The next full-frame RF mount camera will be a replacement for the Canon EOS R

[EOS 4 Life]

Was it ever promised? Can you point this out for me? I can't see it ever being released personally.

It was never promised but there are several patented versions.
It would be a very different lens than the RF 100-500 L, so both lenses could exist.
However, Canon would want to entice people into buying sets of zooms and they seem too close for that.
On the other hand, most people seem to choose either the RF 600 f/11 or the RF 800 f/11.
Very few people seem to choose both and Canon does not seem to care which one.

 

[dolina]

It was never promised but there are several patented versions.
It would be a very different lens than the RF 100-500 L, so both lenses could exist.
However, Canon would want to entice people into buying sets of zooms and they seem too close for that.
On the other hand, most people seem to choose either the RF 600 f/11 or the RF 800 f/11.
Very few people seem to choose both and Canon does not seem to care which one.

If I was 2x my age today I'd go with the 1kg lens and less than 1kg bodies.

My experience tells me that if you put money into good gear the photos you take will be stolen by a-holes.

 

[Ozarker]

It's inevitable that newer models will have better AF than older ones, that's just progress.
It's also a fact of life that you won't get hi-end performance from a budget camera, because the best AF systems require very expensive processors.

Also, manufacturers have to stop their budget models from cannibalising more expensive ones in their range.

So it would be unrealistic e.g. to expect R3 performance from an R7 or R10.

Canon do a pretty good job though, even with their budget models (I'm talking stills here, not qualified to comment on video)

We're hearing, again, from people who unrealistically expect flagship performance in low end bodies. I'm seeing a reemergence of the "cripple hammer" tripe.

I have an R. While I'd like it to have flagship performance, even a dummy like me knows I ain't paid for it. It seems many who've never tried some gear are the most critical, relying on YouTubers to do the thinking for them, then trotting out the ideas they watched as their own personal knowledge. Makes them feel smart.

 

[dolina]

We're hearing, again, from people who unrealistically expect flagship performance in low end bodies. I'm seeing a reemergence of the "cripple hammer" tripe.

I have an R. While I'd like it to have flagship performance, even a dummy like me knows I ain't paid for it.

This is my 1st time to read the term 'cripple hammer' and I googled it and it is most popularlly used with Canon gear.

Weird.

Having said I am glad there are still people who understand you get what you paid for.

 

[LogicExtremist]

There are many new RF lenses and most (excluding the 600/800L primes) offer something unique ie over their EF counterparts. For me, the RF70-200mm/2.8 is so much better than my previous EF equivalent due to size/weight. No issues with weather sealing with the extending front element. No need for a tripod ring IMHO as the weight balance can be handled easily by the body tripod mount. I haven't seen any image quality issues and focusing is fast due to RF connectivity. Lots of other examples as well. The RF14-35mm/4 and RF100mm macro have additional features (focal length/magnification) but I don't need the extra features so I haven't updated from EF.

Canon haven't released a decent UAW astrolandscape lens... arguably ever. the RF16/RF24mm are perfect for their intended purpose which you have described. What genre can't they do?

It did enable unique lenses like the 600/800 f11 primes though. Given the sensor improvements over time for ISO performance, darker lenses aren't the same problem as they used to be. I would rather than a grainy shot that is sharp than miss it completely

The RF lenses are expensive but mostly offer additional features over their EF counterparts. Canon is maximising their ROI for new products. Migration to R mount is exactly that... a migration over time. Options of RF lenses or adapted EF lenses or second hand gives 3 different price points for users. Getting them to buy a body is the first step to an eventual replacement of their lenses which is the greater dollar cost. Otherwise Canon would have had a greater problem of switchers to other systems

I completely agree with you on this... but I have no complaints about the new RF lenses except that they are expensive. They are still selling well so Canon's strategy is working even as lower end bodies etc are being decimated by smart phones.

Was it ever promised? Can you point this out for me? I can't see it ever being released personally. The RF100-500mm is wonderful. Put a 1.4TC on it and the only downside is that it is from 300mm so you are missing 150-300mm range but get an extra 100mm on the long end.
But (I hear you say) that it isn't bright enough or as heavy as the Sigma.... well that is true but you can always adapt that lens perfectly. The eye AF will work perfectly

Unfortunately the 16mm and 24mm primes don't do well for the main things UW are used for such as landscape, real estate, architecture, and everything lese that needs corner sharpness. Good light travel/hiking lenses though. We know from reviews that the 16mm is not good for video, it struggles with holding focus on a moving subject, so only good for fixed distance focus video such as talking head/Youtube/vlogging. Agreed Canon has never released a decent astro lens, most use third-party lenses.

Saw a review by Gordon Laing of the RF vs EF 100 L macro, the new lens has some limitations. It's reported it suffers from focus shift, which is a deal breaker for many macro photographers. The inclusion of focus-by-wire is questionable on a macro lens, as these are often manually focussed and there's no tactile feedback that its at the end of the range when doing macro at maximum magnification. The optical stabilisation on the EF 100mm f/2.8 L Macro is a whole stop better that the RF version. The RF version is sharper wide open at f/2.8, especially at the edges, but at f/4, and even more so at real macro apertures such as f/8 to f/11 they're virtually identical. The RF lens also doesn't take teleconverters even though the EF lens can (didn't know that was a thing). The RF lens has 1.4x magnification which is a bonus, and a pointless SA control. Watching the video, in the portrait photos, to my eye the bokeh is a bit smoother on the EF macro lens.

I've seen criticisms of the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L, namely around the sacrifice of internal focussing for size/weight, the fact that it doesn't take a teleconverter, and that the zoom ring takes too many turns to be useful for fast-paced photography such as sports and events.

Whether the RF 100mm f/2.8L macro or RF 70-200mm f/2.8L are compelling enough to get the owners of their EF equivalents to upgrade is a matter of debate, and whether pros realise any significant benefit for the additional outlay of money is questionable. It's mainly enthusiasts that constantly shell out for new gear. As you mention, the expensive lenses do sell, but we live in a materialistic society where people buy lots of crap they don't need to soothe themselves psychologically and emotionally, or just love playing with tech gear, so that's really more of an indictment on how good the marketing is, not how great the gear is. It's been argued that Nikon makes better cameras than Sony, but Sony has eaten into Nikon's market share because they market more aggressively, and use lots of influencers to promote their products. Canon does have some really awesome lenses that sell well, but the pro market who upgrade infrequently is tiny compared to the bigger market of prosumers, enthusiasts, hobbyists, gear heads and tech dabblers, some of who would bot even utilise a portion of their gear's capabilities.

The point I'm making here is that all lens designs involve compromises and limitations of some sort, and these can change from one model lens to the other. Only by being aware of what they are can photographers select what best matches their needs and budgets. For gear collectors that's a moot point because it's all about 'buying the best tech', a very ambiguous criteria, which raises their hackles when any real-world limitations are pointed out.

The RF 600mm and 800mm f/11 are a unique set of compromises that offer as you rightly state, the possibility of grainy photos rather than no photos is significant. They do put those long focal lengths into the reach of budget photography. Whether people would be happy with that. or frustrated with the lower image quality is a matter of subjective preference.

The 'promised' Canon 150-600mm would be more accurately described as 'rumoured', you're right there. Then again, many of these rumours are a means of baiting to get expectations up and fixation on the new release of products into the market. Works great for Canon! This site is proof of how much that catches many people's interest. Canon marketing should be paying the owners of this site for drumming up interest in new Canon products lol!

 

[David - Sydney]

excluding the 600/800L primes

Those never had EF equivalents

Are you referring to the 600/800 f11 primes (which are not L lenses) or the EF600/4L and EF800/5.6L that I was referring to which have RF equivalents at an unprecedented markup of ~25% over their EF primes?

Those RF L primes have very little advantage over their EF equivalent especially when the price increase is included in the calculation.

 

[LogicExtremist]

It's so weird that you complain about the 16mm and the 24mm and then point out what they are great for. Those lenses were designed for those exact purposes and they are great for their intended use. Furthermore, they are a bargain and good value for money. Btw, you can use for the "genres UW focal lengths are used for" on top of their intended purposes.

If you want UW lenses for perfect astro shots or great landscaping images, go for the 15-35mm or the 14-35mm, they'll serve your needs.

To put in a different way: nobody would purchase the 15-35mm for vlogging and than complain about the weight and the fact you can't shoot handheld on a gimbal because it's too heavy. I can hear those people now:
"For that kind of money I'd expect a super light UWA zoom..."

Not weird at all, just pointing out the basic fact that many gear heads and fan boys don't want to acknowledge, that different lenses are used for different purposes, and optimised for different purposes within their focal length. These lenses are good for certain things that UWs are used for, and bad for the majority of other uses that the 16mm and 24mm focal lengths are used for. You pay for what you get, though the 24mm is stupidly overpriced for what it is judging on specs alone. When people think that a super-small and super-distorted heavily software corrected RF 16mm f/2.8 is a substitute for other 16mm zooms or primes, then there's something seriously wrong with their understanding of what the gear is designed for. Scary thought is that some people did vlog with RF 14-35L lenses before the tiny RF 16mm f/2.8, so it does have it's niche.

 

[LogicExtremist]

EF 16-35 f/2.8 -> RF 15-35 f/2.8 IS
EF 35 f/2 ->RF 35 f/1.8 Macro
EF 70-300 -> RF 100-400
EF 100-400 -> RF 100-500

Operative word is 'some', I didn't say all! There are many decent improvements, and I agree with the ones you've listed.
I'd also add the RF 24-105L f/4 to your list, though some say the difference is small, I can see it.

 

[David - Sydney]

Unfortunately the 16mm and 24mm primes don't do well for the main things UW are used for such as landscape, real estate, architecture, and everything lese that needs corner sharpness. Good light travel/hiking lenses though. We know from reviews that the 16mm is not good for video, it struggles with holding focus on a moving subject, so only good for fixed distance focus video such as talking head/Youtube/vlogging. Agreed Canon has never released a decent astro lens, most use third-party lenses.

I am not sure what you are expecting from a USD300 lens even if it is a prime. Corner sharpness has been compromised to have a small/inexpensive lens. The only other prime I can think of that has good corner sharpness at that pricepoint is the Samyang EF14mm manual focus. Are there others?

Saw a review by Gordon Laing of the RF vs EF 100 L macro, the new lens has some limitations. It's reported it suffers from focus shift, which is a deal breaker for many macro photographers. The inclusion of focus-by-wire is questionable on a macro lens, as these are often manually focussed and there's no tactile feedback that its at the end of the range when doing macro at maximum magnification. The optical stabilisation on the EF 100mm f/2.8 L Macro is a whole stop better that the RF version. The RF version is sharper wide open at f/2.8, especially at the edges, but at f/4, and even more so at real macro apertures such as f/8 to f/11 they're virtually identical. The RF lens also doesn't take teleconverters even though the EF lens can (didn't know that was a thing). The RF lens has 1.4x magnification which is a bonus, and a pointless SA control. Watching the video, in the portrait photos, to my eye the bokeh is a bit smoother on the EF macro lens.

There are definitely pros and cons for the RF100mm. The strange one for me was the focus shift issue. For portraits, it would still be a very nice lens though.

I've seen criticisms of the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L, namely around the sacrifice of internal focussing for size/weight, the fact that it doesn't take a teleconverter, and that the zoom ring takes too many turns to be useful for fast-paced photography such as sports and events.

Yes, the lack of TC support pushed me to get the RF100-500mm but the size/weight is a big plus for me. I haven't noticed a big issue with the zoom ring turn though.
Canon upsized my investment but I have no regrets now.

The RF 600mm and 800mm f/11 are a unique set of compromises that offer as you rightly state, the possibility of grainy photos rather than no photos is significant. They do put those long focal lengths into the reach of budget photography. Whether people would be happy with that. or frustrated with the lower image quality is a matter of subjective preference.

Just a gateway lens.... who knows, they may then get a RF100-500mm or even a EF/RF 600mm in the future

 

[Skyscraperfan]

IBIS is overrated.
Compare camera shake with a non-stabilised tele or macro, on a 5DMkiv, and on a R5, and you won't notice much difference.
Yes, I have both bodies and have made multiple comparison tests using stabilised and non-stabilised Canon glass.
You'll see an improvement in stabilisation if you use short focal length lenses, but with teles nearly all of the stabilisation is done with the lens, not the body.

That is true. The longer the focal length is, the less effective IBIS is. However in the darkness you never can have enough stops of IBIS even for wide angle shots. Each additional stop allows you to lower the ISO or narrow the aperture to get a greater depth of field. Many lenses have their maximum sharpness around f/5.6 or even f/8 and the ability to take handheld shots for a full second allows you to take better low light photos where tripods are not allowed. My main focus are skyscrapers for example. Whole Downtown Dubai for example is owned by a company that does not allow any tripods even on the streets without a special permission by them. Even in New York City or London you run into problems with a tripod. Those cities are very tripod unfriendly. My normal approach is to take tripod shots anyway until security stops me, but getting the same shots handheld would be great. Observation decks are also an example. Most observation decks do not allow tripods, but during the blue hour you get the best shots. So it still makes a huge difference to me if I have 4,5,6,7 or 8 stops of stabilization. Each additional stop basically doubles the amount of available light. I already own the EF 35mm f/2 IS with four stops of stabilization, which allows me to take night shots at ISO 100, if there are enough city lights, but a few more stops could allow me to use f/4 or take night shots in even darker situations. I am getting older and older and having to use a tripod less often is a huge advantage.

 

[koenkooi]

That is true. The longer the focal length is, the less effective IBIS is. However in the darkness you never can have enough stops of IBIS even for wide angle shots. Each additional stop allows you to lower the ISO or narrow the aperture to get a greater depth of field. Many lenses have their maximum sharpness around f/5.6 or even f/8 and the ability to take handheld shots for a full second allows you to take better low light photos where tripods are not allowed. My main focus are skyscrapers for example. Whole Downtown Dubai for example is owned by a company that does not allow any tripods even on the streets without a special permission by them. Even in New York City or London you run into problems with a tripod. Those cities are very tripod unfriendly. My normal approach is to take tripod shots anyway until security stops me, but getting the same shots handheld would be great. Observation decks are also an example. Most observation decks do not allow tripods, but during the blue hour you get the best shots. So it still makes a huge difference to me if I have 4,5,6,7 or 8 stops of stabilization. Each additional stop basically doubles the amount of available light. I already own the EF 35mm f/2 IS with four stops of stabilization, which allows me to take night shots at ISO 100, if there are enough city lights, but a few more stops could allow me to use f/4 or take night shots in even darker situations. I am getting older and older and having to use a tripod less often is a huge advantage.

For your use case, something like Topaz Denoise or DxO pureRAW might allow you to get similar quality at higher ISO values.

 

[LogicExtremist]

That is true. The longer the focal length is, the less effective IBIS is. However in the darkness you never can have enough stops of IBIS even for wide angle shots. Each additional stop allows you to lower the ISO or narrow the aperture to get a greater depth of field. Many lenses have their maximum sharpness around f/5.6 or even f/8 and the ability to take handheld shots for a full second allows you to take better low light photos where tripods are not allowed. My main focus are skyscrapers for example. Whole Downtown Dubai for example is owned by a company that does not allow any tripods even on the streets without a special permission by them. Even in New York City or London you run into problems with a tripod. Those cities are very tripod unfriendly. My normal approach is to take tripod shots anyway until security stops me, but getting the same shots handheld would be great. Observation decks are also an example. Most observation decks do not allow tripods, but during the blue hour you get the best shots. So it still makes a huge difference to me if I have 4,5,6,7 or 8 stops of stabilization. Each additional stop basically doubles the amount of available light. I already own the EF 35mm f/2 IS with four stops of stabilization, which allows me to take night shots at ISO 100, if there are enough city lights, but a few more stops could allow me to use f/4 or take night shots in even darker situations. I am getting older and older and having to use a tripod less often is a huge advantage.

The problem is the lower shutter speeds seem to make the new higher megapixel cameras more prone to shutter shock, blurring the images. Since long exposures don't work on anything moving, and electronic shutter can't be used in that scenario either, that constrains what can be used where.. I can't imagine that having IBIS system with an unsecured sensor that can slide around that is only being held in place by electromagnetic force would help at all with shutter shock issues. It's probably half the problem.

With all the fuss that people make about IBIS and auto tracking of human/animal eyes and cars on photography forums, you'd almost think that every second person was a pro sports or wildlife photographer shooting handheld in low light!

 

[dolina]

The problem is the lower shutter speeds seem to make the new higher megapixel cameras more prone to shutter shock, blurring the images. Since long exposures don't work on anything moving, and electronic shutter can't be used in that scenario either, that constrains what can be used where.. I can't imagine that having IBIS system with an unsecured sensor that can slide around that is only being held in place by electromagnetic force would help at all with shutter shock issues. It's probably half the problem.

With all the fuss that people make about IBIS and auto tracking of human/animal eyes and cars on photography forums, you'd almost think that every second person was a pro sports or wildlife photographer shooting handheld in low light!

Wouldn't IBIS cover that?

 

[LogicExtremist]

Wouldn't IBIS cover that?

I don't think that IBIS can respond fast enough to counteract shutter shock, especially at very high fps burst shooting, that's why we're seeing the problem of shutter shock even with EFCS, where the first frame is in focus, but the rest of the frames in a burst won't be.

 

[dolina]

I don't think that IBIS can respond fast enough to counteract shutter shock, especially at very high fps burst shooting, that's why we're seeing the problem of shutter shock even with EFCS, where the first frame is in focus, but the rest of the frames in a burst won't be.

Is it so bad that working photogs are not buying R3, R5 & R7 bodies?

 

[David - Sydney]

With all the fuss that people make about IBIS and auto tracking of human/animal eyes and cars on photography forums, you'd almost think that every second person was a pro sports or wildlife photographer shooting handheld in low light!

Maybe not all of us are "pro" (however you want to define it) but we want to get good value out our gear and the limited opportunities we have to use it. Going on a 3 hour puffin photoshoot in Iceland was fantastic and the keeper rate was amazingly good. High wind to start with was playing havoc with the RF100-500mm extended so it was surprising to get so many sharp shots.

I am unlikely to do it again given the cost and serious travel time to get there. Puffins are only in the northern hemisphere so it will be close to a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for me. Eye-AF and R5/RF100-500mm has meant some great memories for both me and many other friends and family here that have never seen them before. That in itself justifies my outlay and using my previous 5Div+EF70-200mm+2xTC couldn't have got close to the same outcome.

https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/show-your-bird-portraits.1280/page-1306#post-939308

 

[koenkooi]

Wouldn't IBIS cover that?

Canon IS systems (both ILIS and IBIS) seem to make shutter shock worse in the 1/60s - 1/160s range, image quality drastically improves both when using faster shutter speeds (duh....) but also when using lower shutter speeds. Switching to electronic shutter or EFCS also helps.

The EF600III is to date the only lens to have received a firmware upgrade to alleviate that, all other IS lenses and IBIS bodies are still affected :/

 

[LogicExtremist]

Is it so bad that working photogs are not buying R3, R5 & R7 bodies?

Not that bad at all, but enough to get quite a few complaints across several forums if you do a search on "Canon shutter shock". It's harder to conduct heat out of a sensor mounted on a moving sliding frame, remember the overheating problems with R5?

It's really just the same old point as always, every design feature has trade-offs, pros and cons. If people understand that, then it's expected something will be discovered that's less than ideal, namely because nothing is 'perfect'. The quicker people come to terms with that fact that all design involves compromises, the less disappointed they'll be with the way things work in the physical world!

If people want the benefits of IBIS, expect downsides to that too. Some people don't need IBIS and therefore don't want the compromises it brings. Everyone has different needs.

 

[LogicExtremist]

Maybe not all of us are "pro" (however you want to define it) but we want to get good value out our gear and the limited opportunities we have to use it. Going on a 3 hour puffin photoshoot in Iceland was fantastic and the keeper rate was amazingly good. High wind to start with was playing havoc with the RF100-500mm extended so it was surprising to get so many sharp shots.

I am unlikely to do it again given the cost and serious travel time to get there. Puffins are only in the northern hemisphere so it will be close to a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for me. Eye-AF and R5/RF100-500mm has meant some great memories for both me and many other friends and family here that have never seen them before. That in itself justifies my outlay and using my previous 5Div+EF70-200mm+2xTC couldn't have got close to the same outcome.

https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/show-your-bird-portraits.1280/page-1306#post-939308

Perfect case for the new tech capabilities, wildlife in challenging conditions, and such a wonderful opportunity of a lifetime! Definitely worth it, hope you got some really cool pictures, pardon the pun! What you're pointed out here is that people need the right tools for the photographic task at hand, and having helpful tech makes the task easier.

My joke about every second person being a pro sports/wildlife photog was a dig about how mission critical the tech is for some. The most amusing thing I see on forums is that tech enthusiasts insist they need the latest tech to be able to take decent pictures in their favourite genre. Meanwhile, pros are out there earning good money with lesser spec equipment. Each to their own I guess, no judgement there. There's a lot of marketing hype creating artificial demand, putting out the false narrative that people need the latest equipment to be able to take decent photos, and that they need to update it regularly. What they don't say is that is what you should do if you're a technology early adopter, and if you're a photographer, you'd be better travelling somewhere interesting, taking classes too improve skills, or practice more.

What I do wonder about the people who fuss about tech they don't use or need in their camera bodies, especially if it's only applicable to specific genres of photography. It's more "fear of missing out". Canon flagship cameras all worked fine, even when they lacked IBIS that Sony did feature. Forums sometimes resemble schoolyard chatter - Sony has BSI sensors, I want one too, blah, blah, blah. As digitalcameraworld.com explains "Do BSI sensors make a difference? They do, but despite the hype that often goes with them, it’s typically a percentage gain in photosite size and efficiency that does definitely improve sensitivity and image quality, but is not necessarily a game changer."

My simple point is that some genres of photography do need tech like IBIS, some don't. It's not a necessity, any more than AF tracking is if you shoot still subjects.

 

[AlanF]

The problem is the lower shutter speeds seem to make the new higher megapixel cameras more prone to shutter shock, blurring the images. Since long exposures don't work on anything moving, and electronic shutter can't be used in that scenario either, that constrains what can be used where.. I can't imagine that having IBIS system with an unsecured sensor that can slide around that is only being held in place by electromagnetic force would help at all with shutter shock issues. It's probably half the problem.

With all the fuss that people make about IBIS and auto tracking of human/animal eyes and cars on photography forums, you'd almost think that every second person was a pro sports or wildlife photographer shooting handheld in low light!

The reports for shuttershock are for the R7 not the high resolution R5, and it's due to the design of the shutter combined with the very high fps in EFCS and not the camera resolution. It's not due to the IBIS either because some EF lenses are immune to it. The ES modes on the R7, R5 and R3 can be used for single shots at long exposures.

Facts aside, I agree with your comments about fuss. Like life in general, you get the most out of it by doing what you are good at, avoiding what you are bad at, and finding workarounds for difficulties. These camera fusspots must be glass-half-empty critics in general. Just get the best out of your gear by making the most of it.