Canon is gearing up for a big 2020 [CR2]

flip314

EOS RP
Sep 26, 2018
284
423
There was a time when Canon and Nikon both made almost all their lenses the same outside diameter in order to simplify filter interchangeability. They even marketed it as a selling point. The exceptions were telephotos that could not retain the same outside diameter. If you look at Canon EF lenses, you will see that they still try to maintain some consistency with filter sizes. My 16-35 f4, 24-105, 70-200 and 100-400 all take the same filter size.
And now 82mm is the new 77mm, so I see all new filters in your future!
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

criscokkat

EOS RP
Sep 26, 2017
327
299
Madison, WI
I actually do think that ultimately the efs and EF lenses will go away. I don’t think we are extremely close to it yet, primarily because I think Canon is smart enough to let it happen organically. They HAVE to think long term.

As it happen I suspect we will see really nice adaption between the r series and the m series regarding lenses.

I do think that at some point you will either see crop sensor R models OR, they will refine the technology to enable a crop mode that gives you all the advantages of the smaller sensor (FPS, reach, etc) in the same body with a high resolution full frame. The electronics might be complicated but the exterior and most physical parts of the body are exactly the same. Helps spread out that r&d cost and also ergonomics to remain the same.
They already do this in the M6II, giving us a preview of what might be to come. The 30fps mode crops the sensor about 20% and reduces the color space from 14 to 12 bits. But by doing that it more than doubles the fps, and still retains the tracking ability.

I can only imagine what that might be like on the high megapixel camera or the presumed R mark ii down the road - if the high mp does 7-10 fps (which i think it will, to be in the ballpark of the a7iv) then in that mode it would presumably deliver 15-20 fps at 40+ megapixels. The future R would probably be 30 megapixels cropped (guessing it would be in the 40-45 when uncropped, going up about 22%, just like the last few times).
Exciting times!
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
1,715
1,586
I actually do think that ultimately the efs and EF lenses will go away. I don’t think we are extremely close to it yet, primarily because I think Canon is smart enough to let it happen organically. They HAVE to think long term.

As it happen I suspect we will see really nice adaption between the r series and the m series regarding lenses.

I do think that at some point you will either see crop sensor R models OR, they will refine the technology to enable a crop mode that gives you all the advantages of the smaller sensor (FPS, reach, etc) in the same body with a high resolution full frame. The electronics might be complicated but the exterior and most physical parts of the body are exactly the same. Helps spread out that r&d cost and also ergonomics to remain the same.
I've suggested that some RF model will come out that offers a very high res sensor (maybe even 83MP) that will offer a crop mode that makes it behave as if it were a 32 MP APS-C. (You'd likely get that by putting an EF-S lens on it anyway, not that the 7D people want to use anything that's EF-S.) That would satisfy the yearnings I hear here for an APS-C R in all but one respect: It'd probably be much more expensive than an RF mount with an APSC sensor in it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnC

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
1,715
1,586
There was a time when Canon and Nikon both made almost all their lenses the same outside diameter in order to simplify filter interchangeability. They even marketed it as a selling point. The exceptions were telephotos that could not retain the same outside diameter. If you look at Canon EF lenses, you will see that they still try to maintain some consistency with filter sizes. My 16-35 f4, 24-105, 70-200 and 100-400 all take the same filter size.
Well, it's not filter interchangeability that accounts for it, because there are at least three distinct filter diameters on the Canon EF-M lenses. (55, 49 and 43.) Which is a shame, because that WOULD be a good reason for it.

EDIT to add: A lot of my canon EF lenses are 58mm filter diameter, which I do appreciate. In fact the first three I owned fell into this category, so I was a bit surprised to discover other diameters existed. And yes, I've got a 77 and an 82mm (though those are third party).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Joules and stevelee

peters

EOS RP
Dec 25, 2017
334
310
Features I totaly need to see in the 1DX III or it would be a dealbreaker for me:
- better video codec
- full hdmi out (not that outdated 1080p stuff)
- quiet electronic shutter when shooting in Live view

Features that would I would love to see:
- Ibis
- 6k and higher photo resolution
- C-log
- better low light performance (its not as awesome in the Mark II as people tend to think and actualy not even noteable better than the 5D IV in my opinion. At least at weddings I saw quite a lot of noise, even at similar ISO levels).
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
1,715
1,586
I've read it. I won't comment on this anymore after this: There is no self imposed "size restriction". There is a market restriction being imposed by the market. This has become a circular argument. ;) I get that you don't like the Canon M offerings. You are obviously not the target market.
Sigh, just when I thought we were converging on an understanding, you go back to square one.

Indeed it has become circular, because you've utterly failed to explain how the market could cause Canon to decide "all of these lenses must be the same diameter." It's a marketing restriction. Why? Because it's a marketing restriction. Yep, that's a tight circular argument, assuming what it sets out to prove.

The market certainly could explain why the lenses are in no danger of outperforming L lenses (they're aimed at a "lower" market), and why there aren't that many of them (resources must be directed towards RF which will be more profitable).

But "they've got to all be the same OD" smacks to me of an arbitrary decision by someone. I'd hate to be one of their engineers tasked with creating a zoom lens, and having to limit the aperture (or zoom range, or both) because someone up the chain won't let him make the lens 5 or even 2 mm wider--which would still be a pretty darned small lens.

I <I>don't</I> hate the lenses, by the way (but others have complained about their limitations). I just bought a 32mm, have one on order (the 22mm pancake) and another one (11-22) is out of stock at my local brick and mortar, but I'll jump on it when available. That will be a great alternative to my much larger 10-24 EF-S lens (from Tamron).

I originally wanted to point out that the EF-M line metaphysically <I>cannot</I> exceed its present capabilities unless Canon is willing to bend on that outside diameter. And to point out that there's no engineering reason for it (as shown by Tamron's 18-200 native EF-M lens, which IS quite a bit wider). In response you've insisted that "marketing" somehow requires it...and have presented no evidence, or even a plausible hypothetical explanation as to why. "Marketing" likely requires that the lenses be lower-end (which is fine; I know they don't have red rings on them), and smaller than EF-S and EF (to say nothing of the huge RF lenses). But that they be of the exact same diameter?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joules

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
1,715
1,586
SeanMalik said:
Wish Canon will release a RF to EF lens converter to use with 1DX 3. This camera will be even better with RF lenses.
You are not being realistic. Unfortunately.
There's always an outside chance that a third party will do it. Now, whether it will work well is another question entirely. And if it works poorly enough, it would negate the advantages the RF glass would (otherwise) give.
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,375
1,244
There's always an outside chance that a third party will do it. Now, whether it will work well is another question entirely. And if it works poorly enough, it would negate the advantages the RF glass would (otherwise) give.
There is a design constraints where RF flange distance is shorter than EF one. Therefore RF lens would be front focusing on EF bodies if adapted even at EF native distance to sensor. An Optical element is required to address this.
second issue is that EF bodies do not understand RF protocol and RF lenses do not talk EF language. So.... as per my original post:slim chances for that to happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: uri.raz

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
5,708
2,696
67
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Wish Canon will release a RF to EF lens converter to use with 1DX 3. This camera will be even better with RF lenses.
While I also wish that were the case, I suspect it won't be. I have been told on this forum that it is possible, but would require that the converter have lens elements in it, like a tele-extender. I'm fine with that. However, I'm not sure about the second part of your statement. I doubt that an RF to EF mount converter would work as seamlessly as the EF to RF mount converters do and I doubt that Canon would or could add the RF mount advantages to a converter (the control ring for example).

I do suspect that third parties are working right now to reverse engineer the RF mount and I expect we will see a third party mount sometime in the future. Once that happens, Canon may decide to offer their own converter.
 

slclick

Pinhole
Dec 17, 2013
4,189
2,195
Sigh, just when I thought we were converging on an understanding, you go back to square one.

Indeed it has become circular, because you've utterly failed to explain how the market could cause Canon to decide "all of these lenses must be the same diameter." It's a marketing restriction. Why? Because it's a marketing restriction. Yep, that's a tight circular argument, assuming what it sets out to prove.

The market certainly could explain why the lenses are in no danger of outperforming L lenses (they're aimed at a "lower" market), and why there aren't that many of them (resources must be directed towards RF which will be more profitable).

But "they've got to all be the same OD" smacks to me of an arbitrary decision by someone. I'd hate to be one of their engineers tasked with creating a zoom lens, and having to limit the aperture (or zoom range, or both) because someone up the chain won't let him make the lens 5 or even 2 mm wider--which would still be a pretty darned small lens.

I <I>don't</I> hate the lenses, by the way (but others have complained about their limitations). I just bought a 32mm, have one on order (the 22mm pancake) and another one (11-22) is out of stock at my local brick and mortar, but I'll jump on it when available. That will be a great alternative to my much larger 10-24 EF-S lens (from Tamron).

I originally wanted to point out that the EF-M line metaphysically <I>cannot</I> exceed its present capabilities unless Canon is willing to bend on that outside diameter. And to point out that there's no engineering reason for it (as shown by Tamron's 18-200 native EF-M lens, which IS quite a bit wider). In response you've insisted that "marketing" somehow requires it...and have presented no evidence, or even a plausible hypothetical explanation as to why. "Marketing" likely requires that the lenses be lower-end (which is fine; I know they don't have red rings on them), and smaller than EF-S and EF (to say nothing of the huge RF lenses). But that they be of the exact same diameter?

My first thought is that they are of a small diameter to balance with the small M bodies. Simple. You are free to write lengthy diatribes to espouse other theories but it makes sense to me to keep it tidy. Every tom dick and harry has put an adapter and 70-200 L on the original M and we all know how ricockulous that is.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
1,715
1,586
There is a design constraints where RF flange distance is shorter than EF one. Therefore RF lens would be front focusing on EF bodies if adapted even at EF native distance to sensor. An Optical element is required to address this.
second issue is that EF bodies do not understand RF protocol and RF lenses do not talk EF language. So.... as per my original post:slim chances for that to happen.
Yeah, it'd be a kludge at best (optical elements, all sorts of stuff done inside the adapter to deal with the protocols) which is why I doubt a third party could make it work well, or if well, cheaply.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
1,715
1,586
My first thought is that they are of a small diameter to balance with the small M bodies. Simple. You are free to write lengthy diatribes to espouse other theories but it makes sense to me to keep it tidy. Every tom dick and harry has put an adapter and 70-200 L on the original M and we all know how ricockulous that is.
Sure...small! No question. (I'm not talking about an 82mm filter size.) Identical diameters? Not necessary to meet the goal you mention.

EDIT TO ADD: And if (as I suspect) the goal is to move APS-C users to m-mount cameras, there will be a LOT of people putting huge-ass lenses on the M cameras, with an adapter if that's what they've got to do. (I tried the 100-400mm II L on my M50, not giving a rip if the body looked too small.)
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: Joules and slclick

dslrdummy

EOS RP
Aug 28, 2012
376
145
[

First let me address the quality of the images you get using Canon adapted glass on the Sony a9. The answer is no, there is no decline in quality that I have seen. Image quality with the Canon 100-400, 600 f/4 II, 16-35 f/4 IS and a few others has been excellent. You lose fps and focusing speed a bit when adapting Canon glass to the a9, but image quality is awesome.

With regards to what I do not like about the a9 versus Canon bodies such as the 1DxII and 5D4. First let me say that there is nothing about the Sony a9 that is a deal killer for me, or I would not be using it. Most of what I do not like revolves around ergonomics/usability.

It is a very small camera and without the battery grip it is too small for me to hold comfortably for long periods of time and use with larger lens efficiently. With the battery grip I love it. I do not like how Sony has treated/positioned the various wheels and buttons on the camera body. The worst is the AF-ON button as it is too small and barely raised above the surface of the camera making it hard to find and press at times. I have gotten used to it, but the new a9II will have and a7rIV has restyled buttons that are/will be much better. The wheel located in front of the shutter button and on the rear of the body are orientated the wrong way for easy use IMO, but again you can get used to it. The rear LCD screen is small and has poor resolution compared to Canon. Sony embeds very small Jpegs in their RAW files versus Canon embedding full size Jpegs. This does not seem like a big deal until you want to inspect the images on your media cards for critical sharpness prior to importing them onto your computer. You cannot zoom in to 1:1 to check sharpness because the imbedded Jpeg is too in resolution, you must import the RAWs and build 1:1 previews before you can zoom in to inspect sharpness. This is a big deal to me based on my post-processing workflow. May not be for you. Lastly, how Sony organized the menu of the a9 and the terminology they use is not intuitive. But again you can get past that issue, well at least I did.

What I really like about the a9 is no black-out EVF that is even better than a DSLRs mirror flipping stop motion effect when it comes to not interfering with your ability to track very fast moving subjects. The a9 at 20 fps has no black-out what so ever. You just follow your subject like you would with your naked eyes. Even the delay is so small that keeping up with a fast target is no problem. The other aspect of the a9 that has no rival (IMO) at this point is the AF system. It is really amazing and functions flawlessly in continuous at 20 fps. I have been able to get more long bursts of birds in flight where every image is tack sharp than I was ever able to get with my 1DxII, and I do a lot of bird in flight photography and have been doing it for many years. I am talking about 90+ images all tack sharp. To me this is mirrorless at its best (for now).

I hope this was somewhat helpful.
So given you lose fps with adapted glass, what would you say the fps achieived is?
 
  • Like
Reactions: rbielefeld

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
597
579
118
Williamsport, PA
Why I do not collect FD lenses at all. No extra optics needed for M42 screw mounts.
With the RF mount the FD, FL and old R lenses will work perfectly to infinity with no glass in adapter. This is why I have kept my FD lenses and still buy bargains. They also work well on the M mount. I use Nikon lenses adapted to my FD and FL cameras as no glass is needed in the adapter. So get an RF mount camera and use some incredible FD etc. lenses. I am waiting for IBIS in the RF mount as I am spoiled by the IS lenses I have in EF mount.
 

CanonFanBoy

Real men single speed.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,164
3,338
Irving, Texas
With the RF mount the FD, FL and old R lenses will work perfectly to infinity with no glass in adapter. This is why I have kept my FD lenses and still buy bargains. They also work well on the M mount. I use Nikon lenses adapted to my FD and FL cameras as no glass is needed in the adapter. So get an RF mount camera and use some incredible FD etc. lenses. I am waiting for IBIS in the RF mount as I am spoiled by the IS lenses I have in EF mount.
I have an RF mount camera. Thanks for the information. I should have known that. More benefits to owning the R. :)
 

yeahright

EOS 90D
Aug 28, 2014
106
73
Sigh, just when I thought we were converging on an understanding, you go back to square one.

Indeed it has become circular, because you've utterly failed to explain how the market could cause Canon to decide "all of these lenses must be the same diameter." It's a marketing restriction. Why? Because it's a marketing restriction. Yep, that's a tight circular argument, assuming what it sets out to prove.

The market certainly could explain why the lenses are in no danger of outperforming L lenses (they're aimed at a "lower" market), and why there aren't that many of them (resources must be directed towards RF which will be more profitable).

But "they've got to all be the same OD" smacks to me of an arbitrary decision by someone. I'd hate to be one of their engineers tasked with creating a zoom lens, and having to limit the aperture (or zoom range, or both) because someone up the chain won't let him make the lens 5 or even 2 mm wider--which would still be a pretty darned small lens.

I <I>don't</I> hate the lenses, by the way (but others have complained about their limitations). I just bought a 32mm, have one on order (the 22mm pancake) and another one (11-22) is out of stock at my local brick and mortar, but I'll jump on it when available. That will be a great alternative to my much larger 10-24 EF-S lens (from Tamron).

I originally wanted to point out that the EF-M line metaphysically <I>cannot</I> exceed its present capabilities unless Canon is willing to bend on that outside diameter. And to point out that there's no engineering reason for it (as shown by Tamron's 18-200 native EF-M lens, which IS quite a bit wider). In response you've insisted that "marketing" somehow requires it...and have presented no evidence, or even a plausible hypothetical explanation as to why. "Marketing" likely requires that the lenses be lower-end (which is fine; I know they don't have red rings on them), and smaller than EF-S and EF (to say nothing of the huge RF lenses). But that they be of the exact same diameter?
I think from a design perspective it absolutely makes sense if all the lenses can have the same outer diameter. Buying decisions are not only based on price, image quality, etc., but also on design. And for some people, design is a MAJOR factor in their buying decision. I, for one, was very unhappy that the EF f/2.8 trinity lenses are so different from each other, and I simply hated the thought that the 24-70 is an extending zoom while the other two aren't. Not so much because I prefer one over the other (well, I actually do), but much more because they are *different*. That fact alone kept me from buying for several months during which I was thinking about whether I could live with it or whether I should wait until a more consistently designed line of lenses was available (I finally decided that that would probably never be the case, so I bought anyway). But I could really imagine that some people considering buying into the M system are put off from their buying decision if one of the available lenses is 2 mm wider on the outside, if all the others are equal in diameter.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,126
1,831
I think the comments about the market for the 7dII drying up or being too small might be on the money, but in a different way. I think the majority of the 7d users wanted accurate focusing at high speeds. The dual card slots and weatherproof housing was a bonus for the majority of the users, but not critical.

The new m6II has shown that the baseline experience with the new Canon sensors can hit 14fps with very good focus tracking, and with a greater focus on electronics and firmware within the camera the m6II has given us a sneak peak at what could be done with a much higher MP count full frame body when it's cropped down for speed.

I've always thought that there were two different classes of people who invested in the 7d series:
1) Birders and sports photographers who need the crop factor to put maximum pixels on subjects that are far away and difficult to focus on.This group of people is much more likely to invest in high end (3k+) lenses. The reason the 1dx is not used is mostly because of pixels on target, and not as much because of money. This is also the group more likely to have a critical need for weatherproofing. This is also a much much smaller % of buyers.

2) Prosumers comprise most of this group, and are primarily people who wanted something that can focus well on fast moving subjects and have fast fps, but are generally not using anything bigger than a 70-200 or maybe a 100-400.

The number 1's can afford a more expensive full frame camera that can be used as full frame when needed, but can have much higher speeds when used as a crop with the same amount of pixels on target that APS-C could do. That camera will have the dual cards, ibis and weather sealing expected for that class of camera.

The people in group #2 are way more price sensitive, and many of them had already bled off to the 80d (and presumably 90d). The ones who are left who are more concerned with fast accurate focus will be able to jump into the next generation R or RP in a few years. Some of them could jump into the m6ii now. I imagine full frame R or RP will be in the 8-10 FPS with full tracking by the time they come out. And there's still a chance that Canon might release a 90d level of r-mount aps-c. If that happens, they add a bit more buffer to the internals used in the m6ii and they've hit the 7diii speeds and focus.
There are more than few sports photographers in shrinking markets with much lower revenue per photo/revenue per event shot than has been the case in the past who can not justify big white glass if they must actually turn enough of a profit with their work to make a living wage doing it. The idea that pro (that is, those who shoot it to make a living - not those who play it) sports photographers are rolling in cash is absurd. Even many of the top level pros have all but disappeared or had to diversify well beyond sports to stay afloat.

This article from 2015 quotes some of the top names in the game for a long time, and it is worse now than it was then. There are too many well heeled semi-pros willing to shoot for next to nothing (or even nothing) just to get sideline access to major sporting events these days. But those who shoot sports still need bodies that can hold up to less than ideal weather and high frame counts.

The biggest problem with scenario 2 is that a 70-200mm is very usable for a lot of things with an APS-C sensor that would require much more expensive lenses (e.g. 300mm f/2.8) with a FF R or RP. If the primary reason for shooting with an APS-C "sports" camera over a FF sports camera is budget, then the additional cost of the lenses needed to shoot FF instead of APS-C is a greater burden than the comparative cost of a FF body. With FF bodies you still need a 70-200/2.8 for the stuff you can't zoom out to get with the 300/2.8 on your other body. The 100-400s and 150-600s are too slow to shoot sports in anything but direct sunlight. Under the lights or indoors they are unusable.

Maybe it is the case that both Canon and Nikon (there will be no D500 replacement, either) realize this entire class of photographers (those who shoot high school/small college sports for enough profit to make it worthwhile as a primary source of income) has disappeared and I, along with a few others I know, are some of the last dodo birds left on the planet.

"The number 1's can afford a more expensive full frame camera that can be used as full frame when needed, but can have much higher speeds when used as a crop with the same amount of pixels on target that APS-C could do."

We've yet to ever see anything from Canon suggesting they are working on a high MP camera, DSLR or MILC, that can shoot in either FF mode at lower frame rates or APS-C mode at higher frame rates. The way CMOS sensors work, even if they do reduce the number of lines read so that the top and bottom lines are not read out, the full width of each line would still need to be read out from the sensor and the edges on either end discarded by the camera's image processor. Until Canon (or anyone else) introduces a camera that can increase the maximum frame rate when shooting in crop mode, that whole idea is just pie-in-the-sky-in-the-sweet-by-and-by wishful thinking.