Canon confirms that the EOS R5 is the 5D series equivalent for mirrorless

[Valvebounce]

Hi Normalnorm.
And Nikon has AF adjustment on their Z for....

Cheers, Graham.

1. Sony has AF adjustment to accommodate their mirrored adapters.
2. Agreed
3.Agreed but then that is what Live View is for.
4. Can't comment, don't use video
5. My mk4 certainly is not quiet ever in any mode.

I have to say my DSLRs perform better in bright sun and in action environments.

 

[AEWest]

Hi AEWest.
I don’t think saying the FD lens was phased out is quite fair, they were dropped like a hot rock! A mistake that Canon seems to have decided not to make twice!
The FD did not fit EF mounts without an adaptor that either removed infinity focus or added a lens that reduced optical quality, the EF lens will fit the RF with a fully functional adaptor no quality loss no function loss, and both systems are running concurrently with new releases of each, for how long is anyone’s guess, but its 18 months so far.

Cheers, Graham.

Yes, I was caught up in that change. Not fun for an AE-1 owner at the time! It is much better this time around, i will be able to phase out EF lenses over time.

I will say that there is still a negative with EF lenses - they won't be as sharp as equivalent RF lenses due to their inherent limitation of the 44mm flange distance they were designed for. But much better for sure!

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi AEWest.
Like you, my dad was caught up in this, he stopped with the 3 lenses he had and never progressed to digital, as film got harder to get processed so he reduced the number of shots until eventually he just lost interest. I tried to reignite his passion for photography by lending him some basic gear but it was dead, buried and concreted over!

Cheers, Graham.

Yes, I was caught up in that change. Not fun for an AE-1 owner at the time! It is much better this time around, i will be able to phase out EF lenses over time.

I will say that there is still a negative with EF lenses - they won't be as sharp as equivalent RF lenses due to their inherent limitation of the 44mm flange distance they were designed for. But much better for sure!

 

[ildyria]

2: I have found focus peaking too inaccurate to be mission critical.

I disagree strongly on that one.

Focus peaking is extremely powerful and gives me better results than manual focus with an OVF or simply auto focus.
And by focus peaking, I do not mean the red/blue/green overlay which tells you which zone is sharp or the focus guides. Those are plain useless and rely on the auto focus. Focus peaking is the one where you zoom.

I get way sharper images in landscapes as I would with auto-focus (especially close to infinity).

 

[AEWest]

Hi AEWest.
Like you, my dad was caught up in this, he stopped with the 3 lenses he had and never progressed to digital, as film got harder to get processed so he reduced the number of shots until eventually he just lost interest. I tried to reignite his passion for photography by lending him some basic gear but it was dead, buried and concreted over!

Cheers, Graham.

You make me sound so old!

 

[privatebydesign]

1. Sony has AF adjustment to accommodate their mirrored adapters.
2. Agreed
3.Agreed but then that is what Live View is for.
4. Can't comment, don't use video
5. My mk4 certainly is not quiet ever in any mode.

I have to say my DSLRs perform better in bright sun and in action environments.

1: And Olympus and Nikon...

5: The 1DX III is as silent as any MILC.

I agree with your last point about OVF's, I also find EVF's weird in dim venues as it is too much of a contrast from what I actually see, maybe it's because I normally shoot with both eyes open and my brain just can't handle the two very different brightness levels, but I have tried and I just don't get on with EVF's in their current iteration.

 

[privatebydesign]

I disagree strongly on that one.

Focus peaking is extremely powerful and gives me better results than manual focus with an OVF or simply auto focus.
And by focus peaking, I do not mean the red/blue/green overlay which tells you which zone is sharp or the focus guides. Those are plain useless and rely on the auto focus. Focus peaking is the one where you zoom.

I get way sharper images in landscapes as I would with auto-focus (especially close to infinity).

My sharpest images are with Live View at 10x in manual focus, no other assistance.

Think of the way focus peaking works, it isn't measuring focus it is measuring contrast and where it believes the highest levels of micro contrast are in a scene.

I don't know what you mean by "Focus peaking is the one where you zoom" focus peaking is the one where you have a color showing your 'sharpest areas', maybe your technique works for landscapes, I know it doesn't work for portraits.

 

[ildyria]

My sharpest images are with Live View at 10x in manual focus, no other assistance.

Think of the way focus peaking works, it isn't measuring focus it is measuring contrast and where it believes the highest levels of micro contrast are in a scene.

I don't know what you mean by "Focus peaking is the one where you zoom" focus peaking is the one where you have a color showing your 'sharpest areas', maybe your technique works for landscapes, I know it doesn't work for portraits.

Ok then my bad, I thought Focus peaking was the live view x5 x10 (as you manually peak).

Then totally agree with you, this thing is completely useless.

 

[Czardoom]

True, none of us has a perfect crystal ball - or I would have sold off my stock holdings months ago - but we do our best.

I see no future development in the EF mount but lots of new higher quality offerings in RF. The EF line lasted over thirty years and is being phased out for the next generation line of lenses just as the FD line was phased out in favour of EF.

Technology marches on. Given Canon's history I can't imagine the RF line being phased out in less than twenty years - they are investing millions to switch over.

Only forum dwellers keep repeating that EF lenses are being phased out. Canon has made absolutely no such comment. As long as DSLRS sell as well as the mirrorless offerings, they will continue to make and sell EF lenses. There is absolutely no comparison between the EF line and the FD line situation. FD lenses did not work with the new cameras when EF lenses came into existence. The EF lenses work as well as ever on the new R cameras.

Nor, in any of the comparisons that I have seen, is there much difference between the EF and RF lenses (EF lenses are already about as sharp as optics technology can make them). The new RF mount does allow for faster lenses that weren't possible with EF. Other RF lenses seem to be slightly sharper wide open than their EF counterparts. Otherwise, there is little difference (and probably no noticeable difference when printing or not pixel peeping) between the L EF and RF lenses from what I have read and seen.

The consumers will decide which format - or if both will - ultimately continue for the next decade or more.

 

[AEWest]

I don't understand this. Not being critical, but I honestly don't understand what people think they are future-proofing against. Every EF lens you own is going to continue to work with every R series camera, either for the rest of your life or the life of the lens. Today, most camera bodies have limited lifespans. I doubt if I will ever see a body that lasts as long as my F1 did (35 years). It's just the nature of electronics and technology that bodies today either fail or go out of date a lot sooner than film bodies used to. So, I don't see buying any camera body as a decades long investment that offers future-proofing.

How does anyone know if the R and RF series will be viable a decade from now? With the amazing things that are happening with technology who knows where things will stand in a few years.

To me, this confidence that people are future-proofing their investment sounds pretty risky. It's a little bit like someone dumping all their DVDs for Blue-Ray disks five years ago. You never know what's just around the corner.

I'm not sure I follow the logic of the first paragraph of your argument. Yes, every EF lens will work on an RF mount camera. But the point is that no RF lens will ever work on an EF body.

So if someone is in the market for a new Canon FF camera, they can choose either EF or RF mount. The only two reasons I can think of why someone other than a pro sports shooter would choose the EF mount (assuming the R5 and R6 are available) are:
1. More cost effective to get the EF camera.
2. They dislike EVF so much that it is a dealbreaker.

Otherwise it makes more sense to get an RF mount camera as you get the widest available selection of lenses.

 

[AEWest]

Only forum dwellers keep repeating that EF lenses are being phased out. Canon has made absolutely no such comment. As long as DSLRS sell as well as the mirrorless offerings, they will continue to make and sell EF lenses. There is absolutely no comparison between the EF line and the FD line situation. FD lenses did not work with the new cameras when EF lenses came into existence. The EF lenses work as well as ever on the new R cameras.

Nor, in any of the comparisons that I have seen, is there much difference between the EF and RF lenses (EF lenses are already about as sharp as optics technology can make them). The new RF mount does allow for faster lenses that weren't possible with EF. Other RF lenses seem to be slightly sharper wide open than their EF counterparts. Otherwise, there is little difference (and probably no noticeable difference when printing or not pixel peeping) between the L EF and RF lenses from what I have read and seen.

The consumers will decide which format - or if both will - ultimately continue for the next decade or more.

I disagree that it only for consumers to decide. If it were only up to consumers, there would be many more camera models to choose from as everyone has different needs. Compromises have to be made.
Canon would have to rationalize why they are making two different 70-200 f2.8 lenses in a rapidly shrinking market as an example.

I expect that within a year we will have 20 R lenses to choose from. They are clearly working toward a full line up of R lenses in the next few years. Have you ever seen any camera maker simultaneously have two separate full frame lens lineups? I haven't. Especially in a contracting market, it makes little sense to keep both going long term.

 

[unfocused]

I disagree that it only for consumers to decide. If it were only up to consumers, there would be many more camera models to choose from as everyone has different needs. Compromises have to be made.

Canon would have to rationalize why they are making two different 70-200 f2.8 lenses in a rapidly shrinking market as an example.

I expect that within a year we will have 20 R lenses to choose from. They are clearly working toward a full line up of R lenses in the next few years. Have you ever seen any camera maker simultaneously have two separate full frame lens lineups? I haven't. Especially in a contracting market, it makes little sense to keep both going long term.

I think you are missing the point that @Czardoom is making. Individual consumers don't decide of course, but collectively all consumers decide through their buying decisions in the market. The number of camera models available is driven by the number of consumers who are willing to buy each model and what they are willing to pay. Consumers decide, because if the company cannot produce a specific model at a price that it can be sold at in the market it won't be made. Conversely, if there is sufficient demand for a product to produce a profit it likely will be made.

Canon is rationalizing why they are making two different 70-200 f2.8 lenses -- they are rationalizing it by selling sufficient quantities to turn a profit. (Actually, I believe they make three 70-200 f2.8 lenses -- one EF mount without IS, one with IS and one RF mount lens).

It's a little silly to ask if anyone has ever seen a camera manufacturer with two separate full frame lens lineups. What other manufacturers have or haven't done is irrelevant to Canon. Canon now has two different full-frame lines. As long as they have two lines, they will have lenses to fit both lines. How long will they have two lines? As long as the market dictates. So, @Czardoom's point is correct -- consumers will decide.

I'm beginning to feel as though you have some unstated, vested interest in a specific outcome. I'm just perplexed by people who have bought into the R system and now feel they must convince everyone else to follow suit. I own the R. I use the R. I like the R. But, it's not for everyone. Why do you care?

 

[unfocused]

Yes, every EF lens will work on an RF mount camera. But the point is that no RF lens will ever work on an EF body.

So, if you have an RF lens you really, really want, you need to buy an R mount camera. But if you don't, then there are plenty of EF mount lenses to choose from. Same with EF-S and EF-M lenses. If there is one you want, you need to buy a body that can use the lens. The advantage of EF lenses is they work on all four mounts.

So if someone is in the market for a new Canon FF camera, they can choose either EF or RF mount. The only two reasons I can think of why someone other than a pro sports shooter would choose the EF mount (assuming the R5 and R6 are available) are:
1. More cost effective to get the EF camera.
2. They dislike EVF so much that it is a dealbreaker.

This article provides a really good explanation of some of the reasons to get a DSLR. Fast, accurate autofocus for example is a high priority for many people who are not professional sports shooters.

Otherwise it makes more sense to get an RF mount camera as you get the widest available selection of lenses.

If the main reason you are buying a camera is to have the widest available selection of lenses. There are other, and I would suggest better, reasons to choose a camera.

 

[AEWest]

I think you are missing the point that @Czardoom is making. Individual consumers don't decide of course, but collectively all consumers decide through their buying decisions in the market. The number of camera models available is driven by the number of consumers who are willing to buy each model and what they are willing to pay. Consumers decide, because if the company cannot produce a specific model at a price that it can be sold at in the market it won't be made. Conversely, if there is sufficient demand for a product to produce a profit it likely will be made.

Canon is rationalizing why they are making two different 70-200 f2.8 lenses -- they are rationalizing it by selling sufficient quantities to turn a profit. (Actually, I believe they make three 70-200 f2.8 lenses -- one EF mount without IS, one with IS and one RF mount lens).

It's a little silly to ask if anyone has ever seen a camera manufacturer with two separate full frame lens lineups. What other manufacturers have or haven't done is irrelevant to Canon. Canon now has two different full-frame lines. As long as they have two lines, they will have lenses to fit both lines. How long will they have two lines? As long as the market dictates. So, @Czardoom's point is correct -- consumers will decide.

I'm beginning to feel as though you have some unstated, vested interest in a specific outcome. I'm just perplexed by people who have bought into the R system and now feel they must convince everyone else to follow suit. I own the R. I use the R. I like the R. But, it's not for everyone. Why do you care?

I don't care if people use EF or RF. Some people seem offended if I suggest that EF mount will be phased out. I am merely giving reasons why I think this is the case and I am fine if they disagree. That is what forums are for! As long as we debate in a respectful way what is the harm?

 

[Chris.Chapterten]

That really surprises me. My copies of the Canon 35mm F1.4L ii and the 85mm F1.4L are the two best lenses I own. They both focus quickly and accurately on my 5D mark 4 so I cannot understand why you have had so many problems. On my camera all the shots taken with these lenses are in focus, regardless of whether I use the centre AF point or one of the peripheral AF points so I can assure you that it is possible to achieve very reliable autofocus on a 5D mk4.
As you can achieve reliable focus on your EOS R then it is unlikely that there is something wrong with your technique so the only thing I can suggest is that there might have been a fault with your 5D mk4. However, that is probably irrelevant now and I pleased that you have been having more success with your EOS R.

Incidentally, the 50mm F1.2L is not one of Canon's best lenses and I had to return the first two copies I bought before I found one that focusses reliably.

I was totally stumped aswell. All of the reviews I had read about the lenses praised their auto focus. Glad to hear yours have been working perfectly. I never would have felt the need to buy the R if I had a similar experience.

Agreed, I may have just been unlucky with the body. It was sent back and forth to Canon at least 5 times for calibration but it never improved. All of my testing was in good lighting with no focus and recompose. My 5D mark iii performed signifcantly better as did my EOS R. So there wasn't much doubt.

Do you mean the EF 50mm 1.2L? I have heard that lens is a bit hit and miss with focusing. My RF 50mm 1.2L has been totally fine so far.

Cheers!

 

[SecureGSM]

I was totally stumped aswell. All of the reviews I had read about the lenses praised their auto focus. Glad to hear yours have been working perfectly. I never would have felt the need to buy the R if I had a similar experience.

Agreed, I may have just been unlucky with the body. It was sent back and forth to Canon at least 5 times for calibration but it never improved. All of my testing was in good lighting with no focus and recompose. My 5D mark iii performed signifcantly better as did my EOS R. So there wasn't much doubt.

Do you mean the EF 50mm 1.2L? I have heard that lens is a bit hit and miss with focusing. My RF 50mm 1.2L has been totally fine so far.

Cheers!

As someone who have done numerous calibration jobs for clients as a tiny side business more like a fun and an excuse to have a nice chat with fellow togs, I can assure you that Canon 35/1.4 II L is the most consistently focusing prime lens under 200mm. With average focus consistency results being around 99.8% when tested on Canon 5D4 bodies. Your copy of 5D4 is likely at fault here.

There is a wide range of possible causes ranging from a dirty AF sensor to various electronic fault.
I owned 35/1.4 II for an extended period of time and found the lens focusing consistently on my 5D4 bodies.

 

[Chris.Chapterten]

As someone who have done numerous calibration jobs for clients as a tiny side business more like a fun and an excuse to have a nice chat with fellow togs, I can assure you that Canon 35/1.4 II L is the most consistently focusing prime lens under 200mm. With average focus consistency results being around 99.8% when tested on Canon 5D4 bodies. Your copy of 5D4 is likely at fault here.

There is a wide range of possible causes ranging from a dirty AF sensor to various electronic fault.
I owned 35/1.4 II for an extended period of time and found the lens focusing consistently on my 5D4 bodies.

That was my thoughts aswell. I don't understand how two copies of the lens could exhibit the same behaviour otherwise. Canon couldn't figure it out though unfortunately, hence the refund. It was a shame because I did really love that lens. Now just waiting on an RF 35mm f1.2 to replace it

 

[sulla]

No DSLR's have viewfinder blackout, but not viewfinder lag. Canon MILC's are famous for having both.

anyone know by just how long (in terms of milliseconds) the viewfinder lags in the R or RP?

 

[SecureGSM]

anyone know by just how long (in terms of milliseconds) the viewfinder lags in the R or RP?

Around 200ms to my eye. Like you are seriously miss it. Not just a tad.

 

[Valvebounce]

That makes two then, I was there too! I hadn’t got in to photography yet, couldn’t afford that as well as cars and girls!

You make me sound so old!