neuroanatomist said:

I could probably live with that, but that's not how it's implemented on Canon's only other PZ lens. For the RF-S 14-30 PZ, the zoom ring is a rocker.

Click to expand...

I think they can get away with that sort of implementation on a $369 kit-lens type of lens, but I don't think it would fly on a FF L lens that is likely to cost around a thousand dollars more.

mb66energy said:

for me a strange idea to have R6 iii, R6 V and C50 as three flavours of one basic camera "segment".

Click to expand...

It is exactly what Sony does.
ZV-E1, A7S III, FX3, and FX6.

Del Paso said:

Right, a powerzoom is not needed for photography

Click to expand...

It is when you want to operate the camera remotely

Canon Rumors said:

You can use a PZ lens like any other lens. It just zooms by wire instead of traditional gears.

Click to expand...

PZ, at least in the RF-S lens, is not a zoom-by-wire like Canon RF lenses are focus-by-wire – no freely rotating ring. The RF-S 14-30 does not have a normal zoom control with an added motor, the 'zoom ring' is a rocker switch in the form of a ring. I suppose one would get used to it...

Maybe the RF L PZ lens will have a different design than the current RF-S PZ lens. It's certainly possible to have a freely rotating ring coupled to the zoom motor, my Vixia HF G60 camcorder has a freely rotating, knurled ring in front that can be used for focus or zoom (controlled by a switch next to the ring).



The implementation is not ideal, IMO, but better than the two-speed rocker on the RF-S 14-30. The zoom speed varies with ring rotation speed, but there's a short but still noticeable lag between when I start turning the ring and when the zooming starts. For example, I can give the ring a very quick, short rotation and then the camcorder gives a short, quick zoom that happens after I stopped rotating the ring. The process just feels a bit imprecise. Personally, I use the ring for manual focusing and stick to the rocker on top for zooming.

Fast zooming does not seem very desirable for videography, whereas you may want to zoom in quickly to take a picture. Might matter less with a 2.5x zoom range in the ultrawide-to-normal range.

mimbu said:

I think that depends a lot on how the PZ functionality is implemented. I'm not familiar with Canon's RF PZ systems to date, but I would hope a Canon L lens with PZ would work similarly to Sony's 16-35/4G PZ.

Sony put six of their fastest XD Linear motors into the 16-35G. Four for focusing (2 motors x 2 groups), and 2 for zooming. The result is that the zoom ring has the same feeling and performance as the focus-by-wire system. You can twist the zoom ring really quickly and get really fast zooming, or you can twist it slowly and get slow zooming. The ring is also not a rocker, you turn it the same as you would a mechanically coupled zoom ring, though there are no hard stops AFAIK. Basically, the zoom ring works like the focus by wire MF ring does.

Click to expand...

I could probably live with that, but that's not how it's implemented on Canon's only other PZ lens. For the RF-S 14-30 PZ, the zoom ring is a rocker. I've never used it, but here's how Bryan/TDP describes it:

The 14-30 PZ's zoom ring does not function conventionally. Instead, it is a two-directional switch that controls the motor for the built-in power zoom feature. Partially rotating the zoom ring counterclockwise (from behind the camera) slowly zooms the lens to a longer focal length, and a clockwise rotation slowly does the opposite. A full rotation (only a handful of degrees) in either direction switches the motor into its higher speed mode for quick adjustments.

So apparently it's a two-speed rocker control. Like I said, not something I'd want in a photography lens.

mimbu said:

Another benefit is that the zoom and AF work in concert to maintain perfect focus when zooming, with no delay. It makes the lens appear to be completely parfocal.

Click to expand...

Not for the RF-S 14-30 PZ. Again quoting Bryan/TDP here:

Non-cinema lenses typically require refocusing after a focal length change. As illustrated in the 100% crops below, the reviewed lens does not exhibit parfocal-like characteristics. When focused at 30mm, zooming to wider focal lengths continues to produce sharp results until a strong focus blur shows at 14mm.

Especially with the RF-S 14-30mm F4-6.3 IS STM PZ Lens being highly optimized for video recording, it seems that Canon should electronically correct the focus distance during the focal length adjustment.

mimbu said:

If Canon implements something similar to this, I think most photographers who are likely to buy an f4L lens would find it very useable. Certainly anyone who wants it for hybrid use will appreciate it.

Click to expand...

Canon does know their market, probably the lens will sell as well as they need to it (and will be priced to make them a tidy profit). But with those design features, they won't sell one to me.

ThomasTH said:

What a scene, great photos!

Click to expand...

Thank you, Thomas!

neuroanatomist said:

Personally, I would not want a zoom lens with only a motorized zoom function for photography. YMMV.

Click to expand...

I think that depends a lot on how the PZ functionality is implemented. I'm not familiar with Canon's RF PZ systems to date, but I would hope a Canon L lens with PZ would work similarly to Sony's 16-35/4G PZ.

Sony put six of their fastest XD Linear motors into the 16-35G. Four for focusing (2 motors x 2 groups), and 2 for zooming. The result is that the zoom ring has the same feeling and performance as the focus-by-wire system. You can twist the zoom ring really quickly and get really fast zooming, or you can twist it slowly and get slow zooming. The ring is also not a rocker, you turn it the same as you would a mechanically coupled zoom ring, though there are no hard stops AFAIK. Basically, the zoom ring works like the focus by wire MF ring does.

You can also use the zoom rocker on the lens or camera to get smooth constant zooming for video. You can actually set up the lens' zoom responsiveness from within your camera's menu, too. Zooming and AF are both silent, as usual from an XD Linear system.

Another benefit is that the zoom and AF work in concert to maintain perfect focus when zooming, with no delay. It makes the lens appear to be completely parfocal.

As far as zoom lag goes, it's also about the same as what you would experience with a very high end focus by wire system. I suppose if you want to rack the zoom SUPER fast it woujld probably be faster to crank a a mechanically coupled zoom really hard, but the PZ is not slow or laggy.

If Canon implements something similar to this, I think most photographers who are likely to buy an f4L lens would find it very useable. Certainly anyone who wants it for hybrid use will appreciate it.

josephandrews222 said:

R5MkII and 200-800 @ 800

Gray Catbird

View attachment 229035

View attachment 229036

Click to expand...

Your getting the R5ii and RF 200-800mm has definitely paid off as your recent shots have shown.

Del Paso said:

Right, a powerzoom is not needed for photography, could even be disturbing
And, by the way, the newer Z zooms are fully usable without the add-on motor.

Click to expand...

The 24-105/2.8L and newer 70-200/2.8L are Z lenses, not PZ lenses. AFAIK, there is only one Canon PZ lens to date (not counting the Cine Servo zoom lenses). The 'Z' lenses require the PZ-E2 accessory for motorized zoom, otherwise they are regular zoom lenses with a regular, mechanical zoom ring. As you might expect from the '2' there was a PZ-E1 that provided power zoom capability specifically for the EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens.

Have a look at the only other PZ lens, the RF-S 14-30mm F4-6.3 IS STM PZ. PZ means the zoom motor is inside the lens, not in a separate accessory. The zoom ring has no manual function. Turning it one way or the other just activates the built-in zoom motor (in a force-sensitive way so the zoom can be driven at different speeds). Personally, I would not want a zoom lens with only a motorized zoom function for photography. YMMV.

blackcoffee17 said:

Even the EF 100-400 II was better than the prime. Sharper at 400mm and much more flexible. I owned both.

Click to expand...

There was still a cult of the EF 400 f/5.6 L when the EF 100-400 II came out. I suppose the built-in lens hood and kudos of owning a prime. made up for the 3.5m close focus, lack of IS and being less sharp even on Canon's own MTF charts.

riker said:

The third time I'm happy for basically the same post.
Having IBIS might be a sign of Canon making this one more photo-focused and less vlogger crap. This will make many middle aged oldschool boomers like me happy.
And it will make it a reasonable secondary/backup camera for those who haven't seriously considered purchasing one. Until now.

Click to expand...

You do realise there is still the R6MII and the new R6MIII with IBIS and pretty photo centric, and they even have an EVF! And btw, they can do "a bit" of video too.
And the best thing: They even work as backup cameras, if needed.
Why would you even consider a "V" camera model for that?

The third time I'm happy for basically the same post.
Having IBIS might be a sign of Canon making this one more photo-focused and less vlogger crap. This will make many middle aged oldschool boomers like me happy.
And it will make it a reasonable secondary/backup camera for those who haven't seriously considered purchasing one. Until now.

If there's LP-E6NH/P, IBIS and EFCS, I'm getting one.

Any Name said:

And yet, here we are, with the article already adjusted to the (at this moment) suggested/perceived split of the current R8 into an R8V and R8 Mark II. Go figure.
Probably a split by Canon due to wildly different reasons than mine, but we'll see what we end up with eventually.

BTW: 'Photographing' at 30 FPS is just making very short films and hoping that one particular frame has the approximate image you'd want.
Not my kind of picture taking and I'd gladly take a much lower max FPS if that means slower/cheaper onboard buffer RAM, less cooling (as someone else mentioned), etc. etc.

Click to expand...

That's not the same at all. That's not a split, Canon just adding another video-first camera in the lineup. The R8V/R6V is very video specific and doesn't have an EVF. The R8 Mark II will have the same video features as the current R8, it won't be a stills-only camera.

neuroanatomist said:

I’m surprised by the L designation for the PZ lens. 20-50mm is a useful ‘walkaround’ range and the lens will probably be compact and optically excellent (at least for those who don’t mind forced distortion correction at the wide end), but I don’t see any utility of a power zoom for photography.

Click to expand...

Right, a powerzoom is not needed for photography, could even be disturbing.
Yet, provided sharp, 20-50 can be a pretty useful complement to a 70-200, especially as a compact city package.
I'll be among the first buyers if, despite those satanic, devilish and trumpish software corrections, it is as sharp as the 24-70 at comparable focals.
And, by the way, the newer Z zooms are fully usable without the add-on motor.
I have never heard or read about an optically disappointing Canon RF zoom lately...

AlanF said:

The RF 100-500mm is an order of magnitude or more better than the EF 400/5.6. It is sharper at 500 than the prime at 400, has excellent IS against its absence, faster AF, will focus close and had all the advantages of zoom for framing as well as longer with little extra weight. I’ve used both extensively and the zoom is indeed not close, it is miles ahead.

Click to expand...

Even the EF 100-400 II was better than the prime. Sharper at 400mm and much more flexible. I owned both.

I’m surprised by the L designation for the PZ lens. 20-50mm is a useful ‘walkaround’ range and the lens will probably be compact and optically excellent (at least for those who don’t mind forced distortion correction at the wide end), but I don’t see any utility of a power zoom for photography.

What a scene, great photos!

Here's an Osprey couple with one bringing home a fish for dinner.

If this comes in at a ~2200 price point as (someone?) rumored. it's a fair bit of camera for the $$$. I'm personally more interested in the lens and I suspect that if it's a true L in quality it'll be right around the 14-35/4L. Maybe you can squeeze in a kit price of $2999.

Unfortunately, this seems like it may be the 'May event' where 'we' thought the R7II was going to be announced. Hopefully that doesn't mean it's back in limbo.

R5MkII and 200-800 @ 800

Gray Catbird

Maximilian said:

Why should it (edit: the R8m2) get IBIS and the same 32.5 mp sensor?
Of course I would welcome that. But why should people buy an R6m3 then?

Click to expand...

The R6 would still have many advantages: full mechanical shutter, larger battery and viewfinder, weather sealing, 2 card slots (CF express), better thermals for video, big wheel on the back, joystick, larger grip

Canon Rumors said:

To spend $1000 less? There are lots of things you can take away from or step down when comparing an 8 to a 6.

We'll see if IBIS remains one of the features that segments the line.

No IBIS, No Pre-Shooting, No mechanical shutter, smaller body, no CFe B, smaller battery, lower resolution EVF, less in the way of video features... it will be a completely different camera in the end. Throw in what hopefully amounts to more than a paint job with the "Retro".

Click to expand...

I do hope the R8II gets pre-shooting, it's extremely useful!

Wow so we get a vent in exchange of the evf, the rest seems to be identical with R6 III?
I got an ZR and some lense for video since R6III struggles to pass 30 min before shutdown at oversample 60p.

Michael Clark said:

The constant aperture f/2.8 obviously also gives you the option to shoot at wider apertures in brighter light if your camera can shorten exposure times enough to compensate or if you use Neutral Density filters. The minimum exposure time of the R6 Mark II is 1/8,000 with mechanical shutter and 1/16,000 with electronic shutter. "Sunny 16" gives you ISO 100, f/2.8 at 1/6,400.

Click to expand...

I thought I understood the sunny 16 rule, but apparently not. My understanding is if the ISO is 100 then the shutter speed should be 1/100, not 1/6,400. I’m new to this, so I need more help understanding this.