Interview: Canon engineers talk Canon EOS R development

Apr 23, 2018
1,088
149
#61
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!

lol. You seem to have a short memory.

My prediction was spot on:
1. Canon FF mirrorfree system comes (only) with new, native "slim" mount, not with legacy EF mount.

2. R mount lens parameters: "at least as wide as EF (54mm) and FFD a bit longer than Sony FE (18mm) - ideally between 20-24mm.

so, i'd say:



And while 1st gen EOS R body is somewhat larger than what I'd prefer and starting lens lineup includes 2 big, fat, exotic "show-off lenses", i am very confident that many more compact and reasonable RF lenses and R cameras will follow soon enough.

Already today EOS R with RF 24-105 is noticeably more compact and lighter than a 5D or 6D series mirrorslapper with EF 24-105 II.

So, i guess I shot a few of your legacy crows out of the sky. You can eat them now.
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D Mark IV
Jan 28, 2015
2,559
205
Irving, Texas
#62
lol. You seem to have a short memory.

My prediction was spot on:
1. Canon FF mirrorfree system comes (only) with new, native "slim" mount, not with legacy EF mount.

2. R mount lens parameters: "at least as wide as EF (54mm) and FFD a bit longer than Sony FE (18mm) - ideally between 20-24mm.

so, i'd say:



And while 1st gen EOS R body is somewhat larger than what I'd prefer and starting lens lineup includes 2 big, fat, exotic "show-off lenses", i am very confident that many more compact and reasonable RF lenses and R cameras will follow soon enough.

Already today EOS R with RF 24-105 is noticeably more compact and lighter than a 5D or 6D series mirrorslapper with EF 24-105 II.

So, i guess I shot a few of your legacy crows out of the sky. You can eat them now.
Nawwww... you didn't. :) Showoff lens? EF 50mm F1/2L is about 3/4 pound lighter than the RF 50 f/1.2. But go ahead and cherry pick like I just did. To be honest, the only reason I would go R series is precisely because of the bigger and heavier lenses. Why don't we wait and see what the "full size" R camera weighs rather than the obviously compact entry level R (at twice the price you said it should cost and substantially larger than the M) you want to compare to a 5 series.

This is what you said:
i said all along "mirrorless FF can do everything a DSLR can and then some and in a smaller form factor throughout the most frequently used focal length range". and i still say there are millions of potential customers for a very compact, capable, decent and affordable FF MILC system.

what would a slightly larger "EOS M50 with FF sensor and LP-E6N power pack" really cost? in Canon lot sizes, couple 100.000? and why should that not not be possible and available retail for usd/€ 999,- body only? and a few EF-X pancake primes at twice the price of an EF-M 22/2.0 along with it? and/or a 24-105 kit zoom priced like the EF non L but noticeably more compact? or a more compact EF-X 16-35/4.0 IS STM?
But you did get a 6 bar battery indicator. Did not get the FPS of a *ugh* mirrorslapper.
 
Last edited:
Likes: NorskHest
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
149
#63
i said all along "mirrorless FF can do everything a DSLR can and then some and in a smaller form factor throughout the most frequently used focal length range". and i still say there are millions of potential customers for a very compact, capable, decent and affordable FF MILC system.
I stand by that. No matter, to what extent the first Canon EOS R body and the first few Canon RF lenses cater to this market demand ... or not.

what would a slightly larger "EOS M50 with FF sensor and LP-E6N power pack" really cost? in Canon lot sizes, couple 100.000? and why should that not be possible and available retail for USD/€ 999,- body only? and a few EF-X pancake primes at twice the price of an EF-M 22/2.0 along with it? and/or a 24-105 kit zoom priced like the EF non L but noticeably more compact? or a more compact EF-X 16-35/4.0 IS STM?
I also stand by that. And remain convinced that we'll get gear along these lines and in these price brackets. Probably also from Canon. If not ... well, there is more choice for mirrorfree imaging gear every day now. :)

Let me go out on a limb and "speculate" we'll see the "first-ever FF camera body priced at 999 USD retail" ... before end of 2019. Canon or other brand. :)
 

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
1,870
118
Vancouver, BC
#65
I stand by that. No matter, to what extent the first Canon EOS R body and the first few Canon RF lenses cater to this market demand ... or not.
Well, no, mirrorless FF cannot do everything a DSLR can, because the EVF requires power, which means that there are applications for which a mirrorless will never be good at. For example, surveillance, because you can't use a mirrorless as a (nearly) battery-free telescope with the ability to record imagines using just a little power. It won't ever change until batteries are orders of magnitude more powerful than they are today.

From a bird enthusiast's point of view, I often spend a whole day (dawn to dusk) enjoying birds and nature, and spend a lot of time observing birds and taking photographs only when there's a worthy moment, which may be a few pictures every few hours. DSLRs will just be a better tool for this for the forseeable future.

From a sports or nature photography perspective, I am certain that at some point, eventually, there will be a 1DXII caliber autofocus system in terms of raw AF speed, especially with less available light (that's especially important when extenders are considered). But I wouldn't lay any bets on DPAF being as good as dedicated PDAF sensor by Tokyo 2020. I certainly wouldn't bet on any other mirrorless vendor having competitive autofocus by then.

Let me go out on a limb and "speculate" we'll see the "first-ever FF camera body priced at 999 USD retail" ... before end of 2019. Canon or other brand. :)
I think it's highly unlikely. First of all, we're really only talking about Sony, Nikon and Canon. On one hand, this bumps against their APSC offerings, and on the other, $1k passes the point in price elasticity, where lowering the price isn't getting any more customers. There are a lot of people who will buy an ILC for $200 or $300, but no matter how amazing the camera is, they will never buy a camera that costs $1,000.

Once manufacturers are looking at enthusiast cameras, they need to maximize their profits, because there are pretty few of us.
 
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
149
#66
Oh well, I believe there is a whole lot of "price elasticity" between a 2.5k EOS R and a 999,- mirrorfree FF "Rebel". I'd expect the latter to outsell the former by ... factor 100 or 1000? :)

And even if it is not as low as 999, but "only" 1500 - it will sell a lot more than at 2500.
1 grand and 2 grand are 2 rather solid price points.
 
Last edited:
Aug 23, 2016
5
0
#69
That what I worry about Canon's behavior again for the second time. The first incident; they killed R, FL, FD, and FDn lenses when EF lenses released onto the market.

The EF lenses are heavier, large physical size, and more expensive. This reason caused average photographers abandoned due to crazy prices for camera bodies and lenses due to skyrocketing. The RF lenses show much expensive over the EF lenses. They added unnecessary features such as autofocus, electronic-control f/stop, reduced mechanical interface and made incompatibly 42mm-based flange focal length by increased flange focus length to 44mm.

Professional photographers want to use "SIMPLE" lenses. Because we preferred to control focus and f/stop manual setting instead of slow electronic controls. My advice to everyone not to support or buy Canon RF series at all.

I use Zeiss ZF lenses plus Canon FD lenses with EdMika lens mount converter kit. I can control focus and f/stop manually. This method is much faster and accurate over EF lenses. Without concern about turn knob or pushbutton to change the setting. All of my pictures are razor-sharp images and perfect exposure range. Other photographers were shocked by what they saw as my camera fitted with simple lenses. Real pro photographers love Zeiss ZF lenses over EF because of the manual designed.
 

Mikehit

EOS 5D Mark IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,074
277
#70
They added unnecessary features such as autofocus, electronic-control f/stop, reduced mechanical interface and made incompatibly 42mm-based flange focal length by increased flange focus length to 44mm.

Professional photographers want to use "SIMPLE" lenses. Because we preferred to control focus and f/stop manual setting instead of slow electronic controls. My advice to everyone not to support or buy Canon RF series at all.
:rolleyes:
 

neuroanatomist

Spends too much time on this forum
Jul 21, 2010
23,360
399
#71
That what I worry about Canon's behavior again for the second time. The first incident; they killed R, FL, FD, and FDn lenses when EF lenses released onto the market.

The EF lenses are heavier, large physical size, and more expensive. This reason caused average photographers abandoned due to crazy prices for camera bodies and lenses due to skyrocketing. The RF lenses show much expensive over the EF lenses. They added unnecessary features such as autofocus, electronic-control f/stop, reduced mechanical interface and made incompatibly 42mm-based flange focal length by increased flange focus length to 44mm.

Professional photographers want to use "SIMPLE" lenses. Because we preferred to control focus and f/stop manual setting instead of slow electronic controls. My advice to everyone not to support or buy Canon RF series at all.

I use Zeiss ZF lenses plus Canon FD lenses with EdMika lens mount converter kit. I can control focus and f/stop manually. This method is much faster and accurate over EF lenses. Without concern about turn knob or pushbutton to change the setting. All of my pictures are razor-sharp images and perfect exposure range. Other photographers were shocked by what they saw as my camera fitted with simple lenses. Real pro photographers love Zeiss ZF lenses over EF because of the manual designed.
Well, we're barely a quarter of the way through the day, but I feel confident in awarding you the trophy for the Most Asinine Post of the Day.


Congratulations.
 
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
149
#72
Well, we're barely a quarter of the way through the day, but I feel confident in awarding you the trophy for the Most Asinine Post of the Day.


Congratulations.
Another totally unwarranted personal attack on another forum member who simply expressed his personal experience and preferences and gave some advice, that others may heed or not.

Only surprise is that you did not reserve your attack for me.

Reported nevertheless.
 

neuroanatomist

Spends too much time on this forum
Jul 21, 2010
23,360
399
#73
Another totally unwarranted personal attack on another forum member who simply expressed his personal experience and preferences and gave some advice, that others may heed or not.

Only surprise is that you did not reserve your attack for me.

Reported nevertheless.
No. Expressions of personal opinion do not begin with, "Professional photographers want…," "Because we preferred," or, "Real pro photographers love…"

Believing that you speak for a large group about whom you have no direct knowledge is presumptuous and…asinine. It's also something you do with some frequency.
 
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
149
#74
@stevelee
While I appreciate your longstanding personal experience and opinions, my own preferences are mostly opposite. :)

I started out analog, manual focus, manual exposure as well, shooting mainly color positive (slide) film. I was a fairly early adopter of the first Autofocus SLRs (Minolta) and never regretted it. Neither did i ever regret my move to digital photography when it became an "affordable" possibility (Canon Powershot S40 first and "EOS 350D" later).

Reason: I do not enjoy the "technicalities of photography". To me it is "all about getting the images I want to get". Any technology that works reasonably well and reliably helping me having to care less about "correct exposure", "focus plane exactly where I want it" etc. and allows me to spend as much of my attention as possible on "subject (plus interaction if needed), right moment, expression, light, composition" ... the better. In short, I consider myself (amateur) photographer, not an "imaging gear operator". While it does depend a bit on situation and subject, current AF systems are both faster and more precise than even well-practised. manual focusing. Just have a look at the Eye-AF

Therefore I am very happy that we are finally getting 35mm format digital cameras that do away with the last moving mechanical contraptions and with Electronic viewfinders and state-of-the-art AF systems make it so much easier for me to capture and create the images I want. I also gladly accept the transition to a new mount (Canon R) as a pre-requisite to get - hopefully, eventually - smaller, lighter, less conspicuous and less expensive gear for my hobby.

Especially when the transition from EF to RF mount and lenses is simple and smooth and only requires a little adapter. It really is objectively not comparable to the hard switch from FD to EF back in 1987.

I therefore recommend to anybody starting out new with a keen enough interest in photography asking me for personal advice to not buy into legacy DSLR systems any longer but to go with a mirrorfree system. And of all 4 currently available systems, I do consider Canon EOS R to have the technically best foundation thanks to 1. very well-chosen EOS R mount parameters (throat width, flange focal distance) and 2. Dual-Pixel AF approach and 3. User Interface. Only piece of technology missing at the moment is in-body-stabilization, but I think they'll have to add that n the near future.
 
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
149
#75
Believing that you speak for a large group ...
I don't want to "speak" for others, but am convinced my use case and my "imaging gear/functionality preferences" are highly representative for a very large group of people:
* stills-centric
* very good IQ but "stellar" not needed
* functionally capable but "extreme case/pro-grade" not needed
* as small & light as possible
* intuitive in use
* affordable to normal income earners
:)


But probably you find that "asinine" too.
 

scyrene

EOS 6D Mark II
Dec 4, 2013
2,255
111
UK
www.flickr.com
#76
That what I worry about Canon's behavior again for the second time. The first incident; they killed R, FL, FD, and FDn lenses when EF lenses released onto the market.

The EF lenses are heavier, large physical size, and more expensive. This reason caused average photographers abandoned due to crazy prices for camera bodies and lenses due to skyrocketing. The RF lenses show much expensive over the EF lenses. They added unnecessary features such as autofocus, electronic-control f/stop, reduced mechanical interface and made incompatibly 42mm-based flange focal length by increased flange focus length to 44mm.

Professional photographers want to use "SIMPLE" lenses. Because we preferred to control focus and f/stop manual setting instead of slow electronic controls. My advice to everyone not to support or buy Canon RF series at all.

I use Zeiss ZF lenses plus Canon FD lenses with EdMika lens mount converter kit. I can control focus and f/stop manually. This method is much faster and accurate over EF lenses. Without concern about turn knob or pushbutton to change the setting. All of my pictures are razor-sharp images and perfect exposure range. Other photographers were shocked by what they saw as my camera fitted with simple lenses. Real pro photographers love Zeiss ZF lenses over EF because of the manual designed.
Hilarious!
 

jedy

EOS M50
Feb 14, 2014
59
0
#77
The main issue I have with mirrorless at the moment is cost. Sony produces some great gear but their lenses are overpriced. I currently use Canon DSLR's for filming and purchased a couple of f4 zoom lenses for really bargain prices. I'd love to buy into mirrorless (for stills and video) as the technology, for my needs outstrips DSLR technology (especially with manual focusing and proper, clean HDMI output). I have never been keen on using adapters and they always feel like a compromise. I am concerned FF mirrorless will be be very expensive for a good number of years yet, especially the lenses as stellar picture quality/ large size/expensive price seems to be the current trend (in Sony's case you can question stellar picture quality with some of their lenses) When would we be likely to see a bargain native R mount nifty fifty for example?
 
Last edited:

neuroanatomist

Spends too much time on this forum
Jul 21, 2010
23,360
399
#78
I don't want to "speak" for others, but am convinced my use case and my "imaging gear/functionality preferences" are highly representative for a very large group of people:
* stills-centric
* very good IQ but "stellar" not needed
* functionally capable but "extreme case/pro-grade" not needed
* as small & light as possible
* intuitive in use
* affordable to normal income earners
:)


But probably you find that "asinine" too.
Those are perfectly reasonable characteristics, and likely to be representative of many users.

But…millions of people who would buy an EF-M 85mm f/2.4 IS STM lens or who are outraged over a 17% difference in battery life? Asinine.
 
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
149
#79
Those are perfectly reasonable characteristics, and likely to be representative of many users.
But…millions of people who would buy an EF-M 85mm f/2.4 IS STM lens or who are outraged over a 17% difference in battery life? Asinine.
If people were told that Canon f*cked them over by sticking a 5 year old *sorry little weak toy battery* into M50 when a newer, better power pack would also have been available at little or no extra cost ... they would revolt and set fire to the Tokyo octagenarian board room.

EF-M 85/2.4 IS STM would likely sell 1000x more copies than exotic, full-fat, super-expensive RF 50/1.2 or 28-70/2.0 :)
 
Last edited:

neuroanatomist

Spends too much time on this forum
Jul 21, 2010
23,360
399
#80
If people were told that Canon f*cked them over by sticking a 5 year old *sorry little weak toy battery* into M50 when a newer, better power pack would also have been available at little or no extra cost ... they would revolt and set fire to the Tokyo octagenarian board room.
If people were told that Canon f*cked them over by forcing them to buy a brand new set of spare batteries for their M50 when the power packs they had bought for their M/M2 would have worked just fine at absolutely no extra cost and given the lame excuse that they could take 40-50 more shots per charge with a slightly larger and barely more powerful new battery ... they would revolt and set fire to the Tokyo wise and experienced board room.