Since I would use it mostly for photo, I'd like to see IBIS stay.

Btw I don't think the logic is spot on - I'm not sure it's "how much you need to take out to keep price down". Prices are not only defined by the cost. It's part of marketing strategy, profit maximalization, etc. And of course real value and useability.
A compact camera always needs to be cheaper, even if internals were the same. It's primary goal in not professional work, it's in no way a replacement/alternative option for the R6 line.
It's a backup body, a street/travel cam, a vlogger cam. Even if it had the internals of the R6m3, it would need to be way cheaper.
Btw beyond the lack of EVF, it obviously won't have dual card slot, battery life, vertical grip option, the AF or FPS performance of the R6 and who knows what else. UTP/GPS option? All the stuff that is intended for higher segment.

riker said:

I appreciate every extra option but I don't see myself buying one. The 100-500 is such a great lens and hopefully adding the 300-600 soon will be more than I'd ever need.
Maybe if the 500/5.6 is pretty light and cheap?

Click to expand...

There is an RF 600 f/11 and it is relatively cheap. An RF 500 f/5.6 will not be cheap.

I appreciate every extra option but I don't see myself buying one. The 100-500 is such a great lens and hopefully adding the 300-600 soon will be more than I'd ever need.
Maybe if the 500/5.6 is pretty light and cheap?

Maximilian said:

Interesting.
Did you do a comparison about the differences in contrast and flare between those two hoods?

Click to expand...

Not a formal test, no, but in practice I don't have any problems at all. The vast majority of wildlife shots are taken with the light behind the shooter of course.

Canon used to sell a half-length hood for the 600; not sure if they still do. It was a crazy price of course.

Canon Rumors said:

I use tupperware lids for a lens cap. $4 You look weird in a store trying them on. I should just fumble around in blender and print a hood for $10, I haven't looked to see if anyone has already designed them. It would be nice to collapse them from the side .

Click to expand...

I first came across this idea many years ago, but never met anybody who actually uses a Tupperware-style lens cap! I did use a £5 cheapo lens cap on my OM 150-400 for a while, before succumbing to another Zemlin cap.

Zemlin's hoods and caps are 3D printed, but I don't know how easy it would be make your own to the necessary standard. I don't have a printer but one really good application could tip me over the edge! And if somebody can come up with a way to make it collapsible widthways, yet still fit around the lens so it doesn't actually need more space in the bag...

I used to have the 400 5.6 prime on APS-C. Was amazing but for full frame i would prefer at least a 600 5.6 or 6.3. I would not choose a 500 5.6 over the 100-500, unless it's really sharp or tiny.

Canon Rumors said:

Length yes, but it does fit in some "small" backpacks that make good use of space (Shimoda, Gura Gear). I find it's the lens hoods that cause the space issues. They're quite annoying. I'd like to see an evolution of the 2 piece Nikon hoods. I didn't love how they fit together. I haven't found any third-party hoods that I like.

Click to expand...

Aha - I bought Karl Zemlin's half-length hood so long ago that I didn't even think about the Canon original which is enormous. However you do still need the full diameter in the bag, it's only when in use that the shorter hood is a benefit. I also have Zemlin's lens cap which I 100% recommend.

Canon Rumors said:

Canon's RF line-up is missing the 500mm f/4 lens from the EF days. With how much weight Canon has shaved off of the 600mm F4 L IS USM over the years, I don't think there's a need for a 500mm F4 in the line-up.

Click to expand...

I have an EF 600/4L Mark III, which I bought to upgrade my previous 500/4L II. The problem isn't weight, it's bulk. The 600 is awesome for working from a hide or another fixed position with reasonably nearby parking, but it's too big to fit in a conventional backpack along with the other things you need for a wildlife day away from the car. It's the only real mistake I made in many years of buying Canon gear, but I was never quite unhappy enough to take the financial hit and switch back.

If the RF 500/5.6L is for real, it could potentially be a better choice than my 100-500 in some situations, especially if it plays well with the 1.4x or even the 2x.

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.