 X2 - wouldn't that be realistic? The 400 DO II is my reference for length and weight that I handle fairly well. 

Jumping from the 300 2.8 II I got similar weight and a slimmer throat along with more reach but didn't appreciate the loss of MFD. 

Now we have a lighter 400 2.8 but the performance seems to be quite compromised with the extenders. 

When it's all said and done, we're really blessed with great glass no matter how you cut it and yet we, I mean I, long for more reach in a lighter package. The length is not quite as important as the weight but it does factor in relative to airline carry on stipulations and how one manages all the gear.

Jack


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 23, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> I meant shorter than 400 X2 - wouldn't that be realistic? The 400 DO II is my reference for length and weight that I handle fairly well.
> 
> Jumping from the 300 2.8 II I got similar weight and a slimmer throat along with more reach but didn't appreciate the loss of MFD.


I don’t think that’s realistic. Even if the RF 500/4 is also a DO lens, it will be longer than the 400 DO, and if not DO it will be much longer ( in all likelihood, slightly longer than the current EF 500/4 II). DO or not it will be heavier because the front element will need to be 25% larger. 

When you went from the 300/2.8 to the 400/4, it got lighter because of the 1-stop narrower aperture, and it didn’t get much longer because of the DO element.


----------



## addola (May 23, 2019)

I think Canon RF lens development is more focused on lenses that Sony E-Mount doesn't cover like 50/1.2, 85/1.2 which should explain going for the 500/4 at this point.


----------



## SV (May 24, 2019)

Not DO?!


----------



## unfocused (May 24, 2019)

If true (this is CR1 after all):

1) This would be a sure sign that a sports/action version R body is coming sooner rather than later.
2 )I would not be surprised to see a "development announcement" with the actual release date coming after a new R is announced.

I would expect that a 100-400 zoom will be coming soon as well.
I think after Canon announces the 70-200 R lens, we will have a better idea of what this will cost. So far, it seems most of the R lenses have been about the same price as the EF versions.If the new 70-200 R lens is significantly more than a EF version, this may be as well.


----------



## MrFotoFool (May 24, 2019)

I am sure it will be an outstanding and popular lens if the rumor is true. It's not for me, too big and heavy, but popular nonetheless. What I would want for myself is Nikon's 500 f5.6 PF. With the current Nikon rebates I almost switched systems, but common sense prevailed. Still I wish Canon (or Tamron) would come out with the equivalent of that Nikon lens.


----------



## Ale_F (May 24, 2019)

Dear Canon,
I'm aware that you don't read this forum, however I suggest to create two versions of big whites lenses: EF and RF.
For new and older shooters
Cheers
A.


----------



## scottkinfw (May 24, 2019)

I guess I will start playing the Lotto. My wish list exceeds my wallet!


----------



## Equinox (May 24, 2019)

I'm no wildlife or sport shooter but this surely means if true (noted its CR1) that a EOS 1R type pro weather sealed, mid range MPix, insane AF, pro ergonomics, badman of a camera is coming? 

I really hope so, I am a unequivocal canon fanboy and would love Canon to smash it out the park!


----------



## YuengLinger (May 24, 2019)

Equinox said:


> I'm no wildlife or sport shooter but this surely means if true (noted its CR1) that a EOS 1R type pro weather sealed, mid range MPix, insane AF, pro ergonomics, badman of a camera is coming?
> 
> I really hope so, I am a unequivocal canon fanboy and would love Canon to smash it out the park!


Right. I don't see how they can release this BEFORE at least an RF equivalent of a 5D IV. Still, apparently, no sooner than next year?


----------



## Anthny (May 24, 2019)

I would really like to see a RF 200-600mm lens at a reasonable price ($3000-$4000). I plan on switching to mirrorless when the new camera comes out. I currently have a 5DIV, which is a wonderful camera.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 24, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> ...an RF equivalent of a 5D IV.


I keep seeing comments like this, but I don’t understand them. The EOS R is pretty much a 5DIV, actually a bit better in some ways. People fixate on two fewer frames per second in Servo, but ignore the fact that the RAW buffer on the R is more than twice as deep. The R can track faces in Servo AF. The only significant advantage of the 5DIV is a second card slot, and using it for the only purpose it can be reasonably claimed it’s necessary (writing files to both cards in case one fails) means slower shooting once that shallower buffer is full, and substantially longer time to clear that buffer. I wonder how many comments like this can be attributed to 5DIV owners feeling bitter that an equivalent if not better camera was released for over $1K less than they paid.

Now, if the argument is there will be no RF supertele before an RF mount 1-series equivalent body, I see the logic there.


----------



## BillB (May 24, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I keep seeing comments like this, but I don’t understand them. The EOS R is pretty much a 5DIV, actually a bit better in some ways. People fixate on two fewer frames per second in Servo, but ignore the fact that the RAW buffer on the R is more than twice as deep. The R can track faces in Servo AF. The only significant advantage of the 5DIV is a second card slot, and using it for the only purpose it can be reasonably claimed it’s necessary (writing files to both cards in case one fails) means slower shooting once that shallower buffer is full, and substantially longer time to clear that buffer. I wonder how many comments like this can be attributed to 5DIV owners feeling bitter that an equivalent if not better camera was released for over $1K less than they paid.
> 
> Now, if the argument is there will be no RF supertele before an RF mount 1-series equivalent body, I see the logic there.


Might be envy. Might also be infatuation with bells and whistles and/or magic numbers.


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 24, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I keep seeing comments like this, but I don’t understand them. The EOS R is pretty much a 5DIV, actually a bit better in some ways. People fixate on two fewer frames per second in Servo, but ignore the fact that the RAW buffer on the R is more than twice as deep. The R can track faces in Servo AF. The only significant advantage of the 5DIV is a second card slot, and using it for the only purpose it can be reasonably claimed it’s necessary (writing files to both cards in case one fails) means slower shooting once that shallower buffer is full, and substantially longer time to clear that buffer. I wonder how many comments like this can be attributed to 5DIV owners feeling bitter that an equivalent if not better camera was released for over $1K less than they paid.
> 
> Now, if the argument is there will be no RF supertele before an RF mount 1-series equivalent body, I see the logic there.



I can accept this to a degree but here are my thoughts, having bought the R and fairly quickly decided it was not for me ... provided a larger camera is on the horizon. I was fortunate in that my daughter wanted a new camera and so my purchase was fail-safe. For now I'm the owner of two relatively expensive (useless) adapters.

We shot together for enough time for me to get a feeling for the camera based on her results but unfortunately my hands were on it very little. I love a lot about the camera (and the ND filter adapter!). However, my biggest negative would be it's too small size in relation to a larger telephoto. I would also not be pleased with some aspects of its lack of programmability and 1 level features such as a narrower spot focus.

It does make sense as a backup to a 1DX2 but it's a burr in the saddle relative to its higher MPs that can be so helpful when one is reach limited. It reminds me of shooting with the 1D4 and having the 6D as the second camera, with the 6D being so much better at high ISO and having more MPs but being poorer relative to AF (in the present case one can not fault the 1DX2 on ISO performance relative to the R, since it is very good, but I suspect better 1 level AF is on the horizon).

If I were Canon I'd definitely want the 1 level R camera to knock it out of the park and to me that means there must be an option to have a choice of super fast with less MPs and slower with *more MPs* but that's because I'm often reach limited. In other scenarios 20 MPs is fine. 

It no longer makes any sense to force those who want/need 1 level features to be stuck with significantly less resolution such as is presently the case ... and carrying two cameras hiking for miles is not my idea of a great solution.

Jack


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 24, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> I meant shorter than 400 X2 - wouldn't that be realistic? The 400 DO II is my reference for length and weight that I handle fairly well.
> Now we have a lighter 400 2.8 but the performance seems to be quite compromised with the extenders.



From what I've seen the mkII 400 LIS is just as good optically as the mkI....just a lot lighter and the new mkIII is even more lighter and optically with 2x TC...looks a little bit better. 

The optics of the mkI with a 2x were never in question, but it's ability to accurately and quickly focus with a 2x is questionable. 
I've had some astonishingly sharp images wide open with a 2x TC on my mkI. But only if I use live view focusing.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 24, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I keep seeing comments like this, but I don’t understand them. The EOS R is pretty much a 5DIV, actually a bit better in some ways. People fixate on two fewer frames per second in Servo, but ignore the fact that the RAW buffer on the R is more than twice as deep. The R can track faces in Servo AF. The only significant advantage of the 5DIV is a second card slot, and using it for the only purpose it can be reasonably claimed it’s necessary (writing files to both cards in case one fails) means slower shooting once that shallower buffer is full, and substantially longer time to clear that buffer. I wonder how many comments like this can be attributed to 5DIV owners feeling bitter that an equivalent if not better camera was released for over $1K less than they paid.
> 
> Now, if the argument is there will be no RF supertele before an RF mount 1-series equivalent body, I see the logic there.




--- snip ----

Lensrentals did a teardown of the Canon EOS R - same level of weather sealing as the Sony A7RIII.

I do really wish, that more mirrorless cameras would seal as well as the DSLR cameras. But I would still prefer a mirrorless camera and a bag for weather protection than a DSLR.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/10/teardown-of-the-canon-eos-r-mirrorless-camera/

Summary in article - Speaking of the Sony A7RIII, it’s taken a bit of internet trashing for its lack of weather sealing. Throw no stones from your glass house, oh Canon shooters. The Canon EOS-R is just about the same; well-sealed buttons and dials, not much else. That means, I think, that it will be fine in a misty rain for a while, but don’t get it saturated and don’t set it somewhere wet.

--- snip -----

not willing to kick start an argument. An observation only. the below is my reasoning while EOS R is no match to a 5D series bodies:


just really quickly: the lack of solid weather protection sets makes any camera non-option for any outdoor shooter that has to keep shooting no matter the weather conditions.
second card is a must.

I can provide numerous examples of where i was requested to assist with file recovery over CF card failure. All professional photogs shooting with 1-Series body but neglected to utilise the second card for redundancy.

joystick is highly desirable and for three reasons:

see if you can touch control your af points with your fingers wet, durty (rain, snow, sweaty, etc.)
see if you can touch control af points with your face right against the screen
see if you can touch control af points with gloves on while shooting


----------



## Antono Refa (May 24, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I suppose it could be possible on the weight standpoint (they made the 400 and 600 lenses lighter twice), I would not expect it to be shorter. For a telephoto lens, the shorter flange distance is really of no benefit



Would the weight benefit be due to the shorter flange distance?

I'm no expert, but unless the lens benefits somehow from the improved electronics, it seems to me Canon would be better off releasing new super teles with EF mount.


----------



## unfocused (May 24, 2019)

Anthny said:


> I would really like to see a RF 200-600mm lens at a reasonable price ($3000-$4000). I plan on switching to mirrorless when the new camera comes out. I currently have a 5DIV, which is a wonderful camera.



Only if you are thinking f6.3 or slower, which is possible with the R series I guess.


----------



## unfocused (May 24, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I keep seeing comments like this, but I don’t understand them. The EOS R is pretty much a 5DIV, actually a bit better in some ways. People fixate on two fewer frames per second in Servo, but ignore the fact that the RAW buffer on the R is more than twice as deep..I wonder how many comments like this can be attributed to 5DIV owners feeling bitter that an equivalent if not better camera was released for over $1K less than they paid...



Not really sure why we are having this discussion in a thread about a lens, but...

I rented the R as a second body to use with the 5DIV for discrete shooting where I knew from experience the 1DxII with its joke of a silent shutter would be disruptive. I was pleasantly surprised and ended up using the R as the main body and the 5DIV as the second body. (By that I mean I mounted my most used lens on the R and used the 5D with the secondary lens.) 

Without getting into a lot of detail, once I got used to shooting with the R, I found it had a lot of advantages inherent to its being a mirrorless body -- most notably the ability to move the focus point anywhere I needed it without taking my eye off the viewfinder. 

I know now that one is in my future. 

My point being: After having used an R for a grand total of one working day I believe people are having the wrong argument. Given the current state of technology, mirrorless cameras and DSLRs are two different animals. 

Best analogy I can think of is a mule and a horse. You can ride either one and each can do a lot of things the other can do, but there are times when you really need a mule and times when you really need a horse and experienced riders know the difference and choose accordingly.


----------



## juststeve (May 24, 2019)

joystick is highly desirable and for three reasons:

see if you can touch control your af points with your fingers wet, durty (rain, snow, sweaty, etc.)
see if you can touch control af points with your face right against the screen
see if you can touch control af points with gloves on while shooting

Touch control works fine with the right gloves on. Black Diamond fit me best but others are available which enable touch control. My experience is based on two weeks photographing wildlife in ID and Yellowstone with a rented R and mostly the 500/4 L IS ii, and 100-400 L IS ii.


----------



## MrFotoFool (May 24, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> ... However, my biggest negative would be it's too small size in relation to a larger telephoto...
> Jack


I agree completely. I have not used an R, but for my large hands, 5D4 is just about perfect and I can tell the R would feel too small. (Actually the Nikon D850 is the perfect size for me because it's just a bit taller but not as tall as the monstrous 1D series). With a large telephoto I think the R would indeed feel unbalanced (which I think is a problem with mirrorless systems in general, though the Canon R is a better size than other brands).


----------



## FramerMCB (May 24, 2019)

addola said:


> I think Canon RF lens development is more focused on lenses that Sony E-Mount doesn't cover like 50/1.2, 85/1.2 which should explain going for the 500/4 at this point.


I think the other aspect of 'going' for the 500mm in RF mount had to do with Canon's timetable for Big White development (new iterations). The just announced, then came out with the 400mm f/2.8L IS Mk III and the 600mm f/4.0L IS Mk III EF mount lenses only a few months prior to the EOS R announcement. The way Canon had previously upgraded their Super-tele primes was such that the 300mm f/2.8 and the 500mm f/4.0 Mk III's were the next in line. So it does make some sense, at least from Canon's perspective to 'refresh' this pair of Super-tele primes as RF mount lenses. I wonder if Canon will ever refresh their 1200mm f/5.6 in an RF mount?

But. What. Does. This. Mean. For DSLR and EF development? Will there be a any further-releases/more-development in EF Super-tele Primes? Will Canon ever bring out a new EF 800mm f/5.6L IS II? Or introduce a new EF 400mm f/5.6L IS?


----------



## unfocused (May 24, 2019)

Anthny said:


> I would really like to see a RF 200-600mm lens at a reasonable price ($3000-$4000). I plan on switching to mirrorless when the new camera comes out. I currently have a 5DIV, which is a wonderful camera.



Okay, thinking about this a bit more and letting the imagination run wild. 

In the RF Mount, Canon no longer has to be bound be its self-imposed restriction of not producing a lens with a narrower aperture than 5.6. So, let's say Canon introduces an "L" quality RF lens competitor to the Sigma/Tamron 600mm zooms. Given that the Sigma Sports is under $2,000, a $3,000 Canon R "L" with a 6.3 aperture doesn't sound unreasonable. 

What camera would that be paired with? Probably not the 1 series-style R, but a full frame 36mp-ish camera capable of 8 or 9 fps would pretty much fill the niche currently filled by both the 5DIV and the 7DII, especially if Canon were to release 1.4 and 2X teleconverters in the R mount. 

Downside would be the likely cost of the camera. Could they bring it in for about the same cost as the 5DIV? It would certainly be much more expensive than a 7DIII would cost. Do they lose the 7D customer niche? Or, do they figure that birders will dig deep to buy such a combination? 

Or, rather than take that risk, do they go with a sure thing and introduce a 150-500 f5.6 at about the same price and drop a $2,000 7DIII beast (28 mp, 14 fps, next generation autofocus) into the market?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 24, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> However, my biggest negative would be it's too small size in relation to a larger telephoto.


My opinion: people thinking a ‘5DIV-like EOS R’ will be anything close to the 5DIV in size are going to be disappointed. Personally, I think the R is too small even for the RF 24-105; ergonomics is one reason why my go-to camera remains the 1D X (whereas size is the reason my travel camera is now the EOS R).


----------



## Dantana (May 24, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I keep seeing comments like this, but I don’t understand them. The EOS R is pretty much a 5DIV, actually a bit better in some ways. People fixate on two fewer frames per second in Servo, but ignore the fact that the RAW buffer on the R is more than twice as deep. The R can track faces in Servo AF. The only significant advantage of the 5DIV is a second card slot, and using it for the only purpose it can be reasonably claimed it’s necessary (writing files to both cards in case one fails) means slower shooting once that shallower buffer is full, and substantially longer time to clear that buffer. I wonder how many comments like this can be attributed to 5DIV owners feeling bitter that an equivalent if not better camera was released for over $1K less than they paid.
> 
> Now, if the argument is there will be no RF supertele before an RF mount 1-series equivalent body, I see the logic there.



Yeah, I tend to agree that the R is the "5DIV-like EOS R." 

It may not have all of the features that some people think absolutely have to be in that camera, but no camera body is going to have every feature on a wish list

I think we will be waiting for a V2 of the R for dual card slots, IBIS, maybe a joystick. 

This is V1 of the all around R. We got the budget version, we'll get the high MP version, at some point their will be the action version (especially after seeing news of big white R's). I doubt there will be another model squeezed in there somewhere until the second iteration of the R. But that's just an opinion.

I'm not saying anyone's wants or perceived needs are wrong, just that this is what Canon has decided to produce.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 24, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Lensrentals did a teardown of the Canon EOS R - same level of weather sealing as the Sony A7RIII.
> 
> I do really wish, that more mirrorless cameras would seal as well as the DSLR cameras. But I would still prefer a mirrorless camera and a bag for weather protection than a DSLR.
> 
> just really quickly: the lack of solid weather protection sets makes any camera non-option for any outdoor shooter that has to keep shooting no matter the weather conditions.


Your implication is that the 5DIV is an option for any outdoor shooter that has to keep shooting no matter the weather conditions, and I disagree with that. What meets that need are the more recent 1-series cameras. I would (and have done so on many occasions) use my 1D X in heavy rain. I would not do that with my R, nor with a 5-series body.



SecureGSM said:


> second card is a must.
> 
> I can provide numerous examples of where i was requested to assist with file recovery over CF card failure. All professional photogs shooting with 1-Series body but neglected to utilise the second card for redundancy.


Interesting that your examples to support the need for a second card slot come from people who actually had a second slot and didn’t use it. Kinda puts a crimp in the argument. Personally, I have never had a CF card fail. But on my 1D X I do have cards in both slots and write files to them both for redundancy. For sports/action shooters, there is a good reason to not use that second slot, as mentioned above it slows you down when shooting bursts (either during capture if you fill the buffer, or after the burst when the buffer is being cleared). The only exception is the 1D X (MkI only), which is the only Canon body where both slots use the same card type.

Also, you specify failure of CF cards. Unlikely that a current MILC would use a CF card due to the larger size. How many SD cards have you had to recover due to failure?



SecureGSM said:


> joystick is highly desirable and for three reasons
> see if you can touch control your af points with your fingers wet, durty (rain, snow, sweaty, etc.)
> see if you can touch control af points with your face right against the screen
> see if you can touch control af points with gloves on while shooting


I do like the joystick on my 1D X (and the fact that it’s replicated in portrait orientation), but...

With thousands of AF points a joystick is probably not the most efficient way to move between them
I had no problems using the touchscreen for AF point movement (with the thumb of my left hand) when using the EVF and the screen next to my cheek, you can see the AF point selection moving in the EVF and it’s actually a great way to put it on the subject (I find it faster than the joystick on my 1D X, actually)
I had no problems using the touch screen for AF selection or anything else wearing e-tip gloves (in fact, most of my use of the EOS R to date has been while snowshoeing in freezing temperatures, wearing gloves)
I’m curious: do you own or have you used an EOS R and had problems with these issues, or are these are just theoretical concerns expressed from your armchair?


----------



## degos (May 24, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> If I were Canon I'd definitely want the 1 level R camera to knock it out of the park and to me that means there must be an option to have a choice of super fast with less MPs and slower with *more MPs* but that's because I'm often reach limited. In other scenarios 20 MPs is fine.



If you're reach limited then selectable MP in the same camera won't help, since it doesn't change the pixel density. The best solution to that problem is still a super-high-density APS-C sensor like the rumoured 90D, which will still out-density the forthcoming R pixel-monster.

It sucks that Canon won't put a high-density sensor in a 1-series body.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 24, 2019)

**** Your implication is that the 5DIV is an option for any outdoor shooter that has to keep shooting no matter the weather conditions, and I disagree with that. What meets that need are the more recent 1-series cameras.

SGSM: 5D series are sufficiently enough weather protected camera bodies according to numerous weather test and experience of wedding photogs. ( just an example).

**** Interesting that your examples to support the need for a second card slot come from people who actually had a second slot and didn’t use it
SGSM: obviously because this group of careless people are affected by their own negligence the most. People that use both cards would not need an emergency recovery as they would have had a copy of the failed card content replicated on to the second card as backup. It’s a non-issue for them. Goes to demonstrate that backup is a must.

*** Also, you specify failure of CF cards. Unlikely that a current MILC would use a CF card due to the larger size. How many SD cards have you had to recover due to failure?

SGSM: CF cards only in my experience but only due to the fact that CF was the only card that was used. No second card as per above.

*** For sports/action shooters, there is a good reason to not use that second slot, as mentioned above it slows you down when shooting bursts
SGSM: it is a trade off. Chose between certain performance degradation or risk your entire card content with potential implications. Many sport photogs shoot JPEGs tethered in order to delivery content to agencies ASAP. These are seemingly unaffected by card failure issue but also less affected by decreased frame rate issue.

***** With thousands of AF points a joystick is probably not the most efficient way to move between them

SGSM: Is a theoretical concerns expressed from.... etc. there is no such a Canon camera exist yet hence we can only theoritise about such a system. I would imagine that you should be able to set joystick to push and hold mode as in a continuous af point selection mode. Meaning that if you hold the joystick say pushed to the right, selected af point will be changed rapidly from left to right and camera will continue to do so until joystick was released. With Approx 50 af points across, I see this as a viable option potentially.

*** I had no problems using the touchscreen for AF point movement (with the thumb of my left hand) when using the EVF and the screen next to my cheek

SGSM: are you saying that instead of supporting you long and heavy lens with your left palm you let lens go, hold camera in your right hand and while you hold long and heavy assembly singlehandedly by the camera body grip you use your left hand to move af points around?
I do not see this being practical unless the lens attached is a smaller one.
It has to be done with The same hand you holding camera in. I have tried. It did not work for me the way I expected. Joystick Would address the issue.

I wear glasses. This augments the issue further as you put smudges on your glasses when you touch around screen while you hold camera next to your cheek.

I have not tried gloves. E-tip gloves should work. I agree.
What about wet fingers? 5DIV touch screen does not respond to a wet touch.

Yes, I used my friends EOS R for about an hour.


----------



## unfocused (May 24, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Neuro said:
> 
> 
> > I had no problems using the touchscreen for AF point movement (with the thumb of my left hand) when using the EVF and the screen next to my cheek
> ...



Everyone's experience is different. 

I used my left hand to hold a 70-200, just as I do with a DSLR. I used my right thumb to move the autofocus points around the viewfinder while looking through the viewfinder. I had no problem with my face getting in the way. I also wear glasses. I did not notice any unusual or additional smudging of my glasses. I'm right handed and my dominant eye is my right eye, so maybe that makes a difference 

I did not use it with a 100-400, but because of my age and being a wimp, I get usually too fatigued holding either the 100-400 or the Sigma 150-600 for long periods and use a monopod.

This all seems pointless frankly. Some people like the "R" some like DSLRs, some like both. (I'm in that category). Buy and use whatever you prefer. One reason why DSLRs aren't going anywhere anytime soon.


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 24, 2019)

Interesting that the lens thread generates so many camera comments, which only emphasizes the fact that the two must work together well or what have you gained.

As far as operating a joystick versus touchscreen, I find the joystick to be somewhat challenging if you're talking really fast and greater distance movements of the AF point and bumping up against the "ledge" with the 1DX2 really bugs me. You must move up or down first in order to continue sideways.

Another thing; there needs to be more than one choice for a 1 level camera to minimize compromises such as, the 1DX2 is _the only camera with illuminated focus points. _That mentality was fine when there was only a "best" or "flagship" camera in years gone by but is ridiculous now when it can't satisfy the various needs folk have of a high level camera.

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 24, 2019)

My daughter (small hands and not a large person) shot for hours with the 70-200 II with the 1.4X attached and acquired virtually as many good shots as me. In other words she was not complaining at all. In fact I was the one complaining about such things as my lower resolution and the MFD of the 400 DO II. Unfortunately she was often focal length limited while I was the opposite with 400 X2 with no time to swap. However, overall, any time I dropped back to 400 I ended up regretting it because 20 MPs doesn't allow for much cropping if you're FLL. In spite of her FLL situation there was seldom a missed AF, which tells you something about the R; even though its focus point is not as small, it is smarter.

Back to the 500. A camera the size of the R simply will not satisfy many customers using that size/weight of lens. Consider the complaints about Sony regarding a small camera on a big lens - what have you gained with the smallness of the camera?

Jack


----------



## Dantana (May 24, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> My daughter (small hands and not a large person) shot for hours with the 70-200 II with the 1.4X attached and acquired virtually as many good shots as me. In other words she was not complaining at all. In fact I was the one complaining about such things as my lower resolution and the MFD of the 400 DO II. Unfortunately she was often focal length limited while I was the opposite with 400 X2 with no time to swap. However, overall, any time I dropped back to 400 I ended up regretting it because 20 MPs doesn't allow for much cropping if you're FLL. In spite of her FLL situation there was seldom a missed AF, which tells you something about the R; even though its focus point is not as small, it is smarter.
> 
> Back to the 500. A camera the size of the R simply will not satisfy many customers using that size/weight of lens. Consider the complaints about Sony regarding a small camera on a big lens - what have you gained with the smallness of the camera?
> 
> Jack


I agree with the issue of lens size VS body size that the 500 would have on the R. I think the fact that there is no reported timeline on its release could mean that it will come alongside or relatively close to the release of a larger, action oriented body. Seems like a nice way to roll out both products.

That being said, this is the kind of lens that I'll only be able to lust after, or perhaps rent. Maybe the price of older EF big whites will drop a little.


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 24, 2019)

Well neither can I afford it but I've scrimped and managed to get what I have, which gives me great pleasure. I feel for those who can't even do that. I doubt I'll ever swing another big purchase unless I sell and switch to mirrorless and eat some losses. However, at my age I can't handle more weight than what I have now so probably 500 is a no go. Crazy - what I have is good, how can I be having GAS.

Jack


----------



## Otara (May 24, 2019)

I suspect what people are really asking for is a modern 5DIV, ie really closer to a 5DV equivalent.

With the R a true silent shutter is worth a lot wildlife wise to me, but I do really notice the frame rate at times. I do still struggle a bit with AF point movement at times too, either moving it by accident or finding it a bit clunky to position when not being able to use face detect. And IS not having a sleep to conserve battery does irritate with my 500mm. But simply by being mirrorless with preview etc Im sold on it overall compared to my 5d3.

Cant imagine getting an RF 500 though unless it offered something awfully compelling.


----------



## YuengLinger (May 24, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I keep seeing comments like this, but I don’t understand them. The EOS R is pretty much a 5DIV, actually a bit better in some ways. People fixate on two fewer frames per second in Servo, but ignore the fact that the RAW buffer on the R is more than twice as deep. The R can track faces in Servo AF. The only significant advantage of the 5DIV is a second card slot, and using it for the only purpose it can be reasonably claimed it’s necessary (writing files to both cards in case one fails) means slower shooting once that shallower buffer is full, and substantially longer time to clear that buffer. I wonder how many comments like this can be attributed to 5DIV owners feeling bitter that an equivalent if not better camera was released for over $1K less than they paid.
> 
> Now, if the argument is there will be no RF supertele before an RF mount 1-series equivalent body, I see the logic there.


The 5D IV is great for portraiture, events, wildlife, and sports. It is a robust performer. While the R is attractive as a portrait, landscape, and still-life camera, I don't see the R being as good as the 5D IV in terms of build or ergonomics--especially ergonomics. I'm simply waiting for a better built RF mount camera before I start spending money on RF lenses. That's my choice, and I think I expressed it in straightforward, civil terms.

It is sad that you have to use words such as "fixate" and "bitter" when responding to others posting their opinions. In your reply, you have brought to my attention a spec I was unaware of, the RAW buffer size. Thanks for that, Neuro. But your tossing out of a red herring saying that 5D IV owners are "bitter" because the R costs less is beneath you. It's just plain silly.

And you also claim that the "only significant advantage of the 5D IV is a second card slot..." In fact, many shooters, wrongly or rightly, see a real advantage in the optical viewfinder. If you say that it isn't "fair" to compare the optical to the EVF, fine, but don't ignore it has a significant advantage in sports and wildlife. I'd love to see a breakthrough in EVF tech, but even a significant improvement, combined with better ergonomics and build, would convince me to buy an RF body to then buy the new 50mm 1.2 and the 85mm 1.2. (I have the ef 85mm 1.4L IS but find it to be somewhat disappointing. I regret selling my 85mm 1.2L II, as the 1.4 is not as good for portraiture--for me.)

Frame rate, for some, is also significantly better on the 5D IV. I see it that way.

Over and over, you respond to posts you don't like by denigrating the intelligence, mental state, and character of the person posting--sometimes bluntly, sometimes with a bit of subtlety. Such posts do not help make CR a friendly place.


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 25, 2019)

YuengLinger you make some valid points and I'm with you on keeping the threads as friendly or easy going as possible. I also think that we need take some of the posts with a grain of salt or ignore them, which isn't always easy. Like shopping in the supermarket, we scan everything and choose what we will benefit from.

Except for the odd really wild post most do offer some food for thought. I remember when the 6D came out and I bought it, I wasn't too thrilled with all the negative comments that largely proved to be wrong or insignificant. I'd love to jeer at those who complained it was stupid to put WiFi in it, if they'd just identify themselves!

Jack


----------



## degos (May 25, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> I'd love to jeer at those who complained it was stupid to put WiFi in it, if they'd just identify themselves!




I'd still contend that wifi or GPS have no place _in_ a camera. As an add-on module, sure; that way it can be upgraded with new developments in protocols.

Baking it into the circuit board just introduces complexity, bugs, vulnerabilities and technological dead-ends. The camera should be an apparatus optimised for taking photos and storing them. Posting them to Instagram is a different process.


----------



## Otara (May 25, 2019)

degos said:


> I'd still contend that wifi or GPS have no place _in_ a camera. As an add-on module, sure; that way it can be upgraded with new developments in protocols.
> 
> Baking it into the circuit board just introduces complexity, bugs, vulnerabilities and technological dead-ends. The camera should be an apparatus optimised for taking photos and storing them. Posting them to Instagram is a different process.



The Rs ability to immediately backup to your phone is a pretty great option in my view, as its use as a remote. I think 'posting to instagram' rather understates its utility to current photography. Just wish it still had NFC like the M5.


----------



## Joules (May 25, 2019)

degos said:


> The camera should be an apparatus optimised for taking photos and storing them.


Using WLAN you can improve on both aspects. Using the EOS Remote App makes it possible to take pictures while standing away from your camera. Last week I inserted myself in a landscape shot for a change, which would not have been possible without some wifi capabilities.

And storing pictures on your phone in addition to the camera is a thing as well. If Canon would allow that feature to be used for RAW then it would even eliminate the need for a second card slot, or at least be a nice additional backup.

If it would require additional hardware, that would make it less likely to be used I think. Also, with all the capabilities present in smart phones, from a consumer perspective it is easy to perceive cameras as outdated, when they can't even match those abilities (4K video beeing present in many smartphones and few Canon bodies is brought up frequently in discussions about video).


----------



## Kit. (May 25, 2019)

degos said:


> I'd still contend that wifi or GPS have no place _in_ a camera. As an add-on module, sure; that way it can be upgraded with new developments in protocols.
> 
> Baking it into the circuit board just introduces complexity, bugs, vulnerabilities and technological dead-ends. The camera should be an apparatus optimised for taking photos and storing them. Posting them to Instagram is a different process.


Actually, it's the other way around. WiFi is a great way to _wirelessly connect add-on modules_ to the camera, reducing the camera's own "complexity, bugs, vulnerabilities and technological dead-ends".


----------



## Mr Majestyk (May 25, 2019)

Sony has the cameras and no 500, Canon will have the 500 and no cameras.


----------



## [email protected] (May 25, 2019)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Sony has the cameras and no 500, Canon will have the 500 and no cameras.



How is the 500 II on the mc-11 adapter?

Been thinking of renting the A9 to see.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 25, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> **** Your implication is that the 5DIV is an option for any outdoor shooter that has to keep shooting no matter the weather conditions, and I disagree with that. What meets that need are the more recent 1-series cameras.
> 
> SGSM: 5D series are sufficiently enough weather protected camera bodies according to numerous weather test and experience of wedding photogs. ( just an example).


Possibly, but there's really no definition of 'sufficient' short of an IPF rating. As I said, personally I wouldn't use the 5DIV or R in heavy rain. However, I would use either in a sprinkle. But the 1-series is unquestionably better sealed.



SecureGSM said:


> *** For sports/action shooters, there is a good reason to not use that second slot, as mentioned above it slows you down when shooting bursts
> SGSM: it is a trade off. Chose between certain performance degradation or risk your entire card content with potential implications. Many sport photogs shoot JPEGs tethered in order to delivery content to agencies ASAP. These are seemingly unaffected by card failure issue but also less affected by decreased frame rate issue.


Quite true.



SecureGSM said:


> ***** With thousands of AF points a joystick is probably not the most efficient way to move between them
> 
> SGSM: Is a theoretical concerns expressed from.... etc. there is no such a Canon camera exist yet hence we can only theoritise about such a system. I would imagine that you should be able to set joystick to push and hold mode as in a continuous af point selection mode. Meaning that if you hold the joystick say pushed to the right, selected af point will be changed rapidly from left to right and camera will continue to do so until joystick was released. With Approx 50 af points across, I see this as a viable option potentially.


Theoretical and no such Canon camera exists? Canon has already disproven your 'theory': "The EOS R camera’s AF system features an incredible 5,655 manually selectable AF points." The RP has 4,779 AF points. Good luck wiggling your joystick around. 

I'm sure it's possible to have a variable-speed movement of the selected AF point with a joystick, but practically there will be a lag...how does the camera know if you want to move a dozen points or zip across the frame? With the touchscreen, it's easy.



SecureGSM said:


> *** I had no problems using the touchscreen for AF point movement (with the thumb of my left right hand) when using the EVF and the screen next to my cheek
> 
> SGSM: are you saying that instead of supporting you long and heavy lens with your left palm you let lens go, hold camera in your right hand and while you hold long and heavy assembly singlehandedly by the camera body grip you use your left hand to move af points around?
> I do not see this being practical unless the lens attached is a smaller one.
> It has to be done with The same hand you holding camera in. I have tried. It did not work for me the way I expected. Joystick Would address the issue.


Apologies, that was an error on my part. AF point selection on the touchscreen is with the right thumb. FYI (maybe you're unaware with your limited experience using the R), the area of the touchscreen used for AF point selection does not need to be the whole thing, the selection area can be restricted to one side or one quadrant, and the upper right quadrant (which is my selection choice) is easily and fully accesssible by my right thumb with my finger on the shutter button.




SecureGSM said:


> I wear glasses. This augments the issue further as you put smudges on your glasses when you touch around screen while you hold camera next to your cheek.


Again, I suspect this stems from inexperience. Even the specs tell most of the story – the VF is about 1cm behind rear LCD (the scren itself, the eyecup extends further), and the eye relief on the EOS R is 23mm – that means your eye is about 33mm (1.3") away from the LCD. In practice, that means when holding the EOS R normally, looking through the EVF with my right eye and adjusting the AF point with my right thumb, the back side of my thumb is actually touching the tip of my nose. Do your glasses extend further than the tip of your nose? I would think not but I suppose it's possible.






SecureGSM said:


> What about wet fingers? 5DIV touch screen does not respond to a wet touch.


Just went and tried it, and yes – when my thumb is wet I can still use it for selection of menu items and AF points on my EOS R.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (May 25, 2019)

[email protected] said:


> How is the 500 II on the mc-11 adapter?
> 
> Been thinking of renting the A9 to see.


This is why we won't be seeing any more interesting EF lenses from Canon.

I expect Canon deeply regrets the amount of "aid & comfort" their EF lenses provided to Sony when they were rolling out full-frame e-mount. It's hard to imagine that system getting much traction without the availability of EF lenses.

I guess it's posible we'll still see an update or two for essential lenses aimed at pro DSLR's but I'd say EF lenses are safely in Canon's rear view mirror. Despite the fact that EF mount bodies will be the majority of the market for Canon lenses for many years to come.

It appears they've been sitting on a lot of new lens designs waiting for the RF rollout. IMO it's unlikely that any of Canon's RF lenses will ever operate on anything but Canon branded bodies. What remains to be seen is how far into the future EF support will extend for the R bodies once Canon has built out their RF lens portfolio.

edit: Call me cynical but it sure looks like Canon is a lot more interested in building out their new closed, proprietary, lens system than they are in developing new RF bodies that could be used with the lenses currently owned by their customers. Sure the new lenses are tempting but be aware they are attached to a big shiny barbed hook.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 26, 2019)

What is the advantage of the RF mount for these lenses. Other than native mount and better communication i don't see any advantage. Surely not in size over the EF mount.


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 26, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> This is why we won't be seeing any more interesting EF lenses from Canon.
> 
> I expect Canon deeply regrets the amount of "aid & comfort" their EF lenses provided to Sony when they were rolling out full-frame e-mount. It's hard to imagine that system getting much traction without the availability of EF lenses.
> 
> edit: Call me cynical but it sure looks like Canon is a lot more interested in building out their new closed, proprietary, lens system than they are in developing new RF bodies that could be used with the lenses currently owned by their customers. Sure the new lenses are tempting but be aware they are attached to a big shiny barbed hook.



Perhaps but does canon really care, if they sell a lens, what camera it goes on?

A little cynical since we know there are a great number of future photographic benefits associated with the new mount.

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 26, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> What is the advantage of the RF mount for these lenses. Other than native mount and *better communication* i don't see any advantage. Surely not in size over the EF mount.


Who knows exactly what benefits are associated with the electronics, but I suspect quite a few. Has any technical expert tried to assess what potential there is in the new communication link?

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 26, 2019)

degos said:


> I'd still contend that wifi or GPS have no place _in_ a camera. As an add-on module, sure; that way it can be upgraded with new developments in protocols.
> 
> Baking it into the circuit board just introduces complexity, bugs, vulnerabilities and technological dead-ends. The camera should be an apparatus optimised for taking photos and storing them. Posting them to Instagram is a different process.




Too bad my daughter can't reply, after all she was recently using the feature to transfer photos to her phone and wasn't pooh poohing it. 

And me I'm still depending on my wife for cell phone use so that kind of shows where I'm at on the subject. Still I think it was a no brainer for Canon to put the WiFi in the 6D. I did use it for remote shooting a bit but the range wasn't really enough for me.

Jack


----------



## Mr Majestyk (May 26, 2019)

[email protected] said:


> How is the 500 II on the mc-11 adapter?
> 
> Been thinking of renting the A9 to see.


Actually very good on the A9 especially with the fw 5. I was even getting good results on the Sigma 150-600C, even on the A7RIII. If you can lock onto subject within central zone it will track it using all points, but it won't initiate tracking from the outer points. If you stick with centre or flexible spot large it'll track fine. With the 150-600C I was getting fairly good keeper rate ~ 50%, I epxect the 500 II to be better even with the 1.4x.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 26, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> The 5D IV is great for portraiture, events, wildlife, and sports. It is a robust performer. While the R is attractive as a portrait, landscape, and still-life camera, I don't see the R being as good as the 5D IV in terms of build or ergonomics--especially ergonomics. I'm simply waiting for a better built RF mount camera before I start spending money on RF lenses. That's my choice, and I think I expressed it in straightforward, civil terms.


I don’t either, but the main reason is the small size of the R, and I don’t think Canon will release a FF MILC the size of the 5DIV, unless it’s a 1-series equivalent. 



YuengLinger said:


> It is sad that you have to use words such as "fixate" and "bitter" when responding to others posting their opinions. In your reply, you have brought to my attention a spec I was unaware of, the RAW buffer size. Thanks for that, Neuro. But your tossing out of a red herring saying that 5D IV owners are "bitter" because the R costs less is beneath you. It's just plain silly.


It’s not silly at all. It’s a speculation, as I clearly stated. Maybe the answer to ‘how many people are bitter’ is none. Seems like I may have struck a nerve, though...sorry for that. I can honestly say that if I’d bought the 1DsIII two years before the 1D X came out, I’d be a bit bitter. 



YuengLinger said:


> And you also claim that the "only significant advantage of the 5D IV is a second card slot..." In fact, many shooters, wrongly or rightly, see a real advantage in the optical viewfinder. If you say that it isn't "fair" to compare the optical to the EVF, fine, but don't ignore it has a significant advantage in sports and wildlife.


Sorry that it wasn’t clear to you, but that claim (my whole post, really) was directed at the idea of a ‘5DIV-like EOS R’ and my point was that the EOS R is already very 5DIV-like. I presume you’re aware that it’s impossible for a mirrorless camera to have a DSLR-like OVF, so your whole point above is moot. 

Personally, I prefer an OVF to an EVF (but not so much that I want a rangefinder MILC). 



YuengLinger said:


> Frame rate, for some, is also significantly better on the 5D IV. I see it that way.


Do you see that the EOS R shoots a max of 8 fps compared to the 5DIV’s max of 7 fps, or are you _fixated_ on the frame rate in Servo AF?



YuengLinger said:


> Over and over, you respond to posts you don't like by denigrating the intelligence, mental state, and character of the person posting--sometimes bluntly, sometimes with a bit of subtlety. Such posts do not help make CR a friendly place.


My primary goal is to keep CR an accurate place, and of course to keep Jack coming here for the humor. If you’re looking for friends, I hear you can find some on Facebook.


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 26, 2019)

I won't leave even if Neuro offends me! Too much useful information from too many people (including Neuro).

Personally, I value accuracy and really like people being kept honest/accurate. Especially when it's good for a chuckle.
Jack


----------



## SecureGSM (May 26, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> What is the advantage of the RF mount for these lenses. Other than native mount and better communication i don't see any advantage. Surely not in size over the EF mount.


as per Canon engineers interview earlier this year, Canon RF mount allows for a considerably larger rear elements and smaller (lighter, not less diameter) front elements and lighter smaller front groups of a lens than with EF mount. This consequently allows for more of the lens elements (read: lens mass) to be distributed towards the rear end of a large and heavy telephoto lens. positions len's centre of gravity closer to shooter. better from handhold-ability point of view.
just what Canon engineers had to say.


----------



## Bob Howland (May 26, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> as per Canon engineers interview earlier this year, Canon RF mount allows for a considerably larger rear elements and smaller (lighter, not less diameter) front elements and lighter smaller front groups of a lens than with EF mount. This consequently allows for more of the lens elements (read: lens mass) to be distributed towards the rear end of a large and heavy telephoto lens. positions len's centre of gravity closer to shooter. better from handhold-ability point of view.
> just what Canon engineers had to say.


I'm pretty sure they were talking about lenses shorter than 85mm. A 500 f/4 lens must have a front element that is at least 125mm in diameter or it can't be a 500 f/4.

So where is the 24-240 or, better yet, Canon's equivalent to the Olympus 12-100 f/4??


----------



## SecureGSM (May 27, 2019)

Bob Howland said:


> I'm pretty sure they were talking about lenses shorter than 85mm. A 500 f/4 lens must have a front element that is at least 125mm in diameter or it can't be a 500 f/4.
> 
> So where is the 24-240 or, better yet, Canon's equivalent to the Olympus 12-100 f/4??


as per my post: lighter, rather then smaller in diameter front element and smaller front group, weight redistribution toward the rear end of the lens in result.
And they mentioned specifically telephoto lenses.
not sure what is the relevance of your 24-240 or Olympus equivalence 12-140 / 4 question. obviously FF equivalence will be large large and heavier than its M4/3 counterpart.


----------



## AlanF (May 27, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> ... If you’re looking for friends, I hear you can find some on Facebook.



What about if they are looking for enemies?


----------



## degos (May 27, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> as per my post: lighter, rather then smaller in diameter front element and smaller front group, weight redistribution toward the rear end of the lens in result.
> And they mentioned specifically telephoto lenses.



You'll only get lighter front elements in a telephoto if you don't have to bend the light as acutely.

I don't think we've seen any evidence of this alleged weight-saving in any RF lens. The 24-105 was the closest match yet but weighed between the EF mark I and II.

Instead the most notable examples of ligthening and rearwards weight-shift were the EF mark III 400 and 600...


----------



## unfocused (May 27, 2019)

AlanF said:


> What about if they are looking for enemies?


Lots of them on Facebook too.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 27, 2019)

degos said:


> You'll only get lighter front elements in a telephoto if you don't have to bend the light as acutely.
> 
> I don't think we've seen any evidence of this alleged weight-saving in any RF lens. The 24-105 was the closest match yet but weighed between the EF mark I and II.
> 
> Instead the most notable examples of ligthening and rearwards weight-shift were the EF mark III 400 and 600...


Why wouldn’t you go and have a little argument with Canon engineers? We have not seen a single long telephoto in RF mount for starters. 
Go read that interview or reach out to Canon engineering and clarify their standing if you see fit. I do not care. .
The question was: is there are ANY benefits to RF mount? Not weight, specifically or size.

Your 400 III example is largely irrelevant either. As there is nothing to compare that lens in RF mount with.


----------



## koenkooi (May 27, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Why wouldn’t you go and have a little argument with Canon engineers? We have not seen a single long telephoto in RF mount for starters.
> Go read that interview or reach out to Canon engineering and clarify their standing if you see fit. I do not care. .
> The question was: are there ANY benefits to RF mount? Not weight, specifically or size.
> 
> Your 400 III example is largely irrelevant either. As there is nothing to compare that lens in RF mount with.



A big difference between EF and RF is the updated communication interface between lens and body.
With faster and more data channels available it is possible to move some processing to the body, like IS. The simple case seems to be already there on EF-M: lenses can send sensor data back to the body to make the software based IS more effictive ('dual sensing IS'). In interviews Canon has hinted at the possibility of the lens sending the sensor data to the body and have the body control the IS actuators in the lens.

Of course, we haven't heard of that actually being used in current and future RF lenses, so I can't say it's a real world benefit, but it does have potential.

And I like that my RP is a lot thinner than my 7D. So, personally, those 2 centimeters shaved of the flange are a real benefit.


----------



## Bob Howland (May 27, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Why wouldn’t you go and have a little argument with Canon engineers? We have not seen a single long telephoto in RF mount for starters.
> Go read that interview or reach out to Canon engineering and clarify their standing if you see fit. I do not care. .
> The question was: is there are ANY benefits to RF mount? Not weight, specifically or size.
> 
> Your 400 III example is largely irrelevant either. As there is nothing to compare that lens in RF mount with.


Where is this interview that you're referring to?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 27, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Your 400 III example is largely irrelevant either. As there is nothing to compare that lens in RF mount with.


There is the RF 400/2.8 patent, which doesn’t address weight but does address length and lens group positioning. I haven’t overlaid that onthe EF 4002.8 III, but I did so for the RF 600/4 patent vs the EF MkIII, and they’re nearly identical.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 28, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> There is the RF 400/2.8 patent, which doesn’t address weight but does address length and lens group positioning. I haven’t overlaid that onthe EF 4002.8 III, but I did so for the RF 600/4 patent vs the EF MkIII, and they’re nearly identical.


Yes, correct. Weight redistribution towards the rear end of the lens. 400/2.8 III is light enough already


----------



## SecureGSM (May 28, 2019)

Bob Howland said:


> Where is this interview that you're referring to?



Google search is your friend. Please do your research if in doubt.


----------



## Ozarker (May 28, 2019)

Bob Howland said:


> I'm pretty sure they were talking about lenses shorter than 85mm. A 500 f/4 lens must have a front element that is at least 125mm in diameter or it can't be a 500 f/4.
> 
> So where is the 24-240 or, better yet, Canon's equivalent to the Olympus 12-100 f/4??


Didn't realize Canon needs to match other manufacturers, especially from the Micro 4/3 realm. Where is the Olympus equivalent of Canon's RF 28-70 f/2, tilt shift lenses, or any number of other lenses? Where is Sony's 500mm, 600mm, and 800mm?  Though a 24-200 f/4 might be interesting, what would it take to match the bokeh from the Olympus? f/5.6? I don't know, but if so, then Canon probably has that covered in EF with the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L. Maybe we should wait a couple of years to see what Canon does. R/RF is a brand new system. Micro 4/3 won't ever match FF in low light either.


----------



## degos (May 28, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Google search is your friend. Please do your research if in doubt.



No, you're the one that made the assertions. Prove your statements or retract your comments.

We've seen one RF telephoto zoom so far that has the same focal length and speed as an EF lens, and it was not significantly different in size or weight. What's your evidence to the contrary?


----------



## Ivan Muller (May 28, 2019)

> YuengLinger said:
> Over and over, you respond to posts you don't like by denigrating the intelligence, mental state, and character of the person posting--sometimes bluntly, sometimes with a bit of subtlety. Such posts do not help make CR a friendly place.


My primary goal is to keep CR an accurate place, and of course to keep Jack coming here for the humor. If you’re looking for friends, I hear you can find some on Facebook.

I actually like Neuros precise and logical reasoning even though I can find him a bit 'prickly' at times...but generally I appreciate him for his setting us straight with the facts rather than the usual mere speculation based on emotion...


----------



## Otara (May 28, 2019)

Polite or civil are more accurate I suspect, and Facebook wouldnt be where I'd go looking for that either. Some people like to discuss things, some people want to win arguments. Just be clear which you're dealing with and remember the XKCD comic 'someone is wrong on the internet' meme when tempted to argue.


----------



## Bob Howland (May 28, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Didn't realize Canon needs to match other manufacturers, especially from the Micro 4/3 realm. Where is the Olympus equivalent of Canon's RF 28-70 f/2, tilt shift lenses, or any number of other lenses? Where is Sony's 500mm, 600mm, and 800mm?  Though a 24-200 f/4 might be interesting, what would it take to match the bokeh from the Olympus? f/5.6? I don't know, but if so, then Canon probably has that covered in EF with the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L. Maybe we should wait a couple of years to see what Canon does. R/RF is a brand new system. Micro 4/3 won't ever match FF in low light either.


The Olympus 12-100, equivalent to a 24-200 FF, is pro quality lens, or so Olympus says. Canon makes/made a 28-300 L lens that is large, heavy and expensive. I use lenses in that class when I want to go lightweight, which seems to be more often as I get older. My days of hiking up creek beds with a 22 lb backpack to photograph waterfalls are over.


----------



## Bob Howland (May 28, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Google search is your friend. Please do your research if in doubt.


I did look for it and can't find it. I recall the general comment of moving the lens mass toward the camera body and making the lens more symetrical but I'm (still) pretty sure that they were referring to wide angle lenses.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 28, 2019)

Bob Howland said:


> I did look for it and can't find it. I recall the general comment of moving the lens mass toward the camera body and making the lens more symetrical but I'm (still) pretty sure that they were referring to wide angle lenses.



here you are...

https://www.canonrumors.com/the-benefits-of-the-large-diameter-of-the-eos-rs-rf-mount-explained/

Please note: 400 / 2.8 - is a large aperture lens indeed...


----------



## SecureGSM (May 28, 2019)

degos said:


> No, you're the one that made the assertions. Prove your statements or retract your comments.
> 
> We've seen one RF telephoto zoom so far that has the same focal length and speed as an EF lens, and it was not significantly different in size or weight. What's your evidence to the contrary?



If a fool is known to you, then only you can avoid an argument with him. If it is sudden and somewhere in beyond your knowledge then you have to argue for sometime. When you satisfied that your opponent is bombing you with absurd and irrelevant replies, it's a time for humble submission. 

I have better things in my life than proving what is out their in open domain and widely disseminated by news sites.
Have an argument with like minded individuals, seek the truth and never look back. for FYI, link to one of those articles is directly above for your convenience.
do not bother to reply.. stage #3 - disengage.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 28, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> If a fool is known to you, then only you can avoid an argument with him.


Sometimes arguing with a fool can provide entertainment, or at least a passing diversion.



SecureGSM said:


> do not bother to reply.. stage #3 - disengage.


As I recall, you proved quite unsuccessful at doing so.



SecureGSM said:


> ...seek the truth...


On this, we completely agree.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 28, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Please do your research if in doubt.


Research? I suppose if one is gullible enough to believe marketing puff pieces, finding and reading such an article might constitute ‘research’.

For example, in an interview with DPR the ‘designer of the RF mount’ provided the following answer:

*



How have you made the 70-200mm so small?

Click to expand...

*


> We were actually surprised as we started developing this particular product. The idea is that, with the introduction of the large diameter mount with the shorter back-focus distance, we were expecting it to be more suitable for designing wider-angle lenses, but it turned out to be very effective for designing this telephoto lens.



He conveniently ignores the fact that the lens is smaller because it is an extending zoom, and when fully extended it’s actually longer than the EF 70-200/2.8. 

Yeah. ‘Research,’ right.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 28, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> here you are...
> 
> https://www.canonrumors.com/the-benefits-of-the-large-diameter-of-the-eos-rs-rf-mount-explained/
> 
> Please note: 400 / 2.8 - is a large aperture lens indeed...


And exactly as @Bob Howland stated, the article refers to wide angle lens, rendering it irrelevant to a discussion concerning supertelephoto lenses.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 28, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sometimes arguing with a fool can provide entertainment, or at least a passing diversion.
> 
> 
> As I recall, you proved quite unsuccessful at doing so.



not unless I past the stage #2. Considering that you are undoubtedly an intelligent individual and I enjoy intelligent conversations no matter how complicated the logic might be. but.. some conversations are on an other hand are emotionally driven and even worse - are discriminative.. As I recall... not to engage in another pointless argument, can I ask you: what is your point, Neuro?
I merely mentioned what Canon engineers had to say about some of the RF mount advantages.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 28, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> And exactly as @Bob Howland stated, the article refers to wide angle lens, rendering it irrelevant to a discussion concerning supertelephoto lenses.


the article refer to large aperture lenses. read, again or do you want me to point it out?

The RF mount allows for the larger lens elements to be near the rear of the lens and closer to the camera mount and the image sensor. This should provide better balance when l*arger aperture lenses *are affixed to the EOS R. While this could technically have been done with the EF-M mount, it’s far easier for Canon to design lenses for the RF mount.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 28, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> what is your point, Neuro?
> I merely mentioned what Canon engineers had to say about some of the RF mount advantages.


The point is, as you stated above, to seek the truth. So far the truth is that, better electronic communication notwithstanding, there have been no demonstrations of any significant advantages of the RF mount over the EF mount.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 28, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Research? I suppose if one is gullible enough to believe marketing puff pieces, finding and reading such an article might constitute ‘research’.
> 
> For example, in an interview with DPR the ‘designer of the RF mount’ provided the following answer:
> 
> ...



well, discernment is your friend. You should no well as a scientist.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 28, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> the article refer to large aperture lenses. read, again or do you want me to point it out?
> 
> The RF mount allows for the larger lens elements to be near the rear of the lens and closer to the camera mount and the image sensor. This should provide better balance when l*arger aperture lenses *are affixed to the EOS R. While this could technically have been done with the EF-M mount, it’s far easier for Canon to design lenses for the RF mount.


Why is the example a 35mm lens? Could it be because the RF 50mm and 85mm large aperture lenses are substantially larger and heavier than their EF counterparts? Does moving the center of mass closer to the body constitute a significant advantage in a lens that is 65 mm long and weighs 300 g? As stated earlier, looking at the patents for RF supertelephoto lenses there is not a significant difference in distribution of the elements compared to the new EF designs.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 28, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> The point is, as you stated above, to seek the truth. So far the truth is that, better electronic communication notwithstanding, there have been no demonstrations of any significant advantages of the RF mount over the EF mount.


Neuro, I have a limited free time: family, kids , busy work, hobbies and other responsibilities. I cannot afford to take a lunch break over last two weeks at work. It is that busy. I drive sales for a large multinational enterprise. It is a madhouse out there at the moment as we are approaching the end of financial year in Australia. I am at work 8:30am to 6:30pm. Anyway.. I am here not to argue with strangers. most of your posts are highly intelligent but please watch where you are going at times..

p.s. sorry.. i failed to address you point: being... there have been no demonstrations of any significant advantages of the RF mount over the EF mount.

well, RF 28-70 F2.0 is a $3000 significant advantage. so significant that I am going to move to R system (pro version of it) as soon as available, please.

as i previously explained: I regularly hit ISO 6400 shooting with 2 Canon pro bodies with 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 lenses attached. indoors.
28-70 / f2.0 zoom will see me shooting at ISO 3200 instead, this is a massive, massive advantage..


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 28, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Neuro, I have a limited free time: family, kids , busy work, hobbies and other responsibilities. I cannot afford to take a lunch break over last two weeks at work. It is that busy. I drive sales for a large multinational enterprise. It is a madhouse out there at the moment as we are approaching the end of financial year in Australia. I am at work 8:30am to 6:30pm. Anyway.. I am here not to argue with strangers. most of your posts are highly intelligent but please watch where you are going at times..



Then don't argue with strangers. I think all of us can understand the logic of this statement.

Each of us make statements that could very well not be 100% correct - I think they are called opinions. And most of the comments made have some merit, some more than others, so why get so serious. No one's laughing at you unless it's me simply getting a chuckle out of the psychology or it all. Humans interacting.

Jack


----------



## SecureGSM (May 28, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> Then don't argue with strangers. I think all of us can understand the logic of this statement.
> 
> Each of us make statements that could very well not be 100% correct - I think they are called opinions. And most of the comments made have some merit, some more than others, so why get so serious. No one's laughing at you unless it's me simply getting a chuckle out of the psychology or it all. Humans interacting.
> 
> Jack


correct, unless someone is attacking you openly which is a kind of human interaction as well. not all human interaction are strictly socially or legally acceptable I do not waste time on arguments that are non intelligent or lead me or my opponents nowhere.


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 28, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> correct, unless someone is attacking you openly which is a kind of human interaction as well. not all human interaction are strictly socially or legally acceptable I do not waste time on arguments that are non intelligent or lead me or my opponents nowhere.



Attacking is way too strong a word. We don't even know personally who you are so what does it matter and it's minuscule compared to all the other major challenges in your life that you are busily taking care of. Time will tell who's opinions are more or less valid. Keep up the good work!

Jack


----------



## Ozarker (May 28, 2019)

Bob Howland said:


> The Olympus 12-100, equivalent to a 24-200 FF, is pro quality lens, or so Olympus says. Canon makes/made a 28-300 L lens that is large, heavy and expensive. I use lenses in that class when I want to go lightweight, which seems to be more often as I get older. My days of hiking up creek beds with a 22 lb backpack to photograph waterfalls are over.


And the Olympus is a M4/3 lens, not FF as you know. I wouldn't expect an equivalent size and weight lens from Canon.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 28, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> Attacking is way too strong a word. *We don't even know personally who you are so what does it matter and it's minuscule compared to all the other major challenges in your life that you are busily taking care of*. Time will tell who's opinions are more or less valid. Keep up the good work!
> 
> Jack


Jack,

I suspect that you may have another chuckle while reading the following facts:

*1. What does cyberbullying look like?*
A cyberbully can be someone you know, *or a stranger.* They might send *mean or hurtful text messages* through social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, *or through sites where people can ask / answer questions....

2. Cyberbullying is illegal in Canada and USA.*


----------



## AlanF (May 28, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Jack,
> 
> I suspect that you may have another chuckle while reading the following facts:
> 
> ...


I have this terrible habit of checking claims that I find interesting. There is currently no US Federal law against bullying or cyberbullying but some, but not all, individual states do have laws https://www.stopbullying.gov/laws/federal/index.html


----------



## SecureGSM (May 28, 2019)

AlanF said:


> I have this terrible habit of checking claims that I find interesting. There is currently no US Federal law against bullying or cyberbullying but some, but not all, individual states do have laws https://www.stopbullying.gov/laws/federal/index.html


Nothing to worry about then, right?


----------



## Bob Howland (May 28, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> And the Olympus is a M4/3 lens, not FF as you know. I wouldn't expect an equivalent size and weight lens from Canon.


Neither would I but I'm definitely interested in the 24-240 on the RP. And how about a 15-125 f/4 introduced simultaneously with the M5-2?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 28, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Nothing to worry about then, right?


I always worry when people find it acceptable to make stuff up and then call it a fact.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 28, 2019)

Bob Howland said:


> Neither would I but I'm definitely interested in the 24-240 on the RP. And how about a 15-125 f/4 introduced simultaneously with the M5-2?


FWIW, Canon has patented a 15-130mm f/3.5-6.3 lens for the M series. I’d definitely be interested in that over my current M18-150 (I personally find a 24-xx equivalent zoom far more useful than a 28-xx).


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 28, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> *1. What does cyberbullying look like?*



Your implication is that it looks like this:



neuroanatomist said:


> If you recall an 85/1.2 IS lens available for the RF mount you may have suffered a head injury.



To recap: You stated that you don’t recall ever seeing a 85mm f/1.2 IS for the EF mount. I stated that IF you recalled a nonexistent lens, you MAY have had a head injury. In the same way that you presumably don’t recall ever seeing purple unicorns or flying pigs, you didn’t see a lens which doesn’t exist. That’s a good thing, regardless of the fact that you happen to have suffered a head injury. But you subsequently characterized my statement above as insulting, harassment, discrimination and now cyberbullying. You seriously need to get over yourself and cease these baseless accusations (which you’ve now managed to carry over into another thread, continuing the discussion you kept claiming you would end and further compounding your hypocrisy).


----------



## Michael Clark (May 28, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> I have the ef 85mm 1.4L IS but find it to be somewhat disappointing. I regret selling my 85mm 1.2L II, as the 1.4 is not as good for portraiture--for me.



Yep. Just because one lens is better at imaging flat test charts from relatively short distances (a/k/a "blows away the older, more expensive lens") does not mean it is better for every other use case!


----------



## Michael Clark (May 28, 2019)

degos said:


> You'll only get lighter front elements in a telephoto if you don't have to bend the light as acutely.
> 
> I don't think we've seen any evidence of this alleged weight-saving in any RF lens. The 24-105 was the closest match yet but weighed between the EF mark I and II.
> 
> Instead the most notable examples of ligthening and rearwards weight-shift were the EF mark III 400 and 600...



The weight savings for the EF 400 and 600 IIIs over the IIs was accomplished by moving more of the glass to the rear of the lens. If the rear of the lens is 24mm further back...

As for bending light, the wider angle a lens is, the more light it bends. Telephoto lenses bend light _less_ than shorter focal length lenses do. That's why _optical power_ of a lens is the _reciprocal_ of its focal length.

P=1/f


----------



## [email protected] (May 28, 2019)

Tom W said:


> Very interesting. I've been using the 500 f/4 II IS L for a couple of years now, and was considering what move to make next. The EF 600 III is actually lighter than the II 500, and has more of the weight closer to the camera, for better balance. But it's a lot of money, like all the big whites. I'm wondering - if they make a super-tele prime in RF mount, they'd just about have to also manufacture a 1.4X and 2X teleconverter for it.



A RF 500mm DO L IS would be a good choice to have in lighter lens package - EOS R, RP and RP Pro cameras.


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 28, 2019)

Well, there you go. My chuckle of the day from this thread.  Now back to work.

Jack


----------



## digito23 (May 28, 2019)

I'm waiting for the 70-200 / 2.8, come on Canon!


----------



## SecureGSM (May 29, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I always worry when people find it acceptable to make stuff up and then call it a fact.


Cyber bullying is illegal in USA and Canada. Talk to your legal advisor. 
Can you please stop chasing me around forum bullying and kicking tantrums? Thank you. I see this happening too frequently lately too anyone who has guts to stand up to your self inflicted domination. 
Now... can you stop chasing me around and engage in every single conversation I may have with other forum members, please?

I am not enjoying it.

Be civil, keep your anger in check. 
Respect other forum members and stop being an annoyance. 

Review clause #4 of forum posting rules. These are written for all yourself inclusive.

I repeat : leave me alone, please.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 29, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Cyber bullying is illegal in USA and Canada. Talk to your legal advisor.


AlanF has already pointed out that your statement is incorrect, and he provided documentation to support that. Please stop spreading misinformation, that does not benefit anyone.



SecureGSM said:


> Can you please stop chasing me around forum bullying and kicking tantrums? Thank you. I see this happening too frequently lately too anyone who has guts to stand up to your self inflicted domination.
> Now... can you stop chasing me around and engage in every single conversation I may have with other forum members, please?


Oh, please.  You are the one levying false accusations against me. Repeatedly and without justification.

Chasing you around? My contribution to this particular thread started with post #12. Your contribution to this particular thread started with post #29, which was a response to a post of mine. Who is chasing whom?



SecureGSM said:


> I am not enjoying it.


Your enjoyment or lack thereof is not my responsibility.



SecureGSM said:


> Be civil, keep your anger in check.
> Respect other forum members and stop being an annoyance.


I am being quite civil, and I am not angry. Honestly, I’m a bit puzzled by your perseveration on this line of discussion. Once again, I am not the one levying false accusations repeatedly in post after post, you are.



SecureGSM said:


> Review clause #4 of forum posting rules. These are written for all yourself inclusive.


I suggest you do the same, as in all honesty your repeated false accusations are potentially a form of harassment.



SecureGSM said:


> I repeat : leave me alone, please.


This is an open forum, and I can reply when and to whom I choose. As I pointed out in the previous thread, you continue to respond to my posts with further false accusations and insults. Despite repeatedly claiming you were done with the conversation, you are continuing it.

You chose to bring the same accusations to this thread (in fact, you doubled down on them and added some insults to go with them), further extending the same line of conversation. If you want to know why it continues, you need look no further than your nearest mirror.

I would encourage you to look back over the entire history of this conversation, which thanks to you now spans two forum threads. It started with your overreaction to an innocuous comment, and has been followed since then by your ongoing stream of false accusations.

From your repeated failure to adhere to your commitment to end the discussion in the prior thread, and the fact that you chose to follow me here and continue with the accusations, it’s quite apparent that you lack the willpower to restrain yourself. Perhaps you should consider using the forum’s Ignore feature, it’s simple – just click/tap my username then the Ignore button.


----------



## unfocused (May 29, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> AlanF has already pointed out that your statement is incorrect, and he provided documentation to support that. Please stop spreading misinformation, that does not benefit anyone.
> 
> 
> Oh, please.  You are the one levying false accusations against me. Repeatedly and without justification.
> ...



Could we get a scorecard and a brief summary on this one? I forgot what the argument was about, but I'm kind of enjoying the bickering. I miss elementary school.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 29, 2019)

[email protected] said:


> A RF 500mm DO L IS would be a good choice to have in lighter lens package - EOS R, RP and RP Pro cameras.


I agree that DO lenses for the RF mount make sense, although any supertele lens will result in ergonomic challenges for the R bodies, at least for some people (and when not on a tripod/gimbal). A 500mm f/6.3 DO lens would be an interesting choice – it could possibly be made to take a 77mm filter (assuming the typical rounding for lenses, e.g. 490mm and f/6.4 would mean a 76.7mm front element). With DO, it could possibly be slightly smaller than the EF 400/5.6.


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 29, 2019)

"Perhaps you should consider using the forum’s Ignore feature, it’s simple – just click/tap my username then the Ignore button."

It's a great feature. 

Canon should build it into their lenses/camera - you focus on the characteristic you want ignored such as some leaves in a tree or bark and hopefully then it helps it focus on the subject - assuming a bird here. Couldn't that be an advantage in accuracy and overall speed of the AF?

Jack


----------



## Kit. (May 29, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> Canon should build it into their lenses/camera - you focus on the characteristic you want ignored such as some leaves in a tree or bark and hopefully then it helps it focus on the subject - assuming a bird here. Couldn't that be an advantage in accuracy and overall speed of the AF?


I hope you haven't secretly patented this.


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 29, 2019)

Kit. said:


> I hope you haven't secretly patented this.


Seems like a no brainer but I don't think anyone has it. Of course I'm usually single point spot so that is a factor as well. I can imagine designers going through complicated hoops to give the AF a "brain" when a bit of human interaction would eliminate the guess work to a large extent.

Jack


----------



## AlanF (May 29, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I agree that DO lenses for the RF mount make sense, although any supertele lens will result in ergonomic challenges for the R bodies, at least for some people (and when not on a tripod/gimbal). A 500mm f/6.3 DO lens would be an interesting choice – it could possibly be made to take a 77mm filter (assuming the typical rounding for lenses, e.g. 490mm and f/6.4 would mean a 76.7mm front element). With DO, it could possibly be slightly smaller than the EF 400/5.6.


I wish Canon would be a bit quicker. Nikon already have the 300/4 and 500/5.6 PF out, the 600/5.6 is rumoured for this summer, and there is a patent for a 400/5.6 PF.


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 29, 2019)

After shooting 3 weeks in jungle and cloud I'm not sure I would be pleased with slower lenses. F8 is not my idea of ideal and it seems teleconverters are always involved for reach. F11 would be rather useless a lot of the time ... for me. If only creatures didn't move, maybe ... or they'd tell you if they were going to move. 

Jack


----------



## AlanF (May 29, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> After shooting 3 weeks in jungle and cloud I'm not sure I would be pleased with slower lenses. F8 is not my idea of ideal and it seems teleconverters are always involved for reach. F11 would be rather useless a lot of the time ... for me. If only creatures didn't move, maybe ... or they'd tell you if they were going to move.
> 
> Jack


Miss Piggy said never eat more than you can lift, and it's similar with lenses. We have to compromise between weight, aperture and focal length. The 400mm DO II is a good compromise for me, as much as I can lift and the f/4 is useful for low light and can be extended in brighter light. I suspect the Nikon 600/5.6 will lighter than the Canon 400 mm DO II, and it will have a larger front element and let in a little more light.


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 29, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Miss Piggy said never eat more than you can lift, and it's similar with lenses. We have to compromise between weight, aperture and focal length. The 400mm DO II is a good compromise for me, as much as I can lift and the f/4 is useful for low light and can be extended in brighter light. I suspect the Nikon 600/5.6 will lighter than the Canon 400 mm DO II, and it will have a larger front element and let in a little more light.


Sure, we both know the trade-offs. For me personally, this was the first time I was frustrated by high ISOs. You'd think I would have been mentally prepared having read "cloud forest" in the literature.  Also I didn't realize jungle trees were so tall and dense - duh.

Whatever negative thoughts I have about the 1DX2, high ISO performance isn't one of them, so that helped.

Sometimes it was my fault for not programming the camera to allow instantaneous flipping from faster to slower shutter, which I'm going to work on since I can have a completely full camera different case on the back button. What tended to happen is I'd hedge my bets going for a faster shutter since the bird often moves and so in some cases I could have shot 800mm at less than say 1/400 but one can get burned with blur, after all it doesn't take much movement when shooting 800mm. Probably, my biggest problem is my brain is slower than my lens!

Jack


----------



## motofotog (May 30, 2019)

Why can’t Canon come with a cheaper 500mm f5.6 lens!


----------

