2022 is scheduled to ‘The Year of the Camera Body’ [CR3]

AEWest

EOS RP
Jan 30, 2020
409
505
DSLRs comprise over 40% of the ILC market. Only Canon and Nikon make DSLRs, and Canon’s market share is somewhere over triple Nikon’s, so most of the DSLRs being sold are Canon.

So what you’re saying is that you can’t imagine Canon making any development investment what is probably ~30% of the total ILC market. Are you sure that makes sense?
Actually Pentax makes DSLRs and maybe some some day soon they will be the only DSLR manufacturer.

What doesn't make sense is for a maufacturer to have two lines of full frame lens mounts competing with each other for the same market. Sony abandoned their DSLR mount and I fully expect Canon and Nikon to do the same - I have seen no indication that either company is continuing to develop their DSLR lines.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,536
7,294
Sony abandoned their DSLR mount and I fully expect Canon and Nikon to do the same - I have seen no indication that either company is continuing to develop their DSLR lines.
Sony abandoned DSLRs because they were unable to compete successfully in that market.

I do think we’ll see more DSLRs from Canon, but only in the Rebel/Kiss/xxxD line. I also expect continued development of the M line.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
10,120
16,172
It’s the RF version of the EF 70-300 non-L.
Quite right. The RF 100-400mm is no less normal than the EF 100-400mm L. And, logically speaking, it is more "normal" because the 100-400mm L is by definition special as it has a red ring and is white to show it is "superior".
 

Chig

Birds in Flight Nutter
Jul 26, 2020
524
783
Orewa , New Zealand
No, the RF 100-400 is a new category, affordable/plastic lens. The 100-500 is the actual EF 100-400 replacement. Same build quality, image quality and L designation.
Not quite the same build quality as the EF version with more plastic which makes it lighter (which I prefer) and the odd limitation of restricted zoom range with extenders (which really irritates me as it makes it far less versatile for no reason) but very similar otherwise and slightly better overall performance.
Sadly in many markets such as New Zealand it's nearly twice the price so a lot of people choose to use the adapted EF as a result
 

blackcoffee17

EOS RP
Sep 17, 2014
791
1,039
Not quite the same build quality as the EF version with more plastic which makes it lighter (which I prefer) and the odd limitation of restricted zoom range with extenders (which really irritates me as it makes it far less versatile for no reason) but very similar otherwise and slightly better overall performance.
Sadly in many markets such as New Zealand it's nearly twice the price so a lot of people choose to use the adapted EF as a result

I don't like the TC limitation either or the massively hiked price vs the EF version but we can all agree that is in fact the EF 100-400 replacement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,907
4,961
69
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
No, the RF 100-400 is a new category, affordable/plastic lens. The 100-500 is the actual EF 100-400 replacement. Same build quality, image quality and L designation.

It’s the RF version of the EF 70-300 non-L.
No. Because the 70-300 non-L lenses were not particularly good lenses. The 100-400 is a decent lens with good sharpness. I guess you could argue it fills a similar niche if you ignore image quality. It might be better to compare it to the EF-S 55-250. An inexpensive lens that delivered decent image quality at a low price.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,536
7,294
No. Because the 70-300 non-L lenses were not particularly good lenses. The 100-400 is a decent lens with good sharpness. I guess you could argue it fills a similar niche if you ignore image quality. It might be better to compare it to the EF-S 55-250. An inexpensive lens that delivered decent image quality at a low price.
Spiritual successor, then. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

slclick

EOS 3
Dec 17, 2013
4,634
3,039
Spiritual successor, then. :)
I have found, as have many others, that this is a remarkable lens. Small, light, just as good at 400 as the Mk 1 100-400L. Canon has never offered such quality at 400 before at a price most can afford. I have had the Mk2, the Tammy, the Siggy. The Canon RF beats both 3rd party versions in all aspects. Ok, maybe not all, it doesn't come with A HOOD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
10,120
16,172
I have found, as have many others, that this is a remarkable lens. Small, light, just as good at 400 as the Mk 1 100-400L. Canon has never offered such quality at 400 before at a price most can afford. I have had the Mk2, the Tammy, the Siggy. The Canon RF beats both 3rd party versions in all aspects. Ok, maybe not all, it doesn't come with A HOOD.
It takes the same hood as the 70-300 so there are plenty of knock-off hoods costing just a few $/£. I found like you that my copy of the R beats the Tammy and Sigma, and my Mk 1 was soft.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Czardoom

EOS RP
Jan 27, 2020
542
1,198
No. Because the 70-300 non-L lenses were not particularly good lenses. The 100-400 is a decent lens with good sharpness. I guess you could argue it fills a similar niche if you ignore image quality. It might be better to compare it to the EF-S 55-250. An inexpensive lens that delivered decent image quality at a low price.
Not sure if your experience was with the Mark I version of the 70-300 non-L, but the Mark II version is a really fine lens. Dustin Abbott did a review and compared it with the 70-300 L, and found little or no difference in sharpness. My experience with the lens is similar - and in fact the 70-300 II non-L was sharper cropped to the same size photo at 300mm as my Sigma 100-400mm at 400mm. I consider it a real "steal" among the non-L lenses for those looking for cheaper alternatives.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,536
7,294
Not sure if your experience was with the Mark I version of the 70-300 non-L, but the Mark II version is a really fine lens. Dustin Abbott did a review and compared it with the 70-300 L, and found little or no difference in sharpness. My experience with the lens is similar - and in fact the 70-300 II non-L was sharper cropped to the same size photo at 300mm as my Sigma 100-400mm at 400mm. I consider it a real "steal" among the non-L lenses for those looking for cheaper alternatives.
I think one of the things that differentiates the L-series lenses from consumer grade lenses is quality control. Copy variation occurs for all of them, but it’s less common and less extreme for the high end lenses.

Bryan (TDP) reviewed the EF 70-300 II non-L and found it fairly soft and no better than the MkI version. Dustin found it as good as the 70-300L. That’s copy variation at work, it really plays hell with interpreting the findings of reviewers who evaluate only a single copy of a lens.

When I was writing the review for the EF-M 18-150mm for TDP, I found my copy to be much sharper than Bryan‘s ISO 12233 testing suggested. He tested a second copy and found it to be significantly sharper than the one he originally tested. Copy variation again.

When buying a lens, especially a non-L lens, I really recommend testing it thoroughly before the end of the return window.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

slclick

EOS 3
Dec 17, 2013
4,634
3,039
It takes the same hood as the 70-300 so there are plenty of knock-off hoods costing just a few $/£. I found like you that my copy of the R beats the Tammy and Sigma, and my Mk 1 was soft.
I've got one in a box somewhere!
 

Czardoom

EOS RP
Jan 27, 2020
542
1,198
I think one of the things that differentiates the L-series lenses from consumer grade lenses is quality control. Copy variation occurs for all of them, but it’s less common and less extreme for the high end lenses.

Bryan (TDP) reviewed the EF 70-300 II non-L and found it fairly soft and no better than the MkI version. Dustin found it as good as the 70-300L. That’s copy variation at work, it really plays hell with interpreting the findings of reviewers who evaluate only a single copy of a lens.

When I was writing the review for the EF-M 18-150mm for TDP, I found my copy to be much sharper than Bryan‘s ISO 12233 testing suggested. He tested a second copy and found it to be significantly sharper than the one he originally tested. Copy variation again.

When buying a lens, especially a non-L lens, I really recommend testing it thoroughly before the end of the return window.
I agree completely, that the L-lenses (or higher end lenses regardless of brand) will be more consistently good. That being said, over the years I have owned or rented 3 copies of the 70-300 II (non-L) and they have all been very close to as sharp as the L version. And, yes, I always try to buy lenses from a place or seller (on Ebay or similar) that accepts returns and definitely agree with your recommendation to do so.
 

slclick

EOS 3
Dec 17, 2013
4,634
3,039
I agree completely, that the L-lenses (or higher end lenses regardless of brand) will be more consistently good. That being said, over the years I have owned or rented 3 copies of the 70-300 II (non-L) and they have all been very close to as sharp as the L version. And, yes, I always try to buy lenses from a place or seller (on Ebay or similar) that accepts returns and definitely agree with your recommendation to do so.
I'm curious if you owned the 70-300L? Sharpness (as most know) is only one aspect of a lens' character and the 70-300L renders gorgeously. The non L is sharp but for me, it ended there. The LatCA and axial CA were very pronounced as well. The distance scale LCD...just one more thing to go wrong? Didn't like mushy sunstars at f/16 either.

So, do I compare it to the RF 100-400? Hell no, different league. Similar construction but it ends there.
 

BBarn

EOS 90D
Nov 2, 2020
109
105
Though new camera bodies will be beneficial, I hope it doesn't slow the release of RF lenses. At some point, the (relatively) low number of available RF lenses will begin to hurt camera sales since a limited lens selection will reduce the appeal of investing in the system. Many purchasers of new cameras simply don't want to adapt old lenses (or they have none). Third party lenses would probably help, but I'm not sure that's in the near-term cards.