RF Mount 7D2 replacement? Could it happen?

Aussie shooter

@brett.guy.photography
Dec 6, 2016
459
459
True if you hand hold it, but if you put it on a tripod it is quite usable. But tripod cannot remove the problems with low battery life and weather sealing... for which 90D would be a better choice.
But how often would you choose a tripod or even a monopod for a 100-400 over hand holding? Hand holding and the associated responsiveness is what these lenses are made for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlanF

SteveC

M50 & T6i
Sep 3, 2019
348
197
Lets be honest though. That bottom combination is utterly ridiculous and you would only use it if you had no other choice. Balance is just as important if not more so than weight. And that is as unbalanced as it comes
Au contraire. I put the sigma 500mm on my m50. That is even more unbalanced. (And I found the m50 with the 100-400 ergonomically usable [the situation called for a shorter lens, but that's not the configuration's fault] though I did only get to borrow that lens for about 15 minutes.)

If I had any really wealthy friends I'd buy an m100 just to put it on their 1200mm lens.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
990
484
Actually I suspect you might be wrong in the long term

I doubt they will start development of any new M or EF lenses but slowly cover the entire range both L and budget with R lenses and R cameras

At that point they will phase out the production of EF and M lenses and cameras.

I personally tried the route of an M5 + adapter and found the whole experience absolutely terrible when I was in a situation where I was carrying the M5 and 5D and wanted frequent lens changes - jossling adapters on and off lenses all the time was sheer hell.

If the choice was between

A carrying a full frame R and a crop-sensor R and one set of lenses which fit both

B carrying a full frame R and an M and a mixture of lenses and am adapter

It's a no brainier which anyone would prefer - assuming they can come up with a range of small light R lenses and crop cameras ... Which I very strongly expect they can do technically

I can't see why anyone would actually prefer to carry around two half-incompatible cameras (can't fit M lens on an R camera ...)

So my belief is that Canon will opt for one homogeneous range with a spectrum of price points in cameras and lenses

For those people for whom size and weight are of supreme importance I suspect that a phone plus perhaps a yet-to-be-invented "eye-goggles EVF" viewfinder will be the ideal choice
RF and EF-M cameras are aimed at two different types of camera buyers. M system cameras and lenses are not designed to be attractive to R users, or even FF EOS DSLR users. They are aimed at users who are only going to have a single camera body and 2 or 3 lenses.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
990
484
Lets be honest though. That bottom combination is utterly ridiculous and you would only use it if you had no other choice. Balance is just as important if not more so than weight. And that is as unbalanced as it comes
The bottom combination is utterly ridiculous for having two flat filters stacked on the front to create additional reflections and flare. Friends don't let friends shoot with "protective" filters unless a sandstorm, ocean spray, industrial welding/grinding/machining, or other flying particles are involved.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Aussie shooter

bhf3737

---
Sep 9, 2015
471
496
Calgary, Canada
www.flickr.com
The bottom combination is utterly ridiculous for having two flat filters stacked on the front to create additional reflections and flare. Friends don't let friends shoot with "protective" filters unless a sandstorm, ocean spray, industrial welding/grinding/machining, or other flying particles are involved.
The lens was not meant to be used with either or both filters and the cap on!
The filters were stacked for not being misplaced while transporting this and other 77mm front lenses.
Otherwise, the camera-lens combo has been functional and useful.
 

Ah-Keong

EOS 80D
Dec 1, 2016
179
11
Looking at the current EF (EF-S), M, RF mounts. I believe the M mount is aimed at portable mirrorless market to counter Olympus, Panasonic m43 and transit the entry level dslr (xxxD, Rebel, etc) while the RF is aimed at full frame mirrorless market (Sony, Nikon, Panasonic, Sigma, etc) and transit the full frame dslr (6D, 5D, 5DsR)
 

Aussie shooter

@brett.guy.photography
Dec 6, 2016
459
459
Almost always on tripod and gimbal when using this combo for small birds and other animals in the backyard. Every combo has its use.
Ok. But barring a physical issue I don't understand why you would do this. The lens is light enough to hand hold with complete stability. And a tripod or m onopod would only serve to slow reaction time and limit movement. So sure. If you are forced to use a support device then the balance is irrelevant. But it becomes a setup of very limited scope
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,745
3,071
True if you hand hold it, but if you put it on a tripod it is quite usable. But tripod cannot remove the problems with low battery life and weather sealing... for which 90D would be a better choice.
As I just mentioned in the BIF thread, I tried the 100-400mm II on the M6 II this morning, and whereas it would be fine on a tripod, it's far too uncomfortable for me to hand hold with all the weight on my left hand whereas the hefty grip on the 90D spreads the load. A mirrorless APS-C the size of the 90D with an EP6N battery would be interesting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Don Haines

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
990
484
The lens was not meant to be used with either or both filters and the cap on!
The filters were stacked for not being misplaced while transporting this and other 77mm front lenses.
Otherwise, the camera-lens combo has been functional and useful.
Why not use the box/holder the filters came in? How are the filters going to be stored in your bag while you are shooting without them?
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
990
484
Ok. But barring a physical issue I don't understand why you would do this. The lens is light enough to hand hold with complete stability. And a tripod or m onopod would only serve to slow reaction time and limit movement. So sure. If you are forced to use a support device then the balance is irrelevant. But it becomes a setup of very limited scope
A lens can be very usable hand held for a little while. That same lens may not be as usable hand held when aimed continuously at potential subjects for several hours.

I shoot high school football with my heaviest lens on a monopod. From the sideline most of the action begins between the hash marks and is in the same general direction from my position over the course of each play.

I take that lens off the monopod for the halftime show, where potential subjects are closer to and even on the sideline and they are spread all over the field at a much wider range of angles to my position.

After halftime, I then put the lens back on the monopod for the second half, when most plays are all shot with the camera pointed in roughly the same direction.

The halftime show lasts about eight minutes for each band. I'm there mostly to shoot one of the two. The football game lasts 48 minutes on the game clock, plus the time when the clock is not running until the next play starts. Each half usually lasts around an hour to an hour and twenty minutes or so. A lens that is not too heavy to hand hold for eight minutes can be too heavy to hand hold more or less continuously for two and one half hours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aussie shooter

Aussie shooter

@brett.guy.photography
Dec 6, 2016
459
459
A lens can be very usable hand held for a little while. That same lens may not be as usable hand held when aimed continuously at potential subjects for several hours.

I shoot high school football with my heaviest lens on a monopod. From the sideline most of the action begins between the hash marks and is in the same general direction from my position over the course of each play.

I take that lens off the monopod for the halftime show, where potential subjects are closer to and even on the sideline and they are spread all over the field at a much wider range of angles to my position.

After halftime, I then put the lens back on the monopod for the second half, when most plays are all shot with the camera pointed in roughly the same direction.

The halftime show lasts about eight minutes for each band. I'm there mostly to shoot one of the two. The football game lasts 48 minutes on the game clock, plus the time when the clock is not running until the next play starts. Each half usually lasts around an hour to an hour and twenty minutes or so. A lens that is not too heavy to hand hold for eight minutes can be too heavy to hand hold more or less continuously for two and one half hours.
Ok. Fair call. I have often had a Tele like this on a tripod for hours at a time with wildlife on a similar fashion. But having said that I still would never run it on a tiny mirrorlbody as it would mean I can't then use the same setup as an effective mobile unit due to its poor balance. So I suppose if you never really handhold for any length of time it makes enough sense. In situations like I tend to be in it doesn't and I guess I tend to see things from that perspective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark