Canon officially announces the EOS R5 and EOS R6 along with 4 new lenses and two teleconverters

[CaMeRa QuEsT]

The MTFs on the 600mm and 800mm DO lenses show lower levels of contrast and resolving power plus higher levels of astigmatism when compared to Nikon's much brighter and expensive but also shorter 300mm and 500mm PF lenses. The DO's constructions are also much simpler than the PF's. The 800 looks just like a 600 with an additional element slapped on front (it isn't: the DO doublet doesn't look exactly the same, but the rest of elements do look very similar). I am a bit disappointed by the DO's MTFs, but it was to be expected given their prices.

Samples for the 600mm (click on the samples to view full resolution files):

RF600mm F11 IS STM：レンズ交換式カメラ・レンズ

交換レンズ RF600mm F11 IS STMについて紹介しているページです。

cweb.canon.jp

and for the 800mm (I tried uploading all these full res samples here several times but kept receiving error messages):

RF800mm F11 IS STM：レンズ交換式カメラ・レンズ

交換レンズ RF800mm F11 IS STMについて紹介しているページです。

cweb.canon.jp

 

[Jethro]

The 600mm and 800mm are still jaw-dropping to me, as someone who never expected to be able to afford a prime of that length. If real world experience gives decent results, I'll certainly be in for one of them (Q which).

 

[CaMeRa QuEsT]

The 100-500mm's MTFs are comparable to the 70-200mm's when both are shot wide open; of course, the 100-500mm is darker, much more so at 500mm. Here are the full res samples:

RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM：レンズ交換式カメラ・レンズ

交換レンズ RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USMについて紹介しているページです。

cweb.canon.jp

 

[Act444]

The EF era is definitely over, and it's not hard to see why. I'm sure many people were sad to see film go too, but that's mainly nostalgia talking. A camera is merely a tool, and people will buy the tool that gives them the best results. With mirrorless you can preview your image in the EVF as it will actually appear when you release the shutter. That is a massive advantage over DSLRs. Mirrorless can also have AF points all around the sensor, instead of having to clump them all in the middle.

I see the DSLR to mirrorless transition more like the transition from manual focus to auto focus lenses around the 1980s, which is, evolutionary. Both transitions incidentally required new lens systems to be developed.

The move from film to digital OTOH, IMO was revolutionary. Completely transformed the photography world! Instant feedback and gratification. No more darkrooms or chemicals. ISO now a third variable in exposure after being a fixed value for so long.

It's actually kind of remarkable that the EF system (Canon) and F-system (Nikon) survived such a move - and the stopgap that enabled this was the digital SLR, or DSLR, which is essentially an extension of the classic film SLR, but with a fixed digital sensor instead of advancing film strips. In fact, in a way, MILC represents a full completion of that transition - to all electronic components.

 

[FrenchFry]

I saw these specs on the R5 frame rates. Can someone explain to me what Mode A, Mode B and Mode C are?

View attachment 191218

Where did these come from? What do the symbols stand for?

Edit: I found this information at the link below. Will be very interested to see what the modes are as well, and to see if the highest speeds have surprise restrictions. I hope not! https://downloads.canon.com/nw/camera/products/eos/product-1/pdfs/EOSR5_specifications.pdf

 

[David - Sydney]

The painful price of ultra-high IQ TC performance I suppose, which better rival a lens without one.

Given the 50% price premium for the RF TCs vs EF, is there a patent or cut-through view of the TCs for comparison or a dedicated review of the TC quality (EF vs RF)?

 

[David - Sydney]

I think it is more about there not being any compromise from the 100-400 II f/5.6. People want to feel the lens is a 1:1 upgrade.

It is hard to see that there is a massive IQ improvement for the RF 100-500mm vs EF100-400 II (plus perhaps 1.4TC). The price premium is substantial. Adding the EF TC gives slightly more reach with greater aperture. Weight is not an issue for me. I don't use those focal lengths sufficiently to warrant anywhere near that cost. I used EF TCs with my EF70-200mm to get more reach but that isn't an option for the RF 70-200mm. The cost of the new RF TC is roughly half the cost of a second hand EF100-400 mk2. A simple decision for me to cancel my pre-order.

 

[highdesertmesa]

Given the 50% price premium for the RF TCs vs EF, is there a patent or cut-through view of the TCs for comparison or a dedicated review of the TC quality (EF vs RF)?

I've not seen cutaways for comparison. The increase (hopefully) in IQ for the RF TCs will be due to advances in computer-aided lens design combined with the short RF flange distance. TC design for short-flange mirrorless is a Catch 22 of sorts, though – either you compromise the 100-500 when used bare to leave room for the TCs to be used in the full range (which puts you back to a design like the EF 100-400 II), you compromise the design of the TC to be flat with less than ideal IQ, or you limit the focal range of the lens. Canon must have decided the last option made the most sense.

 

[highdesertmesa]

It is hard to see that there is a massive IQ improvement for the RF 100-500mm vs EF100-400 II (plus perhaps 1.4TC). The price premium is substantial. Adding the EF TC gives slightly more reach with greater aperture. Weight is not an issue for me. I don't use those focal lengths sufficiently to warrant anywhere near that cost. I used EF TCs with my EF70-200mm to get more reach but that isn't an option for the RF 70-200mm. The cost of the new RF TC is roughly half the cost of a second hand EF100-400 mk2. A simple decision for me to cancel my pre-order.

I think they were saying the expectation was to keep the 100-400 II IQ and aperture from 100-400 plus add 100mm to the end with equal IQ. Quite a tall order, and it sounds like they did it. Plus the RF will work with more stops of combined stabilization – Plus the 100-500 has DUAL AF motors and insane AF performance – Plus it's lighter (need it or not, you know that's nice!).

 

[David - Sydney]

I've not seen cutaways for comparison. The increase (hopefully) in IQ for the RF TCs will be due to advances in computer-aided lens design combined with the short RF flange distance. TC design for short-flange mirrorless is a Catch 22 of sorts, though – either you compromise the 100-500 when used bare to leave room for the TCs to be used in the full range (which puts you back to a design like the EF 100-400 II), you compromise the design of the TC to be flat with less than ideal IQ, or you limit the focal range of the lens. Canon must have decided the last option made the most sense.

It will be interesting to see the combination of RF TC + RF:EF adapter and EF100-400mm compared to RF100-500mm. Still a cheaper option!

 

[highdesertmesa]

It will be interesting to see the combination of RF TC + RF:EF adapter and EF100-400mm compared to RF100-500mm. Still a cheaper option!

I'll bet the IQ will be very close. And I think the differentiator outside of price will be the stops of combined IS+IBIS stabilization you get with the RF 100-500. That makes a difference for me (telephoto landscapes), but if you shoot BIF/wildlife-in-motion, then that's less important.

Edit to say: We still need confirmation that the sequence of RF TC to RF->EF adapter to 100-400 II will actually work.

 

[shelms488]

Thought there was supposed to be a new flash announced alongside the other announcements?

 

[AccipiterQ]

Wait what were the two "secret" R5 features for photographers that hadn't leaked out yet??

 

[AccipiterQ]

Clean ISO up to 12K. Canon: serving up crow for breakfast today.

Did they say that in the presentation??

 

[AccipiterQ]

I my mind, we are in the transition, industry-wide, of moving to mirrorless. Really no other way to look at it. Just like we saw the paradigm shift from film to digital, we are now in the midst of the shift from DSLR to Mirrorless. DSLRs will persist for a long time as film cameras have, but the "norm" will be mirrorless as technology keeps on its inexorable march forward; like it or not.

For wildlife shooters they're going to need to offer a true APSC mirrorless then; even this r5 can't match pixel density of the 7Dii

 

[highdesertmesa]

Did they say that in the presentation??

They said something to that effect as they showed a picture of a bird in flight. Consensus I'm reading is more like 1-stop better than R/5D4. So maybe just serving partial crow, lol.

 

[highdesertmesa]

For wildlife shooters they're going to need to offer a true APSC mirrorless then; even this r5 can't match pixel density of the 7Dii

R5 reportedly out-resolves the 5DsR even at 5-mp less resolution, so I think the APS-C crop from the R5 will work.

 

[highdesertmesa]

Wait what were the two "secret" R5 features for photographers that hadn't leaked out yet??

I think it was the new uses for the dual pixel RAW – kind of a let down. Otherwise it was nothing, a false rumor.

 

[nwardrip]

Regarding the RF 100mm -500mm lens, according to Gordon at CameraLabs, here is the breakdown of apertures across the zoom range. Not too disappointing:

1. f/4.5: 100mm - 151mm
2. f/5.0: 152mm - 254mm
3. f/5.6: 255mm - 363mm
4. f/6.3: 364mm - 472mm
5. f/7.1: 473mm - 500mm

It would sure be nice if they had a lockout at 473mm...I'd give up a tiny bit of range for not having to worry about losing 1/3 stop.

 

[Viggo]

The batteries are improved from previous models. Mirrorless cameras all have pretty poor battery compared to anything with a OVF. The R6 has better battery life if you need it, or you can can get a grip and and four batteries to be sure and your old batteries will work too.

Batteries may be improved, but the load is much heavier resulting in worse performance of the already poor capacity with the R. I can’t just buy a grip, first off those are incredibly expensive compared to older ones, and the reason I went away from the 1-series is size and weight. And downgrading to an R6 to get better battery? Crazy talk

I had high hopes seeing what the 1dx3 did to improve its capacity by doubling it. I fully expected the R5 to have 500 shots with the “best” evf settings. It feels like a Tesla, it’s all the luxury and performance, bells and whistles, but you can’t go very far before you’ll sit and wait....