Is there an EOS R series camera with an APS-C sensor coming? [CR1]

3kramd5

EOS 5D Mark IV
Mar 2, 2012
2,655
165
No, camera does *not* have to know "what user wants to focus on". Have a look at Canon EOS R ... on-sensor (DP) AF system with 5000+ AF fields, covering (almost) the entire frame, accurate enough to allow "targetting" any desired point in the frame to AUTO-focus on. Even when camera is locked down on tripod.

No need whatsoever for "manual focusing by twiddling a ring on a lens" today - other than for personal preference. No problem, those who do can choose any lens. But I would like to finally have a choice of "pure-AF" lenses too.
And in a situation where the scene or lighting or both is such that none of those 5000+ AF locations are able to achieve focus (I, for example, have never successfully autofocused on a starscape), even those which are located where the photographer doesn't want to focus, the EOS-R has a really neat option: not taking a picture at all! Personally, I'd rather twiddle the ring.
 
Jul 31, 2018
297
110
yes, fair enough, star scapes. ok, no AF.

BUT: do we really need a focus ring to twiddle on each and every lens?

with focus by wire lenses "manual focus" could just as well be controlled from camera body. Either by dialing in desired focus distance - anything between MFD and "infinity, visible light", "infinity IR" in menu/selection by tapping touch screen or by using a physical control element on camera body - eg a "multifunction ring around lens base" or a "really right", precise version of the "multifunction slider bar" (the one on EOS R seems 1st gen and botched) ?

I really question the need for a manual focus ring on each and every lens. no prob, if there are many lenses with such a ring. All i would like to have is a good choice of "pure AF" lenses without it. just like a "pure stills camera without video recording.

So i'll keep asking for it "in public". Lens makers do notice. it also took a while of "complaining and whining" on the net, but today all major 3rd party lens makers are suddenly able to match zoom and focus ;-) ring turn direction to respective lens mount convention. Before i started my "campaign", many of their lenses only has with "Nikon leftie wrong turn" rings even in Canon EF mount versions. Sigma, Tokina, Tamron ... i was among the very first to "massively bitch and moan: wrong turn rings, will not buy" in response to every new lens announcement/review. makers apparently took notice, they realized there is a "real life, usage" problem and today we get most lenses with mount-matched turning ring/s. (to me only zoom rings are relevant of course).

had i just shut up and put up like most others, we might never have gotten it. :)

and now that we are finally getting some choice of "FF mirrorfree systens" it is time to ask for things like "pure stills, video-free cameras", for "focus ring-free lenses" and "moving mechanical parts-free cameras (global shutter)".

in other words: i push ultra-conservative imaging gear makers to come up with *21st century interchangeable lens camera systems*.

yes, i am on a mission, please bear with me. :)
 
Last edited:

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
1,955
208
Vancouver, BC
i do expect Canon to offer more modest, more compact, less expensive RF lenses once they have milked early adopters with their "ultra premium" lenses.

but i do expect all R mount lenses to be designed for FF image circle. with only 20mm FFD, there is quite some opportunity for compact and even pancake lenses. eg a "RF 24/2.8" should be possible in a really compact form factor - based neither on EF-S 24 nor on EF 40 optical formula, but new optical design and fully FF capable, not for crop sensor, not as "RF-S".

APS-C cameras and lenses are and will remain to be offered as EOS M and EF-M.
I suspect Canon and Nikon's new lenses will not be too far off the price of Sony's. However, it's worth noting that Canon's RF 24-105 is cheaper than Sony's FE24-105/4 -- and it didn't have to be. In Canadian dollars, it's not unsubstantial -- $1700 for the Sony FE vs $1450 for the Canon RF.
 

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
1,955
208
Vancouver, BC
yes, fair enough, star scapes. ok, no AF.

BUT: do we really need a focus ring to twiddle on each and every lens?

with focus by wire lenses "manual focus" could be controlled from camera body. Either by dialing in desired focus distance - anything between MFD and "infinity, visible light", "infinity IR" in menu/selection by tapping touch screen or by using a physical control element on camera body - eg a "multifunction ring around lens base" or a "really right", precise version of the "multifunction slider bar" (the one on EOS R seems 1st gen and botched) ?

I really question the need for a manual focus ring on each and every lens. no prob, if there are many lenses with such a ring. All i would like to have is a good choice of "pure AF" lenses without it. just like a "pure stills camera without video recording.
It's a really easy formula.

If they don't put a focus ring on the lens, some people, like me, will never buy it. I mean, not even if it's half the price -- the lens is of nearly no value to me. MF is important for all sorts of things, like macro, where the working depth of field is extremely sensitive; for product photography, where nailing on the right part of the product is critical; for nature portraiture... and I could go on and on.

On the other hand, a focus ring doesn't cost much (probably close to zero percent of the selling price), and if they put it on, it's unlikely to piss very many people off. And if it does, what are they going to do about it? Every other lens for a full frame camera ever made has a manual focus ring so they're just SOL :D
 
Jul 31, 2018
297
110
Canon could just not go to Sony FE pricing in one step on 24-105 since EF version(s) are also available at much lower pricepoints. :)
So they increased price on RF 24-105 "only" by 40% ... without much improvement in IQ and size/ weight. :p

But overall I am very confident, Canon will maintain their price advantage over (absurdly priced) Sony FE lenses. It is clear that Sony FE lens sizes and prices are severely limiting their ability to grow their system's market share. Would Sony price their FE lenses as they price their cameras - eg A7 III compared to EOS R ;-) - there could have built a much larger customer base by now. So, "stupid Sony" has helped Canon and Nikon to sit back for 6 full years and sell mirrorslappers and lenses until switching/bleeding of customers finally forced them to offer mirrorfree FF as well.

ofc Canon will first milk early adopters with f/2 zooms and f/1.2 prime lens behemoths. But market for these is a very small niche. f/2.8 zooms are a bit larger niche and f/4 and f/3.5-5.6 zooms are where the volume is. Those will be priced "reasonably", as in the "EF past".
 
Last edited:
Jul 31, 2018
297
110
... On the other hand, a focus ring doesn't cost much (probably close to zero percent of the selling price), and if they put it on, it's unlikely to piss very many people off. And if it does, what are they going to do about it? Every other lens for a full frame camera ever made has a manual focus ring so they're just SOL :D
yep i guess that pretty well reflects what camera makers with octagenarian leaders have been thinking up to now. and what german range finder makers thought about SLRs until the mid 1960s. :)

in reality, only a very very small percentage of potential buyers will balk and not buy "focus ring free lenses", especially when it is not a macro or other "special purpose lens". even less so, when there is a good way to directly and precisely control focus distance from camera body.

i bet, as soon as one maker starts selling a series of eg "super compact, native mirrorfree, f/1.8-2.8, optically decent, fully wheathersealed, focus ring-free" prime lenses at "very decent prices" they will sell well and all others will follow suit sooner or later.

so, i'll keep asking for it whenever possible. :)
 
Last edited:

3kramd5

EOS 5D Mark IV
Mar 2, 2012
2,655
165
yes, fair enough, star scapes. ok, no AF.

BUT: do we really need a focus ring to twiddle on each and every lens?

with focus by wire lenses "manual focus" could just as well be controlled from camera body.
Strictly speaking, no. Millions of point and shoot cameras, smart phones, tablets, etc demonstrate that one doesn’t *need* a focus ring on every lens. Powerzoom lenses demonstrate one doesn’t need a zoom ring.

Personally, like Talys, I wouldn’t buy a standalone camera without one, as if there is no way to manually focus, there is no guarantee I’ll be able to take the shot I want to. It’s a failsafe to what’s arguably the least reliable function in digital cameras.
 
Jul 6, 2017
845
65
Davidson, NC
If they don't put a focus ring on the lens, some people, like me, will never buy it. I mean, not even if it's half the price -- the lens is of nearly no value to me. MF is important for all sorts of things, like macro, where the working depth of field is extremely sensitive; for product photography, where nailing on the right part of the product is critical; for nature portraiture... and I could go on and on.

On the other hand, a focus ring doesn't cost much (probably close to zero percent of the selling price), and if they put it on, it's unlikely to piss very many people off. And if it does, what are they going to do about it? Every other lens for a full frame camera ever made has a manual focus ring so they're just SOL :D
They still need to put all the focusing hardware in and pay the design costs. So I agree that leaving off the ring will give negligible savings. With FBW they don’t even need the mechanical linkage. There is not going to be much clamor for fixed-focus lenses for FF cameras, I’ll wager.

As a practical matter, I so rarely use the ring on the 24-105mm STM I got with the 6D2 a year ago that I wouldn’t miss it. The autofocus works great, I don’t like the FBW, and I don’t use it for the special cases that need MF. The exception was back in June when I was shooting video of basketball pick-up games, as I do each year. The first night I used AF to try that out. It worked, but I had to pay attention to what it focused on. The other nights, I just used manual focus. I just focused on the rim of one basket (being about the same distance from the other one) and left it. DOF covered the whole court. I knew that from hyperfocal tables.

Sony lens prices surprise me. Years ago I heard the rationale for buying Sony cameras was that since they had IBIS, you would save a bunch of money on each lens you bought.
 

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
1,955
208
Vancouver, BC
in reality, only a very very small percentage of potential buyers will balk and not buy "focus ring free lenses", especially when it is not a macro or other "special purpose lens". even less so, when there is a good way to directly and precisely control focus distance from camera body.
On a personal level, I disagree, because I use manual focus for some reasons on almost every focal length, with the the exception wide lenses because astro isn't really my thing, and AF on wide lenses is always dead on. However, I'll concede that there isn't any data to back up my opinion!

To the contrary, significant negative in my book is a poor MF ring; for example, the Sigma 150-600C.

i bet, as soon as one maker starts selling a series of eg "super compact, native mirrorfree, f/1.8-2.8, optically decent, fully wheathersealed, focus ring-free" prime lenses at "very decent prices" they will sell well and all others will follow suit sooner or later.
Again, just my opinion, but I don't think this will happen. There could certainly be FBW lenses that are devoid of a MF ring. But I think these would almost certainly be at the lower end of the spectrum, not high end ones. And if they were made, they would serve a smaller niche, which would bump up their prices, not make them cheaper. Let's keep in mind that almost every 1.8-2.8 lens is a niche lens anyways.

I suppose history will prove one of us right :)
 

Rocky

EOS Rebel T7i
Jul 30, 2010
873
11
Personally, I do not like FBW. It is hard to be precise. I like the long throw focusing ring of the "old" MF lens with depth of field marking