Here’s a full list of what will be announced with the Canon EOS R3 this month

[privatebydesign]

The RF 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4.0 are good lenses, but they are still modified EF lenses and don't show to the fullest what RF can be. For instance, Nikon are building brand new, never before seen designs for the Z 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4.0 that appear to also have built in 1.4X TC's. Canon have always been able to make glass that no one else even has the R&D budget for, something that can show us what the a modern mirrorless super tele can be (this doesn't mean shorter or even lighter). I very much don't wish to believe bolting a EF to RF converter and changing the focus system is all we can expect from Canon.

Apart from the fact Canon had a 1200mm lens with a built in TC in the 1980's, and they have the EF 200-400 f4 L with built in TC....

 

[privatebydesign]

I must be missing something. How can a 16mm f2.8 lens be as small as people are imagining.

The Leica FF 18mm f2.8.

 

[Berowne]

Forget the R3, the new RED V-RAPTOR ST is available for 24.500 $ and has a RF-Mount!

 

[unfocused]

There are a few ways to do it. The most common two methods are to either stick your larger elements towards the rear or even protruding into the camera a bit (which is how the 1960s 19mm f/3.5 worked), or just not care about optical corrections and make a wider, distorted, darker image circle, which is easy to do within a small lens, and rely on opcodes to correct everything. That's what the recent 14-35mm f/4L does as well as many other lenses I mentioend above.

The Fuji 16mm f/2.8 which has been mentioned in this thread is a slightly different matter, as that lens is only projecting an image circle slightly larger than the APS-C sensor. Mechanically that lens is only as demanding as a 24mm f/4.2, so it's very easy for it to be as small as it is. Additionally Fuji rely on a lot of software corrections for it. Fuji use opcodes more than any manufacturer anyway, but the 16mm f/2.8 is hugely reliant on them even by Fuji's standards and the images it puts out are stretched and brighten to breaking point. That's why it also has the poorest reputation among users of the compact XF lenses. (And unsurprisingly the lens at the other end of that series, the 50mm f/2, is by far the best performer.)

This Canon 16mm f/2.8 is going to be trying to cover a 135 sensor, which is much more demanding than the equivalent 24mm f/4.2 the Fuji has to put out. So I fully expect this lens, if it is indeed a pancake or semi-pancake lens, to be relying on the most dramatic software corrections seen on any lens by any manufacturer to date. While putting larger elements towards the rear can help somewhat... well, go look up what Canon had to do to make the FL 19mm f/3.5 work, and how far that had to protrude into the camera. To open up another 3mm and two thirds of a stop will be a tall order, even despite the advancements made since back then, and people should not be expecting optical miracles here. Canon can't cheat the laws of physics.

Thanks for the detailed explanation. It will be interesting to see what this lens really is.

 

[FrenchFry]

"Canon EOS R3 camera body with a rumoured availability being in November."

Oops! Missed that in the original article, thanks for pointing it out.
That would be a much bigger gap between final announcement and ship date than the R5, which was just 3 weeks (July 9th announcement, July 30th ship date). The R6 was 7 weeks.
9/14 plus 3 weeks is 10/5
9/14 plus 7 weeks is 11/2

Waiting much longer than that would potentially lead to missed holiday shopping sales.

Hopefully November is for more widespread availability and not initial ship date...

 

[unfocused]

"Canon EOS R3 camera body with a rumoured availability being in November."

That's disappointing, if true. That means the entire fall sports season will be lost for this sports oriented camera.

 

[Hector1970]

How about an ER-DM - directional mike built into a camera strap.
The size of the 16mm 2.8 will be interesting.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Forget the R3, the new RED V-RAPTOR ST is available for 24.500 $ and has a RF-Mount!

Yeah, but that's 35 MP so at least it's not a total failure like the R3. Just mostly a failure because it doesn't have 50 MP.

 

[SteveC]

Yeah, but that's 35 MP so at least it's not a total failure like the R3. Just mostly a failure because it doesn't have 50 MP.

OK, but what about a camera that is 65MP? Is it a negative failure, or does it become a different kind of failure?

 

[fastprime]

Really hoping the 100-400 comes in under $1,500

 

[rick2]

1) "Canon domination" doesn't matter. What camera is selling #1 in the world doesn't change how the cameras and lenses you have operate or how skilled you are at using them.
2) 24mp is still large by the standards of sports & news shooters, which is who Canon have explicitely stated the R3 is designed for. Most of its users will be shooting medium .jpg files. Going any larger than 24mp would actually be detrimental to many of the customers the camera is supposed to be used by. You don't look at, let alone buy, sports cameras if you are, for whatever reason, invested in the resolution race.

This is false. Market domination is definitely relevant. It's the reason people who want the absolute best gear switch brands. With the new raw compression canon has, the raw files from my 45mp r5 are between 15mb-25mb, smaller than the raw files from my sony a9ii 24mp camera. They could have definitely made the R3 30mp and made it slightly more future proof. In it's current state(and assuming it is $6k) it will be a pass for a lot of people who would have otherwise bought if it were 30mp-ish. The point of higher MP is cropping ability which translates into extra reach if you need it. Very few people will actually print a 45mp image.

 

[slclick]

Really hoping the 100-400 comes in under $1,500

Time for a smarty pants member to post the highest price Non L and Non DO lenses......I'm not worrying about the price so much, my guess is under 1k usd.

 

[JordanCS13]

The Leica FF 18mm f2.8.
View attachment 199971

That is not a full-frame lens, it's an APS-C lens. The TL in the name (it's the Elmarit TL 18mm f/2.8) gives it away, as the Leica T cameras are APS-C, as are their lenses...their full frame L mount lenses are marked 'SL'.

There is no UWA lens in existence for full-frame with a filter thread as small as 43mm...mainly because despite the size of the front elements, which can be made to be very tiny, the filter thread is larger to not vignette with such a wide lens. Take the Laowa 14mm f/4, which is a stop slower (and yes, a little wider). It's a TINY lens. Exceptionally small for a 14mm lens, but it still has a 52mm filter thread.

At this point, I'm thinking the 16mm f/2.8 is either an APS-C lens (and perhaps we get an APS-C RF mount camera as well), or the 43mm filter thread is incorrect. I would be shocked if Canon can create a 16mm full frame lens (that doesn't completely suck) with a 43mm filter thread.

 

[AlanF]

With a maximum front size of 67mm, a 400mm lens could be up to f/6.3 'clean', or possibly get away with f/5.6 with the modern trend of allowing excessive vignetting and having lenses frame wider then crop in with opcodes. (e.g. 24-105 f/7.1, 24-240, Fuji's 100-400, etc.)

I do think this lens will top out at f/7.1, but I believe that because that just seems to be the aperture Canon have become fixated on, not because of the filter size.

A 400mm f/5.6 requires an element of not less than 400/5.6 mm, ie 71.4mm so you can't have one with a 67mm front size.

 

[neuroanatomist]

This is false. Market domination is definitely relevant. It's the reason people who want the absolute best gear switch brands.

Earlier, you correctly stated that it’s the low-end ILC sales —entry-level APS-C models— that determine who leads in terms of market share, i.e., market domination. Now you’re claiming that market domination drives people switching brands to get ‘the absolute best gear’. So, you are saying that whoever sells the most entry-level cameras makes the absolute best gear. That’s the top-notch logic we’ve come to expect from you.

 

[jam05]

Agreed. To launch the R3 with lower end budget lenses implies that the R3 is also lower end, which does not seem right. Hopefully there will be some surprise lenses added to the announcement.

Agreed. To launch the R3 with lower end budget lenses implies that the R3 is also lower end, which does not seem right. Hopefully there will be some surprise lenses added to the announcement.

 

[jam05]

Its not the flagship, its not an R5, it a new line above the R5. Above $3800. You can call it what ever you please. Cameras are niche devices. Not many people spend $3800 on a camera concerned about others perception.

 

[jam05]

I must be missing something. How can a 16mm f2.8 lens be as small as people are imagining.

Yes you must be missing a lot

 

[tbgtomcom]

By the time the R3 hits the market it will be 1. outdated with only 24 mpix, and Sony will have another camera announced that will blow the R3 away I'm affraid. Missing the Canon domination times...

My guess is the R3 is not to pull competing camera users away from their platforms, but to give more tools to existing Canon users. The target audience of this camera likely already have heavy investments in Canon glass and want to take advantage of features that 1D users enjoy with added benefits.

 

[JustUs7]

Time for a smarty pants member to post the highest price Non L and Non DO lenses......I'm not worrying about the price so much, my guess is under 1k usd.

RF 24-240mm F/4-6.3 IS USM at $899.99 USD. What to I win for being smart enough to use the filters at USA.canon.com?

For EF, it’s about $799.99 not counting specialty non-L EF-S lenses.