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

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
2,073
2,063
Not really, but you misunderstood my point, it was about how easy it is to actually _look through_ an optical VF when the aperture is actually set to F11 or F16 at a small target with a long distance lens in lower light.

It makes the VF quite dim and lower in contrast, which can be corrected by mirrorless, and in my view is rather valuable.
Especially on a lens like the MP-E 65mm, where it behaves like f/16 when used wide open at 5x magnification. This is why the original eos M was such a good fit for that lens, for me.
 

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
317
225
Not really, but you misunderstood my point, it was about how easy it is to actually _look through_ an optical VF when the aperture is actually set to F11 or F16 at a small target with a long distance lens in lower light.

It makes the VF quite dim and lower in contrast, which can be corrected by mirrorless, and in my view is rather valuable.
Well, I already knew that, and I like that benefit of my mirrorless camera too, so it's all cool! :cool:
 

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
317
225
Especially on a lens like the MP-E 65mm, where it behaves like f/16 when used wide open at 5x magnification. This is why the original eos M was such a good fit for that lens, for me.
Did that camera do focus stacking? It would be super useful for the razor thin depth of field that you'd get at 5x macro!
 

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
2,073
2,063
Did that camera do focus stacking? It would be super useful for the razor thin depth of field that you'd get at 5x macro!
No, it didn’t have a helper mode for that. And the Canon helper mode only works with electronic shutter, which turns off the flash.
But most importantly, the MP-E is fixed focus :)
 

Fischer

EOS RP
Mar 17, 2020
352
248
The car analogy is not a good one. The reason the modern car is safer is because there is a rigid passenger cage with a crumple zone in front that deforms to absorb the impact and lower the deceleration forces. If you put a crumple section in front of the old steel “coffin” it would function as well (and safety bags etc importantly help). A disposable lens hood in the front of a metal lens would act as a crumple zone for a head first fall. The internal components within a lens would be protected by impact protection structures like rubber between them and the rigid frame, like we know the RF 100-500mm has for its IS unit that does not park like in the EF lenses.
I do not agree. Your claim assumes the inner workings of the newly designed RF-lenses where less robust than the old EF-lenses. LensRentals claims they are better.
 

Fischer

EOS RP
Mar 17, 2020
352
248
Hmmm, not really sure that's the case. It's basic engineering/physics, were talking a two-piece unsupported structure vs a solid structure.

Exert a force perpendicular to the lens body, over its centre. In the solid structure the stresses will be exerted over the lower surface, taken up by the material, which will not deform in the case of a metal lens body unless it leads to destructive failure, much like a load bearing beam spanning two points.

With a structure that consists of a weaker material formed as a tube within a tube, the stresses will all be placed on the area of the joint. The bottom edge of the inner tube will cut into the inner surface of the outer tube, and act like a lever. Of course we're talking about an extended lens, which you've steered away from discussing

This is not a point that can validly be argued from an engineering perspective. Without getting into force vector diagrams, ask yourself why bridges are constructed of solid beams and not loose tubes sliding inside each other. Or just extend the RF 70-200mm lens and sit on it! :oops:

Is it so hard to imagine that a company would trade strength and durability for weight and size in a product? It's done all the time with all manner of things.
The simple rule with engineering is that when you add to something, you take away from something else - because there is no such thing as a free lunch! The imaginary perfect material or structure that is the best at everything and fits every need is nonexistent by definition. :)

Probably best to be aware of the potential weaknesses of a new design and treat the gear with respect to ensure it doesn't get damaged, rather than assume it's better in every way because it's newer, that would be a logical fallacy.

Practical advice, don't treat an extended telescoping lens made of engineering plastics as it it were a solid, single-piece alloy traditional big white, that would be a sure way to wreck a really good expensive lens. :(
Think you missed the RF-extended vs RF-retracted vs long EF.lens part.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,733
14,981
I do not agree. Your claim assumes the inner workings of the newly designed RF-lenses where less robust than the old EF-lenses. LensRentals claims they are better.
I wrote your car analogy was wrong, and it most certainly is - the car protection works by having a sacrificial crumple zone. I also wrote that the RF 100-500mm has the rubber internal protection so I assumed nothing of the sort.
The car analogy is not a good one. The reason the modern car is safer is because there is a rigid passenger cage with a crumple zone in front that deforms to absorb the impact and lower the deceleration forces. If you put a crumple section in front of the old steel “coffin” it would function as well (and safety bags etc importantly help). A disposable lens hood in the front of a metal lens would act as a crumple zone for a head first fall. The internal components within a lens would be protected by impact protection structures like rubber between them and the rigid frame, like we know the RF 100-500mm has for its IS unit that does not park like in the EF lenses.
 

wyotex43n

EOS M6 Mark II
Jan 24, 2016
77
63
It will be interesting to see which if any of these lenses make it into production. Any chance any of them will have a built in Teleconverter? Now that Nikon has done that with their new 400 2.8 I wonder if Canon has any in the pipeline.
An RF version of the EF200-400 F4 TC would be of interest to me or if I am wishing an RF250-500 F4 TC that is somehow lighter.
Just wishing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Billybob

800mm f/11 because a cellphone isn't long enough!
May 22, 2016
261
518
I sold my Nikon PF 500 f/5.6 because the RF 100-500mm is frankly indistinguishably sharp at 500mm, has all the advantages of a zoom, can focus much closer up, all for the cost of 2/3rds of a stop at the same weight and cheaper. A 500 f/5 is a stop faster than a 500 f/7.1, and would that be enough to make it worthwhile?
I kept my 500 PF even after acquiring the RF 100-500mm. Lol, so glad I did because otherwise I'd have nothing long to shoot with my Nikon Z9. Although it's true that the IQ isn't substantially better than the RF lens; it is, nonetheless, better. Also I have been shooting the PF lens with a 1.4x TC making it an f/8 lens. Shooting the RF with a TC puts you at f/10, which is even further into defraction and its debilitating effects. Thus, I am very happy to have kept my PF lens and would definitely consider a Canon 500 4.5 DO (none of the other options would fill any gaps in my kit).
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,733
14,981
I kept my 500 PF even after acquiring the RF 100-500mm. Lol, so glad I did because otherwise I'd have nothing long to shoot with my Nikon Z9. Although it's true that the IQ isn't substantially better than the RF lens; it is, nonetheless, better. Also I have been shooting the PF lens with a 1.4x TC making it an f/8 lens. Shooting the RF with a TC puts you at f/10, which is even further into defraction and its debilitating effects. Thus, I am very happy to have kept my PF lens and would definitely consider a Canon 500 4.5 DO (none of the other options would fill any gaps in my kit).
I sold the 500PF and all my Nikon gear when the Z9 was revealed as its 1.3 kg weight, though fine for many, would be too much for me. The Z9 is a good piece of kit, and from birding experts I know who have used both it is roughly equivalent to the R5. I have done dozens of comparisons of the RF 100-500mm with TCs versus the NIkon 500PF with TCs. The Nikon 1.4x is similar to the Canon but how many even bother to use a Nikon 2xTC it's so bad? The Canon RF 2x is really good and what you lose with diffraction with Canon at 1000mm f/14 with the RF 2x you gain far more in resolution, and it resolves better than the 500PF with a 1.4xTC at 700mm f/8 - give it a try if you haven't. At the end of the day, small differences in performance aren't worth worrying about if the results you get are good enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Billybob

800mm f/11 because a cellphone isn't long enough!
May 22, 2016
261
518
I sold the 500PF and all my Nikon gear when the Z9 was revealed as its 1.3 kg weight, though fine for many, would be too much for me. The Z9 is a good piece of kit, and from birding experts I know who have used both it is roughly equivalent to the R5. I have done dozens of comparisons of the RF 100-500mm with TCs versus the NIkon 500PF with TCs. The Nikon 1.4x is similar to the Canon but how many even bother to use a Nikon 2xTC it's so bad? The Canon RF 2x is really good and what you lose with diffraction with Canon at 1000mm f/14 with the RF 2x you gain far more in resolution, and it resolves better than the 500PF with a 1.4xTC at 700mm f/8 - give it a try if you haven't. At the end of the day, small differences in performance aren't worth worrying about if the results you get are good enough.
I hear you on the tradeoffs. Nikon let us down with the bulk of the Z9, and while Canon nailed the weight and size of the R3, it blew it--at least for wildlife shooters--on resolution.

Nonetheless, I'm pretty much all in on Nikon for birding. To be precise, I'm shooting two systems. The 100-500 is the best long zoom ever, and it is and will remain my go-to outdoor sports lens, at least until my 400 2.8 TC arrives. I love a big-aperture lens for wild life, but 400mm is too short. The built-in TC that takes me to 560mm at the flick of a switch is a near-perfect solution to my dilemma. I suppose that I will add a 2x TC (the Z version of the Nikon TC, by contrast, is excellent) to it to give me access to 800 and 1120mm. Frankly, I'd rather shoot 1120 at f/8 than 1000 at f/14. And if the 800mm pf is sufficiently compact, light-weight, and affordable (I'm hoping for $8000, but I may still go for it if it's under $10,000), it could be my "lightweight" birding option.
 

Fischer

EOS RP
Mar 17, 2020
352
248
I wrote your car analogy was wrong, and it most certainly is - the car protection works by having a sacrificial crumple zone. I also wrote that the RF 100-500mm has the rubber internal protection so I assumed nothing of the sort.
Well, we don't agree then. I still believe that the new composite material used is superior to previous metal casings when it comes to protecting the lens.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,733
14,981
Well, we don't agree then. I still believe that the new composite material used is superior to previous metal casings when it comes to protecting the lens.
I haven't said anything about whether the new composite material is any better or worse than metal castings. So what do we not agree about? Are you confusing my posts with someone else's?
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,733
14,981
I hear you on the tradeoffs. Nikon let us down with the bulk of the Z9, and while Canon nailed the weight and size of the R3, it blew it--at least for wildlife shooters--on resolution.

Nonetheless, I'm pretty much all in on Nikon for birding. To be precise, I'm shooting two systems. The 100-500 is the best long zoom ever, and it is and will remain my go-to outdoor sports lens, at least until my 400 2.8 TC arrives. I love a big-aperture lens for wild life, but 400mm is too short. The built-in TC that takes me to 560mm at the flick of a switch is a near-perfect solution to my dilemma. I suppose that I will add a 2x TC (the Z version of the Nikon TC, by contrast, is excellent) to it to give me access to 800 and 1120mm. Frankly, I'd rather shoot 1120 at f/8 than 1000 at f/14. And if the 800mm pf is sufficiently compact, light-weight, and affordable (I'm hoping for $8000, but I may still go for it if it's under $10,000), it could be my "lightweight" birding option.
It's all a trade off. I like travelling light when hiking and safari/nature holidays. I also do insects as well as birds and need longer lenses that can focus close. The zooms do this exceptionally well, and the 500PF gets somewhere there. I'm also paranoid about having everything backed up for travel: two sets of chargers, cables, bodies and lenses etc. So, my simple solution for this is for my wife and I to have two Canon bodies, two telephoto zooms, with both sets of chargers, cables, batteries etc. If I was going on a specific activity that would benefit from a prime or going to a rain forest I would take a wider prime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
317
225
Not really, but you misunderstood my point, it was about how easy it is to actually _look through_ an optical VF when the aperture is actually set to F11 or F16 at a small target with a long distance lens in lower light.

It makes the VF quite dim and lower in contrast, which can be corrected by mirrorless, and in my view is rather valuable.
I totally understand that, having shot both OVF and EVF camera bodies. Though the image in an EVF in low light is visible, looks grainy like the picture would, and looks like cr@p, but that's another matter lol! :)
 

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
317
225
Think you missed the RF-extended vs RF-retracted vs long EF.lens part.
Nope, all factors considered, an extendable lens is at its weakest when extended, otherwise its like talking about the crash safety of a car when it's garaged and never driven, well, almost... That would only be a valid argument if the RF 70-200 was never extended and only used as a 70mm prime, a highly unlikely scenario. :)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Mar 11, 2022
1
0
Just my speculation, but I'm not expecting an R1 this year because it's been 15 years since Canon released a flagship sooner than 4 years after the previous one. Of course, doing the first mirrorless version could make this exceptional. And I'm frequently wrong.

They really like to target the early spring prior to a summer olympics, which would put it 2 years out. If this comes to pass, and if it is indeed a <30mp camera (pretty good odds, made more likely with the non-optimized MTF performance of its newly-announced big white superteles), there will be some teeth gnashing, but this would be most consistent with precedent.
***
There is the Football World Cup in November which is a major sporting event that Canon may line up the R1's release for. Yes the R3 is being marketed as the Sports/Photojournalists camera but we know the 1 series bodies always do everything that that little bit better so the R1 is likely to be the turbo-charged R3 , and I'm sure Canon will want their flagship on the sidelines.
***