Here’s the full list of gear Canon will announce on September 5

[jd7]

I'm not that interested in mirrorless yet (will prefer to upgrade my aging 5d with a 5d4) and I would have much preferred a native EF mount as it suits my more modest upgrade budget.

That said.....wow, full frame f2 zooms are on the way!!!!!

I feel similarly. I am not particularly interested in getting a mirrorless camera (at least at this point), but those RF lenses are certainly attention grabbing! I feel like Canon is providing one lens to show the RF system isn't going to miss out on high quality primes (50 1.2L), one lens to show it will get more moderately priced primes too (35 1.8 macro - and yes, I'm just guessing about price), one lens for a good walk around zoom (24-105 4L IS) and one lens to perhaps say mirrorless really can allow lenses which weren't practical before (28-70 2L).

 

[neuroanatomist]

I don't know who that is but...ooops
View attachment 180026

Yep, some crow for me.

On the plus side, this may be my new travel camera.

 

[hmatthes]

the knurled grip of the middle one would imply that it can be rotated. I'm guessing that's the polarizing filter version

or, like the RF lenses with their third rotating color, perhaps this provides a third wheel for EF lenses... Yahoo if so, if programmable, if exposure compensation...

 

[TAF]

I anxiously await the opportunity to fondle one, and the pricing.

It would be a fantastic event to find them in stock on B+H on Wednesday

 

[DaveGrice]

Wait until Sept 6th, then the carnage will begin...

Apparently I was overly-conservative...

 

[tron]

Random-late-at-night thought: Is that shoulder screen an LCD, or do you think it could be E-Ink (like Kindle reader)?

Probably not, but it would be kinda cool.


Other-random-thoughts:

• Damn. That size comparison with the DSLR, including 24-105 lens, is pretty incredible.
• So looking forward to sample images from the 28-70 F2!
• Think it'll do finger-swipe viewfinder AF selection? I don't see why not. If so, that could make up for no joystick...

Can't wait to see the official specs next week!

Fun, fun, fun...

I hope that you see the scaled up version of EOS R with the 24-105 (the one where the flash hot shoe of the two cameras have the same size. Because there was a scaled down photo of the EOS R with 24-105 vs 5DMk4 with 24-105.
By the way the difference is only the difference of the two cameras. The new 24-105 may be 1 cm shorter than EF24-105 II but it has the same size and weight with the version 1 EF24-105 f/4L IS. So no big deal there.

 

[stevelee]

That wasn’t Kit.’s point – he was suggesting that a circular polarizer is not required, i.e. it could be a linear polarizer instead. However, while that would be true for CDAF, I think a linear PL wold be a problem for DPAF. The problem occurs when the the angle of polarization conflicts with the orientation of the beam splitter for PDAF. The fact that DPAF uses millions of really tiny beam splitters and off-sensor PDAF uses a few larger beam splitters doesn’t negate the problem.

Please help me understand terminology. I'm assuming that there is not some entity of circular light that would be passed by a circular filter, blocking all that straight light.

Does the "circular" just refer to the shape of the filter, that allows one to rotate it to change the orientation of the polarization? If so, since all the polarizing filters I've seen have been round, what are the alternatives? Might a built-in filter be fixed in a position that normally would darken skies and reduce glare on the water and such?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Please help me understand terminology. I'm assuming that there is not some entity of circular light that would be passed by a circular filter, blocking all that straight light.

Does the "circular" just refer to the shape of the filter, that allows one to rotate it to change the orientation of the polarization? If so, since all the polarizing filters I've seen have been round, what are the alternatives? Might a built-in filter be fixed in a position that normally would darken skies and reduce glare on the water and such?

Nothing to do with shape, there are round linear polarizers and square circular polarizers. Also, you need to be able to rotate the polarizer (whether linear or circular) to accommodate the angle of the illumination you’re trying to polarize (e.g. if the sun is low or high in the sky).

A circular polarizer is a stack of a linear polarizer with a quarter-wave plate behind it, the latter circularizes the linearly-polarized light, which eliminates the problem of linearly-polarized light interacting with a beam splitter where the angle of polarization will affect how much light is passed into each resulting output (on and off-sensor phase AF, but also the dedicated metering sensor in a DSLR, are behind beam splitters).

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/polarizers.html

 

[stevelee]

A circular polarizer is a stack of a linear polarizer with a quarter-wave plate behind it, the latter circularizes the linearly-polarized light, which eliminates the problem of linearly-polarized light interacting with a beam splitter where the angle of polarization will affect how much light is passed into each resulting output (on and off-sensor phase AF, but also the dedicated metering sensor in a DSLR, are behind beam splitters).

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/polarizers.html

Thanks.