Canon lays out their corporate strategy

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Aug 9, 2018
3,294
4,182
:ROFLMAO: Me too, that's why I have perfected the art of smuggling toys! Luckily for me most RF L prime lenses look pretty similar one to another apart from minor size differences... ;) Otherwise the SWMBO wouldn't be best impressed.
I can tell you I'll order on the morning of the announcement day, that's for sure
Smuggler +1 here!
Fortunately, my wife couldn't tell apart a Kodak Brownie and an EOS R3.
The only dangerous moment is when the parcel gets delivered: "what's in it? Oh, just a lens which got repaired under warranty".
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

roby17269

R5, H5X + IQ1-80, DJI Mini & Mavic 3 Pro, GoPro 10
Feb 26, 2014
440
543
New York
rdmfashionphoto.com
Smuggler +1 here!
Fortunately, my wife couldn't tell apart a Kodak Brownie and an EOS R3.
The only dangerous moment is when the parcel gets delivered: "what's in it? Oh, just a lens which got repaired under warranty".
Yes! The old "whaaat? I've had that for years!" with my best angelic face :cool: works... most of the times
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
For the purposes of this discussion, I'm regarding an "actuation" as a single up or down movement of a shutter curtain, because it is the number of up and down movements that creates wear. Manufacturers may define an "actuation" differently, which is the real point of the discussion. Manufacturers don't specify whether they're talking about EFCS actuations, or MS actuations, so we don't know how many *exposures* they are claiming.

So, I believe the following is correct:

EFCS = 2 actuations per exposure (same curtain closes, exposure, then reopens)

and MS = 4 actuations per exposure (first curtain drops to close, reopens, exposure, first curtain lifts, exposure, second curtain lifts to close, then drops to allow viewing to resume)

.... and of course, ES = zero actuations per exposure

None of that is correct.

In EFCS the first curtain is already open at the bottom. (It is never open at the top. The highest it goes is to cover the sensor. Only the second curtain is ever open at the top. It never goes lower than covering the sensor.)

The sensor is cleared without any curtain actuation, then energized sequentially line by line from bottom to top. (To the best of my knowledge, ALL Canon sensors read out bottom to top, which is top to bottom of the inverted image projected by the lens. They do this because televisions and other video screens scan from top to bottom.)

The only shutter movement is the first curtain moving up from the bottom to close at the end of exposure, the sensor being read out, then the first curtain moving back down to the bottom. The second curtain remains stored above the top of the sensor the entire time. The first curtain moves one cycle (close, then reopen). The second curtain never moves at all.

With full mechanical shutter in Live View or with a mirrorless Canon camera the sequence is:

First curtain moves up to cover sensor - sensor is cleared and reenergized
First curtain moves down to uncover sensor
Second curtain moves down to cover sensor
Sensor is read out
Second curtain moves up to uncover sensor
Sensor resumes streaming video to EVF/LCD

Each shutter curtain moves one complete cycle: once to close and once to reopen.

Manufacturers have always defined one actuation with DSLRs and the film SLRs that preceded them as one complete cycle beginning with the second curtain open above the sensor/film, and the first curtain covering the sensor with the mirror assembly down. In the mechanical shutter days both the second and first curtains weren't reset until the shutter was cocked, usually by the same movement of the film advance lever that advanced the film. Even early electronically controlled mechanical shutters used electro-magnetic motors to open the first curtain, then close the second curtain but still used springs to return the curtains to their pre-exposure positions.

The sequence for SLRs/DSLRs:
Mirror swings up out of the way - when fully up a detector (via either mechanical linkage or electronics) sends a confirmation signal to allow the shutter to actuate
First curtain moves down to uncover sensor/film and begin exposure
Second curtain moves down to cover sensor/film and end exposure
Second curtain remains closed until [digital only - the sensor is read out and] the mirror is almost all of the way down
Second curtain moves up to uncover the sensor as the first curtain chases it up [digital only - with a very narrow slit open] to cover sensor/film. (Not having the two curtains in contact with each other when resetting can extend the life of the same shutter construction in digital cameras significantly.)

You're insisting on counting each movement of anything as an actuation. That's about like insisting that an internal combustion engine's speed should be counted by the number of times any of the pistons reach TDC plus the bottom of their stroke instead of each complete rotation of the crankshaft. Or maybe by each time each of the who-knows-how-many intake and exhaust valves open, then again every time each of those valves close.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
The "R8 has not mechanical shutter!!!" 'controversy' on the interwebs has shown that most people have never seen how a 'normal' shutter works, so here's a short video that shows it:

I'm still curious how a leaf shutter would perform on modern MILCs, but not curious enough to rent a Hasselblad x2d :)

Or to see the complete cycle in super slow-mo filmed at 10,000 fps and played back at 24 fps for about 416X time dilation:

 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
We will see... the RF 50 and 85 1.2 primes are, IMHO, materially and significantly better than their EF predecessors (I had the EF lenses, I have the RF ones).
So the future RF 35mm L may be worth it. We do not know.

But for me, I do not have a EF 35 L. I had the mkI but did not like it on the R5, so I sold it - I never bought the EF 35 L II while I was shooting with the 1D X since in that timeframe I was "investing" in my HC system. And I am not buying the EF 35 L II at this point since I am not willing to put new money in an obsolete mount... Nor I am buying the RF 35mm 1.8 since I would eventually buy the RF 35 L and the non-L would need to be resold or kept gathering dust.

We will see. I hope that the 35mm, being a "mainstream" focal length, will be prioritized over other lenses, but that just me hoping

You're comparing the RF 50mm f/1.2 L to an EF lens introduced in 2006.

You're comparing the RF 85mm f/1.2 L to an EF lens introduced in 2006 with optics essentially identical to the original 1998 design. The difference was in a much improved ring USM AF motor and lens coatings.

The 2015 EF 35mm f/1.4 L II was a complete redesign from the older 35/1.4L, and it incorporated many of the improvements that subsequently were included in top tier RF lenses. It's a much better lens than either the EF 50mm f/1.2 L or the EF 85mm f/1.2 L II.

That's not to say that with the shorter registration distance of the RF mount a wide aperture prime 35mm that doesn't require a retrofocus design could not be even better. But optical performance wise, the EF 35mm f/1.4 L II can and does hang with the wide aperture RF primes.
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
For me it's not only the price, I also find the 1 series style body impractical to pack and use outside of my garden. I very much like the ergonomics of my 1D, but it's just too much camera for me.

There are a few exceptions, I feel that the 180L can use a bit more body support, so I attach a battery grip from time to time. Like @neuroanatomist I don't like the extra bulge on the bottom.
The R3 looks like it might be small and light enough to be practical for me. If in a few years an RF180L gets released with a similar weight and center of mass, I would strongly consider switching from small body + R5 to small body + cheapest R with built-in grip (R3II/R4/whatever).

Given the RF pricing, I expect the RF180L to eat up a few years worth of toy budget, so it will very likely live on the good old R5 :)

The number "4" is to Japanese culture is similar to what the number "13" is to Western culture.

You can pretty much count on there never, ever being an R4 unless they name it one thing in Japan and R4 in other world areas, and I still don't see that happening. The only "Mark IV" Canon has ever made of anything was with the 5D and 1D lines, and you see what happened to both of those... neither got a Mark V.
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
The ones clamoring for the RF 35L from what I see do not have the EF 35L II. The performance difference from EF ver I to II is night and day.

A RF 35mm 1.2L would be a Halo lens in the category, but if Sigma's anything to go by at 1.1kg, it will weigh like a brick.

Yes, the EF 35mm f/1.4 L II can hang optically with the premium RF prime lenses. Very few, if any, other EF primes can.
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
EF-S at least had lenses like 17-55 2.8, 15-85, 10-22, 60mm macro, 24mm pancake. Canon couldn't even be bothered to make a 24mm equivalent kit zoom like every other manufacturer.

The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS was the only constant aperture EF-S zoom lens. All of the rest were fairly slow variable aperture zoom lenses.

The EF-S 60mm Macro and EF-S 24mm pancake were two of the only three EF-S prime lenses. The EF-S 35mm f/2.8 Macro IS was the other.

None of those primes had apertures wider than f/2.8.

The number of constant aperture EF-S zoom lenses and EF-S prime lenses can be counted on one hand, and you don't even have to use your thumb to do it.

There were ZERO EF-S lenses with an aperture larger than f/2.8. None. Nada, Zilch.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,088
12,851
The number "4" is to Japanese culture is similar to what the number "13" is to Western culture.

You can pretty much count on there never, ever being an R4 unless they name it one thing in Japan and R4 in other world areas, and I still don't see that happening. The only "Mark IV" Canon has ever made of anything was with the 5D and 1D lines, and you see what happened to both of those... neither got a Mark V.
So which of the following can we pretty much count on being wrong here?
  • The Nikon D4 never existed?
  • The Nikon D4 was called something else in Japan?
  • Nikon is not a Japanese company?
  • @Michael Clark ?

3661B225-3725-4320-96F5-4A0AC275D408.jpeg
 
  • Love
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,998
2,438
UK
None of that is correct.

In EFCS the first curtain is already open at the bottom. (It is never open at the top. The highest it goes is to cover the sensor. Only the second curtain is ever open at the top. It never goes lower than covering the sensor.)

The sensor is cleared without any curtain actuation, then energized sequentially line by line from bottom to top. (To the best of my knowledge, ALL Canon sensors read out bottom to top, which is top to bottom of the inverted image projected by the lens. They do this because televisions and other video screens scan from top to bottom.)

The only shutter movement is the first curtain moving up from the bottom to close at the end of exposure, the sensor being read out, then the first curtain moving back down to the bottom. The second curtain remains stored above the top of the sensor the entire time. The first curtain moves one cycle (close, then reopen). The second curtain never moves at all.

With full mechanical shutter in Live View or with a mirrorless Canon camera the sequence is:

First curtain moves up to cover sensor - sensor is cleared and reenergized
First curtain moves down to uncover sensor
Second curtain moves down to cover sensor
Sensor is read out
Second curtain moves up to uncover sensor
Sensor resumes streaming video to EVF/LCD

Each shutter curtain moves one complete cycle: once to close and once to reopen.

Manufacturers have always defined one actuation with DSLRs and the film SLRs that preceded them as one complete cycle beginning with the second curtain open above the sensor/film, and the first curtain covering the sensor with the mirror assembly down. In the mechanical shutter days it was not possible to open the first curtain without also reclosing it at the end of exposure. Both the second and first curtains weren't reset until the shutter was cocked, usually by the same movement of the film advance lever that advanced the film. Even early electronically controlled mechanical shutters used electro-magnetic motors to open the first curtain, then close the second curtain but still used springs to return the curtains to their pre-exposure positions.

The sequence for SLRs/DSLRs:
Mirror swings up out of the way - when fully up a detector (via either mechanical linkage or electronics) sends a confirmation signal to allow the shutter to actuate
First curtain moves down to uncover sensor/film and begin exposure
Second curtain moves down to cover sensor/film and end exposure
Second curtain remains closed until [the sensor is read out and - digital only] the mirror is almost all of the way down
Second curtain moves up to uncover the sensor as the first curtain chases it up [with a very narrow slit open - digital only] to cover sensor/film. (Not having the two curtains in contact with each other when resetting can extend the life of the same shutter construction in digital cameras significantly.)

You're insisting on counting each movement of anything as an actuation. That's about like insisting that an internal combustion engine's speed should be counted by the number of times any of the pistons reach TDC instead of each complete rotation of the crankshaft. Or maybe by each time each of the intake and exhaust valves open, then again every time each of those valves close.
Thanks for explaining :)

Yes, I do insist on counting each *movement*, simply because it it the *movements* that cause wear.

The number of movements (4) is greater with mechanical than with EFCS (2).

So it is highly relevant whether manufacturer's claims refer to EFCS "actuations" or mechanical "actuations".
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
Thanks for explaining :)

Yes, I do insist on counting each *movement*, simply because it it the *movements* that cause wear.

The number of movements (4) is greater with mechanical than with EFCS (2).

So it is highly relevant whether manufacturer's claims refer to EFCS "actuations" or mechanical "actuations".

The number of movements of the first curtain are the same in both scenarios. 500,000 actuations in EFCS and 500,00 actuations in mechanical shutter both result in the same exact number of movements of the first curtain. It closes 500,000 times and then re-opens 500,000 times with either method. Thus the first curtain would not be expected to last any longer using EFCS than using mechanical shutter.

The only difference is that with EFCS the second curtain never moves. So the second curtain would very rarely be the one to fail using EFCS.

But the entire shutter assembly is a single part number, so whether the first curtain wears out at actuation number 673,454 using EFCS or at actuation 673,454 using mechanical shutter, the entire shutter assembly is being replaced either way. Maybe the second curtain would have failed at actuation 647,879 using mechanical shutter exclusively, instead of waiting until 673,454 when the first curtain gave up the ghost?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

cayenne

CR Pro
Mar 28, 2012
2,868
796
You must not be married :ROFLMAO: that rule clearly doesn't apply to SWMBO's
Well, for me...if they don't like that, I trade to a different model.
And no....not married....that gets in the way.
I've just never found a good reason to put myself at risk of losing half of everything I own and have worked for, just because I pissed someone off.
;)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

roby17269

R5, H5X + IQ1-80, DJI Mini & Mavic 3 Pro, GoPro 10
Feb 26, 2014
440
543
New York
rdmfashionphoto.com
Well, for me...if they don't like that, I trade to a different model.
And no....not married....that gets in the way.
I've just never found a good reason to put myself at risk of losing half of everything I own and have worked for, just because I pissed someone off.
;)
It can indeed get in the way, although there are some pros, not only cons! ;)
And as you can see from my signature, I have managed to cumulate a decent collection of toys regardless...
 
Upvote 0
Sep 17, 2014
1,037
1,395
The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS was the only constant aperture EF-S zoom lens. All of the rest were fairly slow variable aperture zoom lenses.

The EF-S 60mm Macro and EF-S 24mm pancake were two of the only three EF-S prime lenses. The EF-S 35mm f/2.8 Macro IS was the other.

None of those primes had apertures wider than f/2.8.

The number of constant aperture EF-S zoom lenses and EF-S prime lenses can be counted on one hand, and you don't even have to use your thumb to do it.

There were ZERO EF-S lenses with an aperture larger than f/2.8. None. Nada, Zilch.

I don't even need a 2.8 zoom in RF-S. Just give me a sharp 15-50 F4 IS with a bit better build quality. And a 22mm pancake prime + a wideangle zoom. The rest can be covered by the RF/EF lenses. But i think i will go Fuji for a small travel APS-C system instead.
 
Upvote 0