Canon will do a Livestream for the EOS R5 and EOS R6 official announcement [CR2]

[highdesertmesa]

I don't see it happening, so I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.
Canon is more likely to want to push these high end buyers into including a new R5 in their purchase order.
We'll have to wait and see.. In my opinion, if that's what you're waiting on, you better have a lot of patience and tolerance for frustration.

No waiting required "if" Canon already has this coming. They could release the flip-TCs that work with EF now and not later – that would sell R bodies. Waiting for RF big whites is what's going to take patience.

 

[Otara]

I can see how they'd love to sell you an EF camera and an RF camera to be able to use one RF lens, big white or not.

It does sound awfully fiddly in practise though. RF cameras need to be able to use an EF lens for backwards compatibility. The lens doesnt need to be RF and EF compatible electronically, and building it to do both seems like extra work for a subgroup of sales.

 

[melgross]

Anybody have any idea where these streams will be available from, if not on You Tube. I wasn’t even aware of the earlier ones. Will they be available here? That would be cool.

 

[BakaBokeh]

Yeah, that's one i'd file in the unlikely bin.

Also, why all the talk of the 'flip' teleconverter as if it's part of this new announcement? I know there's a patent out there for said "Flip TC", but the CR3 Rumor and the leaked photo clearly show two distinct 1.4X and 2X TC's. This Flip converter being banked on, (as well as a no basis for idea that it can somehow work with RF and EF without an adapter) seems like a reach. There is no patent on it anywhere. The DSLR that can take EF and RF lenses is more probable then this dream TC since there's at least a patent for that.

 

[Etienne]

No waiting required "if" Canon already has this coming. They could release the flip-TCs that work with EF now and not later – that would sell R bodies. Waiting for RF big whites is what's going to take patience.

I admire your optimism.

 

[privatebydesign]

I admire your optimism.

I don’t, speculation has turned optimism into delusion.

 

[highdesertmesa]

I don’t, speculation has turned optimism into delusion.

Show me on the chart where the delusion hurt you

It wasn’t that long ago that the R5 specs sounded delusional.

 

[highdesertmesa]

Yeah, that's one i'd file in the unlikely bin.

Also, why all the talk of the 'flip' teleconverter as if it's part of this new announcement? I know there's a patent out there for said "Flip TC", but the CR3 Rumor and the leaked photo clearly show two distinct 1.4X and 2X TC's. This Flip converter being banked on, (as well as a no basis for idea that it can somehow work with RF and EF without an adapter) seems like a reach. There is no patent on it anywhere. The DSLR that can take EF and RF lenses is more probable then this dream TC since there's at least a patent for that.

View attachment 191057

Did you even read the article?

...I have also been told that there will be more “cool” adapters and lens add-ons coming later this year....

Not “banking” on anything — simply said what it might be, then everyone started digging into how a flip-TC wouldn’t be feasible or wouldn’t make sense.

What else should we be discussing while we’re in limbo until the 9th?

 

[davo]

More cool adapters? That’s... cool.
x3 teleconverter any one?
And your RF 70-200/2.8 becomes what? 210-600/8? There were plenty of x3 teleconverters back in the film day.

The first thing I thought of by "Adapters" were the EF-RF adapters.

 

[davo]

The first thing that came to mind regarding more cool adapters were the EF-RF adapters. What more abilities could they give is with those???

 

[koenkooi]

The first thing that came to mind regarding more cool adapters were the EF-RF adapters. What more abilities could they give is with those???

Lensbaby style aperture inserts: hearts, stars, clouds

 

[Steve Balcombe]

Even slight changes to the color of the paint upset some people.

Yes! I went through the trauma of the last colour change, but I'm one of the lucky ones because for a long time my MkIII Extenders matched most of my white lenses. Then I spend almost as much as my first house on a 600 Mark III, only to find they've changed the *&^%# colour again!!!

But maybe this is an indication that the EF 600 Mark III has some sort of enhanced compatibility with the RF mount...

 

[Eclipsed]

Remember these are die-hard anti-adapter people; they'll simply call this an adapter and refuse to use it.
(One of their complaints about an adapter is that it's another "joint" in the system...and that's true for your suggestion as well, even if it is beefed up.)

You seem to be speaking on behalf of those you disagree with - not a good play.

I'm the die hard anti-adapter person who returned a new 400 f2.8 III because I couldn't stomach the adapter. And a removable-for-EF tail section is NOT an "adapter" in my eyes because:

1. It was made with and for the lens.
2. It is contoured and colored for that lens.
3. It does not detach from the lens accidentally or as easily as the lens detaches from the body.
4. It is not intended for use with other lenses.
5. It should have more robust mechanical and environmental characteristics that a mount intended for thousands of cycles of comfortable action.

 

[SteveC]

You seem to be speaking on behalf of those you disagree with - not a good play.

I'm the die hard anti-adapter person who returned a new 400 f2.8 III because I couldn't stomach the adapter. And a removable-for-EF tail section is NOT an "adapter" in my eyes because:

1. It was made with and for the lens.
2. It is contoured and colored for that lens.
3. It does not detach from the lens accidentally or as easily as the lens detaches from the body.
4. It is not intended for use with other lenses.
5. It should have more robust mechanical and environmental characteristics that a mount intended for thousands of cycles of comfortable action.

I'll happily stand corrected in your case, then!

(But you're not the only one.)

 

[Eclipsed]

No waiting required "if" Canon already has this coming. They could release the flip-TCs that work with EF now and not later – that would sell R bodies. Waiting for RF big whites is what's going to take patience.

I probably say this too often, but an RF version of the new 400 and 600 II models takes only the work of a summer engineering intern to stretch the rear housing. Those awesome new design lenses are not hobbled on RF, and it's merely a buyer psychology issue impeding purchase of a "wrong" format lens.

As I have predicted bnefore, the R1 release may be accomnied by a "forest of RF big whites". Whether with dematable rear ends for EF, or dedicated rear housings. And presumably with one or two new lightened designs like the 300 2.8.

 

[highdesertmesa]

I probably say this too often, but an RF version of the new 400 and 600 II models takes only the work of a summer engineering intern to stretch the rear housing. Those awesome new design lenses are not hobbled on RF, and it's merely a buyer psychology issue impeding purchase of a "wrong" format lens.

As I have predicted bnefore, the R1 release may be accomnied by a "forest of RF big whites". Whether with dematable rear ends for EF, or dedicated rear housings. And presumably with one or two new lightened designs like the 300 2.8.

I imagine they might upgrade the electronics to take advantage of the faster RF protocol. But maybe that’s not needed outside of the mount connection, and all they‘d have to do is optimize the firmware for RF. But yeah, at least there’s not a lot of work involved since the closer RF flange distance is of less/little/no value to the longer telephoto focal lengths.

 

[highdesertmesa]

You seem to be speaking on behalf of those you disagree with - not a good play.

I'm the die hard anti-adapter person who returned a new 400 f2.8 III because I couldn't stomach the adapter. And a removable-for-EF tail section is NOT an "adapter" in my eyes because:

1. It was made with and for the lens.
2. It is contoured and colored for that lens.
3. It does not detach from the lens accidentally or as easily as the lens detaches from the body.
4. It is not intended for use with other lenses.
5. It should have more robust mechanical and environmental characteristics that a mount intended for thousands of cycles of comfortable action.

And if they wanted to (or needed to) leave out EF compatibility, they could use all that empty space at the back of the RF big whites to design the flip-TCs as a drop-in mechanism, much like the drop-in filters at the rear. The lenses would have a removable side plate where you could slide in the flip-TC and secure it with a thumb screw(s) or lever(s). The RF 200-400 (and every RF big white) could be ordered with or without a flip-TC, and the flip-TCs could be sold separately for upgrade later on. Less versatile than the EF compatible segment/adapter route, but it might be more profitable for Canon while avoiding an additional rear connection point.

 

[H. Jones]

I've been thinking about this for a bit and I'm almost 100% sure what the source is referring to is full compatibility with all EF lenses. Maybe if you put an extender behind an EF-RF adapter you just might be able to extend any EF lens you want, which would definitely be *interesting.*

Consider that the R5 fully focuses down to F/11, I could see being able to stack the EF and RF teleconverters together to make some impressive combinations with full AF, which would be an additional incentive for me to buy an EF supertelephoto... 400mm f/2.8L IS III with EF 2x, 800 5.6, and then RF 2x behind the adapter to give a 1600mm f/11 with full AF. That would be fun(and light) to bird with..

 

[Ale_F]

My 2c:

In the video lineup you can convert EF to PL, it's a simple question of physical mount.

I hope in the future for big whites the same possibility, you can buy the 400 2.8 IV with RF or EF mount and change the mount.

 

[AlanF]

Whenever I see discussions like these I recall Albert Einstein: "I never think of the future - it comes soon enough."