Finally! If priced competitively with industry peers this would be my first RF lens. And 1.4x extender. Sans 300mm f/4 and 400mm f/5.6 this is a huge hole in the lineup, imo. Fingers crossed!

In Canada the Sigma 500mm f/5.6 goes for $4,400 on their site so would be looking for something similar. Or, if a silver ring edition then closer to $3,500 to be priced in line with the 200-800 zoom assuming a similar build but better optical quality due to, say, a larger optical exit lens. The zoom goes for ~ $2,800.

Interesting. It could be a nice combo with the expected R7II

I'm asking here for this lens for years, thank god!! Make it happen Canon!!

I loved my EF 400mm 5.6L and never had a lens like this again! (no, 100-500 L is not close).

what is the use of a 300-600 f5.6 if Canon has the 100-500 of very decent quality. You would gain 100mm and 2/3 stop of light at the cost of 7k? IMHO 600/5.6 would be ideal in combination with the 100-500. Light, small and with very good optical quality. With the extender RF 1.4 and 2.0 ideal which would cover all needs from 100-1200mm.

Michael Clark said:

That sounds like the original 7D in AI Servo mode.

Click to expand...

The 7D I and II needed a lot of light, then their AF perfomances improved, in particular the Mk II started to perform substantially more accurately. So their AF sensors were quite noisy.

Michael Clark said:

It seems to me that with MILCs the issue is usually how accurately the lens can move compared to how much the camera told the lens to move, and how well the camera can know how much the lens actually moved without continuing to focus during the movement when processing cycles might be better spent for predictive analysis of where the target will be when the shutter (mechanical or electronic) is actuated. Move and refocus is much slower than measure focus, tell the lens which way to move and how far, then confirm the lens has moved that far without measuring focus again, and take the picture.

Click to expand...

In fact, with DSLRs it was basically the same procedure, despite they had a separate AF sensor (for shooting with OVF). The camera needs a reliable info about the AF drive's exact position to able to focus fast and accurate. The difference is that ML cameras, using their image sensor, can reside to simple contrast AF if other information is lacking, but that requires AF pumping and slows down the whole focusing process so much that you can forget about shooting action.

With our Nikon Z system it turned out that the camera received a wrong information about the real AF drive position, so the lens was mechanically not adjusted to the camera. I don't know how Canon's AF system works exactly (surely details are protected), but seemingly it delivers more information about the AF drive's exact position so the camera can adjust its AF system to a particular lens. This explains also why some older EF lenses don't work very well with the new R cameras. I recently sold my old EF 300mm f/4.0 L IS USM, which still was in good condition, because it pumped too much on my R7 and R52, it wasn't really useable anymore with AF switched on. So, this old lens is obviously not able to send enough data to the camera for any AF adjustments.

Yet another surprise. I thought I read the RF 500mm F5.6 won't happen because it isn't needed anymore and a 400mm plus a 1.4 TC is basically the same thing.

“There is a need to provide an optical system that is small, lightweight, and has good correction of various aberrations.”

Maybe Canon found a way to make it very lightweight and therefore it could make sense.

For those interested in my reports about our Nikon Z8 & Z600mm f/6.3 PF AF issues, with and w/o Nikon's native 1.4x Z TC, a brief update. We AFMAd both combos with my old Spyder Lenscal, distance 10 m (typical setting for shooting smaller birds). Without TC it showed a massive backfocus, with TC on it was even worse. The Z8 allows to save different AF microadjustment settings for the combo with and w/o TC, fortunately. Our first days out for birding after that procedure showed a substantial improvement in AF performance for both combos, in fact the combo with TC was the first time really useable without residing to manual focusing. Only real action with birds in flight is not yet tested due to the lack of occasions.

So it really makes sense that Nikon still offers the option in their Z camera menus to AFMA lenses (at least in their pro/prosumer cameras). Canon, by contrast, obviously relies much more on auto correction algorithms "under the hood" with the RF system. So far, I have no complaints, as a Canon user I am happy that I don't have to bother anymore with AMFAing all my "AF critical" lenses, what always required quite a bit of work.

I think this is the only way it makes sense. Canon already has the C50 and the R5 and R6 series are very capable, so an entry-level cine camera like the R50 V would hit a good spot in the market.

roby17269 said:

DPReview has posted an article about this:
DPR Article

A couple of considerations:

• R5 and R5C are physically different cameras: the R5 is not a "less video" version of the R5C
• The increased cost of the R5C is mostly due to physical differences (cooling) and the fact that Canon sells less R5C cameras than R5 ones
• If they made a video-less version of a camera with only software changes, it will cost more because it will require dedicated support / fw and will sell in lower numbers. A video-less version of a camera with physical differences (e.g. remove internal cooling) would cost even more since the manufactoring will be different as well
• If you were right, how do you explain monochrome versions of existing cameras costing more? Those are the same as their color-enabled siblings, they just remove the bayer filter and remove some options from the firmware (color simulations)

Click to expand...

Physical cooling is the main difference similar to what is being rumoured with the V version but takes out IBIS which offsets the passive cooling. We don’t know what the relative cost difference is.
The R5c has not only longer run times but also 8k60 vs 8k39 on the R5.
Adding the cinema menus but only via restart makes it a video SW version but looks to be shoe horned in vs a redeveloped integrated SW release.

I can’t comment on colour vs monochrome as canon hasn’t done that before and Leica charge what the market will bare.
Canon has released 2 Astro sensor bodies with the IR filter removed and charged more but that was a long time ago

@Canon Rumors -- FYI, some duplicate paragraphs in your article.

To me, a "retro" camera is one you put on the shelf, and stays there except when you want to show it off to a relative.

I like the idea of this camera, specially because I needed something smaller than the R6mark iii and I got the lumix S9, which size and features are incredible, love the footage from it, I would deff return it if Canon releases this to compete with a camera like lumix S9, otherwise theres the R6 mark ii and c50 already out there. IBIS on lumix is amazing and would hope this new camera has IBIS too, mechanical shutter would be great but I doubt it cause its a V camera. Anyway hope its small otherwise I have no idea who this camera is for when they can just get the R6 mark iii for couple hundred more than the expected 2k price? Plus lens? Yeeez, my lumix s9 with kit lens was $1259.

I'm more interested in an R7V than an R6V, mostly because most of my FF lenses are old and can be noisy when focusing during a video. Most of my APS-C lenses are Sigma zooms and primes that work well on my R50V. There is also the rumor that the R7-2 would be 7680 X 4320 5120 pixels, more than the C50 or rumored R6V. One possible result that Canon could introduce an R7V using the same body as the R6V. What the relative prices would be is anybody's guess.

Canon Rumors said:

UPDATE: The EOS R6 V announcement might not be this week, but the NDAs are signed, sealed and delivered. I'll let you know when I know. Announcements generally come soon after the NDAs are signed.

There is a big dealer meeting in a European country on Wednesday. Once dealers know..... They're leaky.

Click to expand...

I think it might be on the 28th, cause that's also the date they supposedly release the G7XIII special edition. At least that's what the Canon page says.

I really don’t get where this would be positioned in the lineup other than it should be cheaper than the C50 because it’s a V camera.

But isn’t that what the R6III is for?

So weird.

neuroanatomist said:

You would be interested in an RF 456mm f/1.4L VCM? I’d think that the 325mm diameter front element would make it a wee bit heavy.

Click to expand...

Dear me, you are out by a factor of 2. Add them up, then doubling the focal length means using Canon's method of welding on a 2x TC. So it's only 163mm, = a 456mm f/2.8, which is hardly more than a 400mm f/2.8.

Thank you for this article. I'm personally very excited about the R6V, this is something I've been wanting since the R5C. My hope is they will add IBIS to the video-line "V" cameras, and leave it out of the "C" cameras. Generally - and I don't speak for everyone here - but generally cinema cameras are preferred not have IBIS, as there can be issues with vibration distortion, even with a floating sensor that has IBIS disabled. The types of video work I do involve tripod (interviews, no ibis needed) handheld (terrible without ibis) and gimbal (ibis optional). Canon has/had some corner wobble distortion in video with ibis on wide angle lenses - for this I am thankful that the R5c works great on a gimbal with no ibis, and thus no corner wobble. Handheld, however, is as jittery as an iphone 5 after 4 cups of espresso.

If Canon is aiming the R6V at small content creators, vloggers, and indie film folks - those users are absolutely going to be pissed off to not have IBIS, especially when all the previous R6 series cameras have it. For those folks that don't want IBIS, there's the C50. I would appreciate a dual line of cameras with and without ibis, like an R6V and an R6VI (with ibis) something like that, similar to the 5DS and 5DSR without the antialiasing filter. This would make a lot of people happy. Choices. Then we can complain about something else other than ibis.

Canon Rumors said:

I'd be cool if they did the 16-28 and 28-70 2.8s. They won't touch an L. I have no idea if lenses are in the cards

Click to expand...

my first camera was the AE-1 in 1980. i will buy this camera if it is a legitimate back-up to my R5 -- i am strictly a stills shooter. i have my lenses already

Canon Rumors said:

It has been a weird few days around here. There have been lots of gaffes on my part, but the full-frame “V” series camera is coming soon. I have been trying to figure out where an EOS R6 V would fit in the line-up from a pricing angle. I have no idea what the price […]

See full article...

Click to expand...

I hope it has an active hotshoe for flash and IBIS. It will make it a clearer distinction from the C50, but I doubt it due to its placement being cheaper than the C50 in the lineup

neuroanatomist said:

You would be interested in an RF 456mm f/1.4L VCM? I’d think that the 325mm diameter front element would make it a wee bit heavy.

Click to expand...

Yes but @AlanF’s wallet will be so much lighter that carrying this behemoth lens into battle will not be a problem.

SD card slot? That would mean no 8K video i guess. So no 33 MP Sensor neccessary, could work with the R6II 24MP sensor. And no IBIS. Except for the LP-E6 Battery (and the ?dual SD slot?) we are pretty much in R8 territory with that.

AlanF said:

14+20+24+35+50+ 85 = 228. Double that and I'll start getting interested.

Click to expand...

You would be interested in an RF 456mm f/1.4L VCM? I’d think that the 325mm diameter front element would make it a wee bit heavy.

neuroanatomist said:

You and someone else I know... 14-20-24-35-50-85, pretty crowded space already, but hope springs eternal!

Click to expand...

14+20+24+35+50+ 85 = 228. Double that and I'll start getting interested.

It has to have CFExpress B to do any of the 7K and raw codecs, but perhaps just a single slot.

If this camera doesn’t have IBIS, I think it will struggle. I use my R6 III way more than my C50 for video because it has IBIS (I like fast, manual focus primes). A big reason for the FX3, S1 II, and ZR success is that you can keep them small and handheld because of the IBIS. Plenty of ways to differentiate the R6V from the C50 (handle, XLR, timecode, cooling) and R6 III (EVF, mechanical shutter) and still have IBIS.

Not to sound dramatic, but I used the ZR and was blown away. The 4" screen should be mandatory for any video-focused camera going forward (nice work, Kinefinity Vista).