Canon exec confirms that the EOS-1D X Mark III is Canon’s last DSLR

[neuroanatomist]

No I’m asking what happens if you don’t apply a lens profile.

Then you see the severe distortion and vignetting that come with the optical design of the lens. For example, with the RF 14-35.

 

[unfocused]

You get a mess. Applying corrections for these lenses is as essential as demosaicing for producing a photo..

Not a mess. As @neuroanatomist shows in his examples you just get the actual image from the lens alone. Adds another option for creativity. Sort of like getting two lenses in one.

Biggest downside is you can’t see the actual image in all its glory until you download the files. Then you get to choose which one you want.

Point is, instead of looking at the new lens designs as a weakness you can choose to see them as a strength. It all depends on one’s perspective.

 

[slclick]

Point is, instead of looking at the new lens designs as a weakness you can choose to see them as a strength. It all depends on one’s perspective.

Glass half full isn't too popular around here or with humankind in general but maybe you'll start a trend...I'm in!

 

[AJ]

Point is, instead of looking at the new lens designs as a weakness you can choose to see them as a strength. It all depends on one’s perspective.

Indeed. When these lenses first came out I looked at it as a weakness. I thought about it, changed my mind, bought a 24-240, loving it, about to buy a 16/2.8.
14-35 is the first 14 mm lens with a flat front element. This is revolutionary, and I doubt it could have been accomplished without passing the corrections from optics to software.
Ditto for the 16/2.8. Here we have a 300 USD prime that is tiny and pocketable. I bet the lens would have been much larger and more expensive if it natively produced a perfectly rectilinear image.
I think the issue right now is that correction profiles can be slow to release. Because the corrections aren't optional, it's a bit like buying an EF lens with one lens element missing, with the promise that the missing element will be delivered to you at some unspecified time in the future. Hopefully, outfits like Adobe, DXO, Affinity etc. can make this more of a priority. Having to wait a full year after release for a correction profile is simply not acceptable. Yes you can process with DPP (I'm doing that myself right now) but that's not everyone's processing flow.

 

[SteveC]

It doesn't matter. None of the animal photographs can be published because they are all out of focus. His camera didn't have Animal Eye AF

Urban legend.

He shot raw, in file format CR-15 (as in minus 15; it was a long time ago). No software supports that format any more. That's why we can't use his animal photographs.

 

[Bishop80]

Don't forget that with mirrorless, optical elements can be placed closer to the sensor which can result in smaller and lighter lenses.

Has this been the case so far with Canon's RF lenses? Are they on average smaller and lighter than their closest EF counterparts?

 

[Bishop80]

It's *possible*, but I think we have almost reached the point where it is *impracticable and uneconomic* to develop DSLRs further.

I just don't know. Canon and companies often say what is changing in the product line, but not why. Of course, knowing the why leaves less room for our opinions (mine included )

 

[AlanF]

Has this been the case so far with Canon's RF lenses? Are they on average smaller and lighter than their closest EF counterparts?

The RF 100-400mm f/8 is much lighter than the EF 100-400mm f/5.6. The RF 600mm and 800mm f/11 far lighter than the EF 600mm f/4 and 800mm f/5.6. And, that's was possible not because of the different mount but because the R-series can autofocus down to f/22 or narrower whereas the DSLRs go to only f/8, and then only for the more expensive bodies.

 

[privatebydesign]

The RF 100-400mm f/8 is much lighter than the EF 100-400mm f/5.6. The RF 600mm and 800mm f/11 far lighter than the EF 600mm f/4 and 800mm f/5.6. And, that's was possible not because of the different mount but because the R-series can autofocus down to f/22 or narrower whereas the DSLRs go to only f/8, and then only for the more expensive bodies.

Conversely the RF50 f1.2 and RF 85 f1.2 are bigger, heavier, and more expensive than their EF versions. The RF 24-70 f2.8 is also bigger, heavier, and more expensive than the latest EF version. The RF 14-35 f2.8 is heavier but the same size as the last EF 16-35 2.8 but much more expensive, and as we have seen has massive distortion that is always corrected in the EVF.

On balance I think RF has been a very mixed bag so far.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The RF 100-400mm f/8 is much lighter than the EF 100-400mm f/5.6. The RF 600mm and 800mm f/11 far lighter than the EF 600mm f/4 and 800mm f/5.6. And, that's was possible not because of the different mount but because the R-series can autofocus down to f/22 or narrower whereas the DSLRs go to only f/8, and then only for the more expensive bodies.

I’m not sure I’d consider those pairings ‘close counterparts’. The RF 100-500 is a little bit longer (7%) and a bit lighter (14%), the latter mainly due to the material used to construct the barrel.

Although on-sensor PDAF makes new lens designs possible, so far it doesn’t seem like the RF mount has made much of a difference.

In addition to the examples by @privatebydesign the RF 70-200 zooms are much shorter, but there’s no reason extending designs couldn’t have been made for EF. The RF 14-35/4 is not too different from the EF 16-35/4 in size and weight, but I think the extra 2mm on the wide end are less about the RF mount and more about the ability to force digital correction of the viewfinder with mirrorless meaning the lens can have a weaker optical design.

 

[AJ]

The EF 24-105/4 mk2 weighs about 800g. The RF 24-105/4 weighs about 700 g.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The EF 24-105/4 mk2 weighs about 800g. The RF 24-105/4 weighs about 700 g.

The EF MkI was 670g.

 

[AlanF]

I’m not sure I’d consider those pairings ‘close counterparts’. The RF 100-500 is a little bit longer (7%) and a bit lighter (14%), the latter mainly due to the material used to construct the barrel.

Although on-sensor PDAF makes new lens designs possible, so far it doesn’t seem like the RF mount has made much of a difference.

In addition to the examples by @privatebydesign the RF 70-200 zooms are much shorter, but there’s no reason extending designs couldn’t have been made for EF. The RF 14-35/4 is not too different from the EF 16-35/4 in size and weight, but I think the extra 2mm on the wide end are less about the RF mount and more about the ability to force digital correction of the viewfinder with mirrorless meaning the lens can have a weaker optical design.

You don't expect the RF telephotos to be lighter than the EF equivalent because of the shorter flange distance as this is pretty well irrelevant for telephotos, so I pointed out RF lenses could be lighter for a different reason - the different requirements for AF.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You don't expect the RF telephotos to be lighter than the EF equivalent because of the shorter flange distance as this is pretty well irrelevant for telephotos, so I pointed out RF lenses could be lighter for a different reason - the different requirements for AF.

The RF 50/1.2 is a beast. As PBD pointed out, the RF 24-70/2.8 is heavier than the EF II. The EF and RF 50/1.8 weight the same. The RF 15-35/2.8 is heavier than the EF 16-35/2.8 III. None of those are telephoto lenses.

I'd argue that you don't expect any RF lenses to be lighter than their EF counterparts. For the ones that are, it seems that's mainly because the EF barrel is metal and the RF barrel is plastic.

 

[AJ]

Okay, so this leads to the conclusion that getting elements closer to the sensor doesn't shave off weight. Maybe it leads to better resolution or possible future break-throughs in ultrawides, hinted at by crazy patents like 14-21/1.4
But I say that designing lenses that have physical vignetting and need distortion corrections does save on weight. Case in point the RF 16/2.8.
I'm hoping that the rumoured 24/1.8 IS macro will be small, light, and inexpensive, a la RF 16/2.8. If I want a big, heavy, and well-corrected lens I'd just get the Sigma.

 

[privatebydesign]

The RF and EF 100 Macro's are another example. The RF is bigger, heavier and although it is only $100 more expensive at B&H at the moment that is only because when the RF version was released the EF version suddenly got a $400 price rise!

 

[privatebydesign]

Okay, so this leads to the conclusion that getting elements closer to the sensor doesn't shave off weight. Maybe it leads to better resolution or possible future break-throughs in ultrawides, hinted at by crazy patents like 14-21/1.4
But I say that designing lenses that have physical vignetting and need distortion corrections does save on weight. Case in point the RF 16/2.8.
I'm hoping that the rumoured 24/1.8 IS macro will be small, light, and inexpensive, a la RF 16/2.8. If I want a big, heavy, and well-corrected lens I'd just get the Sigma.

Just to be clear, you can design small lenses with shitty compromised optics for DSLR's too, the problem was people wouldn't buy them because they could see the amount of corrections needed in post.

 

[AlanF]

The RF 50/1.2 is a beast. As PBD pointed out, the RF 24-70/2.8 is heavier than the EF II. The EF and RF 50/1.8 weight the same. The RF 15-35/2.8 is heavier than the EF 16-35/2.8 III. None of those are telephoto lenses.

I'd argue that you don't expect any RF lenses to be lighter than their EF counterparts. For the ones that are, it seems that's mainly because the EF barrel is metal and the RF barrel is plastic.

Not even the extenders are lighter: RF 2x = 340g, EF 2x TCIII =325g (makers specs), RF 1.4x = 225g, EF 1.4xTCIII = 225g. And the, the RF 600mm f/4 weighs 72g more than the identical EF 600mm f/4 III (according to Bryan of TDP, who weighed them) because an adapter had to be glued on to it.

 

[snapshot]

Just to be clear, you can design small lenses with shitty compromised optics for DSLR's too, the problem was people wouldn't buy them because they could see the amount of corrections needed in post.

not to mention that one might use an EF film camera where the correction matrix is much harder to apply...

 

[Czardoom]

Yes, I should have been more specific. Most SLRs were “full frame.” There were a few exceptions but they were niche cameras with little to no consumer adoption.

But my main point still stands, there were no mass consumer SLRs other than 35mm “Full Frame.” There is no reason why the consumer entry level interchangeable lens cameras (Rebels) need to be a different sensor format if Canon can get the costs down to Rebel levels and in 2022, the sensor size is not the deciding factor it was 10-15 years ago.

Too many people on this forum just assume that Rebels have to be APS-C and that’s not true. Rebels have to be cheap, but they don’t have to be crop sensors.

Thanks for the clarification. I totally agree that there can definitely be FF Rebels. If Canon can get the cost down to the same level with a FF sensor as a crop sensor than there will be no reason not to have FF Rebels. The question today is will enough users want a crop camera for the "reach". For the past 15 or more years, that is something users may have gotten used to and may still want in the future. ( I am one of those users and just bought a Nikon Z50 for that very reason.)

Just for information...Canon and Nikon both made SLRs for the APS film photo system. They are the only ones I found in my brief search. I owned the Canon and was very happy with it.