Didn't we have some claims the RF mount could only help make wider angle lenes easier to downsize? Sigh...So many "experts."
Upvote
0
Didn't we have some claims the RF mount could only help make wider angle lenes easier to downsize? Sigh...So many "experts."
Didn't we have some claims the RF mount could only help make wider angle lenes easier to downsize? Sigh...So many "experts."
There was a post a few months ago that caught my eye citing a business report that Sony made a massive R&D investment into cameras, but that the camera division was now expected to stand on their own.It seems to me that they are concerned about Sony, given that Sony has produced some serious products of late. But the answer to that involves producing better products. The RP and R are good, but the next step is coming.
All IMHO, of course.
I believe Canon's mockup is close to what they'll release.Per the patent filing the RF 70-200 2.8 is longer when retracted than the EF 70-300 L ( 153 versus 143 mm ) and longer when extended than the EF 70-200 2.8 II ( 223 versus 199 mm ) so forgive me if I can't see where the magical smallness exists.
I believe Canon's mockup is close to what they'll release.
Per the patent filing the RF 70-200 2.8 is longer when retracted than the EF 70-300 L ( 153 versus 143 mm ) and longer when extended than the EF 70-200 2.8 II ( 223 versus 199 mm ) so forgive me if I can't see where the magical smallness exists.
I believe Canon's mockup is close to what they'll release.
I'm going to bet that you'll like the RF 24-240 lens if you've never tried the RF 24-105 or anything else better. It's a compromise lens, plain and simple. The ten times zoom is really useful but the image quality won't be anywhere near as good. If it was then Canon would sell it as an L lens.
I have used the RF 24-105, and better lenses. I still think that "compromise" lenses have a place. Zooms are already "compromised" anyway, but they're way more convenient than carrying around a suitcase full of primes. For days when you want to travel lighter and don't know exactly what you'll be shooting, the 10x zoom range will be incredible.
The claim holds true. The RF mount isn't making the 70-200/2.8 shorter, going from a fixed zoom design to an extending zoom design is making it smaller. The same could be done for EF, but Canon has chosen not to do that.Didn't we have some claims the RF mount could only help make wider angle lenes easier to downsize? Sigh...So many "experts."
You're comparing apples to oranges, or in this case, optical formulae to actual lenses. When you look at the 'lens length' in a patent filing, understand that 'measurement' is for the optical formula, which runs from the sensor to the front of the lens. When you look at the measurement of a real lens, you need to add 44mm for EF lenses and 20mm for RF lenses to approximate the 'lens length' in a patent filing.Per the patent filing the RF 70-200 2.8 is longer when retracted than the EF 70-300 L ( 153 versus 143 mm ) and longer when extended than the EF 70-200 2.8 II ( 223 versus 199 mm ) so forgive me if I can't see where the magical smallness exists.
"We understand that expectations are really high."
It seems like Canon engineers say this every time someone asks about a pro mirrorless body. That always catches my attention. Maybe I haven't been watching closely enough, but I don't remember them ever taking a step back like that on other releases - I don't remember them saying anything like that leading into a 1D series or 5D series release. It seems to me that if they weren't working on the pro body they'd just say that they can't disclose their future plans and leave it at that.
Acknowledging high expectations and then not trying to meet it seems like admitting defeat, so as the market leader I have a hard time seeing Canon do that. It seems like they're making the acknowledgement to subtly say "we're working on it, but it's going to take some time." In the end that statement often seems to raise expectations even more: I'm pretty excited to see what they come up with.
Looking at it another way, if you are going to upgrade the 5DsR sensor, why not do it in a new R "pro" camera (with a couple of card slots to keep everybody happy). Not sure How much practical value IBIS would have with all those megapixels, but a lot of people would be unhappy without that too. A tripod might be more sensible though.Yes...it's quite clear that this is a marketing exercise presented by a bunch of engineers who can't actually say much due to company NDA's. We all know that a Pro camera is coming...but I suspect that it's not the all encompassing Pro camera we are assuming ie a 1dRf. A 7DII, 5D4 and 5Dsr are all classed as pro cameras...so it's most likely a double accounting announcement for the already rumored 5Dsr replacement. Some pros will jump at the idea...but most pros will not. A 5Dsr replacement in the Rf format means that Canon can release a "pro" featured camera (dual slots, weather sealing, joystick etc) but without actually having to release a 1dx capable AF system using the software based AF system that the Rf mount is using. We all know that system will arrive at some point...but it's way off and Canon currently don't have the system working at that kind of speed yet (15fps in continuous servo mode).
At the moment the Rf mount is for every one except high frame rate and big white lens users. When the tech is there...i'm sure Canon will launch a range of DO super teles along with a 1D equivalent Rf camera body.
You do realize that Canon already has made (it's quite old now) and is making the 28-300mm f3.5-5.6L IS lens right? And by all accounts it's a pretty decent lens other than it's a "weighty" beast, performance wise pretty good. I'm guessing with all of the much newer tech to design and build lenses today that the 24-240mm will be a decent performer, hopefully similar to the Canon EF-S 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM. But time will tell.I have the Sony 24-240 FE lens and it's a remarkably unimpressive lens. In terms of weight it's about the same as the RF 24-105, so I'm going to predict that the RF 24-240 will be about the same.
I'm going to bet that you'll like the RF 24-240 lens if you've never tried the RF 24-105 or anything else better. It's a compromise lens, plain and simple. The ten times zoom is really useful but the image quality won't be anywhere near as good. If it was then Canon would sell it as an L lens.
How have you made the 70-200mm [f/2.8] so small?
Next thing you know, they will improve it to make it faster, allowing more lights in. Maybe not since the sensor sensitivity (ISO) continues to improve and may compensate for faster lenses. However, there might interest in getting more DoF @ 70mm, e.g. 70-200 f/2.0-2.8.We were actually surprised as we started developing this particular product. The idea is that, with the introduction of the large diameter mount with the shorter back-focus distance, we were expecting it to be more suitable for designing wider-angle lenses, but it turned out to be very effective for designing this telephoto lens.
I assumed the world top lens maker (i.e. Canon) is surprised by traditional lens design (aka physics).
So you believe that CR made up the story?Why would you take anything said in a marketing fluff piece at face value?
So you believe that CR made up the story?
You do realize that Canon already has made (it's quite old now) and is making the 28-300mm f3.5-5.6L IS lens right? And by all accounts it's a pretty decent lens
My hope is that the 24-240 + 35/1.8 would make for a nice traveling set. The 24-240 has to produce better output than the 18-135 on a crop, doesn't it? And then for indoors or nighttime shots the 35 will drink in the light.