This is likely Canon’s lens roadmap for 2020

[Michael Clark]

I can use f/11 with my R. I can also use it in live view with my 5D MK IV. I think some of the better communications in the RF lenses may help autofocus.

F11 is F11, the focal length does not change that. Obviously, the amount of light needed to get a low ISO exposure at a high shutter speed is critical, and for moving subjects, a fast shutter speed is going to be a issue. Lots of wildlife is not moving, birds in flight might require high ISO.

That depends on how good the R6 IBIS will be for panning...

 

[Michael Clark]

Maybe they are EF to RF TCs?

Maybe they are EF/EF-S to RF TCs that can enlarge the image circle enough for EF-S lenses to cover the entire full frame? 1.4X is not that far from 1.6X.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Nope. These are FF daylight teles to convert the APS-C 150-600mm crowd over to FF RF.

This lens is a match made in heaven for the RP and whatever follows it. Perhaps the R6 if the price is right.

F11 it's still too dark for 600mm. For 800mm it might be acceptable. But for 600mm you can add a TC to the 100-400 and still have 1 stop advantage.

 

[Michael Clark]

Ok, so lets say you're birding in the dark shadows of the woods. You need some shutter speed so you're shooting at 1/1000, f.5.6, ISO 3200 for proper exposure. Lets go to f/8 - now you're at iSO 6400, or you give up more shutter speed. At f/11, you're at ISO 12800 for the same exposure. Unless 12,800 in the new camera can give me the same noise characteristics as today's ISO 3200, then it's a non-starter for me.

These lenses will not be for birding in the dark woods. Got it?

 

[stevelee]

I don't think Moore's Law has worked for a while even in for the kinds of things that Moore had in mind.

 

[Joules]

Those total lengths are to the imaging plane. Subtract 20mm to get the length in front of the flange ring.

I actually have already subtracted those 20mm for that reason in those numbers. But it really doesn't matter on lenses of this scale I think

 

[Joules]

I don't think Moore's Law has worked for a while even in for the kinds of things that Moore had in mind.

Dang those pesky laws of physics!

 

[Michael Clark]

This could be the answer. Canon has developed a Dual Gain Output censor, Each photo diode outputs 2 photos at the same time. One for high dynamic range, and the other for low noise. They are combined at output to give High Dynamic range and low noise in the image. This tech was developed for C300 Cinema camera. will it be used in the new R5 and R6 cameras, I hope so.

The customers Canon is aiming these f/11 telephoto lenses at are not the same customers Canon is aiming at with anything having a dual gain sensor in it. They're at opposite ends of their customer base.

 

[Joules]

The customers Canon is aiming these f/11 telephoto lenses at are not the same customers Canon is aiming at with anything having a dual sensor in it. They're at opposite ends of their customer base.

I think the comment was speculating that the R5 / R6 may be equipped with the new DGO sensor tech that they introduced in the C300 III. That doesn't have two sensors. It appears to read the separate halves in a Dual Pixel at different amplifications and merge them to create HDR. Unfortunately, their marketing materials aren't quite clear about it.

Regardless, it won't improve low light performance so the point the post you replied to was definitely moot. I'm just not sure at this point if this tech really is for a different market or if it may appear in stills ILC at some point.

 

[Michael Clark]

I think they are making less expensive lenses for the masses. There are not a lot of R bodies that have been sold, compared to other brands and DSLRs. For canon to get market share, they have to sell a lot of units and there are a lot more inexpensive units sold. Most people on this forum would not be thrilled with using a Rebel series body today, but canon has sold more of those than 5D series cameras.

Canon needs better bodies for the great glass they have produced for the pro and high end enthusiast. But, they also really need inexpensive glass to attract the large group of buyers at the lower end of the price spectrum. (There is probably more profit there in the long run...)

^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Michael Clark]

I think the comment was speculating that the R5 / R6 may be equipped with the new DGO sensor tech that they introduced in the C300 III. That doesn't have two sensors. It appears to read the separate halves in a Dual Pixel at different amplifications and merge them to create HDR. Unfortunately, their marketing materials aren't quite clear about it.

Regardless, it won't improve low light performance so the point the post you replied to was definitely moot. I'm just not sure at this point if this tech really is for a different market or if it may appear in stills ILC at some point.

Dual gain sensor in it. I was trying to type too fast and left out a word.

And folks who have been buying Rebels and 150-600s are definitely at the opposite end of Canon's customer base from those who buy C300, C200, and C100 cameras.

 

[Michael Clark]

No, an m43 f/5.6 or 8 is exactly physically that. The equivalent FoV and alleged equivalent aperture are irrelevant.

If you're shooting at 5.6, that's what you're shooting at. It's a physical ratio.

Think of it this way: you shoot an 600 f/4 at 5.6 on a Canon FF. You then crop the centre portion to match m43 FoV. Did the aperture change? No.

When you crop from FF to µ4/3 the aperture doesn't change, but the DoF sure as hell does. BIG TIME. So does the overall image S/N ratio.

 

[Joules]

Dual gain sensor in it. I was trying to type too fast and left out a word.

And folks who have been buying Rebels and 150-600s are definitely at the opposite end of Canon's customer base from those who buy C300, C200, and C100 cameras.

Fair enough. Not disagreeing with you here. Sorry for misunderstanding you.

But I find the DGO tech very interesting. If it truly is just amplifying the two halves of each pixel differently, it does not seem to add much cost to a sensor to me. Magic Lantern enabled a mode where the alternating rows of pixels were amplified differently and used that to create one shot HDR images. This was something available in the sensor hardware, not just software based. I used it in my 600D a couple times. The problem with that were artifacts in areas that were saturated in one image due to parallax.

But with higher resolutions and less parallax due to having the two diodes under the same micro lens, maybe Canon is having another attempt with this concept. We've now seen it first in an expensive camera, but it does not sound so far off that it may be found in consumer models too. Maybe not this generation, but eventually. After all, Canon already had something similar in the older models, just not supported in the software side.

 

[Michael Clark]

This year for the 2.0 85mm Macro and the 2.8 70-200, next year for crazy stuff like 2.0 400 DO or 2.8 600 DO.

The RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS will not take extenders, at least none that have elements that extend into the back of the lens. Look at the rear of an RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS. The rear element is almost flush with the flange ring.



I doubt the RF 85mm f/2 Macro will, either. I can't remember for sure, but I think it's been revealed that the two RF 85mm f/1.2 L lenses will not take extenders either.

 

[Michael Clark]

Fair enough. Not disagreeing with you here. Sorry for misunderstanding you.

But I find the DGO tech very interesting. If it truly is just amplifying the two halves of each pixel differently, it does not seem to add much cost to a sensor to me. Magic Lantern enabled a mode where the alternating rows of pixels were amplified differently and used that to create one shot HDR images. This was something available in the sensor hardware, not just software based. I used it in my 600D a couple times. The problem with that were artifacts in areas that were saturated in one image due to parallax.

But with higher resolutions and less parallax due to having the two diodes under the same micro lens, maybe Canon is having another attempt with this concept. We've now seen it first in an expensive camera, but it does not sound so far off that it may be found in consumer models too. Maybe not this generation, but eventually. After all, Canon already had something similar in the older models, just not supported in the software side.

How many stops difference was there between the two amplifications? If you gain one stop and have to reduce exposure by one stop to protect the highlights from never blowing out, what have you really gained?

 

[Michael Clark]

But people here are commenting as if it affects exposure ( as in how could you shoot f/11 at night etc ). It doesn't, the same shutter-aperture-ISO will give the same exposure on all sensors with the exception of differences due to true transmission ratio of the lenses.

And noise equivalence is dependent on sensor technology, it's not inversely linear to sensor size.

When you take a FF image and crop that image, the sensor technology is identical, since the same sensor was used both before and after you cropped the same image.

 

[Joules]

How many stops difference was there between the two amplifications? If you gain one stop and have to reduce exposure by one stop to protect the highlights from never blowing out, what have you really gained?

I don't think there was any limit on how far apart the two amplifications needed to be. The feature is called dual ISO. I'm pretty sure I used ISO 100 and ISO 1600 at one point, just to try itA. As this was on a T3i (strong, strong fixed pattern noise when pushing shadows too much), you did actually gain something there since the sensor was far from ISO invariant.

Here is the thread the developers assigned for posting images made using the feature:

https://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=7402

(Obviously, the HDR look is pretty over the top in many there. But that's basically the point)

But thinking about it, for the current generation sensors that are so close to being ISO invariant, using a high and a lot magnification should indeed yield little advantage over just using the lower one and creating the HDR in post... Or maybe I'm too tired and missing something currently.

Edit: then again, Canon is writing 16 stops Dr in their material. So clearly they see an advantage in terms of readnoise and DR. So I guess I'll get some needed sleep

 

[Michael Clark]

Maybe for very small birds, but I routinely shoot with an EFL north of 900 (600mm lens on a crop body, 500 + 1.4x on a crop body, etc.) and I'm usually pretty good at finding the bird.

Yeah, some folks think if something is beyond their abilities, it has to be beyond everyone's abilities.

I've seen some pretty impressive work of birds in flight from this guy. He even shoots a 600/4 III + 2X handheld but usually not when they're flying.

Here he's using a 400/2.8 + 2X III handheld with the new 1D X Mark III. That's 800/5.6.

This is a time lapse of 63 still frames tracking a bird in flight.

 

[Michael Clark]

I want that lens too.

Where is the rumor that a 70-135mm f/2 is even in the works? I've seen a few members here talk about it, but I don't recall and actual Canon Rumor form the grand poobah saying there was one on the way. Maybe I just missed it?

 

[Bonich]

Also cant forget that while you can shoot at f11 in limited circumstances your camera is not autofocusing at f11. It is autofucusing at whatever the max apature of the lens is. These would be focusing AT f11. Not easy to be fast or accurate. It would work in perfect conditions. Bright light. Front lit subjects. Very still subjects. And most likely on a tripod. UNLESS as I suggested that maybe the sensors are substantially better at high ISO than we have seen before.

Why no AF @F11 with the R series???
Why only very still objects?
Yes, perfect framing without monopod/beanbag, tripod will be some challenge especially with the 800mm.
To give you an Idea about F11 here a shot with 16 years old technology F10, 500mm x1.4, ISO200, 1/800sec (EOS 1D MII):
Sorry canonrumors had stolen the sun reflection point on the eye :-(

The very first important issue is to be at the right moment at the right location with the right light and the right subject.

Not too bad having equipment with you. You never take around F4.0 just accidentally. (I know, I use F4.0 600mm or 500mm for nearly 3 decades now).