Canon Rumors said:

I added an image of the RF 45 f/1.2 STM in relation to some kind of random camera body.

Click to expand...

The lens looks nice. I'd say is slightly longer than the RF 35mm f/1.8, slightly wider as well, I suppose that's a 58 to 62mm filter thread, maybe 67 max.

If the double gauss design is confirmed, this could be a successor to the EF50mm f/1.2 L, this time aimed at enthusiasts. A very interesting proposition.

What I really want to know is if has internal or external focusing, and what kind of STM it features. At the point I'm at, those are attributes that may make it or break it, to me.

Is there any vague comment you can add about the lens?

rombe3jr said:

Is it just me or are most of these specs not actually better?

The same or worse specs:

• 64,000 ISO vs 102,400 ISO (R6ii)
• Same 2 SD card slots
• 6.5 stops of IBIS vs 8 stops (R6ii)
• Same precapture
• Same dual pixel autofocus
• Call it the same 14.6 dynamic range as R6ii
• Same passive cooling
• Higher US price $2,899 vs $2,499 (R6ii)
• Same price in euros 2,899

Better specs (confirmed):

• 9 more pixel sensor
• Open gate

Unconfirmed better specs:

• Full size HDMI port
• 56% more dots in EVF
• DIGIC accelerator (presumably the one in R5 Mk II)

A bit low on new features if you ask me, especially at that price point (USA) anyway.

Click to expand...

When people do these kinds of superficial spreadsheet analyses of cameras, I wonder if they actually use cameras or just read about them on the internet. A ~40% increase in resolution is a big enough upgrade to not warrant much else, and for me personally addresses one of the R6's biggest flaws.

This is checking all the boxes for a perfect video camera and photo aswell.
I love my R6II but if this one has even better autofocus, 4k120fps and CLOG2 this is a WINNER for sure. Will change my old R for this one and R6II becomes second body

I have searched for this and couldn't find any clear information, are the older DSLR's, say the 6D, 7D II, 80D etc compatible with the new LP-E6P battery?

I'm probably reiterating others' opinions, but here's mine...

Canon is definitely losing out on some business because of the closed mount. There's unique lenses by Sigma and budget lenses by a myriad of companies.

The problem with eschewing unique lenses is obvious - people will go to the companies that allow those lenses, unless Canon makes a version themselves.

The problem with not allowing budget lenses is that people will consider other companies as a budget alternative and Canon won't get any of that money. I understand Canon not wanting to lose money to Sigma or Tamron because a customer won't buy the L 24-70mm f2.8 or whatever, but that means that a lot of people won't be buying the R8 or R6 either, and will get a Sony A7IV or Nikon Z6/Z5 instead. Then it becomes not so much an issue of brand "loyalty", but one of simply economics and/or convenience in having to buy multiple bodies or switching brands and starting anew.

Speaking for myself, I own one Sony body and 2 lenses. That's it (so far, anyway). If I go with Canon it'll either be just the R7 II or possibly the R5 II (or III, by the time I can afford that), and probably just the 100-500mm (and the 1.4x if I ever get the R5). The problem is that the 100-500mm really isn't even my ideal lens for the R7 II - the Tamron 50-400mm is. Because of that I might Canon might never get any of my money, by their own actions. I know Canon won't exactly go into bankruptcy without my money, but it seems odd to me that they'd follow a business model that means they'll deliberately lose sales.

I was very exciting about the r6 mkiii.. but now, i feel a bit dissapointed... No need more MP, dont come with digic acelerator.. probably go for the r5 mkii if i see a good offer next month.

I do not know what will happen once the likes of Sirui, Laowa, and TTArtisan mature to compete effectively against the current leading lens manufacturers. I can, however, draw some observations from comparable situations in the world of laptops and mobile phones.

Laptops. I recall a time when laptops were getting better and cheaper as more players enter the market. At that time, the dominant ones included HP, Lenovo, Acers, IBM, Compaq, Toshiba, and Epson; with ‘new’ players like Asus, Dell, Sony, Fujitsu, Microsoft, and Apple coming into the fray. It was quite a good time for me as the choices were plenty, and one can enjoy the selection process based on specs, price, support level etc. This did not last long, however. Something cracked, particularly during and post Covid, with some brands withdrawing from the market – e.g. Sony, Fujitsu, Compaq, reducing choices to a relatively few number of options, particularly for business grade laptops (the ultraportables).

Having either experienced directly (about 20 laptops) or discussing with IT department colleagues, here are some observations with their inherent biases and small sample size:

• when the market is not saturated and that there are very healthy competition, both the quality and pricing of business grade and higher end laptops are generally very good, with the laptops being reliable, durable, and priced reasonably;
• when the number of brands reduced to few options, the prices went up, and the laptops’ durability suffers, and no longer as reliable. For instance, there are notable problems with Lenovo’s X1 Carbon when using zoom, my pretty expensive Acer with 3-yr onsite warranty failed 4 times in less than a year, my HP 360 simply died in less than a year etc. These are not once-offs, but have been much more noticeable in the last 3-5 years.
• some manufacturers, in particularly, Fujitsu, maintained the quality of its laptop with durable and reliable components (e.g. my U939X has lasted almost 6 years and still going well with practically daily use – battery drains faster now, but apart from that, the i7 8gen processor can still handle the apps and software that I use despite regular updates, the touch screen has no issue etc). Unfortunately, such devotion to quality has a price, as Fujitsu has stopped selling laptops outside a few jurisdictions. I guess it is not profitable enough.
• At least one manufacturer, specifically, Apple, continues to produce reliable, durable and good quality macbook pros (and air). Despite these laptops being able to last for a good period of time with little degradation of performance, they have refined the art of persuading consumers to keep buying new versions regularly enough such that the company can stay in good profit. Wasteful from an environmental perspective, but more power to Apple.

A similar scenario seems to be playing out for mobile phones, e.g. iPhone seems to be able to get users to keep changing phones regularly; samsung’s flapships, which I have owned at least 10, has a noticeable dip in product quality, so much so that I switched to Oppo eventually, and am considering both the Xiaomi and Honor flip phones for the next change. Xiaomi’s progression in the phone industry actually draws some parallels with Sirui and Laowa, in that the earlier Xiaomi phones are generally cheap and not of good quality, but have recently entered into the high end market, pricing these not much below the equivalent of Samsung’s.

Back to photography. Learning from the above, my sense is that the following are likely, though not definitely to come true:

• Sirui, Laowa etc will catch up in terms of lens design and technology (already seems to be happening);
• As late market entrants, they will likely price their top-end lenses close to, but probably a good enough gap below that of Canon, Nikon etc. However, assuming manufacturing costs would increasingly become comparable to established brands, I suspect the build quality of their lenses will be somewhat less reliable as manufacturer QC might not be consistent enough, resulting in larger copy variations.
• There could be 1-2 new entrants, armed with these new designs, who will compete at the high-end; and similar to Oppo, will be able to offer better specs and performance compared to equivalent lenses from established brands at similar prices.

On the whole, I hope that these new manufacturers do not force Canon (or Nikon) to take measures that will lower the quality of their lenses in order to compete. For instance, not to take too far the approach of using software (rather than optical) corrections to correct for distortion and vignetting. Instead, to take a leaf from Apple to find good reasons for consumers to continue with the brand.

If you want to put it that way, you should probably make the same comparison between the original R6 and the Mark II.

Anyway...

rombe3jr said:

6.5 stops of IBIS vs 8 stops (R6ii)

Click to expand...

All cameras are rated at 6.5 stops of IBIS, it's just a few lenses that are rated at 8 stops when paired with the cameras, not the cameras on their own.

rombe3jr said:

Same dual pixel autofocus

Click to expand...

There's just two versions of dual pixel AF, the original is on the R100, EOS R, RP, and older cameras. Dual Pixel AF II is on everything else. Are you asking for what doesn't exist?

rombe3jr said:

Same precapture

Click to expand...

We don't know that. The R6 Mark II depends on Canon DPP for using pre capture.

rombe3jr said:

Same 2 SD card slots

Click to expand...

Hope so.

rombe3jr said:

• Higher US price $2,899 vs $2,499 (R6ii)

Click to expand...

Blame your president.


You quoted it, yet you really missed the meaning of this sentence:

John Wilde said:

The primary target audience of incremental upgrades is people who don't have the previous model.

Click to expand...

Quackator said:

They sold me the 1.8/18-35mm ART, the 1.4/35mm ART, the 1.4/50mm ART,
the 1.8/135mm ART.
They couldn't sell me the 2.0/200mm ART yet, because it isn't available
in either EF or RF. Otherwise......
And I am still on the fence for a reasonably priced pre-owned 2.8/120-300mm SPORTS.

Click to expand...

Man, I miss my 28 and 50 Art lenses, but I gotta be honest, they had to go, I just didn't use them enough.
I had the 28, the 35, the 50 and, briefly, the 40.
I never liked the 35mm focal length on full-frame, so I replaced it with the 28.
I never kept the 40 because it was too much of a speciality lens, at 1.2kg and with that size. That lens still haunts me today, it's just too good.

And earlier this year I almost lost it and took an 120-300mm f/2.8 Sports but, again...I know I wouldn't use it enough.


Getting the 28-70mm f/2 helped a lot, it replaced the 28 1.4 Art, the EF 24-70 2.8 II and the 50 1.4 Art, to me. I sold the three lenses and added 100 bucks or so.

In the future, I just want to add ONE nice fast prime lens somewhere between 28 and 50. It has to be 1.4 or faster, otherwise I'm not disattaching the tank. I'm looking at the 50 VCM, maybe this 45 1.2, or maaaaybe the 35 VCM but, knowing I don't like 35mm, that one is an unlikely choice.

Quackator said:

Why not? For almost 2 decades no US astronaut got into space without the help of a russian spaceship.
The Sukhoi SU-57 is arguably the most sophisticated warplane today - at a much lower price than the self-defeating F35.
And the Russians build many more of them compared to the F35.

Yakovlev SJ-100 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

By now fully import substituted (no Western parts) and in serial production.

And this one is a direct competitor to the Boeing B-737 MAX and Airbus A-321 NEO:

Yakovlev MC-21 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It has a wider cabin than the A320, a wing which allows a higher cruise speed
and a higher capacity in its base variant, the MC-21-300.


It is allowed to fly to the global majority.
Have you noticed that US airlines lately complained for "unfair" competition because
US passenger jets couldn't fly over Russia when heading for China?
Sanctions cut both ways, and Russia is by land mass the largest country on earth.



Russia is fully self-sufficient, has >95% of the resources it needs
and get's the rest from China. Passenger planes need robust chips,
not 5nm AI-chips. The Russians can build them reliably in masses.
But have you noticed news about rare earths lately?
Looks like it isn't Russia who is without resources.

Nvidia had a 95% market share for AI chips in China.
Sanctions reduced that to 0%. Huawei is doubling their yield
every year since the first sanctions. Sanctions work - but not
for the benefit of the sanctioning party.

This astounding video gives you some insight in the current
competition of AI systems:

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

Click to expand...

Found the russian fan. On paper everything looks great...

I’m buying a BMW 5 series and looking for a Chinese engine to put in it I’m fed up with BMW locking other manufacturers with the engine choice.

As a 71 year old who bought his first Canon camera and lens at 16 the reason I’ve stayed with Canon is because of three things.
1. Long standing innovation and product improvement
2. Outstanding reliability and product back up
3. Price to product quality and longevity.

When you buy Canon cameras your buying into a system not a parts bin so if you don’t like that don’t buy Canon cameras buy Sony or Nikon it’s simple.

curiousMonkey said:

I am thinking about picking up one of these lenses for some trips I have scheduled next year. I think the wider aperture will be beneficial for low light situations in jungle and rain forest environments. My biggest concern is AF speed on a Canon R6 Mk2 but I don’t think my RF 200-800 will be very useful on these trips.

Click to expand...

I have been happy with the AF on my R5. Speed seems fine, ability to pick up birds is probably limited by the body. I think your R6ii will be fine. The EF 400 DOii works very well with the EF 1.4x iii on my R5, and would be even better on a 24MP camera.

@Richard CR I'm usually all for an open mount.
But interestingly, I was thinking the exact same thing recently when all those new Chinese lenses came out.
Back in the day, we only had Yongnuo, and those lenses were actually pretty bad. If you ever used a Yongnuo nifty-fifty, you learned to appreciate Canon's $100 lens real quick. But now we got TTArtisan, 7Artisans, AstrHori, Viltrox, Laowa, Meike etc. and all of them want a piece of the pie. And those lenses got pretty good, they have quiet AF now and they are sharp.

It came to me that Canon's decision makes a lot of sense in terms of their profit, because Sony and Nikon for sure are going to lose a lot of lens sales if you combine all those third party sales numbers. Viltrox alone offers almost 30 autofocus lenses for Sony E. Meike and TTArtisan are getting close to 10. In an article Viltrox claimed to sell more than 30,000 lenses annually. Multiply that with an average price of $300 and you have a operational loss of 9 million dollars per year.

Of course, Canon plays a risky game here, because they have to fill the void with their own lenses.

When I eventually upgrade to an RF body the only lens I'm thinking of getting is the RF 800mm F/11, I was also thinking of getting the Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM but it's 2/3 - 1 stop slower @300mm then my current Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM. For everything else my existing EF lenses do everything I need, I see no reason to sell my EF lenses and change them to the RF versions. I don't think Canon are going to allow Full Frame Lenses on RF anytime soon due to the reasons on this article.

The third-parties should make more APS-C lenses for Canon, a 60mm f/1.2 would be a nice 100mm f/2 full frame equivalent.

I have the Yongnuo 85mm f/1.8 RF with auto focus, and it is one of the sharpest lenses I've owned; it matches the razor sharpness of my EF 16-35 f/2.8 III (those who've used this lens know how sharp it is)

Those Chinese lens manufacturers know what they are capable of, and if Canon opens the mount I won't doubt that they (China) will make superior optics for the RF mount

This is an interesting question. The conventional wisdom in the camera market back in the day was that lenses were an absolutely vital part of the business for camera makers, because people would buy more than one lens per camera, and people didn't always upgrade their camera that frequently.

I've often wondered about Sony's position. Sony opened up their mount only because they had to, in order to compete against Canon and Nikon in the DSLR days. Sony didn't have that many E mount lenses, and they also wanted a differentiating factor with Canon/Nikon. It worked out well for them, but now one wonders if that is sustainable. Sony is in the unique position that they are not the one who sells the most lenses for their own cameras. And it seems to be getting worse for them by the day with more quality third party lenses appearing.

I think in part this explains Sony's generally higher prices on camera bodies; they have to make it up somewhere. But as the camera market has shrunk, and no brand, including Sony is releasing new camera bodies as frequently, what does this mean to their overall business?

If Sony were to enter a new camera market, say medium format, would they open up that new mount? I think there's a good chance they would not, now realizing the trap they set for themselves.

Is it just me or are most of these specs not actually better?

The same or worse specs:

• 64,000 ISO vs 102,400 ISO (R6ii)
• Same 2 SD card slots
• 6.5 stops of IBIS vs 8 stops (R6ii)
• Same precapture
• Same dual pixel autofocus
• Call it the same 14.6 dynamic range as R6ii
• Same passive cooling
• Higher US price $2,899 vs $2,499 (R6ii)
• Same price in euros 2,899

Better specs (confirmed):

• 9 more pixel sensor
• Open gate

Unconfirmed better specs:

• Full size HDMI port
• 56% more dots in EVF
• DIGIC accelerator (presumably the one in R5 Mk II)

A bit low on new features if you ask me, especially at that price point (USA) anyway.

mimbu said:

Yes, yes. It's always just easier to dismiss someone as a fanboy than it is to admit that whatever brand you are deeply in love with has faults. Often many faults.

The difference between me and you is that I have absolutely ZERO brand loyalty. None. Never have. It's for suckers. It's true I shoot Sony right now but it's because they are the least-bad option of the major brands. I will never return to a brand with a locked down mount. It's anti-consumer and I do not understand why anyone accepts it. I would consider buying into Z mount, if they ever let Sigma in. If Canon ever loosens their death grip on RF I'd consider Canon too, but I don't expect they will. It's pretty likely that I'll end up on L mount when DJI and/or Viltrox start bringing out cameras, even though I would miss Tamron there.

Click to expand...

At least this was shorter than your previous 'reply' (#214) to this exact same comment. Obviously touched a nerve, as truths tend to ...

blackcoffee17 said:

I don't see why is that a problem. The EF design was already a new design, fully redesigning the optics would not have made much sense for minimal gains. BUT the price should have been the same, not more expensive.

Click to expand...

The EF III and the RF 600 f4 are the same price and always have been. The EF III sells for less on the used market, though. The RF 1.4x and especially 2x are definitely better than the EF TCs for the EF lenses. The RF 600f4 is definitely a worthy upgrade, especially coming from an EF version 2 or the EF 800L. The only people I notice complaining about it don't own and use one.

John Wilde said:

The primary target audience of incremental upgrades is people who don't have the previous model.

Click to expand...

Except when the price increases this much for so few added features, the primary audience may just buy the previous model.