Canon announces development of the EOS R5 full-frame mirrorless camera

BeenThere

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 4, 2012
901
241
In the scenario being discussed, aren't we talking about deleting images to make more room on a card? Doesn't that infer that the card is at near capacity?
Not necessarily. I will delete images during a lull while in the field whatever the fullness of the memory card. Same when I return to hotel room.
 
  • Like
Reactions: scyrene

amorse

EOS 7D MK II
Jan 26, 2017
600
652
www.instagram.com
I dunno. Filtering UWA is a big deal for me and around 14-15mm the filter ring tends to disappear -- fine for astro but problematic for other groups of shooters. They could pull a Nikkor Z 14-30 f/4 and put a step up frame around the front element and keep a filter ring, I guess, but at f/2 one imagines that lens would be 11-24L big and heavy.

Also, with fast UWA lenses, you tend to have a choice of a front filter ring OR manageable vignetting. The last two 16ish-35 mm f/2.8 lenses Canon produced were hall of fame vignetters presumably because Canon didn't want a more bulbous (and filter problematic) front element.

To me, and perhaps I have this wrong, but UWA + fast usually ends in sadness for one of the various camps of shooters -- daylight landscapers, astro folks and sports folks. Since the front-filtering crowd was supported with the 15-35, perhaps the 14-28 f/2 would just give up on that and go all mega-bulbous and delight the astro folks.

- A
I'm one of those day/night landscape shooters and my solution so far has been two lenses. I too want that filter thread, but no way does that come on a 14-28 f/2. If I buy the R5, the very next thing I buy will likely be the 15-35 f/2.8.

With that said, I wonder if Canon would consider building a 14-28 f/2 with a drop in back filter i.e. from the EF/RF drop in filter adapters. That could steal a lot of my money right out of my pocket.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ahsanford

CanonFanBoy

O.K. Boomer
Jan 28, 2015
4,557
2,370
Irving, Texas
$800 or so and you and your lost love could be reunited. Canon refurbs sell out quickly, but they are out there occasionally.

Also, now that mirrorless unlocks the MF assist door, the Sigma 135 f/1.8 Art is supposed to split atoms if you don't mind 3rd party.

- A
Nah. I sold the EF 135mm to get into the R system. ;) With all I loved about it, the CA is one thing I don't miss. I'll never buy Sigma.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: ahsanford

joestopper

Rrr...
Feb 4, 2020
99
79
The 135L doesn't sell well because:
  • It's 24 years old and what was once famously sharp is no longer
  • It does not have IS
  • It's only a stop faster than a 70-200 2.8
  • Canon's 70-200 2.8s are pretty damn legendary
Only the last bullet point may be true on RF. If they made one -- I'm no champion of wanting this, I'm just saying -- it would either have IS, be faster than f/2 or both.

Just consider an exotic tele prime that Canon might offer. Mitakon pulled off a limited run 135 f/1.4 for Sony, Nikon still makes the 105 f/1.4 for F mount, and Canon's 200 f/2L IS (and f/1.8L before it) is pretty damn sweet even if it does cost a mint:


I think there's *a* prime lens in a 100-200 range there in RF's future. Why not the 135?

- A
A RF 135 f/1.4 would be fantastic. A filter thread in the ballpark of 105mm I guess. But I would have several uses for it. Besides portraits that could be an amazing astro lens.
I will be in for all super fast primes released this year ...
 

BeenThere

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 4, 2012
901
241
$800 or so and you and your lost love could be reunited. Canon refurbs sell out quickly, but they are out there occasionally.

Also, now that mirrorless unlocks the MF assist door, the Sigma 135 f/1.8 Art is supposed to split atoms if you don't mind 3rd party.

- A
True, but you may not want to split atoms with a portrait lens. Every skin pore becomes visible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ahsanford

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,441
1,266
Anyway, I am a big fan of non-IS lenses since IS costs one stop (most of my work is low light).

IS costs weight, but it does not cost speed.

We have a lot of 2.8 zooms with IS now, now we also have the EF 85 f/1.4L IS. I think the old rules of 'f/4 gets IS and f/2.8 doesn't' is just that -- old.

I think to IS or not IS is simply a design choice.

- A
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

CanonFanBoy

O.K. Boomer
Jan 28, 2015
4,557
2,370
Irving, Texas
True, but you may not want to split atoms with a portrait lens. Every skin pore becomes visible.
This is very true about the pores. Thanks to Private By Design's (PBD) reigniting and encouraging my interest in learning PS techniques I have learned how to fix that issue (and a couple of others) with a simple PS action. The man deserves a medal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

slclick

135L
Dec 17, 2013
3,724
1,440
I dunno. Filtering UWA is a big deal for me and around 14-15mm the filter ring tends to disappear -- fine for astro but problematic for other groups of shooters. They could pull a Nikkor Z 14-30 f/4 and put a step up frame around the front element and keep a filter ring, I guess, but at f/2 one imagines that lens would be 11-24L big and heavy.

Also, with fast UWA lenses, you tend to have a choice of a front filter ring OR manageable vignetting. The last two 16ish-35 mm f/2.8 lenses Canon produced were hall of fame vignetters presumably because Canon didn't want a more bulbous (and filter problematic) front element.

To me, and perhaps I have this wrong, but UWA + fast usually ends in sadness for one of the various camps of shooters -- daylight landscapers, astro folks and sports folks. Since the front-filtering crowd was supported with the 15-35, perhaps the 14-28 f/2 would just give up on that and go all mega-bulbous and delight the astro folks.

- A
With that said the 16-35 f/4L IS is an amazing value. It may not be your coma wonder or low light beast but it is a great all rounder wide zoom with negligible vignetting and fantastic color/contrast. I use it with a 100mm filter system and it's a champ. I would hope Canon does something like it for RF one day.
 

joestopper

Rrr...
Feb 4, 2020
99
79
IS costs weight, but it does not cost speed.

We have a lot of 2.8 zooms with IS now, now we also have the EF 85 f/1.4L IS. I think the old rules of 'f/4 gets IS and f/2.8 doesn't' is just that -- old.

I think to IS or not IS is simply a design choice.

- A
Disagree: It does cost diameter (and diameter directly relates to speed). The RF 28-70 would be impractically thick if it had IS. And let me add: The RF 15-35 is larger in diameter than the EF 16-35 III for thevery reason that IS adds to the diameter ...
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,441
1,266
With that said, I wonder if Canon would consider building a 14-28 f/2 with a drop in back filter i.e. from the EF/RF drop in filter adapters. That could steal a lot of my money right out of my pocket.

If a $3000 EF 11-24L only got a little rear-element notch for a tiny ND, so I'm not sure Canon is going to hook you up here.

And maybe this is picky, but a rear slot can't do ND grads. That's a dealbreaker for me as daylight shooter. But I'm delighted with my EF 16-35 f/4L IS for that -- I wonder if we'll see something similar for RF.

- A
 
  • Like
Reactions: amorse

amorse

EOS 7D MK II
Jan 26, 2017
600
652
www.instagram.com
If a $3000 EF 11-24L only got a little rear-element notch for a tiny ND, so I'm not sure Canon is going to hook you up here.

And maybe this is picky, but a rear slot can't do ND grads. That's a dealbreaker for me as daylight shooter. But I'm delighted with my EF 16-35 f/4L IS for that -- I wonder if we'll see something similar for RF.

- A
I use a lot of ND grads on my 16-35 f/4L IS now, but for a 14-28 f/2 I'd be willing to bracket! It's the polarization and or 6-10 stop filters I'd be really missing most.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ahsanford

slclick

135L
Dec 17, 2013
3,724
1,440
First party AF for the win. Every time. Agree.

- A
I've been all over with all primes, all zooms, all Canon, some 3rd party, a mix and back again. I have settled on ALL CANON, zooms and primes but if I do ever get a 3rd party lens again it would be a manual focus or used in manual focus most of the time (macro)

1st party AF ftw like you said. (y)
 
  • Like
Reactions: ahsanford

telemaque

Before Sunset
Nov 30, 2019
59
27
8k30 - Full width from a 45 mp sensor. You cannot "crop in" on a 45 mp sensor and get an 8k image*
4k30 - Full width, oversampled from 8k
4k60 - Either line skipping, pixel binning or (most likely) a 1.5x crop (about super 35, will work great with EFS lenses an adaptor!)
4k120 - 2.0 crop
Hello David,

I am chemical engineer, so I can understand technical stuff when clarified to me.
You can dive into details if necessary.
I understand your comments on 8k30 and 4K30.
Now I do not undersand why in 4K above 30fps you get a crop factor?

If you have a technical link that explains.
I will visit it. Thanks.
 
Feb 14, 2020
4
3
Canon, please make some AFFORDABLE RF mount prime lenses with FAST apertures.

RF 50mm f/1.4
RF 85mm f/1.4
RF 135mm f/1.4
RF 100mm Macro

I’m sure all the current “L” series lenses you‘ve released are fantastic, but I would need to sell limbs to be able to afford a few lenses as I’m not a working photography professional who earns revenue from my photography.

I also do not want to “adapt” glass. I have invested in an RP body in December, having a good hunch you’d be coming out with a better body and IBIS in 2020 and it looks like my hunch was correct. I now want to invest in RF glass.

Thank you!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ahsanford

Dantana

EOS RP
Jan 29, 2013
281
132
Los Angeles, CA
www.flickr.com
With that said the 16-35 f/4L IS is an amazing value. It may not be your coma wonder or low light beast but it is a great all rounder wide zoom with negligible vignetting and fantastic color/contrast. I use it with a 100mm filter system and it's a champ. I would hope Canon does something like it for RF one day.
I'm hoping something along those lines comes out in the not too distant future. Still shooting with an old 17-40 that gets the job done, but isn't as good as the 16-35 IS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ahsanford

scyrene

EOS 5D MK IV
Dec 4, 2013
2,615
565
UK
www.flickr.com
I have an EOS M. But they are not equipped with RF mounts obviously. Canon is going to probably over time slowly semi-replace the M with small compact crop body RF mounted rigs and a line of RF-S (like EF-S) glass.
I don't think it's probable, though it's certainly possible. It makes no sense to me, but some of the other decisions Canon has made were a surprise too. We simply don't have enough information to make informed predictions. But I do think a lot of the people assuming it will happen are being hopeful - a lot of 7D owners, for instance.
 

joestopper

Rrr...
Feb 4, 2020
99
79
Canon, please make some AFFORDABLE RF mount prime lenses with FAST apertures.

RF 50mm f/1.4
RF 85mm f/1.4
RF 135mm f/1.4
RF 100mm Macro

I’m sure all the current “L” series lenses you‘ve released are fantastic, but I would need to sell limbs to be able to afford a few lenses as I’m not a working photography professional who earns revenue from my photography.

I also do not want to “adapt” glass. I have invested in an RP body in December, having a good hunch you’d be coming out with a better body and IBIS in 2020 and it looks like my hunch was correct. I now want to invest in RF glass.

Thank you!
I like your prime wish list. But an RF 135 f/1.4 AFFORDABLE? lol ...
 

Max C

Canon 60D
Feb 9, 2020
25
49
Yup, the EOS R wasn't brilliant on launch and still has its weaknesses but after the firmware upgrades, its actually a pretty decent camera.

Just hoping they don't price the EOS R5 out of reach for us mere mortals!
I feel you. The R5 will be an awesome system, but I don't think the R5 will be for me personally.
I can't afford $3500 for a body, and then have enough to purchase lenses, memory cards and other peripherals, I just wont have enough money to get up and running.

I have my fingers crossed for the R6 in the ballpark of $2000. If the R6 comes with IBIS, uncropped 4k, HD120 and dual card slots, I am all in.

I don't need 8k, I don't even have a machine that can deal with that edit. I don't need 20fps as well, would be nice, but not a deal breaker. The only way I can see myself spending a bit more on the R6 like around $2500 or R5 around $3500 is if somehow they allow 4:2:2 10bit internal. My kids can eat bread and cheese for a couple months.

But those are my needs, I understand everyone needs maybe different. Honestly the Sony A7III fits my needs perfectly at the moment, but I just don't like the E-mount going forward. It really limits them on what they can achieve with their lenses and IBIS. I just need Canon to deliver their version of an A7III with RF mount lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: Starting out EOS R