Old Man FL/FD said:

However, consider this – if this adapter came to fruition, Canon could have bragging rights by saying: “Every lens we (Canon) have sold since 1959; R, FL, FD, EF and RF can be mounted to a R-series camera with all its native capability intact.”

That would be pretty good marketing.

Click to expand...

Not happening.
1) Adapting old lenses is a niche market.
2) Not profitable for Canon even if they sold these adapters for $99. They want to sell cameras and lenses.

JensR said:

i do think Old Man FL/FD does not want a passive adapter. He would like a "translator" between the mechanic control parts of FD lenses and the electronic part of the RF mount, so that aperture could work in auto (manual works with the adapters already available), so the semi-automatic modes, lightmeter-display (over/under) and such would work on RF Bodies like they used to work on FD Bodies from the AE1 upwards (T70, T90, you get the idea), manual focusing with open aperture and the camera will close the aperture to the selected value during shooting...

While it might be technically doable, since Canon does no longer sell any FD lenses there would be no profit in making this adapter for them, the demand for such a thing might be rather low (You can choose from over 100 EF lenses from canon alone for your RF system already).

My prediction would be it is an idea, and it will stay an idea... nothing more.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification on my concept for a ‘smart’ FD to RF adapter.

I agree, this probably will not make it to market, albeit the R&D would be modest.

However, consider this – if this adapter came to fruition, Canon could have bragging rights by saying: “Every lens we (Canon) have sold since 1959; R, FL, FD, EF and RF can be mounted to a R-series camera with all its native capability intact.”

That would be pretty good marketing.

I would love to have the R8 as my second body. I'm older now and my R5 seems heavy and over kill, to be using as a walking around camera. Hopefully I'll be finding out in the next two weeks if I do as I'm renting one.

Canon Rumors said:

The info came from an NDA'd person. I'll text the person, ...

Click to expand...

Any updates on that? Is it definitely a Mark II and not something like the firmware-update M50 Mark II?

Thanks for the post – that’s helpful to me too. When it’s snowing, I always have the problem that some snowflakes are in focus, but the subject remains out of focus. The EOS R5II has this ‘special case’ too

EOS 4 Life said:

It would be entirely passive.
You can use any RF or FD extension tube.

Click to expand...

i do think Old Man FL/FD does not want a passive adapter. He would like a "translator" between the mechanic control parts of FD lenses and the electronic part of the RF mount, so that aperture could work in auto (manual works with the adapters already available), so the semi-automatic modes, lightmeter-display (over/under) and such would work on RF Bodies like they used to work on FD Bodies from the AE1 upwards (T70, T90, you get the idea), manual focusing with open aperture and the camera will close the aperture to the selected value during shooting...

While it might be technically doable, since Canon does no longer sell any FD lenses there would be no profit in making this adapter for them, the demand for such a thing might be rather low (You can choose from over 100 EF lenses from canon alone for your RF system already).

My prediction would be it is an idea, and it will stay an idea... nothing more.

Exploreshootshare said:

I´m not entirely happy with my travel/ hiking options/ set-up. I tend to take a two-lens setup e.g. the RF 14-35mm & 70-200mm for cities or prime and a zoom for hiking. I do own the RF 24-105mm which chatgpt tells me is my "go-to lens to cover 90% of my shots" (I let chatgpt create travel set-ups out of my existing line-up for fun) but I quite often choose to leave the lens at home or at the hotel. A 20-50mm would be perfect for hiking since I rarely need 14mm in the mountains and combined with 70-200mm it would be a real nice combo. I'll just wait and see.

The PowerShot V1 is not for me, I´d like to either have a longer zoom range on a compact camera or the ability to switch lenses, therefore I chose the R8.

Click to expand...

I would rather wait for the hypothetical RF 20-70 L, since, unless mistaken, the also hypothetical 20-50 would be a non-L. For landscapes, corner and side sharpness is very important.
An RF 20-70 L, as a replacement to the RF 24-70 L, will certainly be sharper. 20-70 and 70-200 would cover most situations.
For longer trips a 14mm TS + a 100-500mm .

Old Man FL/FD said:

I was thinking of much more than a passive ‘extension tube’ FD to RF lens adapter.

Click to expand...

It would be entirely passive.
You can use any RF or FD extension tube.

padam said:

Canon doesn't need to care anymore. Users can choose from 4 separate bodies with the same 32MP sensor, two with an EVF, or two without.

Click to expand...

I guess you are basing this on the rumors.
Currently, we can choose between the R6 III and C50, which do have the same full-frame 32 MP sensor.
We can also choose between the R50, R50V, and R10, which all have the same 24 MP APS-C sensor.
There is also a choice between the C80, R3, and R1, but those are less alike.
The R5 and R5 C both have the same EVF, but those cameras are old.

eero said:

But what were the products that had poor sales? For example, EVF-DC2 was only working with a couple of M series cameras that probably were not Canon's most-selling anyway. It might sell much better if the smaller V cameras end up selling well, especially if there will be more of them in the future. EVFs are crucial when shooting details in bright outdoor situations, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

The C300 III and C500 II also had an optional EVF.
None of the new cinema cameras has that.

neuroanatomist said:

That's an interesting consideration. 20-50mm would be very good 'walkaround' range for a single lens, similar to the 16-50mm range on the PowerShot V1. If this lens does come along, I'll wait for the IQ results to see if it's worthwhile, but it very well might be.

Click to expand...

I´m not entirely happy with my travel/ hiking options/ set-up. I tend to take a two-lens setup e.g. the RF 14-35mm & 70-200mm for cities or prime and a zoom for hiking. I do own the RF 24-105mm which chatgpt tells me is my "go-to lens to cover 90% of my shots" (I let chatgpt create travel set-ups out of my existing line-up for fun) but I quite often choose to leave the lens at home or at the hotel. A 20-50mm would be perfect for hiking since I rarely need 14mm in the mountains and combined with 70-200mm it would be a real nice combo. I'll just wait and see.

The PowerShot V1 is not for me, I´d like to either have a longer zoom range on a compact camera or the ability to switch lenses, therefore I chose the R8.

My main wish would be a fast enough readout to use flash+ES.

Rather than "either the new R8 variant or the R8 Mark II", DS126947 should be an entry-level camera: its Wi-Fi module is limited to 64-QAM (quadrature amplitude modulation), which corresponds to IEEE 802.11n, also known as Wi-Fi 4.

By contrast:

• ID0179 (EOS C400), ID0174 (EOS C80), DS126904, DS126941 (EOS R50 V), ID0184 (EOS C50), DS126916 (EOS R6 Mark III) and DS126936 have a 256-QAM module, which corresponds to IEEE 802.11ac, also known as Wi-Fi 5.
• DS126922 (EOS R5 Mark II) and DS126928 (EOS R1) have a 1024-QAM module, which corresponds to IEEE 802.11ax, also known as Wi-Fi 6.

Red Kite (R5ii 800mm).

Celts88 said:

Looooove that photo of the Mallard

Was sitting on the beach one day and there was these gulls beside us. Suddenly a couple of them got in a fight and I quickly grabbed the camera and started shooting (I had the 100-500mm on at the time). I didn't have a clue what I was shooting but just pointed in the direction and amazingly some of the photos came ok.

View attachment 228763

Click to expand...

Hmmm... Me thinks the adult is just feeding very young kid. Or that's just nasty kid...

I think just another retro camera with crap ergonomics is daft but perhaps Canon will make one with the waist level viewfinder like that prototype but with a giant EVF screen instead of the silly mirror system and R8 internals then it would be cool looking and actually a useful if niche camera ?

Definately interested if there will be an optional EVF.

@amir_photography said:

well sigma does have the 24-105 f2.8, but it is external zooming,.. I do agree that canon should definitely create halo lenses like this though

Click to expand...

The Sigma lens starts at 28mm, not 24mm.
See: https://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/a024_28_105_28/

Back to DxO PL. Long story -short: more than an year my PL8 stopped working, I upgraded to PL9 and it was the same - they didn't recognize my credentials (!?). It was with my old computer (Windows 10). My new computer is Windows 11 and voila - at once I'm a legitimate owner. The problem is that I can download only PL9 - the previous editions are not available in DxO store for downloading (I like the simplicity of PL6 and PL8 since I don't always need all of the new features of PL9)! Anyway: the noise reduction and the control of the colors are day and night in comparison with the Windows Photos program (not a surprise!). Today it was good day to take photos in low light (overcast and windy and most importantly - finally no rain!!!) and to see what the last edition of PL9 can do! I missed the fraction of second when the Japanese White-eye landed on the flowers of the Jade vine - it could be a nice photo...

neuroanatomist said:

Canon has done so, quite successfully. For example, what other manufacturer uses every pixel on the sensor for autofocus and has cross-type AF sensitivity like the R1? What other manufacturer offers a 24-105mm f/2.8 general purpose lens? As for in-camera processing, DLO is available in-camera and corrects for even challenging issues like field curvature.

Click to expand...

well sigma does have the 24-105 f2.8, but it is external zooming,.. I do agree that canon should definitely create halo lenses like this though

Brown said:

Is the RP still in production?

Click to expand...

There is certainly still stock in the pipeline and Canon hasn't officially retired it yet.

I would like to think that Canon would continue to sell it as long as it is still profitable.
It hits a unique price point for new full frame bodies and could easily be a stepping stone to higher end bodies once a buyer gets some RF lenses.

Sony still sells the A7iii for ~USD1700 so why not keep 3 generations of Canon bodies.

I still have mine as a backup. Mostly for workshops when I would be using manual focus or as a second body doing timelapse/star trails.

blackcoffee17 said:

This again.. Tell me how removing some video features would make the camera cheaper. The sensor still need to have fast readout to support 30FPS (the current R8), dual pixel AF, the EVF, etc. If they separate the R8 line into 2, that just means extra development and R&D cost and sales split between 2 models = higher cost per model. Removing some video codecs won't make the camera cheaper. Making an R8V only makes sense because of different ergonomics and the EVF can be dropped.

Click to expand...

There is the example of R5 and R5c where it is clear that additional video features (cinema menus, 8k60 etc) and cooling for longer recording times is specific to video at an extra cost. Even if Canon removed IBIS in the R5c. If Canon released the R5 and R5c at the same time then there would have been no reason for reviewers to find fault.

It is possible that less cooling is required if the higher end video features are not enabled so there could be a cost reduction there.
Example is the additional heatsink etc for cLog on the 5Div which was then embedded with a USD100 price increase if I recall correctly.

The Magic Lantern project showed what the 5Diii video (and stills features) was capable of if the engineers allowed it but there were caveats with over heating being one of those issues.

These are niche use cases as I agree in general that EVFs and video features ago hand-in-hand and any cost differences for codecs and firmware development/maintenance etc would be small at best.

My hummingbirds are back. They bugged out at the end of January after correctly guessing that February was going to be a bit nasty. R7 + RF 200-800.

esspy2 said:

I hope they can make the 24mm f/1.8 or the 35mm f/1.8 in retro form. Also I probably wouldn't mind if they made the 24-50mm in retro form, but I'd be happier if they released a 20-50mm f/4 though that was previously mentioned to be a power zoom lens. A smaller lens like the 16mm or the 50mm would also fit very nicely on a body like that

Click to expand...

I would vote for the 28mm f/2.8 in retro form. It is remarkably sharp across the frame and both small and inexpensive. Image stabilization (in the 24 and 35) is a nice feature, but not very "retro". The current R8 with the 28 attached is a great walk about combo.

Old Man FL/FD said:

Also perhaps a lens adapter FD to RF with some feature not in the many currently out there.

Click to expand...

Yes, a Canon branded FD adapter would be a nice addition. Also nice to add really good focus peaking with a sharpness (or coarsness) adjustment to make focusing easy with both sharp and not-so-sharp retro lenses. I use the FL 58 f/1.2 (with radioactive glass ) a fair bit and it is easier to focus on the R8 than on the R5, probably due to the larger pixels have better peaking sensitivity to lower lens sharpness.