Canon’s big announcements coming the third week of July

[chik0240]

darn, it seems I can't get hold on the R5II before my mid september trip...

 

[YuengLinger]

The very name, "Influencer," to me, shouts, "Extortion! Manipulation! Mooching!"

So many just flat out look slimy in 2024. Unless they are demonstrating yoga, that is. Then another word comes to mind...

 

[PGSanta]

darn, it seems I can't get hold on the R5II before my mid september trip...

Assuming it is indeed opened for preorders in the third week of July you should be able to get it by September if you jump in early. I'm in the same boat, as I leave for a long overseas trip starting the third week of September stretching through January.

Given history, so long as you're in the initial batch I think it's doable. If it's just a dev announcement that would be incredibly disappointing. We'll see.

 

[P-visie]

Wait till your hear the rumour that the announcement gets moved to the 4th week of July!

Jan Wegener mentions July 17th as the announcement date for both the R1 nd R5 Mk II in his ‘Early bird photonews’ video.

 

[scyrene]

An L series RF 1:1 macro lens in the 80-85mm range that's not the 85mm f/2 STM (with its 1:2 magnification, slooow AF, etc...). I have the RF 100 macro and it's great, but it would be nice to have an equivalent quality option at a slightly wider focal length for when I'm not after the tiniest of subjects.

This is unlikely imo. Has there ever been an 85mm Canon full frame true macro lens? The only one I can think of (at least going back to the start of EF) that was wider than 100mm is the MP-E, and focal length is a bit meaningless in that case. There were/are wider lenses that go to 1:2, and a 60mm but that was APS-C only. And the only two L 1:1 macros were the 100 and 180, I think?

If you're not after tiny subjects, 1:1 isn't essential, right? A faster-focusing 1:2 would seem to be adequate, and maybe that would happen (eg RF 85 mark II).

 

[P-visie]

This is unlikely imo. Has there ever been an 85mm Canon full frame true macro lens? The only one I can think of (at least going back to the start of EF) that was wider than 100mm is the MP-E, and focal length is a bit meaningless in that case. There were/are wider lenses that go to 1:2, and a 60mm but that was APS-C only. And the only two L 1:1 macros were the 100 and 180, I think?

If you're not after tiny subjects, 1:1 isn't essential, right? A faster-focusing 1:2 would seem to be adequate, and maybe that would happen (eg RF 85 mark II).

Canon also had an EF 50 mm f2.5 macrolens with .5 magnification. With an extension tube to get to 1:1 magnification.
See: https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/ef271.html

Tamron makes a 90mm f2.8 macrolens for EF mount, see: https://www.tamron.com/global/consumer/lenses/f017/spec.html

 

[koenkooi]

Canon also had an EF 50 mm f2.5 macrolens with .5 magnification. With an extension tube to get to 1:1 magnification.
See: https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/ef271.html

Tamron makes a 90mm f2.8 macrolens for EF mount, see: https://www.tamron.com/global/consumer/lenses/f017/spec.html

The ‘life size converter’ for the 50mm actually has optics in it. That and its price made me look at other options, but it is something I’d like to see Canon do for RF, a purpose built converter for macro lenses.

 

[scyrene]

Ever-higher prices

Is that unique to Canon?

increasingly unreliable equipment.

??

 

[scyrene]

Canon also had an EF 50 mm f2.5 macrolens with .5 magnification. With an extension tube to get to 1:1 magnification.
See: https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/ef271.html

Yes but the OP was talking about 1:1 (and indeed L), I worded my reply as clearly as I could. You could of course add extension tubes to any lens to increase magnification but it's not ideal in all circumstances. Incidentally the Canon TS-E also has 1:2 magnification.

 

[HarryFilm]

Just so y'all know, while this website IS Canon-related there ARE other cameras out there and my own personal favourite for personal use is the Fuji GFX 100 which you can get used for around $4999 for a 100 Megapixel camera that can ALSO do 8K resolution video using a larger and much more light-sensitive sensor! Beautiful colour rendition and quite easy to use! I have a LOT of Fuji gear myself including a lot of Fuji GFX cameras and about six Fujinon Cinema Zoom lenses and when I compare the Fujis against the Canon 1Dc/x2/x3 (which I have a few of) the Canons don't actually seem to work as well as the Fuji in terms of operator ease-of-use or the final colour rendition quality.

I sincerely HOPE that the R1 will be as good as Canon says! I personally think the R5 Mk2 will probably shine very brightly in the video sphere because it offers a lot of bang for the buck! That said, there is STILL a lot of excellent Big-Bang-for-the-Buck cameras out there! The Sony A7s Mk2/mk3 series are SUPERB low-light cameras for stills AND video and their prices on the USED MARKET make them a VERY tempting buy!

I would also suggest Panasonic G-series cameras which ALSO have awesome bang for the buck. They are also VERY video-production-friendly cameras that are a good buy for the budding cinematographer!

In terms of Canon cameras and if you are a newbie to photography and video, I also very much suggest an M-series camera even though Canon discontinued them because they have outstanding image quality for video and stills in a super-small form factor. The price on the used market makes them an AWESOME BUY in 2024! Get as many good lenses as you can afford up-front that fit the mounts and use those cameras until you can't no more! I personally like the M50 and the even older M5-series as a great crash-camera-option and as best-price favourites in the budget used camera category.

And one SLEEPER-HIT of a camera where I am taking it out more and more on my weekend trips is the super-rugged Olympus TG-6 waterproof, shock-proof and freeze-proof camera which I have used for BOTH stills and video during snorkelling, shallow-water SCUBA diving, skiing, snowmobiling, 4x4 back-country off-roading and mountain biking!

In terms of overall image quality, it is a surprisingly good camera AND if you run your stills and video through an image enhancement filter pack such as Fro-Pack (i.e. FroKnowsPhoto youtube channel), you can make some pretty cinematic imagery that looks GREAT on a 65 inch 4K TV! The fact that it is so rugged and small compared to my DSLRs makes me throw it into my backpack more often than not!

Canon makes GREAT cameras! No mistakes about that BUT they are NOT the only game in town! Fuji, Sony, Olympus and Panasonic should also gander a further look for the stills photography buff and for the video pro, Blackmagic makes AWESOME video cameras for the price in their DSLR-like video-oriented line of cameras. (i.e. Blackmagic Pocket and Cinema 6K lines)

I even suggest taking a closer look to Sony xPeria Smartphones which have some of the prettiest stills and video capabilities around in such a small form factor as a smartphone! The older xPeria 1-III model is from 2021 but still has an amazing camera on it and can be bought for less than 1/3rd it's original price (i.e. now $320 USD used!). For super-high-end modern specs, of course the Sony xPeria 1-IV (2023 model) and xPeria 1-V (2024 model) are something else to behold in their 48 megapixel image sensors and pro-level user-selectable fully-automatic and fully-manual imaging control software!

V

 

[Del Paso]

Canon Australia used to have a small team of people for promotion eg events, equipment try etc which were fairly popular.
I certainly enjoyed them but they retrenched them a few years ago. Most still run workshops etc but it was a bit of a shock locally as they were well liked.
At some point the bean counters look at the numbers and ask if marketing can reel in the numbers.
Perhaps they thought that offering a local 5 year warranty on bodies/lenses would be sufficient differentiator.

Same thing with the retailers where only one seems to have regular events.
Canon are - in some ways - resting on their laurels with market dominance. Shifting the needle would be good for competition and ultimately better for us.

The trouble with many companies, is often that they want to see a direct and immediate correlation between expenditures and sales. Such PR events only have an indirect, often long-term incidence on sales, sadly.
And the bean-counters know they can quickly climb up hierarchy ladder if they can produce immediate savings. At the cost of future profits for the company.
I often tried to argue against such decisions, usually to no avail...

 

[Del Paso]

I've just gone with Nikon, convinced that this R1 at a crazy price for only 24 MP
wouldn't suit me. I've had enough of waiting for certain lenses that are always promised but never released. Ever-higher prices for increasingly unreliable equipment. An after-sales service whose main concern is to charge a lot for repairs if you're lucky enough to have parts available.

Welcome to Nikon Wonderworld where cameras are reliable, service is perfect and cheap, and every single lens you ever wanted is available...
A truly humanistic welfare company!

 

[Quack]

I've just gone with Nikon, convinced that this R1 at a crazy price for only 24 MP
wouldn't suit me. I've had enough of waiting for certain lenses that are always promised but never released. Ever-higher prices for increasingly unreliable equipment. An after-sales service whose main concern is to charge a lot for repairs if you're lucky enough to have parts available.

Despite most of what you say is complete hogwash, I commend you for actually switching rather than merely complaining that Canon is not giving you what you want. Nikon makes great cameras and lenses in my limited experience with them. Anyone who really believes that they offer more of what they want, should consider switching. Yes, it is not economical, but can be done if you have the resources. About 3 years ago, I sold my Canon gear and went to Nikon. I was looking for the least expensive full frame camera and the Z5 was much better, in my opinion, than the Canon RP. I was also looking for an all-arounder lens, and the Nikon 24-200 was superior to the Canon 24-240. So I switched rather than whine and complain about Canon not giving me what I wanted. In the end, I switched back as I couldn't deal with the difference in Nikon color. Personal preference, but was used to canon color and much prefer canon color.

 

[mpmark]

I'm in the underwater photography niche (currently with an R5) and would like, in no particular order:

• A global shutter body with resolution comparable to the R5 that can flash sync at speeds above 1/200 or 1/250.

If you understood how global shutters work, flash sync speed is zero, you don't get anything else

 

[mpmark]

I've just gone with Nikon, convinced that this R1 at a crazy price for only 24 MP
wouldn't suit me. I've had enough of waiting for certain lenses that are always promised but never released. Ever-higher prices for increasingly unreliable equipment. An after-sales service whose main concern is to charge a lot for repairs if you're lucky enough to have parts available.

This comment is plain ridiculous and bias, I've owned canon lenses and bodies for 20+ years, I have owned countless EF lenses, including big whites, I moved to two R5's RF 600f/4, another 5-6 RF lenses and never ever have i had reliability issues with the equipment.

Either you are extremely unlucky, extremely bias as now you shoot Nikon or maybe always have, or you drag your cameras and lenses behind your car on the way home. Either way, you're not changing my mind but thanks for letting us all know.

 

[Del Paso]

This comment is plain ridiculous and bias, I've owned canon lenses and bodies for 20+ years, I have owned countless EF lenses, including big whites, I moved to two R5's RF 600f/4, another 5-6 RF lenses and never ever have i had reliability issues with the equipment.

Either you are extremely unlucky, extremely bias as now you shoot Nikon or maybe always have, or you drag your cameras and lenses behind your car on the way home. Either way, you're not changing my mind but thanks for letting us all know.

3 Canon cameras, 18 lenses since 2014.(plus the ones I sold).
Issues, repairs? Zero.
Trolls are trolls, and users are users. And never the twain shall meet.

 

[Breizh]

This comment is plain ridiculous and bias, I've owned canon lenses and bodies for 20+ years, I have owned countless EF lenses, including big whites, I moved to two R5's RF 600f/4, another 5-6 RF lenses and never ever have i had reliability issues with the equipment.

Either you are extremely unlucky, extremely bias as now you shoot Nikon or maybe always have, or you drag your cameras and lenses behind your car on the way home. Either way, you're not changing my mind but thanks for letting us all know.

There are two reasons for this choice, the multiple contacts on the flash hotshoe which are a source of corrosion at the slightest contact with sea water and the memory card opening door held by a low-cost spring which is not worthy of a so-called professional camera like the R3. Last but not least, the CPS told me that the R3 was not as well tropicalised as the DX series, which doesn't prevent them from talking about the R3's great topicalisation in their advertising. Everyone is still free to choose what is best for his work.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

 

[TostitoBandito]

- My EF8-15/4 is still working find but I am not following your comment on length as the RF8-15/4 is still the shortest port length vs the other wide angles and within 200gm of the alternatives...
EF8-15/4 = 20mm port extension 700gm (including adaptor)
RF10-20/4 = 28mm 570gm
RF14-35/4 = 50mm 540gm
RF15-35/2.8 = 78mm 835gm
Personally, I am planning to upgrade to RF14-35/4 later this year which will reduce my use of my fisheye even further as it is much wider. I will still use it for astro though. The 'fisheye' look is still unique though but I find it hard to have good compositions.

- Depending on the vis, I have often taken shots of bigger subjects with my 100mm macro. I always enable full focus range just in case of bigger / more distant subjects. If it hunts then I use my hand to bring it back to close focus.

Wow, someone else! I actually already have the RF 14-35 f/4 as I've always been a rectilinear WA guy. It's a solid lens, though I find that the widest couple mm of focal length are only usable in select situations (like blue backgrounds) because the edges get really blurry even stopped way down (this is behind an 8" dome). So most of the time I use it as more of a 16-35, which is fine. I however have been wanting to get a fisheye to play with and I'm mostly just frustrated that there isn't yet a fisheye in the RF range. I could go find a used one I suppose, but given the cost I'd rather be spending the money on RF glass and not something from 14 years ago. Point taken on the weight/size though.

I also take shots of all sorts of stuff with my 100mm macro, Most of my subjects are actually probably in the sweet spot for something like an 85mm, like clownfish and other things in the 1-3" range. Given the cropping ability the R5 gives you, it isn't always necessary to have the maximum magnification, but I do still want to get as close as possible and minimize the amount of water I'm shooting through. This is sort of a "want" I guess more than I need, but if something like an 80mm 1:1 or better macro existed from Canon I'd almost certainly get it to play with. Would be a great fish portrait lens, and then I could bust out the 100 when I want to go dig around in the muck for nudis or seahorses or whatever. I know a lot of the Nikon guys enjoy having both their 60mm and 100mm macros to choose from.

 

[koenkooi]

Wow, someone else! I actually already have the RF 14-35 f/4 as I've always been a rectilinear WA guy. It's a solid lens, though I find that the widest couple mm of focal length are only usable in select situations (like blue backgrounds) because the edges get really blurry even stopped way down (this is behind an 8" dome). So most of the time I use it as more of a 16-35, which is fine. I however have been wanting to get a fisheye to play with and I'm mostly just frustrated that there isn't yet a fisheye in the RF range. I could go find a used one I suppose, but given the cost I'd rather be spending the money on RF glass and not something from 14 years ago. Point taken on the weight/size though.

I also take shots of all sorts of stuff with my 100mm macro, Most of my subjects are actually probably in the sweet spot for something like an 85mm, like clownfish and other things in the 1-3" range. Given the cropping ability the R5 gives you, it isn't always necessary to have the maximum magnification, but I do still want to get as close as possible and minimize the amount of water I'm shooting through. This is sort of a "want" I guess more than I need, but if something like an 80mm 1:1 or better macro existed from Canon I'd almost certainly get it to play with. Would be a great fish portrait lens, and then I could bust out the 100 when I want to go dig around in the muck for nudis or seahorses or whatever. I know a lot of the Nikon guys enjoy having both their 60mm and 100mm macros to choose from.

FWIW, the 100mm macros from Canon are ~70mm at 1:1 due to focus breathing. Have you looked at the EF Sigma 70mm macro? it extends like crazy, but it might give you the angle of view you want.

 

[EricN]

Reuters went Sony, according to TDP...

That's disappointing. I met a photographer who was said to be from Reuters using three cameras one of which was a m4/3. I'm not sure if he wasn't really from Reuters or he just chose to use additional cameras?