New rumor of Supertelephoto DO’s and the R1 [CR2]

[rbielefeld]

When Canon had the 1D and 1Ds both of them were 1 series, not a flagship - and most certainly came out quickly and without such care. Also, Canon released 1 series of cameras when they basically were able to - sans the 1D that were usually in Olympic years. Historically it's only been the "sports or performance" that had any sort of timetable.

A Canon R1 isn't replacing anything directly, neither the R3 nor the 1DX Mark III. The closest historically to what we have now is when there was a 1DS and 1D line.

Also, Canon in the past has never had two strong competitors each with their "flagship" Z 9 and A1 and Canon without one at all, outside of the 1DX Mark III that doesn't really count in this discussion.

IMO, there's about the same chance in hades freezing over it's going to be less than 45MP. not with the A1 and Z9 both shooting 8K.

I agree. There is no way Canon will release a 24mp, or a 30mp R1. Sony and Nikon have drawn the line in the sand with their flagship bodies and the R1 will be relatively high res, able to shoot 8k, and have a fps for stills that will most likely be higher than 30 fps. That is the baseline IMO, but of course I could be wrong as I often am. What other "advancements" will come with the R1 no one knows. Given Sony and Nikon have their flagships out, I believe Canon will bring out the R1, or whatever it is called, sooner rather than later. Heck, by the time Canon has the R1 out Sony will most likely be close to releasing the a1 Mk. II . I just don't see Canon taking their time on getting their flagship body announced to the public.

 

[Deleted member 387325]

Not sure why some are even considering that it’ll be a lower resolution body. Can you imagine if Canon’s top two cameras were both low resolution while its competitors are doing 50MP and 8K? They just released the low res body; the R1 will be a jack-of-all-trades, high speed, high resolution body to compete with A1 and Z9.

 

[takesome1]

Yep, if they can make it really sharp, it could be a cool lightweight replacement for the EF 500 f/4 L, but it needs to be a cut above the 400 and 600 in sharpness to be a proper replacement for the EF 500.

I give this a slim to none chance of happening.

 

[takesome1]

Canon has released an advisory about delayed deliveries particularly for the R3 and the new RF 800mm L and 1200mm L. This sums up my earlier point and is often negative publicity for a company after hyping the products at launch.
Strange times we live in.

It is almost impossible to find a RF 400 and RF 600 in stock and has been this way since release. Do we magically expect Canon to deliver the new 800 and 1200 in the next few months?

 

[scyrene]

And yes Canon did say the R3 isn’t their flagship, but technically it was and it was suppose to be the R1, but they realized what Sony did and I believe rebranded it to save embarrassment. The R3 clearly replaces the 1Dxiii. That’s very obvious with how canon operates.

[citation needed]

 

[InchMetric]

It is almost impossible to find a RF 400 and RF 600 in stock and has been this way since release. Do we magically expect Canon to deliver the new 800 and 1200 in the next few months?

Everyone who preordered the first day (hour) will get theirs the first day. Just like everything, ever. Those who sit on their hands worrying until they see "in-stock" might not get one for a long time - just like everything ever.

 

[SpaceGhost]

One lens I still miss is my 70-300 f4-5.6 DO lens. Yes it was soft but it was a great walk around lens. I hope that there will be an RF version and it'd be awesome if the RF benefits would give us a straight f4 lens around the same size. ... Let me dream.

 

[neuroanatomist]

One lens I still miss is my 70-300 f4-5.6 DO lens. Yes it was soft but it was a great walk around lens. I hope that there will be an RF version and it'd be awesome if the RF benefits would give us a straight f4 lens around the same size. ... Let me dream.

I had one for a while (bought used), it was convenient and paired very well with the 24-105/4L. The DO bokeh was bothersome, though, and eventually I sold it for the same price I paid.

 

[justaCanonuser]

RF 500mm f/4.5 DO IS USM: funny, that would be a sort of modern, light & compact, presumably optically superior return of the old EF 500 F/4.5 L USM...

 

[justaCanonuser]

So what happened to the EF 400 f5.6? My understanding is they still work.....

I still have one, but I have to admit I use it rarely, but it is a very nice, handy lens.

 

[AlanF]

I had one for a while (bought used), it was convenient and paired very well with the 24-105/4L. The DO bokeh was bothersome, though, and eventually I sold it for the same price I paid.

It had a reputation for being very soft at 300mm. I tried a used one from my local store and it was unbelievably soft. Maybe you struck lucky. 100-400mm f/8 is the new 70-300mm f/5.6, and that RF is sharp.

 

[juststeve]

Canon did not seem to have too much trouble converting the EF 400/2.8 iii and 600/4 iii to RF mount. Does not appear that converting them to 800/5.6 and 1200/4 was too difficult. That DO prototype is not that much older than the current Mark III lenses and may very well have the same electronics or at least hard-wired test bed electron munchers.

Yeah, but that was an EF prototype. No way they could easily convert that to the new RF mount.

 

[mxwphoto]

It had a reputation for being very soft at 300mm. I tried a used one from my local store and it was unbelievably soft. Maybe you struck lucky. 100-400mm f/8 is the new 70-300mm f/5.6, and that RF is sharp.

I second that the RF 100-400 is amazingly sharp for the price. It is also light enough (the EF is 2.5x heavier!) for all day carrying without breaking a sweat and 90% of the time I don't need the weather resistance. It has essentially replaced my 100-400 as the go to birding lens.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Canon did not seem to have too much trouble converting the EF 400/2.8 iii and 600/4 iii to RF mount. Does not appear that converting them to 800/5.6 and 1200/4 was too difficult. That DO prototype is not that much older than the current Mark III lenses and may very well have the same electronics or at least hard-wired test bed electron munchers.

Allow me to replace the part of my reply that you deleted but still somehow managed to ignore. I’ll make it bigger so my intent is not lost on you this time around.

Yeah, but that was an EF prototype. No way they could easily convert that to the new RF mount.

 

[Hector1970]

I can wait - the R5 is doing all I want for now. Maybe I don't want enough at present?

I might be yet tempted to get it. Your positive comments are not helping

 

[juststeve]

Happy to to give you the opportunity to be a little prick ly today.

Allow me to replace the part of my reply that you deleted but still somehow managed to ignore. I’ll make it bigger so my intent is not lost on you this time around.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Happy to to give you the opportunity to be a little prick ly today.

Paying attention to details is not an ability everyone has. On the other hand, name-calling is something that any idiot can do.

 

[2 cents]

I really miss the old "400 mm f5.6 L" days where we could have a GREAT tele Canon lens around $1200. Never was replaced!

Totally agree. That was a great L-series lens, affordable, and compact. I hate the new 100-500 f 7.1. I have the 800 f11 and I find it unusable on 90% of the time here.

I also can't stand the new bloated RF 100mm macro with SA adjustment. Compared to the EF version it is more expensive, larger, I think heavier too, and at closest focusing distance it has the front element closer to the subject, which is not desirable.

It's a shame that Canon doesn't have as much competition as it used to have, as this is reflected in the products and prices. Oh, the 'prices".

 

[stillviking]

Totally agree. That was a great L-series lens, affordable, and compact. I hate the new 100-500 f 7.1. I have the 800 f11 and I find it unusable on 90% of the time here.

As an old 400 mm 5.6 L lover I'm interested to know why you hate the new RF 100-500 f7.1 and 800 f11? I never tried!

My dream is to Canon launch a new RF 400 mm 5.6 L below $2k, that would be so good!

 

[AlanF]

Totally agree. That was a great L-series lens, affordable, and compact. I hate the new 100-500 f 7.1. I have the 800 f11 and I find it unusable on 90% of the time here.

I also can't stand the new bloated RF 100mm macro with SA adjustment. Compared to the EF version it is more expensive, larger, I think heavier too, and at closest focusing distance it has the front element closer to the subject, which is not desirable.

It's a shame that Canon doesn't have as much competition as it used to have, as this is reflected in the products and prices. Oh, the 'prices".

The 400mm f/5.6 L compact? Manufacturer Spec Size (DxL)3.54" x 10.12” (90mm x 257mm), 1.35 kg
RF 100-500mm is 3.69" x 8.17” (93.8mm x 207.6mm), 1.36 kg. The lens you hate is approx. 2'' shorter, and weighs near enough the same. Whatever its other features, the EF 400mm f/5.6 L is not compact.
If you want something compact, cheap and light the RF 100-40mm is only 3.13"x 6.48” (79.5mm x 164.7mm), nearly 4" (92mm) shorter, less than half the weight, a fraction of the price and just as sharp in the centre as then old EF 400mm f/5.6 L.

Here are Canon's MTF charts for the old 400 L and the the el cheapo RF 100-400 (I've used them both).