Further clarification of what will be announced by Canon next month

[Michael Clark]

How about some small fixed aperture DO-zoom lenses?!
200-400 f/4.0 with 1,4x DO...or something with more mm.
It feels that the designers are drunk ...with those crappy daaaaark f/11 tele lenses!
They don't fit into the lineup I think... pro bodys like the R5 & maybe R6... Those f/11 lenses could be sweet for a cheap APS-C R body.

I don't have much hope for the 100-500! Because the features are hm... weak! only 2 options for the focus distance! The Sigma 150-600 C has 3! The near one is the best I think! My Tamron has only 2 (>15m and everything). But a option to only have a close setting would be awesome! (under 5-6m maybe)

Is your near delirious rambling referring to focus limiters or AFMA?

 

[Michael Clark]

I hope they are compatible just because someone will think it's useful and doesn't mind shooting at f/16 and f/22. LOL jk

I personally can't wait to hear why on earth Canon spent R&D money to develop a lens like this. I can't wait to hear their explanation on who or what it's for. I'm personally hoping the lenses have some hidden feature we don't know about yet like a built-in speedbooster (reverse teleconverter) or something like that. Like it's an 800 f/11 on the long end, but with the flip of a switch like they have with the 200-400, it becomes a 400mm 5.6 and 580mm f/8? I don't even know if that's something that's possible...but I also know that I am certainly not the target market for an 800mm f/11. An f/11 aperture just doesn't make any sense to me...it will be the king of diffraction on the RF mount. haha

Honestly, I think it's for the instagram influencer crowd. The clearest unhindered use in my mind is making backgrounds look huge against a non-moving subject. I'm thinking photographers pressing a subject up against the moon or getting a close up of an eclipse. Those images were so popular on social media after the last eclipse it seems like there could be a market for a (relatively) cheap and slow lens to do that, as the price for entry to those types of images right now is pretty high.

These lenses are to entice the APS-C crowd shooting with 150-600 lenses, and even the Micro Four-Thirds crowd shooting with 400/5.6 lenses, over to FF RF.

In terms of angle of view and light collection, a FF 800/11 is "equivalent" to an µ4/3 400/5.6 or an APS-C 500/8.
In terms of angle of view and light collection, a FF 600/11 is "equivalent" to an µ4/3 300/5.6 or an APS-C 375/8.

These lenses will sell a LOT of RP and R6 bodies to current Rebel and µ4/3 shooters.

 

[koenkooi]

Doesn't the 1D X Mark III also have built-in 5GHz? Just that it is very range limited at 5GHz due to the reduced power of the internal transmitter?
[..]

As far as I can see from the manual, no, only 2.4GHz in the body.

 

[Michael Clark]

You’re going to shoot a subject with the moon as background at f11? Better have your flash ready

Silhouette.

 

[Michael Clark]

I'm actually kind of interested in the 800 F/11. Outside at the zoo on a summer day it should be fine. Esp with the new high ISO performance from many cameras (easily back to the 5DIII), plus the autofocus ability with the mirrorless system. And at a fraction of the cost of big white, it'll be my only real option at a long tele like that.

-Brian

How do you propose to get infinity focus putting an RF 800mm f/11 STM lens in front of an EF mount camera?

 

[Michael Clark]

I hope the 2.0x and 1.4x extenders will stack but I'm not hopeful considering the 3rd gen models. I want to move to the RF 70 - 200 f/2.8 but I don't want to do it until I can get 560mm f/5.6 with teleconverters; right now I'm stacking the 2nd gen Canon's on a EF 70–200mm f/2.8L IS III and it's very loooooong.

You might be able to do it by placing a 12mm extension tube in between them. I know a few EF shooters that do it with EF III extenders and Super Telephotos and they still get pretty long focus distances (measured in hundreds of feet), even if they don't get infinity focus for things like the moon.

 

[Michael Clark]

Yes, a graduated filter is just as possible as a neutral density one. In fact, since it's just software, you could do almost anything beyond that if it's done by a quick software algorithm! I may not be a photography professional, but I was a high speed video programming professional my entire career.

If fact, there would be nothing stopping a programmer from fetching multiple frames of raw data and accumulating them into a doubly big raw output (such as 24 or 32 bits per pixel element) as long as the stabilizaiton and slight image movement allowed. After all, that's really what they're doing with a software neutral density algorithm, except they're throwing away all the low bits of the accumulated data since they can't store it all when they output a combined single raw file in the same raw format.

The whole point of an ND filter is to protect the highlights. Software ND filters do nothing for that. They're only useful if highlights are not a concern and one needs to output to a non-raw format immediately without any additional post processing.

 

[Antono Refa]

Those lens cases seem like they are optional accessory for the tele lenses which is a bummer.

I'm not so sure. The extender lens cap is not an optional accessory, possibly neither are the lens cases.

 

[privatebydesign]

Doesn't the 1D X Mark III also have built-in 5GHz? Just that it is very range limited at 5GHz due to the reduced power of the internal transmitter?

The built-in transmitter is not as powerful as the external WFT's transmitter. Even with a "full" (as in FCC limited) power transmitter, 5GHz range is fairly limited compared to 2.4GHz. I'd be surprised if the external WFT works very well at 5GHz further than about 30 feet/10 meters, even less if there are any walls involved.

No, internal WiFi is 2.4GHz only, 5GHz is only available via the WFT, which interestingly drops Camera Connect App functionality!

 

[Michael Clark]

Even I find f/11 aperture weird decision and I live in a place where except for monsoons there is abundant sunlight available. But apparently Tony Northrup sees there maybe a niche such small aperture tele lenses among beginner wildlifers.

Tony is rarely right, but here he seems to be. Not everyone can afford a 600/4 or 800/5.6.

 

[Dragon]

The list does not mention an EOS M5 Mark II.

Of course not. You have to buy an R5 before you can have an M5 II. .

 

[usern4cr]

The whole point of an ND filter is to protect the highlights. Software ND filters do nothing for that. They're only useful if highlights are not a concern and one needs to output to a non-raw format immediately without any additional post processing.

Nothing for that? The Canon programmers can't read the sensor and adjust exposure parameters accordingly? They can't adjust the levels of the read pixel elements in any way they see fit? They can't take as many exposures as they want and combine them in any way they want? They can't output to any bit-size format they want?

I guess we better tell Canon that you know best.

 

[Michael Clark]

Im ready when ever they are ready.

I still can’t believe the F/11 teles. It is so disappointing that this is what canon is giving us amateur wildlife photographers who want something in the 600mm to 800mm range, but don’t/can’t pony up $13k for a new 600mm f/4 or 800 f/5.6. F/11, are you kidding me? I guess if you want to shoot between 1030-11:15 AM, great.

I can't believe the folks that expect Rolls-Royce to sell them a Bentley at a Toyota price.

 

[Michael Clark]

Yeah, but doesn’t stacking teleconverters introduce more glass and compromise image quality in more ways than just aperture? I’ve got no experience with it. Just what I’ve read.

Yes, and I wouldn’t necessarily compare the IQ or focus speeds, but the ISO’s I was forced into meant I wouldn’t use the results even if they had been up to the task.

I don't have time to go through all 84 pages of this post at Photography on the Net and pick out the ones made using the 1D X Mark III in LV with stacked extenders at f/9 and f/11, but the OP has posted more than a few that are fairly impressive, both in terms of technique and IQ. I guess one could look through his Flickr photostream and find them easier.

 

[Michael Clark]

The big unknowns for the R5 remain:
1) Will the autofocus, particularly continuous AF, work at all close to Sony's in terms of object tracking? Eye tracking has advanced quite nicely in the EOS R with firmware upgrades, but object tracking remains rudimentary. If you're after birds at a distance, your camera is going to think they're objects.
2) Megapickles.

I bought a refurbished R last week to experiment again with the platform in preparation for coming back to Canon with the R5. The AF is pretty bad relative to my A9 and A7r4. I'm sure the R5 will be better than the R, but this transition period has made me nervous. It's my #1 concern, and I doubt we'll have any insight until the cameras are in our hands.

You should be able to draw some insight from the performance of the 1D X Mark III in Live View. Using eye AF it tracks bird eyes just as well as human eyes. Even using the OVF, though it does not claim Eye AF, it seems to be fairly impressive at tracking bird eyes even with busy backgrounds that have typically been a problem for previous EOS cameras. Remember, the new PDAF sensor for the 1D X Mark III using the OVF is not like any previous line PDAF sensor, it's more like a second imaging sensor with both rows and columns.

 

[Michael Clark]

Nothing new from previous announcemts. Honestly I am very disappointed since I did not see any concrete news about the R5 after late January. In fact all updates have been very vagues and very general. We still do not know technical details of the shape of the camera, max ISO, and so on.... All leaks have been way too vague and nothing new has been added. Even the final street market price or precise date to get a body have not been released. So why keeping adding so vague news???

Yeah, it sure would be nice if Canon had revealed a lot more about the video capabilities in late March when the NAB convention/trade show was supposed to take place, or let a few industry reviewers/reporters see and take pictures of actual examples of pre-production R5 bodies...

Oh, wait... they did that, didn't they? That's not even counting the info that has been released by certification agencies and apparently approved leaks of things such as this image:

 

[Michael Clark]

Out of curiosity, how much do you think a RF 200-600 f/?-5.6 L IS would weigh? The max aperture would be 107mm, but the outer lens might have to be more than that to illuminate the corners of the frame without too much vignetting. Any idea how wide the filter thread would be for it? I think I might really want to get one of them if they came out with it, even if the weight and price would have scared me off before (maybe old age is making me reckless!)

Well, the EF 200-400mm f/4 + 1.4X IS is about 134 ounces/3780 grams with hood and tripod ring. With the built-in extender engaged, it's a 280-560mm f/5.6, so presumably a 200-600mm f/5.6 would weigh slightly more. That is, unless they do the same thing as what they did with the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS and give it an extending barrel.

 

[Michael Clark]

They gotta have something to complain about. Everyone wants 200-400 w/ 1.4TC F4 performance, but few want to pay the price. They want good high iso performance, which we have in spades for the last several years, but then don't want to use it on a slower lens.

I remain optimistic about these lenses in the new mirrorless system. They built this lens with a use case in mind. We'll learn more about what that is when they release it. Maybe it will be for me, maybe it wont. Or maybe for many, or maybe just a few. We'll see.

Also, is this confirmed as a mirror lens? I thought the patents I saw were not mirrored lenses. Of course, that doesn't mean this lens matches those patents posted here before.

-Brian

SInce they are DO lenses, I doubt there will be any mirrors in them. No one with any credibility has even hinted that they are mirror lenses.

 

[Michael Clark]

Do you mean to say that the R5 is getting the 1DX III live view AF system? If that is the case, I'll be pretty happy. Reviews have been great for it. I'm just assuming (from being trained by Canon for two decades) that the 5 series is going to get something less.

The 5D Mark III had the same AF hardware as the 1D X. The 5D Mark IV had the same AF hardware as the 1D X Mark III. Both didn't have as many software options and both seemed to be a TAD, but not by much, less consistent from shot to shot. I think most of us are expecting the AF performance of the R5 to be very close but not quite equal to that of the 1D X Mark III in LV. Even at that level, it will be a massive improvement over the EOS R.

 

[Michael Clark]

Ok, just a bit of news from my local camera store (official Canon dealer). What the store manager told me....
.
.
.
(...drums getting tense...)
.
.
.
he doesn't know when the R5 will come out and his guess is as good as mine. So is this thread, IMO. Bummer.

If he told you what he knows and Canon found out, he could lose his status as an authorized dealer. His contract with Canon is full of NDAs and gives CAnon all the leverage on whether he gets to be a Canon dealer or not.