Canon to announce at least 6 new RF lenses next week

[padam]

Did the 5d4 have 5666 AF points in LV?

It was never specified, but with the older processor it didn't differentiate nearly as many points. I would still call them 'areas' instead of 'AF points', since within that there are still many individiual pixels (out of 30.3 million) that can be utilized to achieve focus, it is unclear how this works within that selected AF point (area).

 

[Viggo]

It was never specified, but with the older processor it didn't differentiate nearly as many points. I would still call them 'areas' instead of 'AF points', since within that there are still many individiual pixels (out of 30.3 million) that can be utilized to achieve focus, it is unclear how this works within that selected AF point (area).

Ah, okay. Well, the 5d4 didn’t have the banding from DPAF like the R either. I think it’s a bit more complicated in the R than a simple swap. I tried to push normal frames and saw no banding, tried a very dark frame to push and I see the banding. I wonder if that can be fixed with firmware. It’s not that the sensor is poor, but rather a side effect... fingers crossed

 

[Larsskv]

Did the 5d4 have 5666 AF points in LV?

I don’t know the official number of AF points, but I can say that the 5DIV has a smaller live view AF area than the R, both vertically and horizontally.

 

[BigShooter]

I want that RF 85mm f/1.2L, but I really hope Canon implement IBIS because that heavy glass will need it.

not true at all, I use the 85 1.2L and never felt it needs IS at all.

 

[Larsskv]

not true at all, I use the 85 1.2L and never felt it needs IS at all.

IS definitely do make a difference in an 85mm lens. I own the 85LII and just sold the 85L f1.4 (to fund RF lenses). I rarely shot at 85mm with slower shutter speeds than 1/200 seconds, and even at such shutter speeds, I benefited from IS. It was easy to tell that the 85L IS pictures were sharper (beyond the sharper optics).

I don’t find the lack of IS to be a big issue, but it is beneficial.

 

[BigShooter]

IS definitely do make a difference in an 85mm lens. I own the 85LII and just sold the 85L f1.4 (to fund RF lenses). I rarely shot at 85mm with slower shutter speeds than 1/200 seconds, and even at such shutter speeds, I benefited from IS. It was easy to tell that the 85L IS pictures were sharper (beyond the sharper optics).

I don’t find the lack of IS to be a big issue, but it is beneficial.

Of course IS is 'beneficial', but not having IS means you just need to become a better shooter - blaming lack of IS on poor image quality is lame.

 

[Michael Clark]

It's a good light lens, and the IQ is a match for my 70-200L IS II when both are 1/3 of a stop down.

The Canon long glass doesn't zoom making it useless for my purposes, and I rarely need f/2.8 when shooting long. And I have a much bigger 'lens' than anything Canon makes when I need serious focal length (2000mm f7 or 2800mm f/10).

Then you need to have your EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II fixed.

Not to mention that the EF 70-200mm f/28 L IS II is not exactly "high end Canon long glass". It's a medium telephoto zoom. "High end Canon long glass" are lenses such as the EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS III, EF 200-400mm f/4 L IS 1.4X, and EF 600mm f/4 L IS III.

 

[Michael Clark]

Aren’t those numbers the wrong way around?

Ooops. "2003" should be "1993."

 

[Michael Clark]

I'm waiting for a refresh of the 1200mm f5.6. I can't buy into the R system until they replace that one.

Why not? Adapting an EF lens to an R mount camera is as seamless as using an EF extension tube or an EF extender (without the extra glass to degrade IQ). You lose absolutely nothing in the transition. In the case of the EF to R mount, you gain better One Shot AF performance and never have to worry about AFMA again.

 

[Random Orbits]

That's true, but the bugs combined with the somewhat slow performance of the camera (again, no smooth feed to the EVF, no burst in silent mode for right now) says to me that overall Canon was not quite ready to enter the market when they did.

Right... so Canon should not have entered the market in 2018 but should have entered the market in 2020 with the camera you want without releasing anything else prior to that. The R isn't for you, and the RP isn't for you either. Yet, you're staying with Canon because Canon is showing what it can do with RF lenses. And that is where Canon is smart. It couldn't produce a mirrorless 5D4 killer in 2018, but it has it's foot in the door for FF mirrorless. It stops a lot of the bleeding to Sony/Nikon with its initial launch either because the launch products are sufficient for some people or because people can see the potential of the system in a couple years.

The R doesn't replace my 5D4, but for a lot of cases (non sports), I prefer it to the 5D4. But the R gives me a unique backup/coprimary body and gives me access to some fantastic RF lenses. Once the mirrorless 5D4 killer is released, then I'll be swapping out all my workhorse EF lenses (16-35,24-70,70-200 and 100-400) because there will no longer be any reason to keep EF bodies.

 

[dak723]

that is exactly the problem in this EF to RF transition....

There is only a transition if you choose to make that transition. For the past decade, and for the moment - and perhaps for years to come - the mirrorless cameras are an addition , not a transition. Keep buying DSLRs and EF lenses and it will remain so.

 

[dak723]

not true at all, I use the 85 1.2L and never felt it needs IS at all.

Might be true for you, but do really think what is true for you is automatically true for everyone else?

 

[Ozarker]

I can't help but marvel at the loyalty and honor Canon employees show with their lack of leaks through the years of development. Especially in this age of so many feeling the need to share everything.

 

[Ozarker]

Might be true for you, but do really think what is true for you is automatically true for everyone else?

IS would be wonderful. I would need/want it. Especially in low light. I could always get the EF version though.

 

[Ozarker]

Is canon only planning to make money on glass only - how expensive will these be.

I would imagine that lenses are the bulk of where the profit is.

 

[Viggo]

I would imagine that lenses are the bulk of where the profit is.

And I for one care a lot more about quality than price. That doesn’t mean I cr@p money, it means that, for example now, I have ONE lens I downgraded my camera body and sold the other lenses for. I would much rather have the flawless RD50 than the 85 L IS and/or a couple of other lenses ... currently saving for a RF 100 f1.4 if it comes at all... otherwise it would be the RF85.

 

[Ozarker]

And I for one care a lot more about quality than price. That doesn’t mean I cr@p money, it means that, for example now, I have ONE lens I downgraded my camera body and sold the other lenses for. I would much rather have the flawless RD50 than the 85 L IS and/or a couple of other lenses ... currently saving for a RF 100 f1.4 if it comes at all... otherwise it would be the RF85.

Same here on quality. I'm not a person of means by any stretch of the imagination. I have to really sacrifice to buy a lens or camera. But when I do buy, I want something nice and that will last. My perception is that L glass does that for me, and lenses are more important to me than the camera. I believe all Canon cameras can take nice photos, though I prefer full frame after using APSc. This is my only hobby.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I would imagine that lenses are the bulk of where the profit is.

I had always assumed that, but I happened to see a Canon report that showed bodies had by far the largest amount of income.

 

[Ozarker]

I had always assumed that, but I happened to see a Canon report that showed bodies had by far the largest amount of income.

Wow! Very surprising! I wonder if that report included non ILC cameras?

 

[PGSanta]

I had always assumed that, but I happened to see a Canon report that showed bodies had by far the largest amount of income.

Revenue does not equal profit. I’d be shocked if margins for lenses were not far larger than margins for bodies.