The Canon EOS R8 will be announced at CP+ in February

[Michael Clark]

The previous "S", the 50 Mpx 5DS had 67% more pixels than the next highest 5D, the 5D IV, giving a noticeable ~30% increase in resolution. An 88 Mpx R5 S would give a 20% increase over a 60 Mpx R5 II under ideal circumstances of low iso and wide lenses as we are really getting into diminishing returms from diffraction and noise lowering resolution. So, with all the possibilities of increasing resolution from pixel shift and other technologies, I wonder if their would be much demand for an R5 S over an R5 II?

At the time the 50MP 5Ds and 5Ds R were introduced in 2015 the current "regular" 5D was the 22MP 5D Mark III. That was a 127% increase in sensels. The 30MP 5D Mark IV didn't come out until a year later in 2016.

 

[Michael Clark]

For still subjects then sure.
I expect the R5 II to be 40 FPS in photo mode just like the R6 II currently is.
I would be surprised if an R5 S is even 20 FPS like the R5.
Plus I would expect the R5 II to have a deeper buffer.

You can call them stills if you like, but at 40fps they are video frames that just haven't been combined into a single file yet...

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Canon doesn't have to license anything to make it easier for third party lens makers to produce RF mount lenses. They just have to "look the other way" instead of aggressively pursuing them in legal proceedings.

Jan Wegener brought up the point that certain lenses like the RF 800 f/11 behave differently on different cameras.
He suspects that there is also a software component that may not be possible to reverse engineer.
Sigma might need assistance from Canon and not just permission.

 

[Czardoom]

Jan Wegener brought up the point that certain lenses like the RF 800 f/11 behave differently on different cameras.
He suspects that there is also a software component that may not be possible to reverse engineer.
Sigma might need assistance from Canon and not just permission.

I think it is likely that Canon will do what Nikon is doing - negotiating licensing agrements with Tamron and Sigma. When Canon feels that they have enough RF lenses in the lineup is when it might happen. Canon continues to profit and Sigma and Tamron will as well - without having to spend the money and resources on reverse engineering which may or may not be successful.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I think it is likely that Canon will do what Nikon is doing - negotiating licensing agrements with Tamron and Sigma. When Canon feels that they have enough RF lenses in the lineup is when it might happen. Canon continues to profit and Sigma and Tamron will as well - without having to spend the money and resources on reverse engineering which may or may not be successful.

I disagree, but time will tell. Clearly they're willing to license the RF mount and protocols, e.g to RED. The difference is that Canon leads the market, they don't need 'help'. When Sony ventured into FF MILCs, they needed it. Nikon is hemorrhaging market share now, so they need it. Canon...doesn't.

 

[koenkooi]

I disagree, but time will tell. Clearly they're willing to license the RF mount and protocols, e.g to RED. The difference is that Canon leads the market, they don't need 'help'. When Sony ventured into FF MILCs, they needed it. Nikon is hemorrhaging market share now, so they need it. Canon...doesn't.

I wonder if RED received permission for using an RF mount on their bodies in exchange for allowing Canon to use ProRES-over-HDMI.

 

[AlanF]

Jan Wegener brought up the point that certain lenses like the RF 800 f/11 behave differently on different cameras.
He suspects that there is also a software component that may not be possible to reverse engineer.
Sigma might need assistance from Canon and not just permission.

Could you tell me please where Jan Wegener said this about the RF 800 f/11.

 

[Michael Clark]

Jan Wegener brought up the point that certain lenses like the RF 800 f/11 behave differently on different cameras.
He suspects that there is also a software component that may not be possible to reverse engineer.
Sigma might need assistance from Canon and not just permission.

Any protocol can be reverse engineered given enough time and money. The question then becomes, "Is it worth it?"

 

[Czardoom]

I disagree, but time will tell. Clearly they're willing to license the RF mount and protocols, e.g to RED. The difference is that Canon leads the market, they don't need 'help'. When Sony ventured into FF MILCs, they needed it. Nikon is hemorrhaging market share now, so they need it. Canon...doesn't.

I think Canon will negotiate license agreements that stipulate what lenses Sigma and Tamron can make - allowing the 3rd party companies to make lenses that Canon has no interest in making. The agreement that Nikon has with Tamron is rumored to be such an agreement - and, of course, I have no way of knowing if this is true. If such an agreement can be made, Canon profits with far less negative impact on their own lens sales.

Sifting through various Facebook groups, there is no doubt that the news of "Bad" Canon not allowing 3rd party lens makers to make RF lenses has been bad publicity for them (usually making this a blanket statement and not mentioning it is only AF lenses, and making it sound like Canon has officially declared that this a policy that will definitely not change in the future). There are people posting, who for this very reason, have bought their first - or next camera - from another brand. So far, the numbers are no doubt small, and it has not hurt Canon's position in the market, but bad publicity, once it gets on social media, can not be a good thing - especially when it is exaggerated or not completely accurate. Just look at Sony - there first two generations of mirrorless FF cameras were very sub-par (in my opinion as a 40 year photographer), but social media told us how great they were and they sold well and established Sony as the number 2 brand. So best not to have a bad reputation on social media in today's world, so it seems.

 

[koenkooi]

I think Canon will negotiate license agreements that stipulate what lenses Sigma and Tamron can make - allowing the 3rd party companies to make lenses that Canon has no interest in making. The agreement that Nikon has with Tamron is rumored to be such an agreement - and, of course, I have no way of knowing if this is true. If such an agreement can be made, Canon profits with far less negative impact on their own lens sales.

Sifting through various Facebook groups, there is no doubt that the news of "Bad" Canon not allowing 3rd party lens makers to make RF lenses has been bad publicity for them (usually making this a blanket statement and not mentioning it is only AF lenses, and making it sound like Canon has officially declared that this a policy that will definitely not change in the future). There are people posting, who for this very reason, have bought their first - or next camera - from another brand. So far, the numbers are no doubt small, and it has not hurt Canon's position in the market, but bad publicity, once it gets on social media, can not be a good thing - especially when it is exaggerated or not completely accurate. Just look at Sony - there first two generations of mirrorless FF cameras were very sub-par (in my opinion as a 40 year photographer), but social media told us how great they were and they sold well and established Sony as the number 2 brand. So best not to have a bad reputation on social media in today's world, so it seems.

I find it hard to gauge how much actual impact this has, seeing how ‘DR’, ‘overheating’ and other hypes haven’t dooooooomed Canon.

Having said that, not having the 3rd party lenses that EF did in RF is something non-nerds understand and impacts their buying power directly.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I find it hard to gauge how much actual impact this has, seeing how ‘DR’, ‘overheating’ and other hypes haven’t dooooooomed Canon.

I suspect this is another irrelevancy. Especially if, as @Czardoom suggests the social media complaints don’t specify AF lenses, when someone runs across one of the many available 3rd party manual RF lenses online it renders the complaint moot.

Having said that, not having the 3rd party lenses that EF did in RF is something non-nerds understand and impacts their buying power directly.

One of the big draws of 3rd party lenses was their lower cost offerings, e.g., the many 150-600mm lenses. Canon now has affordable 100-400, 600 and 800mm for RF (that even take TCs). I think those lenses are Canon’s response to the prior availability of 3rd party lenses, and it’s a good one.

 

[unfocused]

Adding a few points here to the above discussion.

Most “non-nerds” buy a kit lens and maybe one telephoto zoom (often bundled with the camera in the past). Few go beyond that to even consider third party lenses.

I see no scenario where it makes sense for Canon to license third-party manufacturers. About the only rationale that is promoted on this forum is that Canon is worried about bad publicity. I doubt if the issue really generates that much negative publicity or that Canon can’t weather these complaints, which come from a small, but vocal, group on the internet.

These complaints only gain traction if Canon can’t meet demand with their own lenses and as @neuroanatomist points out, Canon has been producing a good mix of bargain and high end lenses that fill many of the niches that third-party manufacturers might go for.

Everyone assumes that third-party manufacturers are itching to get into the market and being held back by Canon. But they were never held back before and they remain capable of reverse engineering the mount if they choose to do so. It’s entirely possible that at this stage in the development of the R mount, they just don’t see it as large enough to justify the investment.

 

[shadow]

Everyone assumes that third-party manufacturers are itching to get into the market and being held back by Canon

Sigma said they were 100% interested. They would instantly start if they could get Canon's approval. The legal cease and desist I think on Vitrox(?) or IP lawsuit holds them back they didn't name it, and at the moment forgot who got notice.

I wanted to know exactly because I intended on buying the R10 and as announced here the no 3rd party lens thread stopped me.. So I wrote to Sigma about if they planned to offer the 16, 30 and 56 mm (Offered in most other mounts) in AF RF lenses about 3 months ago, part of my own decision making on the R10 when faced with looking at $2000. RF 1.4 lenses turned me off. Canon still does not have a fast prime $500 11mm RF wide angle now so I didn't buy the R10, nor plan on any R mount products until RF-S are offered or never as I refuse to invest more. The Sony 11mm f/1.8 ( no OSS) paid about $600. So I reluctantly bought a Sony A6400 instead. The image stabilization or tripod though is needed for video and I have one Sony zoom lens I bought for that.

 

[Jsjamesok]

The fact that Canon is abandoning customers with EF-format cameras in favor of RF-format and ceasing to offer new EF lenses and bodies makes me regret trusting them and buying an EOS 5D Mark III.

I don't like the RF series LCD viewfinders which are bad for the eyes. I will not change either my equipment which cost me a fortune to adopt the range without RF mirror. I will abandon Canon, as they sadly abandoned me. And for this reason I will certainly never buy the Canon brand, which from my point of view abused the trust I had in them ;-(

I hear you-- I have a 5DS and the body handling and feel is fantastic. Many of the EF lenses that I own were good for my 6D but looked terrible on the 5DS. You should maybe sit tight and grab cheap EF lenses used. There are a lot of good copies that will become available. I went to a R5 and have kept my EF 2.8 24-70 and 100-400 in use. Just have added the RF 14-35 and 70-200 but went F4 for price (hobby not a profession) I have used Canon since the early 80s and could make a mini museum, but cannot recommend to friends asking advise until the mount is opened to 3rd parties. Insanely love my R5 by the way.