The Canon EOS R1 is coming, here are a few things to expect

[Bob Howland]

I don’t get this complaint. As far as I know, Canon has always required third party lens makers to reverse engineer their lenses. It never stopped competitors before, why is it now some insurmountable obstacle?

If other companies are sharing their proprietary information it’s not because they are generous. It’s because they have determined it will increase their profits. If Canon is not doing so, then they have decided it doesn’t benefit them. That shouldn't be such a difficult concept for people to grasp.

In comparison, Sony, the M43 group and the L-mount group are supposedly all fairly forthcoming in providing information. What do you think constitutes keeping third parties from making lenses, going to court to prevent it or maybe having their R&D facilities blown up?

 

[scyrene]

The 800mm F11 is a very good lens, but it is extremely limited in application. When I use it in midday sunlight in Africa I’ll be able to shoot at 1/2000, F11, ISO 500 - a very usable combination. On a bright sunny day in late winter or early spring in the UK (prime bird photography season), that drops at least 2 stops so I’d be shooting at 1/1000, F11, ISO 1000-2000. On an overcast day that drops another 3-4 stops so I’d be shooting at 1/500 or 1/250, F11, ISO 4000.

Fwiw as I've said many times on this forum I shot (birds in overcast Britain) at f/10 a lot in the past decade, and it was fine. Close enough to f/11 to be relevant. And I was using older bodies. ISO 2000 is nothing. Depends on the situation a bit but I'd go as high as 12800 and get good results. The narrative "f/11 is unusable except in the brightest sunshine" is just wrong.

 

[scyrene]

Really? I believe that Canon is forcing third parties to reverse engineer the protocols, which the CEO of Sigma has said is time consuming and expensive.

Wasn't that always the case? They have no obligation to share proprietary information to allow rival companies to undercut them, do they?

Edit: I see unfocused already dealt with this.

 

[neuroanatomist]

If other companies are sharing their proprietary information it’s not because they are generous. It’s because they have determined it will increase their profits.

I thought it was because they want it to make the customers happy and satisfied by giving them lots of different lens choices.

 

[tron]

@entoman: I would also like a 800mm f/8 L IS too but the $2K price is way OFF.

800 at f/8 has the same front element as a 400mm f/4 so we are talking >$6K as a price.

 

[entoman]

Fwiw as I've said many times on this forum I shot (birds in overcast Britain) at f/10 a lot in the past decade, and it was fine. Close enough to f/11 to be relevant. And I was using older bodies. ISO 2000 is nothing. Depends on the situation a bit but I'd go as high as 12800 and get good results. The narrative "f/11 is unusable except in the brightest sunshine" is just wrong.

It’s not “wrong”, it’s all about thresholds of acceptability, which vary from person to person, and are affected by the output size, the distance the image is viewed from, individual eyesight, ISO level, the nature of the light, and various other factors. What one person finds acceptable, another may not.

Friends look at my photographs and can’t understand why I groan about them being noisy or lacking fine detail at high ISO, but if an image doesn’t satisfy *me*, it gets dumped.

 

[privatebydesign]

Thresholds of acceptability, now there is a catchall phrase that is a boring get out of jail card in any discussion. Post what you find 'acceptable' or not then everybody has a reference point.

Some people here have posted remarkably good results from the 7D II at 10,000iso at the pixel level. Without an example of 'acceptability' any mention of it rings very hollow.

 

[entoman]

@entoman: I would also like a 800mm f/8 L IS too but the $2K price is way OFF.

800 at f/8 has the same front element as a 400mm f/4 so we are talking >$6K as a price.

“Telescopic” designs such as the 600mm F11, 800mm F11 are simpler than conventional primes.

They are not designed to have the same weather-sealing as an L lens, or to endure the same levels of abuse.

They are not supplied with rotating tripod rings, lens hoods or protective cases.

They are therefore a lot cheaper to manufacture and can be sold for affordable prices, as demonstrated by the two existing F11 lenses.

Of course, all we can do is guess, but I think it’s reasonable to assume that a 800mm F8 could be produced and sold for about double the cost of the 800mm F11, hence my suggested $2000.

 

[Chris.Chapterten]

I'm not sure where you're coming from Steven, but you have just discounted and written off the years and years of practice, training, experimenting, visionary talents and skills, climbing on your belly through thorns to get the shot, determination, and plain hard work many have dedicated to perfecting their craft and creating images no one - I mean NO ONE - else could replicate. Just ask your daughter and she'll make you eat your words.

100%

The job of a camera and almost all other equipment related to capturing an image should be to get out of the way as much as possible. When you no longer have to stress about a photo being in focus, exposed correctly or if it will be too noisey you can actually just focus on the important stuff! i.e. the creativity, your lighting, your composition etc. etc.

 

[David_D]

Of course, all we can do is guess, but I think it’s reasonable to assume that a 800mm F8 could be produced and sold for about double the cost of the 800mm F11, hence my suggested $2000.

Since nobody has pointed this out already, I am probably wrong, but in your 1-stop faster lens the front element has a 1.4x larger diameter, 2x larger surface area and 2.8x greater volume. That means the cost of the material is 2.8 times higher. Also, the defect rate will be much higher (probably related to polishing SA, but could be volume, e.g. a bubble). I would also imagine a wider aperture would lead to a more complex optical design. Depending on what proportion of the cost is the material, how large the defect rate is and extra design complications, I would guess the manufacturing cost to be more than 2x, probably nearer 3 maybe even more.

 

[unfocused]

I thought it was because they want it to make the customers happy and satisfied by giving them lots of different lens choices.

I know you are just being sarcastic and probably think this is relevant to our previous discussion, but yes, it is about what the companies think they need to do to keep customers happy.

Canon's choice not to open source its lens information has never stopped any third party manufacturer from offering lenses in Canon EF mount and I suspect it won't stop them in the future with RF mounts.

We don't know why some third parties have not offered RF mount lenses. It may have more to do with their perception of the market than with the challenges of reverse engineering. I've pointed out before that in the EF days, third party lens makers could simply add a different mount to the exact same lens. We don't know if that is possible with mirrorless. If it isn't, then third party lens makers have to take into consideration the additional costs of designing a lens for a specific brand of camera and how many they will have to sell to recover their costs. Reverse engineering is a part of that cost, but it is not the only cost and may not even be a major cost.

Point is, Canon is doing what they believe is best to give their customers what they want and other companies are doing what they think is best to give customers what they want. Assigning other motives comes from a lack of information about the inner workings of each camera company and lens manufacturer.

 

[unfocused]

Of course, all we can do is guess, but I think it’s reasonable to assume that a 800mm F8 could be produced and sold for about double the cost of the 800mm F11, hence my suggested $2000.

Using that logic, an 800mm f8 should be about half the cost of an 800 f5.6 or $6,500.

 

[cayenne]

Honest question, when does it all stop? That what you have gives you the pictures you want? Is there ever satisfaction?

LOL...I dunno if it ever truly "stops"....GAS is a powerful thing....more powerful than the force.

For canon, I'm still chugging along with my 5D3 and all the EF glass I have for it. In the meantime, I had been dabbling with medium format film...Hasselblad and a host of other cameras, even a big old 6x17 monster.
While the R's were just getting started, I was eyeballing them, but I happened upon a couple of deals just too good to pass by and I acquired new digital that was "unique"....I got a GFX100 Digital MF camera and a couple of lenses, and also fell into a Leica M10 Monochrom. Both of these offer something very unique over run of the mill FF digital sensors.

So, at this point, I'm looking back HARD at Canon RF gear...I've got my pennies saved for a R5 and could pull the trigger now.

However, I"m standing by and saving still, as that there appears to be so much in motion. The R3 is an interesting beast, but won't satisfy me MP wise...I want something a bit more.
With word of an R1 coming late next year, I figure I can stand by to see what that is looking like, while I keep saving my pennies.

The R5 is VERY tempting, but right now, while I want it, I have enough gear I'm actively using that scratches the GAS itch, but I'm watching.

So, no, it never truly ends, but some times it pauses to see what the next best thing that does check the most boxes is going to be.

And also, with most things in life, especially electronic things, I rarely buy into the 1.0 version. I like to let those early adopters beta test those and since that is out of the way, I'm starting to get more interested.

Anyway, that's my $0.02,

cayenne

 

[cayenne]

Just to state the obvious, but it may help channel speculation into one of several streams:

<snip>

-- 102MP is available from the Fujifilm GFX 100 for $9999. The R1 may be pretty close to that price. In fact if you count the likely sales volume, $7999 would basically be that price. And 100MP has a nice "quantity has a quality all it's own" feeling to it.

<snip>

Actually, there is now also the GFX100S that has the same 102MP sensor, just a bit cheaper EVF, and it is a nice smaller form factor for $5999.

Just FYI.

 

[Bob Howland]

I thought it was because they want it to make the customers happy and satisfied by giving them lots of different lens choices.

I've forgotten who, but an economist once said that all buyer-seller relationships are inherently adversarial. In reality, (potential) buyers are able to like or dislike Canon for any reason they want, including the color of the wedding dress of the CEO's daughter.

 

[stevelee]

Actually, there is now also the GFX100S that has the same 102MP sensor, just a bit cheaper EVF, and it is a nice smaller form factor for $5999.

Just FYI.

Yes, that is my real temptation right now. With a couple lenses that would hit just over $10K which is quite affordable to me right now, not having been anywhere or done much since mid-March of last year. If I really thought I’d get into landscapes to that much greater a degree, I would have already ordered it. If it were instantly available, it might have already been an impulse purchase. So far nothing in the R line has tempted me. With the 100S, I’d still use my 6D2 for a lot of things anyway. But the 100S would be enough of an upgrade to give up the OVF at least part of the time. A 5D V would likely be ordered really fast, but none of us expect that. If the 5D IV drops below $2,000 again and I don’t buy the 100S, it might be the impulse purchase. For now it seems headed the other way. There are plenty of better cameras these days than the 6D2, but I am thinking about what would actually improve my photography enough to spend thousands of dollars, or at the very least lead me to new and different realms of shooting.

 

[scyrene]

It’s not “wrong”, it’s all about thresholds of acceptability, which vary from person to person, and are affected by the output size, the distance the image is viewed from, individual eyesight, ISO level, the nature of the light, and various other factors. What one person finds acceptable, another may not.

Friends look at my photographs and can’t understand why I groan about them being noisy or lacking fine detail at high ISO, but if an image doesn’t satisfy *me*, it gets dumped.

Everyone's threshold is different of course! What's wrong is to promulgate it as a general truth. It's like the old narrative about the 5Ds/R that they're "unusable at high ISO" which a lot of people still believe despite clear evidence that they were no worse than lower res sensors of the same generation normalised. When someone claims "X is unusable" without caveats I have to chime in when my experience has been different.

You've admitted to being a pixel peeper and that's your prerogative, but telling people a given lens (in this case) can only be used in certain circumstances is misleading, when most people view photographs as a whole image, and don't pixel peep.

 

[rbr]

Using that logic, an 800mm f8 should be about half the cost of an 800 f5.6 or $6,500.

An 800 f8 would probably be even more than that in today's market. After all they're selling a 500mm f7.1 for $2700. We're talking about a real lens here with a diaphragm, a rotating tripod collar and full time manual focusing. The RF 800 f11 is a fun walk around lens, but not really a serious tool, at least not to me.

 

[neuroanatomist]

They are not designed to have the same weather-sealing as an L lens, or to endure the same levels of abuse.

They are not supplied with rotating tripod rings, lens hoods or protective cases.

How many people would pay $2000 for a consumer-grade lens?

Of course, all we can do is guess, but I think it’s reasonable to assume that a 800mm F8 could be produced and sold for about double the cost of the 800mm F11, hence my suggested $2000.

If your guess is correct, and you’re also correct in your belief that it would sell better than an 800/11, then why did Canon make the 800/11 instead?

Of course, all we can do is guess, but I think it’s reasonable to assume Canon does not believe that your guesses and beliefs are accurate. It’s also reasonable to assume that Canon knows more about lens design, production costs, and marketing than we do.

 

[SteveC]

If your guess is correct, and you’re also correct in your belief that it would sell better than an 800/11, then why did Canon make the 800/11 instead?

To amplify this, I very much doubt the cost of a lens scales linearly with the area of the front element (which is what a "stop" of aperture correlates to). It probably goes up a great deal faster than that.