Interview: Canon engineers talk Canon EOS R development

Apr 23, 2018
1,088
149
#41
You know, it isn't about EF limitations. EF continues to function like it always has. It didn't get worse. You keep implying people have blinders on. The only person around here that refuses to believe things is you.
BTW: Are you in love with those big, heavy new RF lenses like I am?
as so often, you are just trying to obfuscate things. Yes, adapted EF lenses will keep working - about as well as they have in live view on mirrorslappers. But they will never have enhanced performance and functionality possible with new native RF lenses. EF lenses are "legacy" on mirrorfree FF and are subject to all sorts of limitations. Which is exactly what i've said all along and got criticized for it. NOW it is "obvious". lol

Starting RF lens lineup looks a bit weird. But at least all Canon RF lenses are AF, as opposed to the pre-announced pink unicorn Nikon 58/0.95 Noct "folly". :)

Personally I'd have preferred a good IQ, really compact 24-70/4 plus a few f/1.8 primes - but not as big and expensive as the Nikon Z's. :)
RF 35mm/1.8 - yes ok, but not much interested in "1:2 pseudo macro".
RF 50/1.2 and RF 28-70/2 pickle jars - will be interesting how many of those Canon will really sell. The air gets pretty thin at those price levels.
RF 24-105: honestly surprised Canon was not able to do better than EF Mk. II in terms of IQ and size/weight. Anyways, in typical Canon fashion they charge 30% more for it ... o_O

In summary mixed feelings towards Canon RF system launch:
1. lens mount parameters perfectly chosen [FFD and throat width pretty much as per my earlier speculations] ... excellent!
2. EOS R body is for me on the large side and way overpriced for only 6D III specs and 2-years old sensor ... meh
3. RF lens lineup ... for amateur/enthusiasts with no unlimited budget ... also meh

My course of action: will not pre-order but sit back and see what more will come. Either a much lower price "entry level body" and/or street prices falling to "reasonable" levels. A "summer 2019 cashback" offer or firesale resulting in € 1999 for R + basic adapter + kit lens ... might get me tempted. :)
 
Last edited:

Mikehit

EOS 5D Mark IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,074
277
#44
as so often, you are just trying to obfuscate things. Yes, adapted EF lenses will keep working - about as well as they have in live view on mirrorslappers. But they will never have enhanced performance and functionality possible with new native RF lenses. EF lenses are "legacy" on mirrorfree FF and are subject to all sorts of limitations. Which is exactly what i've said all along and got criticized for it. NOW it is "obvious". lol

Starting RF lens lineup looks a bit weird. But at least all Canon RF lenses are AF, as opposed to the pre-announced pink unicorn Nikon 58/0.95 Noct "folly". :)

Personally I'd have preferred a good IQ, really compact 24-70/4 plus a few f/1.8 primes - but not as big and expensive as the Nikon Z's. :)
RF 35mm/1.8 - yes ok, but not much interested in "1:2 pseudo macro".
RF 50/1.2 and RF 28-70/2 pickle jars - will be interesting how many of those Canon will really sell. The air gets pretty thin at those price levels.
RF 24-105: honestly surprised Canon was not able to do better than EF Mk. II in terms of IQ and size/weight. Anyways, in typical Canon fashion they charge 30% more for it ... o_O

In summary mixed feelings towards Canon RF system launch:
1. lens mount parameters perfectly chosen [FFD and throat width pretty much as per my earlier speculations] ... excellent!
2. EOS R body is for me on the large side and way overpriced for only 6D III specs and 2-years old sensor ... meh
3. RF lens lineup ... for amateur/enthusiasts with no unlimited budget ... also meh

My course of action: will not pre-order but sit back and see what more will come. Either a much lower price "entry level body" and/or street prices falling to "reasonable" levels. A "summer 2019 cashback" offer or firesale resulting in € 1999 for R + basic adapter + kit lens ... might get me tempted. :)

As I see it, EF lenses are not 'limited' at all when mounted onto an R series body - the RF lenses offer more functionality in as much as you can assign a function to the extra ring, but that is not the same as saying the EF is limited compared to what it can do when mounted on a native EF body.

The RF launch range is very well chosen IMO - they offer the opportunity for those with a a strong wedding/portrait to replace a host of wide aperture primes with a single wide constant aperture zoom as an inducement to the system and they cover most focal ranges that person would use. If they had offered a 24-70 f4 and 1.8 primes they would have been doing no more than replicating EF series and interest would have been more equivocal.
Given that you would not have been interested in this release no matter what they would have offered, then my guess is that this round was never aimed at you anyway. SO I am sure Canon are really worried by the fact you will not buy it (nor ever would).

As for the size of the 24-105 f4L can you explain again why you think they were able to make to smaller but for some inexplicable reason decided not to?

Something more in your line of interest will come, but this was all about tweaking interest in the system and giving people something to think about.
 

scyrene

EOS 6D Mark II
Dec 4, 2013
2,259
113
UK
www.flickr.com
#45
Just got done playing with this, it felt great in your hands, the 24-105 felt cheap but was nice, the adapter was solid, the variable nd and polarizers will not work in telephotos, I was told Canon will be making a more video centered r body but no other details. The wheel on the lenses is interesting, the lack of second wheel and no joystick is awkward. But all in all it's not a bad first step.
Grab that 1DC for me, please ;)
 

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
1,885
136
Vancouver, BC
#46
As I see it, EF lenses are not 'limited' at all when mounted onto an R series body - the RF lenses offer more functionality in as much as you can assign a function to the extra ring, but that is not the same as saying the EF is limited compared to what it can do when mounted on a native EF body.

The RF launch range is very well chosen IMO - they offer the opportunity for those with a a strong wedding/portrait to replace a host of wide aperture primes with a single wide constant aperture zoom as an inducement to the system and they cover most focal ranges that person would use. If they had offered a 24-70 f4 and 1.8 primes they would have been doing no more than replicating EF series and interest would have been more equivocal.
Given that you would not have been interested in this release no matter what they would have offered, then my guess is that this round was never aimed at you anyway. SO I am sure Canon are really worried by the fact you will not buy it (nor ever would).

As for the size of the 24-105 f4L can you explain again why you think they were able to make to smaller but for some inexplicable reason decided not to?

Something more in your line of interest will come, but this was all about tweaking interest in the system and giving people something to think about.
Unless I misread the interview, the main things that RF offers over EF are more light coming in from the sides, allowing 100% horizontal DPAF coverage, versus 80% on some EF lenses (a benefit of the shorter FFD), and the ability to transmit more data, like the lens profile immediately upon mounting. Sure, that can be construed as "limitations". On the other hand, nobody has ever complained about DPAF coverage limitations on EF before, and frankly, I've never wanted to autofocus on something that extremely close to the edge. When it comes to the difference between 80%, 88%, and 100% coverage, I think they're all practically the same anyways, because I'm not trying to photograph subjects with one foot out of the field of view. With regards to the lens profiles, that's great for future (RF) lenses, but who cares about EF lens profiles, because every EF lens profile will be preloaded on to the camera.

Will there be other RF benefits? I guess there could be, but we shouldn't assume that. It could end up being that Canon develops an RF lenses that has a certain awesome feature, that doesn't require RF, but happens to only be on an RF lens. For example, EFS has a really awesome fast/quiet STM motor in the EFS 18-135 nano, but this isn't a benefit of EFS. Likewise, we may never the latest-generation super-powerful nano USM motors described in the articles in EF, but that doesn't mean it's a mount limitation.
 
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
149
#47
As I see it, EF lenses are not 'limited' at all when mounted onto an R series body - the RF lenses offer more functionality in as much as you can assign a function to the extra ring, but that is not the same as saying the EF is limited compared to what it can do when mounted on a native EF body.
you seem to have some reading/understanding problem. Control ring functionality can be retrofitted with the adapter, it is the "least of legacy EF lens limitations in EOS R service".

Here we were discussing less "AF area coverage" for many/most/certain ? EF lenses, since they cannot utilize RF mount geometry the same way as native new RF lenses can. It is just the *first proven* limitation of legacy EF lenses on EOS R cameras. More limitations will surface soon enough. :)
 
Last edited:

takesome1

EOS 5Ds R II
Aug 23, 2013
1,437
75
#50
you seem to have some reading/understanding problem. Control ring functionality can be retrofitted with the adapter, it is the "least of legacy EF lens limitations in EOS R service".

Here we were discussing less "AF area coverage" for many/most/certain ? EF lenses, since they cannot utilize RF mount geometry the same way as native new RF lenses can. It is just the *first proven* limitation of legacy EF lenses on EOS R cameras. More limitations will surface soon enough. :)

Not much of a limitation. How often do you need a point on the fringe of your sensor?
Maybe focus and recompose is a thing of the past to.

EF lenses will do one thing that an RF lens can not do.
Fit on all the current Canon DSLR bodies.
RF lenses are very limited in that respect.
 

Mikehit

EOS 5D Mark IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,074
277
#51
you seem to have some reading/understanding problem. Control ring functionality can be retrofitted with the adapter, it is the "least of legacy EF lens limitations in EOS R service".

Here we were discussing less "AF area coverage" for many/most/certain ? EF lenses, since they cannot utilize RF mount geometry the same way as native new RF lenses can. It is just the *first proven* limitation of legacy EF lenses on EOS R cameras. More limitations will surface soon enough. :)
If you tell me that EF lenses are 'limited' when put on R system camera, that says to me that the EF lens cannot do its full range of activities on the R camera - maybe the AF is slower, maybe focussing is compromised - but there is nothing I have seen so far to suggest that is the case. If you tell me that native R lenses offer something more to take full advantage of the R body then that is a different matter.

semantics? Yep. But we are in an age where tired old trolls use words like 'crippled' and 'protecting their XXX cameras' because they want to join in the discussion but are too damned lazy to think about the language they are using and cannot be arsed to think so they quote a cliche they think makes them sound intelligent. And from there it is a quick step to hyperbole and closed minds because someone disagrees and it is a point they find impossible to defend because it is someone else's thought, not theirs.


[/rant]
 

BeenThere

EOS Rebel T7i
Sep 4, 2012
706
66
#52
If you tell me that EF lenses are 'limited' when put on R system camera, that says to me that the EF lens cannot do its full range of activities on the R camera - maybe the AF is slower, maybe focussing is compromised - but there is nothing I have seen so far to suggest that is the case. If you tell me that native R lenses offer something more to take full advantage of the R body then that is a different matter.

semantics? Yep. But we are in an age where tired old trolls use words like 'crippled' and 'protecting their XXX cameras' because they want to join in the discussion but are too damned lazy to think about the language they are using and cannot be arsed to think so they quote a cliche they think makes them sound intelligent. And from there it is a quick step to hyperbole and closed minds because someone disagrees and it is a point they find impossible to defend because it is someone else's thought, not theirs.


[/rant]
EF lenses can do what they have always done. RF lens can do more. It’s all relative.
 
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
149
#53
If you tell me that EF lenses are 'limited' when put on R system camera,
no. I say,
* a number of limitations apply when using EF lenses on any EOS R camera.
* legacy EF lenses can only perform within the LIMITATIONS of their old legacy design for "mirrorslappers with detached Phase AF sensors and legacy old, slow 8-pin communications interface" capabilities. Which is a substantially smaller set of capabilities and functionality than what a mirrorfree EOS R body can really do.
* Using legacy EF lenses does not allow you to use the full functionality of any EOS R body.

clear now? Or you want more semantics wanking?
 

takesome1

EOS 5Ds R II
Aug 23, 2013
1,437
75
#54
no. I say,
* a number of limitations apply when using EF lenses on any EOS R camera.
* legacy EF lenses can only perform within the LIMITATIONS of their old legacy design for "mirrorslappers with detached Phase AF sensors and legacy old, slow 8-pin communications interface" capabilities. Which is a substantially smaller set of capabilities and functionality than what a mirrorfree EOS R body can really do.
* Using legacy EF lenses does not allow you to use the full functionality of any EOS R body.

clear now? Or you want more semantics wanking?
You do seem very good at wanking the semantics.

Not even the RF lenses are performing to the max of their ability, since several of those super fast new pins are not even used.
Most likely the new ones used are those allowing the ring function, but wait the ring function can work with those old slow EF lenses to.
Or, do you have some insight and you can point us to the information otherwise?
 

BeenThere

EOS Rebel T7i
Sep 4, 2012
706
66
#55
You do seem very good at wanking the semantics.

Not even the RF lenses are performing to the max of their ability, since several of those super fast new pins are not even used.
Most likely the new ones used are those allowing the ring function, but wait the ring function can work with those old slow EF lenses to.
Or, do you have some insight and you can point us to the information otherwise?
The ring function is incorporated into the adapter when using EF lens. The adapter talks to the camera and then the camera talks to the EF lens through the old contacts. Round and round we go.
 

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
1,885
136
Vancouver, BC
#57
no. I say,
* a number of limitations apply when using EF lenses on any EOS R camera.
* legacy EF lenses can only perform within the LIMITATIONS of their old legacy design for "mirrorslappers with detached Phase AF sensors and legacy old, slow 8-pin communications interface" capabilities. Which is a substantially smaller set of capabilities and functionality than what a mirrorfree EOS R body can really do.
* Using legacy EF lenses does not allow you to use the full functionality of any EOS R body.

clear now? Or you want more semantics wanking?
So, just take us all on a journey. What do you think some of the advantages of the new mount could be, other than those already stated? I think part of the problem in the argument for me is just that I don't see a limitation or deficiency in EF mount. But I'm all ears, hypothesize on!
 
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
149
#58
Limited AF area is bad enough for starters. It is a limitation that diminishes one of the key advantages of mirrorfree cameras.

Other limitations for legacy EF lenses in use with EOS R cameras I expect could surface sooner or later?
* no or limited support only for future "more AI" AF-systems due to insufficient communication bandwidth
* future, improved (wireless) E-TTL flash control implementations may be limited with adapted EF lenses
* limited or no support for multi-functional focus rings on lenses - due (most) to EF lenses not being focus-by-wire
* no support for additional, multi-functional lens buttons - eg. for pre-set focus distance etc.
* if Canon ever implements IBIS there may be limitations for EF lenses with IS ... possibly inability to work in tandem, it may well be only "the one or the other"
...
etc.

Just some examples. Other limitations may apply to all sorts of video cr*p, but at least those won't bother me. :)
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D Mark IV
Jan 28, 2015
2,560
207
Irving, Texas
#60
as so often, you are just trying to obfuscate things. Yes, adapted EF lenses will keep working - about as well as they have in live view on mirrorslappers. But they will never have enhanced performance and functionality possible with new native RF lenses. EF lenses are "legacy" on mirrorfree FF and are subject to all sorts of limitations. Which is exactly what i've said all along and got criticized for it. NOW it is "obvious". lol

Starting RF lens lineup looks a bit weird. But at least all Canon RF lenses are AF, as opposed to the pre-announced pink unicorn Nikon 58/0.95 Noct "folly". :)

Personally I'd have preferred a good IQ, really compact 24-70/4 plus a few f/1.8 primes - but not as big and expensive as the Nikon Z's. :)
RF 35mm/1.8 - yes ok, but not much interested in "1:2 pseudo macro".
RF 50/1.2 and RF 28-70/2 pickle jars - will be interesting how many of those Canon will really sell. The air gets pretty thin at those price levels.
RF 24-105: honestly surprised Canon was not able to do better than EF Mk. II in terms of IQ and size/weight. Anyways, in typical Canon fashion they charge 30% more for it ... o_O

In summary mixed feelings towards Canon RF system launch:
1. lens mount parameters perfectly chosen [FFD and throat width pretty much as per my earlier speculations] ... excellent!
2. EOS R body is for me on the large side and way overpriced for only 6D III specs and 2-years old sensor ... meh
3. RF lens lineup ... for amateur/enthusiasts with no unlimited budget ... also meh

My course of action: will not pre-order but sit back and see what more will come. Either a much lower price "entry level body" and/or street prices falling to "reasonable" levels. A "summer 2019 cashback" offer or firesale resulting in € 1999 for R + basic adapter + kit lens ... might get me tempted. :)
I'm obfuscating what?

You won't pre-order and you won't order anything. Never have. Never will.

The new R/RF series is the complete opposite of what you predicted and wanted. As usual, you were 100% wrong.

EF is legacy? Um, no. EF is current. Observe the latest super telephoto lenses.

BTW: Want smaller and lighter? Go with EF. LOL!
 

Attachments