Expect more delays from Canon for both cameras and lenses
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
There are huge number of older EF super telephotos available at a range of price points and capabilities. They are all very sharp, the only real risk is that they aren't repairable. I was using a 300 2.8 built in 1993 until December of last year. I only sold it as I could afford an upgrade and could see the benefits of image stabilization.
Upvote
0
You do realize that everything here if it didn't come from Canon is all fake news.
Canon has not revealed the resolution of the camera. That means NOBODY knows what it is right now.
Anyone believing it is 24mp is being taken for a ride.
It could be 20, 26, 28, 30, 32, or 45mp for all we know.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
It's cute that you think a lack of real information will quell the whining in response to a 24 MP rumor.
And yes, I'm aware:
Upvote
0
Thanks for sharing that. I did watch his videos but I came away with a different impression based on his suggestions. Specifically the 28-70 suffered really only at f/2 and only in some circumstances. With that said, there aren’t really a lot of comparable lenses to that one at f/2, so having a bit of softness which largely clears up at f2.8 seems acceptable to me, given it offers something that is pretty unique. The 24-70 f/2.8 seemed to do really well? According to his review on the R5, the only other alternative lenses he’d tested performed comparably well, so any softness may have a lot more to do with what’s possible with lens design for that zoom range more so than Canon being unable to design a lens to fit the resolution. Even then, it seemed rock solid in his review - his recommendation was literally that the lens on an r5 was “suitably up to the challenge of the high resolution camera”
Upvote
0
Interesting thread.
I love my Canon bodies (well, I'm down to just an R5), but years ago I opted to add Nikon as a second system primarily due to the uneven innovation--in Nikon's favor--in sensor quality. Since then, Canon has eliminated that deficit, but I've always kept a Nikon body primarily due to innovative lens offerings such as the 500mm pf. This difference has continued into the mirrorless world. I purchased a Nikon Z9 primarily to shoot Nikon's 400mm TC and 800mm pf lenses. I was tempted by the 600mm pf, but had trouble rationalizing that purchase due to a reduction in time available for photography (I am not a photographer relying on image creation for a living).
Regardless, I still find myself gravitating towards my Canon kit (R5 body plus an assortment of RF lenses) unless I have an outing focused solely on birding/wildlife. Currently, on a trip to California, my travel kit consists of an R5, 100-500L, 14-35L and an adapted EF 24-70L. I much prefer the R5's ergos to those of the Nikon's, and the 100-500L is amazingly useful and flexible, and is really a "go anywhere/do anything" lens (I switched between it and my Nikon Z9/800mm pf kit to shoot the recent solar eclipse).
However, it is really frustrating that Canon doesn't compete well against Nikon in the exotic prime lens arena. Canon is yet to offer any lens to compete against Nikon's quartet of light-weight long primes (the mirrorless 400mm, 600mm pf, and 800mm pf lenses and the older DSLR 500mm pf), even though Canon preceded Nikon in this field with its 400mm DO lens! Moreover, although Canon does offer exotic RF primes, none of them provide the flexibility of Nikon's built-in TC lenses (I believe Canon also offered lenses with built-in TCs first).
Why doesn't Canon produce competitive offerings? I don't mind shooting two systems to get the lenses I want, but most photographers can't or don't care to deal with the disadvantages (building muscle memory is extremely hard). Therefore, the longer Canon goes without offering alternatives, a small number will switch, but more importantly, newer photographers shooting wildlife are more likely to opt for Nikon.
Of course Canon is in no danger of collapsing and may not lose much if any market share. But the potential for growth is increasingly small.
I love my Canon bodies (well, I'm down to just an R5), but years ago I opted to add Nikon as a second system primarily due to the uneven innovation--in Nikon's favor--in sensor quality. Since then, Canon has eliminated that deficit, but I've always kept a Nikon body primarily due to innovative lens offerings such as the 500mm pf. This difference has continued into the mirrorless world. I purchased a Nikon Z9 primarily to shoot Nikon's 400mm TC and 800mm pf lenses. I was tempted by the 600mm pf, but had trouble rationalizing that purchase due to a reduction in time available for photography (I am not a photographer relying on image creation for a living).
Regardless, I still find myself gravitating towards my Canon kit (R5 body plus an assortment of RF lenses) unless I have an outing focused solely on birding/wildlife. Currently, on a trip to California, my travel kit consists of an R5, 100-500L, 14-35L and an adapted EF 24-70L. I much prefer the R5's ergos to those of the Nikon's, and the 100-500L is amazingly useful and flexible, and is really a "go anywhere/do anything" lens (I switched between it and my Nikon Z9/800mm pf kit to shoot the recent solar eclipse).
However, it is really frustrating that Canon doesn't compete well against Nikon in the exotic prime lens arena. Canon is yet to offer any lens to compete against Nikon's quartet of light-weight long primes (the mirrorless 400mm, 600mm pf, and 800mm pf lenses and the older DSLR 500mm pf), even though Canon preceded Nikon in this field with its 400mm DO lens! Moreover, although Canon does offer exotic RF primes, none of them provide the flexibility of Nikon's built-in TC lenses (I believe Canon also offered lenses with built-in TCs first).
Why doesn't Canon produce competitive offerings? I don't mind shooting two systems to get the lenses I want, but most photographers can't or don't care to deal with the disadvantages (building muscle memory is extremely hard). Therefore, the longer Canon goes without offering alternatives, a small number will switch, but more importantly, newer photographers shooting wildlife are more likely to opt for Nikon.
Of course Canon is in no danger of collapsing and may not lose much if any market share. But the potential for growth is increasingly small.
Upvote
0
You didn't read what I said, I never touched the idea 24mp being enough or not. Because it is a waste of time becuase it could have 65mp for all we know.
I've seen all your posts, you take these rumors way to seriously or think they come for legitimate sources. When most of it is just "Trust me bro". With very little from actual sources that are traceable. And of course official Canon announcements.
But nothing that I would need this worthless website for.
Upvote
0
This is very far removed from from what I criticizing. I've been a long time lurker and have seen Neuro and many other treat this place as some kind of authority or having inside information when it doesn't.
I'm only here to just point people to that fact.
Upvote
0
Perhaps they want more time to make adjustments to the firmware and iron out some bugs before the release date, the photographer testers may have discovered some bugs that Canon wasn't aware of. Or they want to produce a decent amount to meet demand. I would prefer a product to be delayed then to be rushed out the door.
The new camera with the R3 sensor also sounds interesting, but I don't think something with that sensor is going to be used to make something portable without a viewfinder that a few on here want.
The new camera with the R3 sensor also sounds interesting, but I don't think something with that sensor is going to be used to make something portable without a viewfinder that a few on here want.
Upvote
0
Frost also found the 28-70mm soft at the 70mm end. It's not just Christopher. DPReview also reviews the 28-70 on the R5 and also finds it a tad soft at the 70mm end. Don't get me wrong . . . I own the lens. I think it's a GREAT lens. But it's a "better" lens on a 24MP sensor than it would be on a 61MP.
Upvote
0
What I'm curious about is, assuming there are actual unplanned delays, if those will shorten or lengthen the time between the announcement and it getting delivered to my doorstep. There shouldn't be more than a month between pre-orders opening and shipping the first batch!
</first world problems>
</first world problems>
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
I understood your point, clearly you didn’t comprehend mine. This is a rumor site, where people discuss rumors. There was mention in this rumor about a re-use of the R3 sensor in a new camera, i.e., yet another 24 MP camera from Canon following the 24 MP R1.
It doesn’t matter that we don’t actually know if the R1 will have 24 MP. It doesn’t matter that we don’t actually know if the rumored camera with the R3 sensor will exist. There was a plethora of petulance over the 24 MP R1 rumor, and that will surely occur again if there is another 24 MP camera, rumored or real.
To reiterate, since it seems necessary, this is a rumor site where people discuss rumors. Rumors is in the name of the site. It’s Canon Rumors, not Canon Facts. True or not, people here will discuss said rumors... and where concerning 24 MP sensors, there will be whining.
Yet you took the time to register on this site yesterday and begin posting on it. I suppose that says you’re a complete hypocrite.
Oh, ok then. I mean, it’s a site called Canon Rumors, and you believe people think they’re discussing facts even though I and others often point out these are mostly rumors (except for the gear talk section where some of us try to solve others’ technical problems, and the image boards where people share and discuss pictures…but I guess you haven’t bothered lurking there).
So…mission accomplished? Lol. Perhaps you should pull your hat (is it red?) down over your eyes and go back to your nap.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
One could also ask why Nikon doesn’t produce competitive offerings in the affordable fringe focal lengths. Canon has the RF 15-30, RF 100-400, 600/11 and 800/11. I suspect those lenses don’t really interest you, which is why you’re not frustrated by Nikons’s lack of competitiveness in that space.
Upvote
0
jdavis, I've had a similar journey. Just wanted to point out that, back in the EF days, you *could* switch body brands pretty easily because the age of adapters ushered in a lot of flexibility. It only worked if you started off as a Canon DSLR shooter. Because of the flange distance difference between those DSLR lenses and the mirrorless bodies, there was a period of a few years when you could run around sowing oats in all the other systems, sticking to your EF glass. I did this for a few years, switching to Panasonic and then Sony. Would have tried out Nikon, but their mirrorless bodies weren't great at the time.
Canon, being the 800-pound gorilla, was the go-to adapter. If you had a set of EF lenses (especially Sigma's delicious Art line), they were like having a universal lens mount. It was fun while it lasted, but drew to a close as the Temptress Canon pulled us into sweet, sweet, RF glass.
That said, I think I may have misunderstood Canon's release of the 5DR and the R5 as indicating an ongoing respect for high-resolution use cases. In retrospect, those cameras may prove to have been anomalies. As to your complaint about the 500 f/4, that has been the lens, of course, not updated with the weight loss program. You may try what I did, and pick up a used 600 EF f/4 III. Used with an adapter on RF, it is as good image quality as anything new, and is super light. It had a brief heyday before it was replaced by the RF 600 f/4, which is essentially the III + an adapter and a paint job. It might be about as cheap as what an RF 500 f/4 would have sold new. You might think about that.
I find the current 600mm lenses to be as good and light as the Sony 600mm f/4, which I owned for a couple years. There seems to be some consensus that advances in both image quality and weight might be physics-limited in that line. But, as you mention, some of the other brands are doing more fun stuff with pf/do size and weight saving without much hurting image quality.
Canon, being the 800-pound gorilla, was the go-to adapter. If you had a set of EF lenses (especially Sigma's delicious Art line), they were like having a universal lens mount. It was fun while it lasted, but drew to a close as the Temptress Canon pulled us into sweet, sweet, RF glass.
That said, I think I may have misunderstood Canon's release of the 5DR and the R5 as indicating an ongoing respect for high-resolution use cases. In retrospect, those cameras may prove to have been anomalies. As to your complaint about the 500 f/4, that has been the lens, of course, not updated with the weight loss program. You may try what I did, and pick up a used 600 EF f/4 III. Used with an adapter on RF, it is as good image quality as anything new, and is super light. It had a brief heyday before it was replaced by the RF 600 f/4, which is essentially the III + an adapter and a paint job. It might be about as cheap as what an RF 500 f/4 would have sold new. You might think about that.
I find the current 600mm lenses to be as good and light as the Sony 600mm f/4, which I owned for a couple years. There seems to be some consensus that advances in both image quality and weight might be physics-limited in that line. But, as you mention, some of the other brands are doing more fun stuff with pf/do size and weight saving without much hurting image quality.
Upvote
0
It's ok! Canon has some great gear and 4 years after it was launched the R5 still takes amazing shots and autofocuses extremely well. Likewise, the R3 and all of the lenses work great too. While like everyone else, I am waiting patiently for the new products, their absence hasn't prevented me from capturing great images.
Upvote
0
Hi Sinan, no Problem, this is no English literature forum
. Besides the fact, that all EF lenses work perfectly with adapters on EOS R cameras, no losses in autofocus performance guaranteed, you have already a choice between two RF tele zooms that are very good for birding:RF 200-800mm/6.3-9.0 IS USM for about 2,500 € (Germany)
RF 100-500mm/4.5-7.1 L IS USM for about 3,550 € (Germany)
I added recently the 200-800mm to my EF 500mm lens that even with the 1,4x and 2.0x teleextenders from Canon (EF, Mark III) performs really well on my R7. The longer focal length of that zoom serves my personal needs better, since my most frequent used prime focal length is 700mm (EF 500mm prime + Extender EF 1.4x III). So far, I am quite impressed by that zoom, but I still do need to gain more experience with it. Of course it needs more light than the fast prime tele lens, but its very good IS performance together with IBIS in the camera allows for handheld shots even around 1/100 s at 800 mm if you have a steady hand. So if you have a sitting bird, you still can get great images. With birds in flight the zoom also performs quite well, but then it should be sunny enough.
In Turkey you should often have a lot of light available, so that might be an option for you. I recommend you to watch youtube videos from Duade Paton who tested this lens with different EOS R cameras in Australia. Btw it is always fun to watch his videos, since he is a very good birder and talks about gear straight from the practical viewpoint (no lengthy male geek blah blah) and combines it with beautiful views of birds and their habitats in Australia:
- YouTube
Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
www.youtube.com
- YouTube
Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
www.youtube.com
Upvote
0
Well, Canon added some really exotic prime tele lenses to their RF line quite early, the 600mm and 800mm f/11 lenses. But I really envy Nikon Z users for the light Nikkor Z 600mm f/6.3 VR S option, this was a smart move by Nikon. Currently I still am fit enough to carry up to 15 kg gear on my back when I go out for birding, but when I get older I might be really happy to have such a lighter tele prime available (plus, the low light performance of cameras still improves substantially). So this would force me to add a Nikon camera to my gear, too, about what I wouldn't be happy - not only because of the different ergonomics. My wife shoots with Nikon, and I do not want all those quality issues and repairs she had gone through in the past 10-15 years. We really shoot in rugged environments, and e.g. already a few drops of rain can kill buttons of a Nikon (prosumer level) camera. We had that problem several times, plus other issues. Never had any of those with my Canon gear, my EF 500mm lens now is about 30 years old and still works reliably.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
