Thanks! Craig mentioned a few days ago this could lead to an article, but I didn't expect it this soon, nice work!

By the way, I never imagined the size difference between gear type STM and lead-screw to be that big, that explains a lot!

Askeladden said:

Even the EF 50 1.2 when compared to the RF 1.2 makes it seem like a piece of doodoo so this new mirrorless budget 1.2 is a big deal. Anyone know if it will have aspherical elements?

Click to expand...

Tried to glean this information from the (48mm/1.28) patent - in the description it seems to indicate an aspherical lens (as the first element behind the aperture mechanism). We'll know in 16 hours.

blackcoffee17 said:

EF mount was never open, it was reverse engineered by the likes of Sigma and Tamron. It's a much simpler protocol than RF.
And back then the third party manufacturers only made low quality and cheap lenses that often could not focus properly. So they were not really a threat for Canon. Today Sigma and Tamron make amazing quality lenses and Chinese manufacturers getting better and better.

I think Sony might be in the situation soon to be able to sell only camera bodies and professional Sony lenses to people will lots of $$$. Everyone else will just use Sigma, Tamron or Chinese lenses.

Click to expand...

It was true initially - that third party makers brought generally cheap, low-quality lenses to the EF mount. But Sigma brought some really nice lenses to the party a little later on, with the ART series. And their 150-600 lens was really never met head-on by Canon. Nikon has/had something of that range and price, but Canon didn't counter it, basically ceding the lower-cost birding market to Sigma (and Tamron). Now, we DO have reasonably-priced super-telephoto zooms like the 200-800 (which I have sitting about 20 feet from me, having just bought one).

I think Canon actually invited Sigma and others to play with at least the APS-C lenses, which is maybe why Canon has not really brought out much in that format other than very cheap, light "kit" type lenses. Although the 18-150 is pretty good optically, for such a wide-ranging zoom, they have no f/2.8 glass and no 15 or 16-xx lenses that would mimic the full frame 24-xx "normal" lenses.

I went and bought the RF 200-800 today, now I have to wait until Christmas to use it. Yup, the burden of being married and a father ... Thanks for all the input here. The body will be taken care of next year. Oops, that sounds like my New Year's resolution of the past five years.

Del Paso said:

Pay attention to prices!
Some lenses, I don't know why, can cost much more than sold by conventional stores. The RF 50mm f/1,8 costs Euro 402 at Panamoz! Twice as much as what you'd pay to conventional online seller. Usually, you can save a lot on the more expensive items, not so on basic ones.

Click to expand...

The non-L lenses do not really have competitive prices but the L-lenses do.

Del Paso said:

Pay attention to prices!
Some lenses, I don't know why, can cost much more than sold by conventional stores. The RF 50mm f/1,8 costs Euro 402 at Panamoz! Twice as much as what you'd pay to conventional online seller. Usually, you can save a lot on the more expensive items, not so on basic ones.

Click to expand...

Panamoz never had good prices on lenses, not sure why.

blackcoffee17 said:

blackcoffee17 said:

When i see an amazing portrait or a beautiful landscape photo, i never think that: oh, the corners should have been sharper

Click to expand...

When i see an amazing portrait or a beautiful landscape photo, i never think that: oh, the corners should have been sharper

Click to expand...

A portrait no, but a beautiful landscape I look to see that the corners are sharp it matters to me

DhlcadR6 said:

Sometimes absolute sharpness makes a photo boring...

Click to expand...

When i see an amazing portrait or a beautiful landscape photo, i never think that: oh, the corners should have been sharper

Traveler said:

They say “on par with the EF 50/1.2”. It may be a disappointment for many.
I’d be probably happy with it. Light weight is more important than sharpness to me.

Click to expand...

Sometimes absolute sharpness makes a photo boring...

Toni said:

I thought R mount was a technical move because that's what Canon touted when they released the R mount.

Canon's EF mount was open. Why does the RF mount have to be closed? It makes no sense.

Click to expand...

EF mount was never open, it was reverse engineered by the likes of Sigma and Tamron. It's a much simpler protocol than RF.
And back then the third party manufacturers only made low quality and cheap lenses that often could not focus properly. So they were not really a threat for Canon. Today Sigma and Tamron make amazing quality lenses and Chinese manufacturers getting better and better.

I think Sony might be in the situation soon to be able to sell only camera bodies and professional Sony lenses to people will lots of $$$. Everyone else will just use Sigma, Tamron or Chinese lenses.

Traveler said:

Some people still prefer the R3. I tried it at a Canon even and there’s something to the integrated vertical grip. Feels much better than a smaller camera with an ad on grip. And the R3 is much lighter than the R1

Click to expand...

I got the R5 Mark II and 99.9% love it, but the R3 is just a great feeling and handling camera. It’s one of the cameras that when you use it, it’s fun because everything is right where it needs to be.

m4ndr4ke said:

Nice work!

Just one thing: both the R6 and R6 Mark II have the same EVF and rear LCD, there was no improvement AFAIK.

The EOS RP has magnesium in its contruction as well, which is a nice touch for the lower price point.

Click to expand...

Dammit! I even had craig check the document to see if I slipped up anywhere. Thanks for the proof reading catches. After a while at looking at the document in wordpress my eyes start to go cross eyed.

Alastair Norcross said:

Thank you for sharing your opinion with us. I'm sure we all appreciate it.

Click to expand...

Thanks, I do the same with yours.

Traveler said:

Why did you think it was a technical move? It's the exact same mount just with a shorter distance between the lens and the sensor. And there are quite some advantages to it, especially for wider lenses. The RF 16 2.8 is one example of it. But also the RF 28-70 f/2.8, RF 14-35 f/4 etc. You don't see it with telephoto though. But it doesn't mean it can be any better than other ML mounts.

I don't understand the cries about the "closed" mount. For me, there are way more options in the RF mount than the Sony FE mount. Besides the FE mount is limited to 15 fps. So it depends on what a person prefers. Some will find better options in one mount, some in another. But it is definitely not about the numbers. A lot of options for the FE are just variations on the same focal length etc.
Yes, youtubers complain about it because there's not much more to say. And people just repeat them without thinking about it.

Click to expand...

I thought R mount was a technical move because that's what Canon touted when they released the R mount.

Canon's EF mount was open. Why does the RF mount have to be closed? It makes no sense.

Nice work!

Just one thing: both the R6 and R6 Mark II have the same EVF and rear LCD, there was no improvement AFAIK.

The EOS RP has magnesium in its contruction as well, which is a nice touch for the lower price point.

blackcoffee17 said:

I am enjoying my Canon lenses, thank you. No need for 15 different 85mm 1.8 variants.

Click to expand...

You have no choice. So there's no point in saying whether you need them or not.

Besides, Canon has already opened the RF mount for APS-C, right? That contradicts your argument.

Traveler said:

The main reason is that the 24-105 f/4L is based on the 20-years-old design and I'm sure they can do better now.

I don't say that the 24-105mm f/4 can be half the size or something. Just that I'm sure that they can make it noticeably smaller and lighter. For me, it is my main lens on a travel and every 100g counts.

Click to expand...

I agree, the lens could/ should be put on a diet or keep the weight and extend the focal length. A brand new design should be able to achieve a lighter lens. The current one weighs ≈ 700gr. It would be great if Canon could drop it to 560 ≈ 590 gr. That would be a 15-20% reduction, but probably a 630gr version (10%) is more realistic.

candyman said:

Of course you can use C-RAW. Image quality is good.

Click to expand...

I've been already using it. Still prefer smaller file size of 20 or 24 Mpix sensor
Of course, this is no deal breaker at all.

Canon Rumors said:

The DIGIC accelerator takes the heavy lifting from the main processor. It is what deals with processing the crazy amount of data that come from speed and resolution. The DIGIC processor is left to deal with rendering and whatnot.

It also deals with autofocus, the "learning" and the cross-type R1 stuff as well as exposure. Features like shooting video and stills at the same time, and offloading them to separate memory cards.

Think of the DIGIC Accelerator as a powerful GPU taking some of the processing duties from the CPU.

Dual DIGIC processors in some cameras used to be a thing. The difference here is the accelerator has specific duties, it's not just two processors working in parallel.

Click to expand...

You're just guessing though. Even the tech guys from Canon don't know what exactly does it do. My opinion is similar to yours – it helps the Digic X. And as you said, there used to be dual Digic in some cameras. This is probably something similar but the camera doesn't need double the speed so the accelerator is just a little brother.

My point was that the Digic accelerator probably isn't designed for a specific task like "AI autofocus" so an absence of it may not mean losing features. It may be that 30-ish MP is still fine for the Digic X alone, but for 45Mpix it needs a help. Or for cross-type (as you mentioned).

Or, the accelerator helps with the "basketball autofocus" feature and the R6iii won't have it.

One more point is that Digic X is not the same processor in every camera so the one in the R6iii may be more powerfull.

Anyways, just saying that having no Digic accelerator doesn't mean much.

blackcoffee17 said:

The 28-70 f/2.8 is smaller because of 28mm. My problem with the 24-105L is the price. It's way too expensive for what it is. The Nikon 24-120 F4 is almost 50% cheaper in UK.

Click to expand...

That is definitely not the only reason. Compare the 28-70 f/2.8 to the 24-70 f/2.8. The size and weight difference is huge and there's no way that those 4mm makes the lens almost double the weight.
I know there is the collapsible design that contributes to the size (but not the weight), also they developed smaller IS mechanism etc. The main reason is that the 24-105 f/4L is based on the 20-years-old design and I'm sure they can do better now.

I don't say that the 24-105mm f/4 can be half the size or something. Just that I'm sure that they can make it noticeably smaller and lighter. For me, it is my main lens on a travel and every 100g counts.

Only 20 hours left, are there any last little leaks !?

Canon Rumors said:

Ahh sweet, thanks for the correction. I've never used an R52. I wonder why that was in my head. It won't be now.

If the R63 readout is as fast as the R52, that's still a good thing.

Click to expand...

I really think that the readout speed is gonna be similar to the R6 mark 2.

Stig Nygaard said:

This is (must be) with mechanical sensor for the R6III. I don't think it tells much about sensor readout speed (*). If it was 1/320 with electronic shutter it would be a completely different matter ( => very fast sensor readout).
It is a good and fast mechanical shutter being able to do flash sync at 1/320s. But with a non-stacked sensor I wont expect the R6III to be able to do flash-sync at all with the electronic shutter.

(*) Or am I wrong? Is sensor readout speed also important for flash-sync with mechanical shutter?

Click to expand...

I was thinking the same. The sync speed is purely about the speed of the shutter, nothing to do with the speed of the sensor.