Here is everything that you need to know about tomorrow’s big day from Canon

[InchMetric]

how about shorter minimum focus distance?! …

Sounds nice. But why do you assume that they didn’t already optimize this three years ago? I get the wish lists, but when you optimize a modern design, changing the Mount doesn’t necessarily enable much. Especially when the design was being developed along side and presumably for the Mount.

 

[neuroanatomist]

AD-E1
For a seamless transition from your current hot shoe accessories to the multi-function shoe, the
Multi-Function Shoe Adapter AD-E1 is the answer. The Multi-Function Shoe Adapter AD-E1 provides a
reliable connection for dust and drip proof Speedlite accessories that you may already own such as the Speedlite EL-1, Speedlite 600EX II-RT, Speedlite 600EX-RT, Speedlite 580EX II, ST-E3-RT or OC-E3 flash cord.

A better answer would be backward compatibility. Argh.

 

[djack41]

The newest, most advanced, best supertelephoto lens ever just isn’t new enough? Can you share what improvements you would suggest?

Sure. Maybe make it significantly lighter. Maybe produce a DO 600mm which they paraded about the trade shows for a few years. Maybe redesign the optics to gain the advantages of a true RF mount. Get rid of the silly permanent adapter which would at least shorten the lens. I own the EF 600 lll and it is wonderful. Just saying.....

 

[FrenchFry]

A better answer would be backward compatibility. Argh.

Agreed. It reminds me of all the dongles Apple sold because they switched to USB-C ports only. Made them lots of money, but was super inconvenient and annoying to the customer. It now seems they are going to go back to having multiple ports, so lesson learned for Apple.

Seems like we will go through the same growing pains with Canon on the R3.

 

[Chig]

I said that "it is possible (not guaranteed) that [the rumored RF 300mm, 500mm, and 200-400mm lenses] will be less expensive than the 400mm F2.8 ($12000) and 600mm F4 ($13000)."

This would be consistent with Canon (and Nikon's) pricing strategy for these different focal lengths.

What do you believe makes this statement on par with fairies?

It appeared to me you were hoping that RF versions of the same lens would be cheaper which would be pretty optimistic
The different focal length/aperture lenses would normally vary in price of course but that isn't any anything to do with the mount.
I'm hoping Canon make some RF freznell lenses similar to the amazing EF400mm DO f/4 ii , perhaps :

• RF300 DO f/2.8
• RF400 DO f/4
• RF500 DO f/5
• EF600 DO f5.6
• RF200-600 DO f/5.6 super zoom

hopefully with builtin switchable 1.4x and 2x extenders like their patent a while ago .

 

[unfocused]

Do you really think that agencies and corporations with multi-thousand dollar budgets are going to worry about the difference in price between an R1 and a 1Dxiii, Z9 or A1...?

Seriously?

I would be very surprised if there are very many agencies and corporations that are buying 1 series style cameras, whether it is Canon, Nikon or Sony. In the early 2000s I worked for the world's largest telecommunications company. Within a large multinational company like that, each division is run like a separate company with its own budget and within each division, the departments are also run like a small company with a limited budget. Every expense had to be justified to the manager and budget officer. They have a fixed budget and every new expenditure is evaluated in terms of what else they might spend their budget on. So, yeah, I do think that agencies and corporations with multi-thousand dollar budgets are going to take price into consideration.

But, to be honest, I'm not sure what your point was. Do you really think there are thousands of companies that are in the market for 1 series cameras and that those businesses constitute a larger market than enthusiasts? If you really believe that, then there is no reason to continue this conversation because we are too far apart on who is the target market is for the 1 series cameras.

 

[Chig]

Sure. Maybe make it significantly lighter. Maybe produce a DO 600mm which they paraded about the trade shows for a few years. Maybe redesign the optics to gain the advantages of a true RF mount. Get rid of the silly permanent adapter which would at least shorten the lens. I own the EF 600 lll and it is wonderful. Just saying.....

A DO version would be a bit lighter and shorter but otherwise you haven't suggested any advantages at all .
The "builtin adapter'' is no different to building a new design.
The shorter flange distance has no significant effect on long focal length lenses
Apart from using freznel elements a new clean sheet design would be no different in any meaningful way other than perhaps some gains electronically from the extra contact points

 

[Chig]

Agreed. It reminds me of all the dongles Apple sold because they switched to USB-C ports only. Made them lots of money, but was super inconvenient and annoying to the customer. It now seems they are going to go back to having multiple ports, so lesson learned for Apple.

Seems like we will go through the same growing pains with Canon on the R3.

So make an EF mount for a new RF lens perhaps ?

 

[InchMetric]

Sure. Maybe make it significantly lighter. Maybe produce a DO 600mm which they paraded about the trade shows for a few years. Maybe redesign the optics to gain the advantages of a true RF mount. Get rid of the silly permanent adapter which would at least shorten the lens. I own the EF 600 lll and it is wonderful. Just saying.....

They already made it as light as they could.

A DO is a different lens for a different purpose.

Long lenses don’t care about the distance to the image plane.

With the EF and adapters, why not address the RF only base? Granted I’d like to see them offer semi permanent adapters sold to be dedicated to the lens for RF and removable with some deliberate effort for EF. But that’s because I have a patent about to be granted on the concept. (Available for licensing at reasonable rates).

I stand by my opinion that there is nothing in the RF 400 that could have been realistically changed or improved to satisfy the “it’s not new enough to give me my dopamine hit” crowd.

 

[Franklyok]

still no AD-E1 ?

 

[entoman]

I would be very surprised if there are very many agencies and corporations that are buying 1 series style cameras, whether it is Canon, Nikon or Sony. In the early 2000s I worked for the world's largest telecommunications company. Within a large multinational company like that, each division is run like a separate company with its own budget and within each division, the departments are also run like a small company with a limited budget. Every expense had to be justified to the manager and budget officer. They have a fixed budget and every new expenditure is evaluated in terms of what else they might spend their budget on. So, yeah, I do think that agencies and corporations with multi-thousand dollar budgets are going to take price into consideration.

But, to be honest, I'm not sure what your point was. Do you really think there are thousands of companies that are in the market for 1 series cameras and that those businesses constitute a larger market than enthusiasts? If you really believe that, then there is no reason to continue this conversation because we are too far apart on who is the target market is for the 1 series cameras.

Only Canon knows the target market for their cameras. In their press release for the R3 they simply state that the camera is "professional grade", and that they "look forward to seeing the camera in action on the sidelines of sporting events and in the hands of nature and wildlife photographers across the globe".

So the target market includes sports, nature and wildlife photographers. I think it's pretty safe to say that the target market also includes wedding, events and reportage. In other words, it's aimed at pretty much the same market as the 1Dxiii.

Where we apparently differ regards whether the majority of purchasers are individuals or agencies/corporations. Wedding, nature and wildlife photographers are almost exclusively one-man bands, but I'd estimate that a high percentage of *professional* sports and reportage photographers have their equipment supplied by agencies, corporations and/or rental companies.

If you see no reason to continue the conversation that's fine, it's not worth falling out over it

 

[unfocused]

Only Canon knows the target market for their cameras. In their press release for the R3 they simply state that the camera is "professional grade", and that they "look forward to seeing the camera in action on the sidelines of sporting events and in the hands of nature and wildlife photographers across the globe".

So the target market includes sports, nature and wildlife photographers. I think it's pretty safe to say that the target market also includes wedding, events and reportage. In other words, it's aimed at pretty much the same market as the 1Dxiii.

Where we apparently differ regards whether the majority of purchasers are individuals or agencies/corporations. Wedding, nature and wildlife photographers are almost exclusively one-man bands, but I'd estimate that a high percentage of *professional* sports and reportage photographers have their equipment supplied by agencies, corporations and/or rental companies.

If you see no reason to continue the conversation that's fine, it's not worth falling out over it

Hah! breaking up is hard to do.

I've kind of lost track of where we started.

 

[djack41]

They already made it as light as they could.

A DO is a different lens for a different purpose.

Long lenses don’t care about the distance to the image plane.

With the EF and adapters, why not address the RF only base? Granted I’d like to see them offer semi permanent adapters sold to be dedicated to the lens for RF and removable with some deliberate effort for EF. But that’s because I have a patent about to be granted on the concept. (Available for licensing at reasonable rates).

I stand by my opinion that there is nothing in the RF 400 that could have been realistically changed or improved to satisfy the “it’s not new enough to give me my dopamine hit” crowd.

Adding the permanent adapter lengthened the lens. The lens could have been shorter with the expanded RF connections.

DO is for a different purpose? My 400 DO ll is a light, compact lens. Wildlife shooters have had fingers crossed for the 600 DO to go into production ever since Canon teased us with the prototype. Maybe a DO with an integrated teleconverter like the EF 200-400. Oh well.......

 

[InchMetric]

Adding the permanent adapter lengthened the lens. The lens could have been shorter with the expanded RF connections.

DO is for a different purpose? My 400 DO ll is a light, compact lens. Wildlife shooters have had fingers crossed for the 600 DO to go into production ever since Canon teased us with the prototype. Maybe a DO with an integrated teleconverter like the EF 200-400. Oh well.......

Sounds like you were hoping for a different lens. Which is unrelated to my topic of those whose primary complain was that it was an “old” design and not “new”.

 

[djack41]

Sounds like you were hoping for a different lens. Which is unrelated to my topic of those whose primary complain was that it was an “old” design and not “new”.

The RF 600 is a EF 600 lll with an permanent adapter. Get it.