Not sure when you bought yours, perhaps there was a silent update by Canon? I purchased my RF 100-500 and 70-200/2.8 in Aug/Sep 2021, and there is a detent at both ends of both hoods, one to hold the window shut and the other to hold it open. In either position, I can flick the window reasonably hard and it doesn't move. Opening it requires a declarative push. Check it out:
View attachment 208717
As I said, if it catches on something like a belt it will open. Sliding it down into a tight-fitting camera bag slot can certainly open it. It most assuredly doesn't 'open on its own' as you previously stated.
I mostly use my 100-500 in warm, sunny weather but that lens has a zoom tensioner anyway. I typically use my 70-200/2.8 for indoor events, so if there's a temperature dependence, I would not have noticed. But it's worth noting in this context that Roger Cicala
stated in the lens teardown that, "
The Canon RF 70-200mm has about the most robust extending barrel mechanism I’ve ever seen."
No, you didn't. I just figured that since you were saying Canon was using engineering not up to the standards of other manufacturers (a viewpoint thoroughly refuted by Uncle Rog in the linked blog post above), I wondered if this was an area where Canon was 'not as good as the competition'...apparently not.
And when people complain they miss a shot because the switch was in the wrong position? In theory, more options are better. In practice, that's not always true. As I stated, there's an engineering reason why Canon uses 2- vs. 3- position switches on various lenses.
As a side note, a 'needless way to cut cost' is an oxymoron – from a manufacturer's standpoint, there's always a need to cut cost. Since the manufacturer is making these decisions, and since we're talking about the design decisions being made, the relevant viewpoint is that of Canon...and they will need a reason to cut
profit by spending more on manufacturing the product, not to cut costs. Apparently in the case of a 3-position focus limiter, that reason is insufficient.
Out of curiosity, did you use your grooved Oly lens foot with an RRS lever clamp and if so, did it work? I know that despite what RRS says about using only RRS and Wimberley plates, the Acratech plate I use on my M6II works fine with their lever clamps. I wonder if people would think the grooves make the foot less comfortable as a handle? If it's such a great idea (and honestly, I think it generally is), why are there only two manufacturers that offer it...and none of them are the big three?
Looking at the one Tamron and three Olympus lenses that have the integrated dovetail in the foot, it does seem that those feet are noticeably thicker than the feet on Canon/Sony/Nikon lenses, as if the dovetail was added to the bottom of the foot as opposed to grooves being cut into the sides as you suggest. That means more metal, more weight, and more cost...good reasons (from a manufacturer perspective) to not add the dovetail, especially when other solutions are readily available at no additional cost to the manufacturer (i.e. lens plates and replacement feet from various vendors).
The R8 does, as does the R10. So most likely it will be in all future bodies, but they won't add it to the R5. Lots of people have lots of features from newer cameras they want to see in older cameras, most won't happen. Can you say pre-shooting buffer for the R3?
Sorry, that was me being facetious. Seems the
emoji did not adequately convey that.
