The great Canon F-1 doesn’t deserve to be replicated by a cheesy plastic asp-c mirrorless camera IMO. Unless they make the real deal better to use the A-1 or AE-1 as a model as they were plastic fantastics anyway.

Canon probably have their lawyers stationed outside Viltrox offices making sure the 16mm f/1.8 never gets out with an RF label. Funnily, just knowing it might someday be available for RF is already putting a stop to my urges of getting ultrawide Canon L glass (as if we had any primes anyway).

The RF 85mm f/1.2L at 3k and 1.2kg is so over the top they might as well let the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG DN in. The entry level RF 85 would still have a niche as a sharp less expensive semi-macro portrait lens. People who make money with 85mm will still buy the 1.2L. Same with the RF 50mm's - Sigma would sit very nicely in between for those who don't want either of Canon's offerings.

And the fictitious RF 35mm L... just give it to Sigma already so we can go shoot.

EricN said:

There will be a different esthetic with boke and sun stars.

Click to expand...

I thought people always want more round and more rays, but at least with the latter I can see why not.

John Wilde said:

DPR has an article with the title "Sony a9 III: Global shutter comes with an image quality cost", not something that Canon would want in a flagship camera.

Click to expand...

Surprise surprise, anyone who has an idea about sensor design could have predicted that. Must be quite bad if DPR publishes anything critical about a Sony product. I remember well that they really put a lot of effort in the R5 "heat problem" propaganda - for a stills & video camera that offered 8k for the first time but never was made for 30 min 8k video takes.

Well, I got my filter adapter and filter to make the cam fully weather-resistant...but no camera

Del Paso said:

I'd say it definitely looks like fungus (shape, colour). better have it fixed, since the sensor is also made of glass.
Quick!
Meanwhile, expose the viewfinder to sunlight or UV, but, of course, without "baking" the camera.

Click to expand...

I think I just haven't seen this type yet. It's the small white spots?

skrubol said:

Maybe, but from what I can see, other than the R5c, the C500MkII has the highest resolution at 5.9k.

Click to expand...

The C500MkII was towards the end of 2019 and C700 FF was 2018 with similar specs, but now discontinued. Both are EF mount, so it seems reasonable there will be something similar, but maybe not the same name. Although, they could decide not to compete in this area anymore...

Although I have both R5 and R7 (and the RF100-500) I cannot compare them in AF since I use them for non BIF or birds flying far away. What I do know is that R7 wth RF 100-500 is a very good combination for distant birds (assuming no issues with hot air).

photofrankdzi said:

Yes - BUT some of them for APS-C please

Click to expand...

To be fair, FF 1.4L primes would go on APS-C, too
(Just joking; I'm with you on the lack of APS-C bright lenses...but let's cover FF needs first, where there's certainly more people willing to spend for bright primes. Then they can also come with small format bright primes, even if I'm not sure that will even happen)

I'm expecting prices on Canon-branded mirrorslappers to take a nosedive as soon as the 5DmkIV also gets discontinued. Any day now...

neuroanatomist said:

I interpret ‘commercialization depends on the market today’ to mean the market is too small to support two mounts, and if the R50 and R100 sell well, they might make a smaller (no VF) model.

Click to expand...

Canon said something very similar about EOS-M 2 years ago and I think they are stacking the deck a bit. Not introducing new bodies or lenses, discontinuing almost everything and then saying “Weird, sales numbers have declined!”

But it’s hard for consumers to separate cause and effect and there’s always the chance that Canon asked @Canon Rumors Guy to consult on EOS-M

John Wilde said:

Sigma only makes three lenses for Nikon-Z, so it's not like they are doing much there either. (16mm, 30mm, 56mm)

Click to expand...

Because both Nikon and Canon are restricting other manufacturers from making FF lenses for their mounts...

That front element looks very fragile, so it would likely be built with a protective glass in front. That would add up to 24 elements (counting the protective glass). Sounds pretty pricey for an APS-c lens, so likely aimed at cinema super 35. No reason it wouldn\'t work for APS-s, unless not supported by the bodies like the Canon version of an RF speed-booster, which is only supported on the C7. One of the challenges of these very smart cameras is that there is a lot of software required for full support of lenses and that is surely one of the reasons we haven\'t seen 3rd party lenses for RF.

Nemorino said:

The Laowa 15mm 1:1 macro has a working distance of 4.8mm afaik. :-o

Click to expand...

I finally bought one. It's not perfect, but it does what it should.

I went to a few popular tourist destinations over the last few days, and I was the only one using a camera at each place.

In Australia, Covid has pretty much been forgotten about.

Thanks, Neuro.

I solved the problem - it is not a thread but a stud with a C-ring and the C-ring was missing. 10 bucks for a set of rings and it is operational (a bit cheaper than 500 for a new hood). Next problem is how to use the remaining 289 C-rings!

I have a few lenses that take the 48 or 52mm drop in filter. They all came with a clear filter in a holder. I have a 52mm drop in CP filter that I purchased from eBay. The two holders are a little different. The clear filter is not in a screw in mount.

I did notice you can find the clear filters and holders on eBay as well though they come up less often than CP filters.

BTW my drop in CP filter seems to do almost nothing but cost me a stop of light.

Stig Nygaard said:

If Canon was to release a RF-S 15-60/2.8 lens, it would be Canon's first interesting RF-S lens for me.
I don't do video, and don't care about powerzoom option. But definitely sounds like a perfect replacement for my EF-S 17-55/2.8.

I would probably miss something in the long end if making it my standard walk-around lens instead of the EF-S 15-85mm. But it has the important 15mm in the short end, so if weight of an RF-S 15-60mm/2.8 was closer to the EF-S 15-85mm than to the 17-55mm/2.8 (which I hope is realistic with the shorter flange distance of a mirrorless lens?), it might still be considered for that too.

Oh well. I'm thinking to much about it. It is still only a "random" lens-patent coupled with a not so specific rumour

Click to expand...

UPDATE: (Still thinking to much about it...) Just studied the referenced patent. It seems the lens in patent has a fixed length of 14.4cm. So pretty long, and it is of course because it is an internal zoom (probably needed for video and powerzoom compatibility?). So I guess it will be a pretty big lens.
Would still be an interesting lens, but probably not a potential standard-zoom to replace my EF-S 15-85mm...

Thanks for the heads-up, @ronbyram! Any new update on the SX70 price?

neuroanatomist said:

Yep. I really don’t get how someone can do nothing but complain about Canon since the 7D…and continue buying Canon.

From 2012:


His 7D was crap. His 7DII was crap. His R6II was crap. He’s full of…well, I’ll let you fill that one in.

Click to expand...

I've given up on trying to understand most of the negativity posted about Canon. Trying to discuss it reasonablely has been futile.

Richard CR said:

yes but far more compact especially for telescope focals - but 200mm is basically what I would call a wide field telescope really, versus the 1500 to 25000mm normal schmidt cassegrains. My most portable telescope way back when was a Williams optics 80mm FL telescope. I miss that thing. It was still a beast of a lens though. That being said, at 200mm you can get away with a cheaper mount too.

Click to expand...

The challenge for cats in everyday work is the vanishingly thin DOF. They can be decently sharp (in theory even sharper than a refractor) at the exact point of focus, but the lack of central illumination causes a more rapid loss of sharpness as you move away from perfect focus. That feature makes them more challenging to find focus with as well. They also have a pretty severe loss of MTF at medium frequencies (that gets worse at lower f numbers) and that causes loss of contrast that has to be fixed in post. I have 10 different cats and love to experiment with them, but they are not suitable for everyday picture taking other than, as you suggest, possibly Astro, where mid frequencies are not of interest when looking at points of light and there truly is only one point of focus, infinity.

It would be interesting to understand better how 'oversampling'/binning could be made to work with Canon's digital lens corrections to result in more optimal end sharpness.

Our expectation at the moment is that the advertised resolution of a sensor makes its way 1:1 into the final image. However, behind the scenes that isn't what happens - especially considering the intense de-warping that happens on some of Canon's new glass (especially wides). This does result in reduced resolution in these lenses in the corner, due to these gross corrections.

Some people seem to get upset at the 'poor design choice' Canon makes here - but from an engineering perspective it's reasonable to move optical corrections into the digital domain if that produces a better set of compromises around lens size, performance and cost.

Would we be able to get better quality edge resolution though, if we had much higher sensors (and more data) feeding into this pipeline?

Hi,

I have the flash triggers YN622C II. Using the trigger on an older Canon camera (550D) the flash function settings work perfectly. However when trying to use these triggers with the Canon R7 the flash function settings don't work. Has anyone figured out how to make this work?

scyrene said:

Same, although it's taken me a long time to reprogramme myself as it was never an issue with DSLRs (aka I got lazy). Even where there is a bit of dirt, it's rarely fatal to an image - on busier backgrounds it's less visible, and on plain ones where it stands out it's often easy to remove with the clone tool.

Click to expand...

And LR allows you to copy/paste the clone locations between images, I had to do that for a rental 1dx3, the smooth background behind the dragonflies showed the dozens of spots quite clearly.

I like the idea of the 10-24mm f2.8