New type of teleconverter coming from Canon alongside a Supertelephoto zoom

[usern4cr]

Long ago, Kenko made a 2x/3X converter (for M42 and Nikon F, I think). It was a two-part thing with an extension tube behind the teleconverter with optics in the converter spring-loaded to pop backward in to the extension tube to change the magnification.

Probably flogging a deceased equine here, but I think this rumor is a conflation of a recent Canon patent that looks quite practical but also looks a lot like a 1.4x/2x combination with an older patent for a 1/1.5/2x adapter that has just 4 elements in two groups, with one group able to move to change the magnification. That older patent is quite simple:

View attachment 209287

Seems like far too simple a design for what's being discussed here. The actual text of the patent states the purpose as, "In the adapter device, if the imaging area of the image sensor in the camera device and the image circle of the lens device do not match each other, or if the mount of the camera device and the mount of the lens device do not match each other, the camera device and the lens device It can be attached between. In addition, the adapter device can be used to connect the camera device and the lens device with the interface that is not aligned with each other, and to convert the flange back length of the lens device."

This looks far more like a mount conversion adapter to accommodate different sensor sizes than an actual teleconverter. There are embodiments in the patent where instead of magnification the adapter includes a variable ND filter, image stabilization, etc. Seems aimed more at video, actually. The 'magnification' that people seem to assume implies a teleconverter function seems more like adjusting the image circle of the lens to match the image circle appropriate for the sensor, i.e. it's adjusting for a crop factor of 1x to 2x. Either way it's a general purpose adapter patent, not a teleconverter design.

OTOH, compare the above simplistic design to what actually looks like a switchable TC design from the more recent patent:
View attachment 209290

This design has one 'base' option with a set of swing-in elements, i.e. only two settings. Could be 1x/2x, 1x/1.4x, to 1.4x/2x, but given that as stated above 1x is actually a reducing optic that opposes the magnification of a TC, I think a dual option including 1x is unlikely.

I get it, the idea of a 1x/1.4x/2x switchable TC sounds amazing.

View attachment 209291

Sorry to be that guy, but...

If the TC is anything like the patent you showed, then it seems that it will be a 1.4x / 2x TC combo. I don't think it will have a third option, and I strongly doubt that it will have 1.0X as one of the 2 TC choices. I'd also think that a 1.0X option in this TC design would have severe IQ loss regarding darkening and cats-eye effects for all but the center of the sensor.

 

[SonicStudios]

I'm trying to rap my head around the specs if this is real.

First Zoom TC capable of providing 1.x - 1.5x. - 2.x with hard stops on each.
Drop in ND Filters
IBIS built in ... in a TC?, how cool is that!!!

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'm trying to rap my head around the specs if this is real.

First Zoom TC capable of providing 1.x - 1.5x. - 2.x with hard stops on each.
Drop in ND Filters
IBIS built in ... in a TC?, how cool is that!!!

It’s a real patent for a mount adapter. That adapter can have simple magnification optics to match the image circle of the lens to the size of the sensor, or it can have a variable ND filter, or it can have IS. Read the original patent linked in a previous post.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I'm trying to rap my head around the specs if this is real.

The patent is certainly real.
Whether it is coming soon is a rumor.

 

[docsmith]

For me, first key will be IQ, second will be ergonomics, and third will be price. But this has a chance to really innovate my kit. I am very intrigued by the potential of this TC.

Ok...just wanted to add autofocus. How fast/good AF is. So, new ranking...1) IQ; 2) AF; 3) Ergonomics and 4) Price.

What is intriguing to me, considering the 200-400 w/TC was used by professionals for critical situations (still remember counting 200-400's in use during Olympic Ice Skating, for example) is for Canon to not add the built in TC into the 100-300 f/2.8 or the rumored 200-500 f/4, I have to think Canon is confident this is a very good option.

 

[SwissFrank]

When you get to a billion pixels, the resolution of the system will be independent of the focal length of the lens but depend only on its diameter (for an optically good lens). This is because the resolution of such a high density sensor will be limited by diffraction. Under these conditions, double the focal length of the lens with an extender and you double the diffraction blurring, which cancels out the gain in resolution by the extra focal length. Extenders are at their most effective for low resolution sensors.

Have you worked much with the R series camera's DPAF feature that claims to be able to correct diffraction? I tried it for an annoying evening of very slow loads on my previous, old PC. I should retry. Still, my understanding was that diffraction was an immutable law of nature and never understood how this dual-pixel stuff was supposed to overcome that limit. I seem to recall the DPAF could also be used to slightly adjust some details after shooting (aperture? focal point? whatever it was it was poorly explained and unintuitive in the R manual and I haven't re-studied on the R5).

 

[Joe Ray Skrha]

Does anyone know if the teleconverter would work with the RL 100-500mm ??? Thank you...

 

[AlanF]

Have you worked much with the R series camera's DPAF feature that claims to be able to correct diffraction? I tried it for an annoying evening of very slow loads on my previous, old PC. I should retry. Still, my understanding was that diffraction was an immutable law of nature and never understood how this dual-pixel stuff was supposed to overcome that limit. I seem to recall the DPAF could also be used to slightly adjust some details after shooting (aperture? focal point? whatever it was it was poorly explained and unintuitive in the R manual and I haven't re-studied on the R5).

I haven’t seriously tried it. I found that DxO gets better resolution than anything DPP throws at RAW. You can correct for some of the loss from diffraction using computational methods that calculate the effects of the point spread function for the optics. My pay grade of physics stops at there being cut-off limits for diffraction but they vary slightlyfrom the classical. On top of that, microscopy using fluorescence and lasers can seriously break the diffraction limits, but that’s a whole different story.

 

[neuroanatomist]

On top of that, microscopy using fluorescence and lasers can seriously break the diffraction limits, but that’s a whole different story.

I know that story. It’s very cool to be able to optically image structures that used to require electron microscopy to resolve.

 

[Czardoom]

Does anyone know if the teleconverter would work with the RL 100-500mm ??? Thank you...

No one knows because there is no teleconverter yet. All that actually exists is a patent...and that may or may not be what the actual product will be like.

What we have is a rumor that some sort of new teleconverter is coming. Only a rumor, despite the headline that makes it sound like fact.

 

[DhlcadR6]

Great！I can turn my RF 100-400 into 100-800 f5.6-f16 L IS USM！

 

[neuroanatomist]

Great！I can turn my RF 100-400 into 100-800 f5.6-f16 L IS USM！

Yes, all you’ll need is a rumored TC and a red rubber band.

 

[Del Paso]

Great！I can turn my RF 100-400 into 100-800 f5.6-f16 L IS USM！

And spend as much on the TC as on 3 RF 100-400!

 

[bluenoser1993]

Yes, but that might not be practical.

It would be great if this new multi focal length design eliminated the protruding lens element so it could go on 70-200. Currently use a EF 100-400 set up near the finish line of sprint canoe/kayak events and get front on action during the race at 400mm, but sometimes 100mm for the side on photo finish is too tight (the boats are long). To have a 2x on the 70-200 and be able to switch from 400mm to 70mm on the fly would be amazing. Applicable for any kind of racing event when you only have one body.

 

[AlanF]

And spend as much on the TC as on 3 RF 100-400!

And twice the weight probably, and more to the point, you can already do 200-800mm but I wouldn't recommend 2x on it.

 

[SwissFrank]

I found that DxO gets better resolution than anything DPP throws at RAW.

What is DxO? I may have it confused with something or there are multiple somethings with that name? I'm still using Photoshop CS4 and while it's paid for and belongs to me, it couldn't even open the RAW files from the R so I'm sure it can't open R5. I'm just shooting R5 in high-quality L JPG though I think if I need to the Canon software (which I haven't started up since getting the R5 so I'm really harking back to like 2019 here) can open the RAW then export some format my old Photoshop can read.

 

[usern4cr]

What is DxO? I may have it confused with something or there are multiple somethings with that name? I'm still using Photoshop CS4 and while it's paid for and belongs to me, it couldn't even open the RAW files from the R so I'm sure it can't open R5. I'm just shooting R5 in high-quality L JPG though I think if I need to the Canon software (which I haven't started up since getting the R5 so I'm really harking back to like 2019 here) can open the RAW then export some format my old Photoshop can read.

DxO refers to DxO PhotoLab image software. It is great (and easy to learn & work with), and is what I use (instead of Adobe products). However, I first use fastRawViewer to grade and discard most photos before making the remaining ones look good with PhotoLab. I also use Affinity Photo for massive image files or to do intricate work with photos. But that's just me. Others are quite happy with Adobe products or others (eg. Topaz) as well.

 

[AlanF]

What is DxO? I may have it confused with something or there are multiple somethings with that name? I'm still using Photoshop CS4 and while it's paid for and belongs to me, it couldn't even open the RAW files from the R so I'm sure it can't open R5. I'm just shooting R5 in high-quality L JPG though I think if I need to the Canon software (which I haven't started up since getting the R5 so I'm really harking back to like 2019 here) can open the RAW then export some format my old Photoshop can read.

DxO Photolab, current version 6. Fantastic RAW converter package because of its noise removal from the RAW. It eats noise and leaves more detail than anything else I know.

 

[koenkooi]

What is DxO? I may have it confused with something or there are multiple somethings with that name? I'm still using Photoshop CS4 and while it's paid for and belongs to me, it couldn't even open the RAW files from the R so I'm sure it can't open R5. I'm just shooting R5 in high-quality L JPG though I think if I need to the Canon software (which I haven't started up since getting the R5 so I'm really harking back to like 2019 here) can open the RAW then export some format my old Photoshop can read.

Adobe DNG converter is free and should be able to convert your CR3 files to a DNG version CS4 can understand.
And as you say, DPP4 can generate TIFFs.

 

[SwissFrank]

Adobe DNG converter is free and should be able to convert your CR3 files to a DNG version CS4 can understand.

Thanks always for your help. I was on 11.1 back when I got the R. Now downloading 15.3. I had forgotten about this.