Is Canon actually going to launch RF-S lenses alongside the Canon EOS R7?

gregedwards69

EOS M50
Apr 28, 2022
30
27
Smartphones are already a viable alternative to the detriment of the compact camera segment. I personally only use my R5/lenses where using my smartphone wouldn't get acceptable shots given their computational photographic algorithms. Canon are happy with the M product line but focusing (boom tish) on FF/R mount for long term profitability and selling more RF lenses

My bad, I should have worded and clarified that better. I'm quite aware that smartphones have pretty much replaced the traditional small sensor point and shoot and compact superzoom consumer market cameras. What I meant to say was the higher end of the "compact" market, such as large sensor fixed prime cameras like the Fuji X100 series, or other higher-end compact zooms such as the Canon G1Xmkiii or Sony RX100 series.

I don't think smartphones are quite there yet. But technology is advancing at an incredible rate in this sector with computational algorithms and periscopic zoom lenses. I wonder how long the high end fixed lens market will last.

FWIW, I remember when I started working for Canon Business Service around 10 years ago, we were told in a briefing back then that consumer compacts were a dead market because of smartphones, but they needed to keep making them as there was still enough of market share of people who still wanted them. I'm quite surprised they didn't team up with a phone manufacturer to develop phone camera technology. They must have thought it an area not worth pursuing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,019
1,190
UK
I would suggest for amateur togs....
Selfies - 99% would be via smartphone now. Although I have taken a 16mm selfie with my R5 with articulated screen out - it wasn't great. Crop sensor for reach would be unlikely :)
Family - Majority by smartphone but prosumers shooting family events for sure
Travel - I see a mix... smartphones for sure but some prosumers. For me, the difference would be a "record shot" vs a creative shot
Landscape - definitely a category for prosumers including seascape, waterfalls and cityscapes
Animals - zoos and wildlife for prosumers
Sports - prosumers for indoor sports and telephoto shots of kids sports would be a larger segment of prosumers as smartphones aren't great in low light/telephoto
Portrait - informal portraits (including fashion?) are mostly by smartphone but certainly some prosumers are doing portrait shoots
Food - instagrammers use smartphones. Professional togs for sure. Is there much food photography by prosumers?
Wedding - prosumers doing freebies but most couples would spring for a professional if they could afford it. Secondary prosumers or specific parts of the wedding eg reception for sure

I'd also add
- Architecture (not real estate)
- Macro (wildlife and other), astro (deep and wide angle plus events like eclipses) for prosumer togs towards to bottom
- Specialty niches of urban decay and trains/ planes/ automobiles
Sorry, I have to cringe when I hear photographers referred to as "togs" :cautious:

I agree with your list though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

lote82

EOS 90D
Jan 4, 2022
171
140
People do not buy cameras for single use only. Even if they are interested mainly on wildlife or sports photography they generally also want to do general photography and they need lenses for that full frame lenses in general are too heavy and expensive. Now 16 mm is basically only practical affordable general purpose lens that works with APS-C.
Fully agree
Also R7 is not intended to be a professional camera but something for a serious hobby photographer like 7D was. Professionals will want a full frame camera.
The 7D was a camera (also) for professionals. If the assumed R7 is really the follower of the 7D then it will (also) be for professionals. You are probably right that most professionals choose FF over APS-C. But thats because most of professionals are wedding, portrait, fashion photographers and not wildlife photographers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Otara

EOS RP
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2012
485
292
150-600 is indeed a very useful zoomrange. Very good not only for wildlife but also for near-macro and landscape shots (and portrait). There are quite a lot of options by other manufacturers (Tamron, Sigma). Maybe Canon was just too late developing one and now the market is saturated. I have the Sigma 150-600mm Cont. and use it only on 7D II. So I don't know how it performs on FF. All I can say (for APS-C) it's a fantastic lens which I highly recommend. Towards 600mm it gets a bit softer but still good (stopped down very good). It's also quite sharp in the corners (on APS-C).
I had the original Tamron, which couldnt use the dock and stopped working properly with my 80D. Canon has a principle of stopping at 5.6 for DSLR, so that was one problem initially.

It has been interesting to see them not go after the same area as Sony and Nikon did with the cheaper long zooms. If the market is 'saturated', it suggests its not really very large - all very similar to the argument for wildlife APS-C in my view - they've chosen to stay in the more expensive/higher end area.
 

lote82

EOS 90D
Jan 4, 2022
171
140
It has been interesting to see them not go after the same area as Sony and Nikon did with the cheaper long zooms. If the market is 'saturated', it suggests its not really very large - all very similar to the argument for wildlife APS-C in my view - they've chosen to stay in the more expensive/higher end area.
I wouldn't say the Canon 600mm and 800mm f11 lenses are expensive and/or highend. Never used one of these but I'm quite sure I wouldn't (even if I could) choose them over the 150-600mm f5-6,3. I also think (and hope) an assumed R7 would be highend and therefore expensive. I don't know why smaller sensor automatically means cheap/lowend...
 

roby17269

R5 + RF & EF L glass
Feb 26, 2014
77
54
New York
rdmfashionphoto.com
My bad, I should have worded and clarified that better. I'm quite aware that smartphones have pretty much replaced the traditional small sensor point and shoot and compact superzoom consumer market cameras. What I meant to say was the higher end of the "compact" market, such as large sensor fixed prime cameras like the Fuji X100 series, or other higher-end compact zooms such as the Canon G1Xmkiii or Sony RX100 series.

I don't think smartphones are quite there yet. But technology is advancing at an incredible rate in this sector with computational algorithms and periscopic zoom lenses. I wonder how long the high end fixed lens market will last.
My Samsung phone has 4 cameras that cover a range from 13mm to 240mm in 35mm equiv.
That's almost superzoom territory. Now I have tried and know that the 240mm camera is really, really bad. To the point where I would not use it at all. And the rest of the range is not great as well. But I also know I am a niche user who's willing to spend on big cameras and lenses and time and effort to get a better result.
Many more people don't care enough to put in the resources and effort and time required to improve their photos and to share them.

We (as in people on this and similar fora) know very well that phones are not there yet. Even the best camera phone output in the best circumstances crumbles down once it leaves the safe confines of a phone's screen. But obviously this doesn't matter to the vast majority of the buyers and I think that the high-end compact camera and low-end interchangeable camera markets are in deep trouble.

FWIW, I remember when I started working for Canon Business Service around 10 years ago, we were told in a briefing back then that consumer compacts were a dead market because of smartphones, but they needed to keep making them as there was still enough of market share of people who still wanted them. I'm quite surprised they didn't team up with a phone manufacturer to develop phone camera technology. They must have thought it an area not worth pursuing.
Various phone manufacturers have teamed up with camera / lens manufacturers, mostly to be able to use historical brand names (such as Leica, Zeiss, Hasselblad) on their phones. I assume phone manufacturers would have little interest in helping camera manufacturers making their offerings "smart", as this might affect phone sales adversely.
 

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,019
1,190
UK
I wouldn't say the Canon 600mm and 800mm f11 lenses are expensive and/or highend. Never used one of these but I'm quite sure I wouldn't (even if I could) choose them over the 150-600mm f5-6,3.
The Sigma 150-600mm is more versatile than the fixed focal length lenses, but if I was going to replace my EF 100-400mm I'd choose the Canon RF 100-500mm over the Sigma, despite the big difference in price (sharper, better built, lighter, faster AF).

The 600mm F11 and 800mm F11 are both extremely good lenses, although restricted in usage by the fixed focal lengths and slow apertures. The 800mm in particular is excellent and together with my EF 100-400mm covers all my long focal length needs. The really great thing about the Canon F11 lenses is their light weight, which makes it dead easy to handhold them all day long:

Sigma 150-600mm Sport - 2860g
Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary - 1830g
Canon RF 100-500mm - 1365g
Canon RF 800mm F11 - 1260g
Canon RF 600mm F11 - 930g

The Canon RF 600/11 and 800/11 also have incredibly good image stabilisation - I can handhold my 800/11 at 1/60 and get razor sharp shots about 50% of the time, filling the frame with static subjects (birds perching in trees)..... and I don't have particularly steady hands.

For larger wildlife (e.g. on safari) or BIF, I'd recommend RF 100-500mm if you can afford it, or a secondhand EF 100-400mm if money is tighter.
For waders and birds on the ground or in bushes/trees, I'd recommend RF 800mm F11
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
368
253
So looking at your data, Sports is pretty much even with Animal, though Canon designs and produces flagship cameras for Sports? Just think of the R7 as the flagship for amateur sports and wildlife shooters.
Well, to be a bit more precise, Canon produces flagship cameras with fast shutter speeds for fast moving ACTION, which does cover sports, wildlife and many other genres where the subjects are not static, but are moving. :)
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,247
6,779
The Sigma 150-600mm is more versatile than the fixed focal length lenses, but if I was going to replace my EF 100-400mm I'd choose the Canon RF 100-500mm over the Sigma, despite the big difference in price (sharper, better built, lighter, faster AF).
Testing by multiple sites as well as by some forum members here has shown that the EF 100-400 II at 400mm with cropping delivers better resolution than the various 3rd party 150-600mm zooms at 600mm. An image from the long end of a 150-600mm zoom will have more MP than the 400mm image cropped to the same framing, but those extra MP are empty magnification (a concept from microscopy that applies here, hopefuly self-explanatory).

The RF 100-500 is out-resolves the EF 100-400 II and gives an extra 100mm, so it’s an even better option on an R body than an adapted 100-400.

The 150-600 zooms have the sole advantage of being cheaper.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

lote82

EOS 90D
Jan 4, 2022
171
140
Testing by multiple sites as well as by some forum members here has shown that the EF 100-400 II at 400mm with cropping delivers better resolution than the various 3rd party 150-600mm zooms at 600mm. An image from the long end of a 150-600mm zoom will have more MP than the 400mm image cropped to the same framing, but those extra MP are empty magnification (a concept from microscopy that applies here, hopefuly self-explanatory).

The RF 100-500 is out-resolves the EF 100-400 II and gives an extra 100mm, so it’s an even better option on an R body than an adapted 100-400.

The 150-600 zooms have the sole advantage of being cheaper.
... and having 100mm more on the long side (while having 50mm more on the short side) and being a bit faster on the long side (while being a bit slower on the short side)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,247
6,779
... and having 100mm more on the long side (while having 50mm more on the short side) and being a bit faster on the long side (while being a bit slower on the short side)
You either didn't read what I wrote, or failed to comprehend it. Enjoy your useless extra 100-200mm.

Edit: I should not have bothered posting a reply. I forgot my Mark Twain, "Never argue with an idiot. You'll never convince the idiot that you're correct, and bystanders won't be able to tell who's who." I won't make that mistake again.
 
Last edited:

lote82

EOS 90D
Jan 4, 2022
171
140
Testing by multiple sites as well as by some forum members here has shown that the EF 100-400 II at 400mm with cropping delivers better resolution than the various 3rd party 150-600mm zooms at 600mm.
So it should be easy to show serious data for this wacky statement?
You either didn't read what I wrote, or failed to comprehend it. Enjoy your useless extra 100mm.
Enjoy your useless M system as long as it's supported!
 

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
643
662
Testing by multiple sites as well as by some forum members here has shown that the EF 100-400 II at 400mm with cropping delivers better resolution than the various 3rd party 150-600mm zooms at 600mm. An image from the long end of a 150-600mm zoom will have more MP than the 400mm image cropped to the same framing, but those extra MP are empty magnification (a concept from microscopy that applies here, hopefuly self-explanatory).

The RF 100-500 is out-resolves the EF 100-400 II and gives an extra 100mm, so it’s an even better option on an R body than an adapted 100-400.

The 150-600 zooms have the sole advantage of being cheaper.
Yep, and if you put a 1.4 extender on the 100-400, you get your pixels back and it still out resolves the 150-600s in a smaller package. A little slower at the long end, but that is no issue on an R5. Also, the AF and IS are in a whole different league from the 150-600s.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

lote82

EOS 90D
Jan 4, 2022
171
140
Yep, and if you put a 1.4 extender on the 100-400, you get your pixels back and it still out resolves the 150-600s in a smaller package. A little slower at the long end, but that is no issue on an R5. Also, the AF and IS are in a whole different league from the 15-600s.

It's german but a serious source:

Quote:
Buy if you already own a Canon 100-400mm L?

The Canon 100-400mm L Mark I or Canon 100-400mm L Mark II does not come close to the 600mm of the Sigma with a maximum of 400mm. The difference is clearly visible in many motifs. If you upgrade the Canon with a 1.4x teleconverter, the image results will be similar, but the aperture will be lacking. This means that the AF is usually slower if it is supported by the camera at all. However, the TK solution should be sufficient for subjects that allow sufficient time and where you can focus manually. In this respect, we cannot answer unequivocally with yes or no.


A draw for a lens which is much cheaper (not to mention the additional TC) is impressive. The Canon is not "out resolving" and (with TC) the AF is definetly not better (rather worse)!
 

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,019
1,190
UK
Testing by multiple sites as well as by some forum members here has shown that the EF 100-400 II at 400mm with cropping delivers better resolution than the various 3rd party 150-600mm zooms at 600mm. An image from the long end of a 150-600mm zoom will have more MP than the 400mm image cropped to the same framing, but those extra MP are empty magnification (a concept from microscopy that applies here, hopefuly self-explanatory).

The RF 100-500 is out-resolves the EF 100-400 II and gives an extra 100mm, so it’s an even better option on an R body than an adapted 100-400.

The 150-600 zooms have the sole advantage of being cheaper.
Yep, I'm happy with my EF 100-400mm ii for large subjects such as mammals and reptiles on safari, and equally happy with my RF 800mm F11 for non-BIF bird photography. In an ideal world I'd have a 100-800mm but that ain't gonna happen...

The RF 100-500mm is I'm sure a stunning lens, and I'll likely give in to temptation and get one before my next safari, but as with many RF lenses (e.g. 100mm macro) I have doubts about whether the results would be better (than EF) by an amount significant enough to justify the expense - particularly as the cost of the 100-500mm is about equivalent to having an extra 10 days on safari.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Czardoom

EOS RP
Jan 27, 2020
517
1,122
Testing by multiple sites as well as by some forum members here has shown that the EF 100-400 II at 400mm with cropping delivers better resolution than the various 3rd party 150-600mm zooms at 600mm. An image from the long end of a 150-600mm zoom will have more MP than the 400mm image cropped to the same framing, but those extra MP are empty magnification (a concept from microscopy that applies here, hopefuly self-explanatory).

The RF 100-500 is out-resolves the EF 100-400 II and gives an extra 100mm, so it’s an even better option on an R body than an adapted 100-400.

The 150-600 zooms have the sole advantage of being cheaper.
I never used the 150-600mm lenses from Sigma or Tamron, but I have had two copies of the Sigma 100-400mm, and both were quite soft at 400mm. While not a scientific test, I did compare my Sigmas with my EF 70-300mm non-L Canon lens, and the Canon lens shot at 300mm and cropped to the same FOV, out-resolved the Sigma at 400mm. So, while forum users seem so hung up on specs and numbers, sometimes things are not as you would expect. There's no question in my mind that the Canon RF 100-500 is a vastly superior lens than any of the 150-600mm lenses that are out there. Sometimes 500 is a higher number than 600!
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,282
1,063
www.flickr.com
Im not as sure, I think it did OK but not as well as the 7D. Which is why we didnt see the III and why we havent seen Canon release a true equivalent to the 150-600mm zooms. They were popularish 'budget' options but not profitable enough they thought they needed to go into that price area.
In "cash cow", I'm referring to the product lifecycle stages of introduction, growth, maturity, and decline where "maturity" generally refers to cash cow status ie R&D costs have been amortized and any startup costs are minimised. Decline being when there are costs associated with discontinuing the product (smaller part quantity/pricing, close up sales discounts etc).

If the 7Dii didn't get to cash cow sales volume then this would be a valid reason for Canon to discontinue it and not replace with a 7Diii. B&H still have the 7Dii and they wouldn't have it for sale if there was a solid demand for it - including replacement of failed 7Dii 's
 

Otara

EOS RP
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2012
485
292
In "cash cow", I'm referring to the product lifecycle stages of introduction, growth, maturity, and decline where "maturity" generally refers to cash cow status ie R&D costs have been amortized and any startup costs are minimised. Decline being when there are costs associated with discontinuing the product (smaller part quantity/pricing, close up sales discounts etc).

If the 7Dii didn't get to cash cow sales volume then this would be a valid reason for Canon to discontinue it and not replace with a 7Diii. B&H still have the 7Dii and they wouldn't have it for sale if there was a solid demand for it - including replacement of failed 7Dii 's

Its listed as no longer available at BH.