Canon Shows off New Concept Camera at CP+ 2026

[GMCPhotographics]

I gotta wonder, why the double mirrors, why not use an EVF? Then look down straight into the EVF with a sensor scrape?

 

[Etnaphele]

Compare the EF 11-24/4 to the RF 10-20/4. Compare the Sigma 14/1.4 to the Canon 14/1.4. In both cases, the former is much larger than and double the weight of the latter, for IQ that is about the same. Save on materials? YES, please!

The whole point is that Canon is the one calling the compromises, barring out any other option (big heavy Sigma 14mm 1.4 vs tiny Sony 14mm 1.8).

I just hope Canon loses enough market share to be compelled to either open the mount or adjust their product value ratio. There are so many reasons I appreciate Canon products, and native glass has a lot of upsides seldom mentioned, but Canon lenses having a reason for being more expensive than similar offerings in other systems doesn't justify them being the only options.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The whole point is that Canon is the one calling the compromises, barring out any other option (big heavy Sigma 14mm 1.4 vs tiny Sony 14mm 1.8).

Well, they make the camera so they get to choose. You get to decide whether or not you buy their products.

I just hope Canon loses enough market share to be compelled to either open the mount or adjust their product value ratio.

Nikon lost a ton of market share over the past decade as the industry transitioned to mirrorless, going from being #2 and barely behind Canon with >40% market share to a distant #3 with <15% market share. Is that big, heavy Sigma 14/1.4 available in the Z mount?

 

[Etnaphele]

Well, they make the camera so they get to choose. You get to decide whether or not you buy their products.

Yes, totally in their right! That's also the mechanism I hope will bring many to abandon Canon, so that...

Nikon lost a ton of market share over the past decade as the industry transitioned to mirrorless, going from being #2 and barely behind Canon with >40% market share to a distant #3 with <15% market share. Is that big, heavy Sigma 14/1.4 available in the Z mount?

...they are forced to offer high value lenses like Nikon does and maybe maybe let some Sigma, Tamron and Sirui AF lenses in. Let me daydream a bit!

 

[bluezurich]

Yes, totally in their right! That's also the mechanism I hope will bring many to abandon Canon, so that...

Wait, you are salivating at the premise of Canon's doom? Ok....

 

[Etnaphele]

Wait, you are salivating at the premise of Canon's doom? Ok....

A less dominating company will usually try to be more competitive to regain market position, to the gain of the consumers

 

[neuroanatomist]

A less dominating company will usually try to be more competitive to regain market position, to the gain of the consumers

In the past 5 years, Nikon has launched 33 new lenses and Canon has launched 36. Nikon's newest lens is a 70-200/2.8 that was, "Completely redesigned...to make it way lighter." The new Nikon lens is heavier, longer and fatter than Canon's 70-200/2.8 Z lens, and costs the same $3200. Those sound like true wins for consumers, right?

 

[Del Paso]

In the past 5 years, Nikon has launched 33 new lenses and Canon has launched 36. Nikon's newest lens is a 70-200/2.8 that was, "Completely redesigned...to make it way lighter." The new Nikon lens is heavier, longer and fatter than Canon's 70-200/2.8 Z lens, and costs the same $3200. Those sound like true wins for consumers, right?

Including some Tamron lenses rebadged as "Nikon"

 

[Etnaphele]

In the past 5 years, Nikon has launched 33 new lenses and Canon has launched 36. Nikon's newest lens is a 70-200/2.8 that was, "Completely redesigned...to make it way lighter." The new Nikon lens is heavier, longer and fatter than Canon's 70-200/2.8 Z lens, and costs the same $3200. Those sound like true wins for consumers, right?

I was thinking of the pricing of Z8-Z9, Z6 III, the F1.4 primes and the PF telephoto primes + access to some interesting 3rd party like Sirui AF anamorphics and some other niche AF lenses.

Including some Tamron lenses rebadged as "Nikon"

Well, access to the 35-150mm F2-2.8 represents in itself a very good reason to choose a system over another. For the rest, I also despise badge engineering...

 

[neuroanatomist]

I was thinking of the pricing of Z8-Z9, Z6 III, the F1.4 primes and the PF telephoto primes + access to some interesting 3rd party like Sirui AF anamorphics and some other niche AF lenses.

Well, the lens catalogs are not an exact match nor is there a reason they should be. From what I can tell, Nikon only has two f/1.4 primes, 35mm and 50mm. Those are not S-line lenses and yes they cheaper than Canon's L-series VCM lenses. Shocking. OTOH, Nikon doesn't have a zoom lens starting at 10mm, a prime wider than 20mm (Canon now has two), an f/2 zoom lens, a 24-105/2.8, supertelephoto lenses under $1000, etc. Nikon's 'cheap' supertele zooms are 100-400 S and 180-600, Canon's are 100-500 L and 200-800, and the inexpensive RF 100-400.

Well, access to the 35-150mm F2-2.8 represents in itself a very good reason to choose a system over another.

For some. Personally, 35mm is not wide enough for a standard zoom lens so the RF 24-105/2.8 is a much better choice.

 

[Etnaphele]

Well, the lens catalogs are not an exact match nor is there a reason they should be. From what I can tell, Nikon only has two f/1.4 primes, 35mm and 50mm. Those are not S-line lenses and yes they cheaper than Canon's L-series VCM lenses. Shocking. OTOH, Nikon doesn't have a zoom lens starting at 10mm, a prime wider than 20mm (Canon now has two), an f/2 zoom lens, a 24-105/2.8, supertelephoto lenses under $1000, etc. Nikon's 'cheap' supertele zooms are 100-400 S and 180-600, Canon's are 100-500 L and 200-800, and the inexpensive RF 100-400.

If you cannot see how Nikon is currently offering more value in many categories than Canon, I won't insist. And indeed, value is not something I always set as the top priority (as anyone else buying Canon I suppose). I also think Canon offerings are extremely solid and cover the most used focal lengths and applications, but more choice is always better, now more than ever with excellent third party lenses.

I was just wondering what could sway Canon in either lowering some prices - the VCM line is overly expensive in my opinion - and/or let 3rd party lenses on the RF mount: as corporations understand only money, I see financial setback as the only factor. As said, just daydreaming

 

[neuroanatomist]

If you cannot see how Nikon is currently offering more value in many categories than Canon, I won't insist.

Value is a personal choice. What 'many categories' are you talking about? From your comments, it's apparent that you believe Nikon's 600/6.3 and 800/6.3 lenses offer 'more value'. I would argue that lenses costing ≥$4K are niche products, and that Canon's RF 100-400, 600/11 and 800/11 lenses offer much better value to a much larger number of people.

You also mentioned f/1.4 primes. Do two lenses, one wide angle and one standard, comprise a category? Or is the category 'f/1.4 primes'? If you are going to compare them to Canon's f/1.4 primes of the same focal lengths and ignore that the latter are L-series lenses, then you would also say that Canon's RF 45/1.2 is a much better value than any of Nikon's f/1.2 S-series primes? Or would you say that's not a fair comparison?

I was just wondering what could sway Canon in either lowering some prices - the VCM line is overly expensive in my opinion - and/or let 3rd party lenses on the RF mount: as corporations understand only money, I see financial setback as the only factor. As said, just daydreaming

The VCM lenses are L-series lenses, with L-series optical quality. Calling them a worse value than consumer-level lenses is silly, IMO. Yes, they are more expensive...and they are professional series lenses. I get that you don't like that the RF 35/1.4L (like other wide/ultrawide VCM lenses) requires digital correction of distortion. So let me leave you with an image from a review of the Nikon 35/1.4 without CA correction. Would you be happy with that uncorrected image, or would you say that digital correction is needed? If it helps, you can view the image while listening to the appropriate music.

 

[LDS]

Curious choice - those cameras were common in the early "reflex" days because they didn't use a pentaprism but just a mirror - which also means the image was swapped left/right. The form factor was kept with a few exception for mediun format cameras (but the Pentax 67 and a few others), probably because being bulkier it was easier to handle them - although many had pentaprisms also as accessories.

Yet, Canon at which kind of buyers would aim them? Those liking mediun format cameras would expect an high-end one, while people just looking for a "funny looking retro camera" could accept far less.

 

[fox40phil]

It’s CP+… Canon lags way behind the others in terms of tele lenses… and they only show this concept?!?! Are they serious?!

Even not the r7 ii …

Soooo many nice and interesting lenses on the CP+!! But NOT for RF!
What a big^2 shame! Imho… we look like a outsider… one who watch the party through the window…

Yesterday I had the chance to test the Z8 + 800mm f6.3 for two hours. It was awesome! I know exactly one like this won’t ever come from Canon - even not for this nice price!

 

[neuroanatomist]

It’s CP+… Canon lags way behind the others in terms of tele lenses… and they only show this concept?!?! Are they serious?!

For the their respective full frame mirrorless mounts with focal lengths in the telephoto/supertelephoto range:

• Canon – 12 zooms, 12 primes
• Nikon – 10 zooms, 9 primes
• Sony – 12 zooms, 10 primes

How is Canon is lagging way behind? I suspect your answer boils down to something like, "They're not making the telephoto lenses that I personally want." IMO, it's always good to be in touch with objective reality.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

The new Nikon lens is heavier, longer and fatter than Canon's 70-200/2.8 Z lens, and costs the same $3200.

Not heavier But I know what you mean.

the VCM line is overly expensive in my opinion

…in your opinion. Half of them are incredibly affordable, for what they are. If I’m not mistaken, there’s one or two that are even cheaper than their predecessors.

So let me leave you with an image from a review of the Nikon 35/1.4 without CA correction. Would you be happy with that uncorrected image, or would you say that digital correction is needed?

Wow, I think that may be worse than the RF 45mm f/1.2

Canon lags way behind the others in terms of tele lenses

Do they? It doesn’t feel like that at all…

 

[Etnaphele]

Value is a personal choice. What 'many categories' are you talking about? From your comments, it's apparent that you believe Nikon's 600/6.3 and 800/6.3 lenses offer 'more value'. I would argue that lenses costing ≥$4K are niche products, and that Canon's RF 100-400, 600/11 and 800/11 lenses offer much better value to a much larger number of people.

Value is usually measured technically in BANG for BUCK, so the Nikkor primes, banging much higher than they are bucking, have a good value, as they are seen as alternatives for the big fluorine elements primes. The RF 100-400 is ok value but leaning on the cheap side, the 600 and 800 also pretty good value.

You also mentioned f/1.4 primes. Do two lenses, one wide angle and one standard, comprise a category? Or is the category 'f/1.4 primes'? If you are going to compare them to Canon's f/1.4 primes of the same focal lengths and ignore that the latter are L-series lenses, then you would also say that Canon's RF 45/1.2 is a much better value than any of Nikon's f/1.2 S-series primes? Or would you say that's not a fair comparison?

The two Nikkor primes are excellent value, particularly in comparison to the bottle bottom that is the 45mm F1.2 (which I have and like very much, but value? It's a fun lens but not good value. RF 28mm F2.8 is good value! Canon VCM series, bad value but nice lenses for whom needs the video features and not being able to recognise which lens they're picking up (joking of course). Nikkor 1.2 monsters? Worse value of all.

The VCM lenses are L-series lenses, with L-series optical quality. Calling them a worse value than consumer-level lenses is silly, IMO. Yes, they are more expensive...and they are professional series lenses. I get that you don't like that the RF 35/1.4L (like other wide/ultrawide VCM lenses) requires digital correction of distortion. So let me leave you with an image from a review of the Nikon 35/1.4 without CA correction. Would you be happy with that uncorrected image, or would you say that digital correction is needed? If it helps, you can view the image while listening to the appropriate music.

You're talking to the wrong person if you think I have anything against digital corrections. But when digital corrections - which should enable to bring sharper and more compact lenses for a lower price - are sold at premium prices, than value is gone (no digital correction will bring back those BUCKS!)

Yesterday I had the chance to test the Z8 + 800mm f6.3 for two hours. It was awesome! I know exactly one like this won’t ever come from Canon - even not for this nice price!

Summed it up pretty well!

For the their respective full frame mirrorless mounts with focal lengths in the telephoto/supertelephoto range:

• Canon – 12 zooms, 12 primes
• Nikon – 10 zooms, 9 primes
• Sony – 12 zooms, 10 primes

How is Canon is lagging way behind? I suspect your answer boils down to something like, "They're not making the telephoto lenses that I personally want." IMO, it's always good to be in touch with objective reality.

Out of curiosity, does the 75-300 count in the 12 Canon zooms? That should be a -1. Jokes apart, it's clear that Canon has a big hole in the 4k-6k range for bright telephoto (Sony 300 2.8, Nikkor PF, Sigma 300-600). You are blinding yourself with side arguments imo. And just to end on a friendly note, I love Canon gear and respect much of your opinions, I always learn from your comments here

EDIT: forgot to show appreciation for Hendrix. Here's to digital corrections and being forced to use DPP to get a decent JPG! (joking... maybe?)

 

[neuroanatomist]

Not heavier But I know what you mean.

Thanks for the correction. I was using info from DPReview since I was already in their timeline tool, and they list the new Nikon lens at 1180 g.



Nikon specifies 998 g without the foot and collar. so maybe DPR is including those? Or maybe they just messed up. The Canon collar is not removable, the foot is and weighs about 100 g, but I don't know if Canon includes that in the 1110 g specified weight of their lens (but they do include paint, because the white version weighs in at 1115 g).

 

[neuroanatomist]

Value is usually measured technically in BANG for BUCK, so the Nikkor primes, banging much higher than they are bucking, have a good value, as they are seen as alternatives for the big fluorine elements primes. The RF 100-400 is ok value but leaning on the cheap side, the 600 and 800 also pretty good value.

The two Nikkor primes are excellent value, particularly in comparison to the bottle bottom that is the 45mm F1.2 (which I have and like very much, but value? It's a fun lens but not good value. RF 28mm F2.8 is good value! Canon VCM series, bad value but nice lenses for whom needs the video features and not being able to recognise which lens they're picking up (joking of course). Nikkor 1.2 monsters? Worse value of all.

Fair, but those are your ideas of value. Anyway, it's a sliding scale. Nikon and Canon 600/4 lenses are $15K, give up 1-1/3 stops for the Nikon 600/6.3 knock 70% off the price, then give up an additional 1-2/3 stops and knock 80% off that price. Nikon gives us the middle option, Canon gives us the bottom one.

You're talking to the wrong person if you think I have anything against digital corrections. But when digital corrections - which should enable to bring sharper and more compact lenses for a lower price - are sold at premium prices, than value is gone (no digital correction will bring back those BUCKS!)

There we disagree. I was just holding the RF 14/1.4 in my hand, it's small and light and requires digital correction. I know what the Sigma 14/1.4 feels like (because it's close to the EF 11-24/4 that I owned for years) and it's a beast. No, the 14/1.4 is not cheap. Being able to easily carry a lens on a trip is a lot of BANG.

Out of curiosity, does the 75-300 count in the 12 Canon zooms? That should be a -1. Jokes apart, it's clear that Canon has a big hole in the 4k-6k range for bright telephoto (Sony 300 2.8, Nikkor PF, Sigma 300-600). You are blinding yourself with side arguments imo.

Lol, yes it did and fair. But funny that you mention the Sony 300/2.8. Where are the 100(120)-300/2.8 zooms from Sony and Nikon? You seem fixated on two specific Nikon lenses and/or one specific price range. I suspect that many people willing and able to spend $4-6K on a lens could also spend $10-15K on a lens. For me, at least, a better argument is the one I made above for the 14/1.4 – the Nikon 600/6.3 is under 1.5 kg and 278mm long, the Canon 600/4 is over 3 kg and 472mm long and I know which one I would take on an airplane and which one I would not.

And just to end on a friendly note, I love Canon gear and respect much of your opinions, I always learn from your comments here

Thanks, and I'm enjoying this discussion, as well.

EDIT: forgot to show appreciation for Hendrix. Here's to digital corrections and being forced to use DPP to get a decent JPG! (joking... maybe?)

Oh I get decent JPGs out of DxO. Better than DPP, IMO. Wow, that's a lot of abbreviations!

 

[m4ndr4ke]

Nikon specifies 998 g without the foot and collar. so maybe DPR is including those?

Yes, DPR is including the collar, which is removable and replaceable with a cover for, I think, aesthetics. It’s really interesting what Nikon has done with this lens.