Another announcement cycle is out of the way, so what’s next from Canon for the EOS R system?

[entoman]

On the 700D what you said is correct (No DPAF), but on the 90D the live view is very quick and not noisy, the 5DMKiv should be the same? I sometimes use live view when the OVF has trouble focusing on a subject at a far distance.

My experiences: I have 5D Mkiv and R5, and use both for hand-held and tripod-mounted macro, outdoors with living insects, and indoors for certain botanical subjects.

I find that live-view on the 5DMkiv is significantly slower and less accurate in low light. I also find it much more cumbersome, as it has to flip up the mirror before it's activated (making it slower to start), and you're stuck with peering awkwardly at a fixed screen on the back of the camera, whereas on the R5 you can shoot at eye-level or swing out the screen.

The 5DMkiv is an excellent camera in OVF mode, but I wouldn't even consider using it in live-view, since getting the R5, which is a delight to use, whether focusing via the EVF or the flippy screen.

 

[scyrene]

A 35/1.0 would have about the amount of bokeh of a 50/1.4 or 100/2.8. (They all have about a 35mm entrance pupil, the diameter of which is basically what determines the size of out-of-focus highlights relative to an in-focus subject.) If you've ever used a 50/1.4 or 100/2.8 wide-open, a 35/1.0 is that same bokeh, just in a wider shot.

There are 35/1.0 (albeit smaller sensor) on the market already. Check out some of the photos. Quite lovely.

A 50/0.7 likewise is the same as 135/2, 200/2.8, 300/4, etc., simply wider.

A 135/1.0, when stopped down to f/1.4, would have perfectly circular highlights from center to deep corner. A DS-type filter would then cut transmission another stop, so it's be very similar amount of light and amount of bokeh to a conventional 135/2.0, which, while "a lot," is hardly unusable. But instead of disks in the center turning into American football shapes in the corners, it'd be soft-edged cotton balls across the entire image. You would be able to recognize images created by this lens even when they were the size of a postage stamp. It'd be the most beautiful portrait lens in history. And it'd be expensive, but about the same as the 400/2.8 or Nikon 300/2.0. Is that a good enough reason why?

Ok, cool.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

And why not dream big, how about a 120-300 f2.8 (to match Sigma and Nikon's offerings) with the possibility of a TC

While we are dreaming, hopefully, it would be priced closer to the Sigma.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I do not believe in a R successor, just makes no sense. Unless it's called that because of the missing IBIS, joystick, single card slot and to make fun of us they include a new touch bar

An R6 II with no IBIS and 1 card slot would make sense to me if it was significantly cheaper.
I can't see how it would be, though.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Please list the "older hardware" in the R5. The processor hasn't been updated for instance.

Sure it has.
Digic X is a family of image processors.
The R10 processor is not as capable as the one in the R3.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

So, what hardware improvements are there between the R5 and R6II?

We have no idea.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Compare the EF-M 18-150 to the RF-S 18-150. The optics inside are identical, and the form factor is the same except for the slight increase in diameter right at the mount.

That starts at 18mm though
The backfocus on the 11-22 is around 11 mm.
There is no way it can be as small with the larger flange distance.

 

[danfaz]

OK, a drum I've beat often on this forum: Canon should be pushing out more "halo" lenses than they are.

I think the 28-70 was it, and this article seems to make sense as far as why we may not see anymore halo lenses.

Why Manufacturers Make a Specific Camera Lens

There is a lot of online discussion about why a manufacturer made this lens when they so obviously needed to make that other lens. Or why this manufacturer’s design is better than that manufacturer’s magical solutions. So, I thought I’d share the second-hand information I have about the process...

www.lensrentals.com

 

[SwissFrank]

I think the 28-70 was it, and this article seems to make sense as far as why we may not see anymore halo lenses.

Why Manufacturers Make a Specific Camera Lens

There is a lot of online discussion about why a manufacturer made this lens when they so obviously needed to make that other lens. Or why this manufacturer’s design is better than that manufacturer’s magical solutions. So, I thought I’d share the second-hand information I have about the process...

www.lensrentals.com

Thanks Dan. I might have read that a couple years ago and do love that guy's blogging and the site in general.

I didn't quite get the idea it said there would be NO halo lenses though.

Yes, absolutely, the 28-70/2.0 was a halo. It still looks like a typo to me, it's so extreme. And I can't see anyone would buy it given that today's low-noise sensors allow ISO in the stratosphere, IS means you can often use slower shutters, and the higher MP combined with low noise means you can now really see the blur of say an f/4 shot that in the past would be hidden in film grain. And f/2 doesn't help AF nor does it make the viewfinder brighter. (Another subject I rant about: all this means that f/4 is the new trinity; we don't need f/2.8 any more). It's real purpose is just to be a halo.

The Canon TS lenses I think are generally speaking halo lenses. At least the shift isn't REALLY necessary as you can do that stuff in photoshop, though tilt is necessary to get a variety of special shots.

The DS lenses are also basically halo lenses.

So are the crazy zooms, the 1-5x macro, or the fisheye zoom, in the old EF catalog.

They just get people deciding their next camera outfit to go Canon because, gosh, look, they've just got ALL this stuff, should I ever want it.

In the past the 50/1.0 and 1200/5.6 were like this too.

(You can also consider some special bodies, like the pellicle mirrors in the FD and EF lineups, the astro versions, or a body with a sky-high MP count.)

So really, I don't want to pick a fight with someone who's giving me this great link above, but, I'd actually say Canon IS making a certain number of halo or semi-halo lenses even now. So I guess maybe I kind of mis-stated: I'm not saying they should make halo lenses (implying they don't yet) but rather, they should make a few more spectucular ones, even if they're sold by invitation only, or only rented to top pros, or what have you. Hearing that today's most artistic director is shooting a movie with the new Canon 35/1.0 or 135/1.0DS to get this special kind of shot is the kind of article that would get Canon recognition that mere advertising couldn't buy.

 

[danfaz]

@SwissFrank no fighting needed LOL
My interpretation of the article was that companies make one or two crazy lenses (as loss-leaders) just to show off their capabilities.
So I was thinking maybe the 28-70 is the only wild lens we'll see, but then again, maybe they'll surprise us! =)

 

[jam05]

Don't hold your breath for an M6 mk 2 32.5mp form factor replacement being an EOS R100. Not likely. Thats a very small compact camera with 32.5mp. This rumor site as been trying at nauseum to figure this out. Canon maybe will never replace the M6 Mk 2 with an EOS R. Personally, I think its a waste of time and resources. There is enough inventory and third party lenses as already mentioned.

 

[GoldWing]

Nothing will come of the R1. Nikon's Z9 saw to that. Having shot with the Z9 and much of Nikon's lenses. As a lifelong Canon user with a major agency, Nikon really has set a bar that should hold for many years for professionals. If Nikon can fill in some glass gaps and get on a par with CPS, many major agencies are buying so much Nikon gear, that the orders now placing the agencies, sports teams, PEG and media clients at a priority over retail sales.

 

[David - Sydney]

Sure it has.
Digic X is a family of image processors.
The R10 processor is not as capable as the one in the R3.

But you said that the R5 has older hardware and yet the R10/R3/R6ii/R5 and R3 all use Digic X.
The capabilities of the R5's processor are certainly still sufficient at the pointy end of the market.
Can you provide some evidence that a different processor is used? Is there a teardown than shows the chips used in each model?
Using exactly the same processor chipset make good manufacturing sense to reduce variants in inventory and batch runs in the semiconductor fab.
Firmware can certainly be used to either throttle or reduce the top line specs.

Note that the 1 series have used 2 identical processors to share the load (processing and heat) rather than having a single more powerful processor. Saves money especially given the lower volumes of the flagship bodies.

 

[HawkValley60]

I think Canon should give some thought to the mid-tier lens market. It seems they have been focusing on the opposite ends of the spectrum: high-end, costly L series, and low-end, plastic-feeling consumer-level lenses, with very slow variable f-stops in the case of zooms.

But how about some top-tier consumer/enthusiast lenses that fall in between these two extremes, in all regards? A step-up from the sub $600 offerings, with somewhat more robust build and better sealing, separate focus and control rings, IS, USM focus drives or even linear motors, and very respectable optical performance. Offerings such as a 50mm and 35mm f/1.4, a 28mm f/2 or 1.8, a 28–85/90mm f/4, and a 70–300/400mm f/4.5-5.6.

 

[David - Sydney]

I think Canon should give some thought to the mid-tier lens market. It seems they have been focusing on the opposite ends of the spectrum: high-end, costly L series, and low-end, plastic-feeling consumer-level lenses, with very slow variable f-stops in the case of zooms.

But how about some top-tier consumer/enthusiast lenses that fall in between these two extremes, in all regards? A step-up from the sub $600 offerings, with somewhat more robust build and better sealing, separate focus and control rings, IS, USM focus drives or even linear motors, and very respectable optical performance. Offerings such as a 50mm and 35mm f/1.4, a 28mm f/2 or 1.8, a 28–85/90mm f/4, and a 70–300/400mm f/4.5-5.6.

Doesn't the current EF lineup cover those focal lengths/price/performance? If you don't like adapters, then just weld one on ie don't take it off.

Or via the second hand market... eg. I have a EF24-105/4L (mark 1) for sale at a bargain price if anyone is interested

3rd party lenses would fill the gap for anything missing eg a good quality 50mm/1.4

RF lenses are great but they are not everything to everyone and EF lenses will be around for a long time to come.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Yes, absolutely, the 28-70/2.0 was a halo. It still looks like a typo to me, it's so extreme. And I can't see anyone would buy it given that today's low-noise sensors allow ISO in the stratosphere, IS means you can often use slower shutters, and the higher MP combined with low noise means you can now really see the blur of say an f/4 shot that in the past would be hidden in film grain.

Agree that the 28-70/2 is a halo lens. But by your logic, there’s no need for f/2 or faster primes, either. Except there’s this thing called subject isolation that some of us like to achieve in our images, and a wide aperture is the key.

Personally, I usually shoot fast primes at ~f/2 anyway to allow sufficient DoF for a portrait subject (e.g., both eyes in focus), so for me the 28-70/2 can substitute for several fast primes.

And f/2 doesn't help AF nor does it make the viewfinder brighter. (Another subject I rant about: all this means that f/4 is the new trinity; we don't need f/2.8 any more). Its real purpose is just to be a halo.

That’s probably true for many use cases. With DSLRs, I had the 24-105/4 but switched to the 24-70/2.8 II for the better AF and brighter VF. But with the R3, the 24-105/4 is my ‘walkaround’ lens for the reasons you state.

Still, when shooting indoor events or nighttime sports an f/2.8 or faster lens is very useful. At high school football games with the RF 70-200/2.8, I’m using ISO 10000-25600 to get action-stopping shutter speeds.

 

[neuroanatomist]

So I was thinking maybe the 28-70 is the only wild lens we'll see, but then again, maybe they'll surprise us! =)

So the RF 5.2mm Dual Fisheye lens is mundane?

 

[Pete]

What about Firmware updates for the R5, we definitely need the AF improvements of the R6II

Absolutely!

 

[neuroanatomist]

That starts at 18mm though
The backfocus on the 11-22 is around 11 mm.
There is no way it can be as small with the larger flange distance.

Why not? The existing RF 24/1.8 has a backfocus distance of 11.0 mm.

 

[Deleted member 393411]

I seriously hope Canon will do this

LOL nah. Canon CrippleHammer™ will make sure that this never happens. The R6 II is a mediocre upgrade (from a R6) at best. D- effort from Canon. edit: I don't need 40fps and don't care for video. Take those 2 aspects out, and it's a really poor upgrade from my perspective. ymmv.