This is the Canon RF lens roadmap

AutoMatters

I'm New Here
Dec 3, 2021
17
2
You are correct, apologies for having forgotten about that, definitely something to pursue if you are one of the lucky ones (it is only available on the EOS 1D X Mk3, R5, R6 and R3, and I'm going to guess it will not be retroactively implemented on older camera bodies like my RPs). Apparently it requires the DIGIC X processor used by these more recent high-end cameras. Adobe's website mentions HEIF, so there is a chance it is supported https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom-cc/kb/heic-files-support.html It is interesting that Canon went along with a format standard that is vendor-defined (Apple, 2017), instead of trying to revive industry consortia initiatives e.g. JPEG2000 to address the issue of better bit depth. To Apple's credit, HEIF not only adds 2 bits (and apparently allows for more as a format), it also has a more efficient compression such that the resulting file is approximately the same size as an 8-bit JPG. Setting your camera to use HEIF is somewhere in the HDR menus, I do not have a manual for any of the supported cameras so you will need to sit down and look through the user manual to get the details. Sony seems to have also implemented HEIF, less clear about Nikon. Most computer browsers do not support it (yet).
According to what Adobe says at the link that you have included, Lightroom Classic will not support photos and videos captured in the HEIF format unless they were shot with iOS devices. I saw nothing about HEIF photos and videos shot with any Canon cameras:
"Although modern camera devices provide the capability to capture HEIF/.heic photos and HEVC (H.265) videos, Lightroom and Camera raw support only HEIF/.heic files created with iOS devices."
 

Rivermist

Mirrorless or bust.
Apr 27, 2019
112
159
Houston
According to what Adobe says at the link that you have included, Lightroom Classic will not support photos and videos captured in the HEIF format unless they were shot with iOS devices. I saw nothing about HEIF photos and videos shot with any Canon cameras:
"Although modern camera devices provide the capability to capture HEIF/.heic photos and HEVC (H.265) videos, Lightroom and Camera raw support only HEIF/.heic files created with iOS devices."
Ah, yes, I see that. Full disclosure although I pay $10/month to the Adobe empire for PhotoShop and assorted other photo software, I am not a huge fan, and what you have found there is one such reason. A responsible company, seeing the #1 digital camera company adopting a new format for its flagship bodies would work tirelessly at supporting this format, since one can infer that it is mainly professional photographers who have access to these cameras. Why you would support folks using cell phones (yes, I know, some forms of pro imagery use them too) but snub people spending north of $6,000 on the camera alone is baffling to me. I use ON-1 Photo RAW for my RAW and JPG general photo sorting, editing and converting (RAW to JPG), the documentation for ON-1 Photo RAW 2022.1 (December 2021) adds the R3, with only a proviso that the sRAW and mRAW file formats are not fully supported (no access to the "tier 1" engine). In the supported formatted it lists "Apple HEIC" but this does not tell me whether this means "HEIC files as defined by Apple" or "Only HEIC files produced by Apple devices", and I do not have a Canon body that does HEIC so I can't check this feature.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

AutoMatters

I'm New Here
Dec 3, 2021
17
2
Ah, yes, I see that. Full disclosure although I pay $10/month to the Adobe empire for PhotoShop and assorted other photo software, I am not a huge fan, and what you have found there is one such reason. A responsible company, seeing the #1 digital camera company adopting a new format for its flagship bodies would work tirelessly at supporting this format, since one can infer that it is mainly professional photographers who have access to these cameras. Why you would support folks using cell phones (yes, I know, some forms of pro imagery use them too) but snub people spending north of $6,000 on the camera alone is baffling to me. I use ON-1 Photo RAW for my RAW and JPG general photo sorting, editing and converting (RAW to JPG), the documentation for ON-1 Photo RAW 2022.1 (December 2021) adds the R3, with only a proviso that the sRAW and mRAW file formats are not fully supported (no access to the "tier 1" engine). In the supported formatted it lists "Apple HEIC" but this does not tell me whether this means "HEIC files as defined by Apple" or "Only HEIC files produced by Apple devices", and I do not have a Canon body that does HEIC so I can't check this feature.
Like you, I too have Adobe's $10/month photographers' package. I fought the subscription model for a long time, until they made it impossible to use their standalone software with the latest computer operating systems. While there may well be other, better editing software out there, I do not have the time or desire to learn how to use it. I can't keep up with everything I do as it is. I will be covering CES (the Consumer Electronics Show) next week. Before I leave on Sunday I still need to finish this week's column, setup and learn how to use my new EOS R3, write next week's column, pack and do a bunch of other stuff — including eating and sleeping. The fun never ends...
 

AutoMatters

I'm New Here
Dec 3, 2021
17
2
Safe travels. I did find this info on a Fred Miranda forum https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1655827/0?keyword=HEIF#15291671
It seems that Lightroom supports .HIF files. For Photoshop rename your file from IMG_1130.HIF to IMG_1130.HEIF and it should work. .HEIF is the file extension for Apple iPhone photos
I still clearly remember when the only competing formats were 8-tracks and cassettes for audio, and VHS and Beta for video. File formats have taken things to a new, nearly incomprehensible level for most people.
 

Rivermist

Mirrorless or bust.
Apr 27, 2019
112
159
Houston
I still clearly remember when the only competing formats were 8-tracks and cassettes for audio, and VHS and Beta for video. File formats have taken things to a new, nearly incomprehensible level for most people.
Yes, agreed. For our use as photographers one has to admit that JPEG has been a strong standard and remains relavant for 80% of image consumption. The pity is that JPEG 2000 that was meant to address among other things the need for something better than 8 bits per color channel never caught on. Was it simply too far ahead of its time (digital cameras in 2000 were seldom much better than 8 bits)? If there is consensus that Apple's HEIC - HEIF is the way to go, how long will it take to sort out filename extensions and other minutiae to make it a truly universal standard used across all operating systems, photo software, browsers, etc..?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Oct 31, 2020
257
328
Any news about the once rumored

RF 14-28mm F2 and

RF 70-135mm F2?

I'd be in the market for one of these lenses, probably the RF 14-28mm but I'm doubting its actual release more and more...

An F2 trinity would be so amazing! (I'd still only get one out three)
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,731
4,667
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Any news about the once rumored

RF 14-28mm F2 and

RF 70-135mm F2?

I'd be in the market for one of these lenses, probably the RF 14-28mm but I'm doubting its actual release more and more...

An F2 trinity would be so amazing! (I'd still only get one out three)
I don't see either of those lenses on Craig's roadmap. Am I missing something?
 

Rivermist

Mirrorless or bust.
Apr 27, 2019
112
159
Houston
I don't see either of those lenses on Craig's roadmap. Am I missing something?
I definitely recall mentions of the 70-135 f:2, I too would have loved that as a replacement for heavy primes (85, 100, 135) and more versatile in a context of e.g. live music locales. I have since given up (for now) on expensive IBIS cameras and got the 70-200 f:4 lens for compactness and light weight and IS.
The 14-28 sounds attractive, it may have been mentioned but less than the 70-135. The 10-24 is on the list now, not an f:2 of course.
If anyone at Canon is listening, after filling a few obvious gaps for pros (wide angle primes and maybe a TS lens) they should prioritize a mid-range selection of L-grade primes, e.g. 24 1.8, 50 1.4, 85 1.4, 135 2.5 that are excellent optically but not as heavy and bulky as the current super-premium all-1.2 primes costing north of $2,000 each without IS
 
Oct 31, 2020
257
328
I don't see either of those lenses on Craig's roadmap. Am I missing something?
No, you're not missing anything. The RF 14-28mm F2 is just a rumored lense and not on Craigs roadmap. Since Canon execs stated after the release of the 28-70mm F2 that they are considering/ planning more F2 zoom lenses and there are patents for it, I figured it might be about time now. The release of the first f2 zoom dates back over three years and would be great to see another one.

Craig posted the patent back in October 2019:

https://www.canonrumors.com/patent-canon-rf-10-24mm-f-4-and-canon-rf-14-28-f-2-0/

I just thought I asked if somebody had heard anything else, since don't have to the time to follow multiple camera forums.
 

SonicStudios

R5
CR Pro
Mar 4, 2020
51
49
Not sure, but I think I saw something today that Canon maybe retiring the EF 300 2.8 prime, Maybe something is soon on the horizon for an RF replacement.
 
Last edited:

Fredster

EOS M50
CR Pro
What a shame throughout the years I purchased a great deal of Lenses there is no way I can start all over again sell my Lenses and buy all new R. Lenses. Life is too short. I did purchase four or five R Lenses maybe a few more.
 

asingleredcactus@h

I'm New Here
Feb 13, 2022
9
3
Ah, yes, I see that. Full disclosure although I pay $10/month to the Adobe empire for PhotoShop and assorted other photo software, I am not a huge fan, and what you have found there is one such reason. A responsible company, seeing the #1 digital camera company adopting a new format for its flagship bodies would work tirelessly at supporting this format, since one can infer that it is mainly professional photographers who have access to these cameras. Why you would support folks using cell phones (yes, I know, some forms of pro imagery use them too) but snub people spending north of $6,000 on the camera alone is baffling to me. I use ON-1 Photo RAW for my RAW and JPG general photo sorting, editing and converting (RAW to JPG), the documentation for ON-1 Photo RAW 2022.1 (December 2021) adds the R3, with only a proviso that the sRAW and mRAW file formats are not fully supported (no access to the "tier 1" engine). In the supported formatted it lists "Apple HEIC" but this does not tell me whether this means "HEIC files as defined by Apple" or "Only HEIC files produced by Apple devices", and I do not have a Canon body that does HEIC so I can't check this feature.
The reason is simple, HEIC/HEIF is owned by Apple, naturally Apple wants THEIR files editable in Photoshop.. The fact that Canon put it in their cameras is just them falling for Apple's trick in trying to get HEIF to be the mainstream replacement for JPG. Probably because some genius decided hey, imagine if we could charge licensing fees for every JPG on earth by replacing JPG with our own made up format!! Wow!! We're gonna be rich!

BTW, most file formats shouldn't even be patentable, they're literally all the same damn thing! They hold RGB data!! What is the damn difference?? TIFF, PNG, HEIF, JPG, all RGB data format. Transparency? It's like patenting a spreadsheet layout. Can you patent your excel spreadsheets? Lets all send our spreadsheets to the patent office and sue anyone who uses our layouts. Sounds like a great idea...
 

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,272
2,152
Kentucky, USA
The reason is simple, HEIC/HEIF is owned by Apple, naturally Apple wants THEIR files editable in Photoshop.. The fact that Canon put it in their cameras is just them falling for Apple's trick in trying to get HEIF to be the mainstream replacement for JPG. Probably because some genius decided hey, imagine if we could charge licensing fees for every JPG on earth by replacing JPG with our own made up format!! Wow!! We're gonna be rich!

BTW, most file formats shouldn't even be patentable, they're literally all the same damn thing! They hold RGB data!! What is the damn difference?? TIFF, PNG, HEIF, JPG, all RGB data format. Transparency? It's like patenting a spreadsheet layout. Can you patent your excel spreadsheets? Lets all send our spreadsheets to the patent office and sue anyone who uses our layouts. Sounds like a great idea...
I take photos in raw format only. I wish DXO PhotoLab would have the option to export files in HEIC/HEIF format as I am tired of exporting, storing and sharing jpg files as they are lower quality and take up more storage than the HEIC/HEIF files would. As sensor resolutions increase through the roof, and the ease of digital photography helps create tens to hundreds of thousands of photos for me, it is more urgent than ever for *any* file format to replace jpg files in the future.
 

asingleredcactus@h

I'm New Here
Feb 13, 2022
9
3
I take photos in raw format only. I wish DXO PhotoLab would have the option to export files in HEIC/HEIF format as I am tired of exporting, storing and sharing jpg files as they are lower quality and take up more storage than the HEIC/HEIF files would. As sensor resolutions increase through the roof, and the ease of digital photography helps create tens to hundreds of thousands of photos for me, it is more urgent than ever for *any* file format to replace jpg files in the future.
You can already do that using JPG2000. BTW, show me a comparison where HEIF actually looks better than JPG and is still lower weight. I haven't seen one. For all the claims about formats like WEBP and HEIF they actually seem to be worse than JPG. It's probably shocking to people who don't understand what a bunch of scammers these silicon valley types are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Rivermist

Mirrorless or bust.
Apr 27, 2019
112
159
Houston
You can already do that using JPG2000. BTW, show me a comparison where HEIF actually looks better than JPG and is still lower weight. I haven't seen one. For all the claims about formats like WEBP and HEIF they actually seem to be worse than JPG. It's probably shocking to people who don't understand what a bunch of scammers these silicon valley types are.
There is a reason why a standard is adopted, or not. JPG prevailed because the industry converged on a single 8-bit format, with variable compression, and more than enough for the sensors, screens and most printing systems. JPEG2000 suffered from excessive customization possibilities, 1 to 39 bits per channel, different color encodings, and to the best of my knowledge camera manufacturers never got together to standardize to a specific set of specifications such that any application can read all JPG2000 files from any origin, the way they can with JPG.
Some (me) use RAW as an insurance policy, allowing for exposure correction, color balance, shadows or brights assimilation, etc, but from there we produce jpgs to print of share with others, and now that 10-bit monitors and other facilities are there is makes sense to look for something new. Apple does not create standards if there is a competent one out there, they went along with MP3 until it was no longer satisfactory, now you will find most A/D D/A converters supporting Apple Lossless Audio Codec, which is license- and royalty-free under the Apache 2.0 licensing scheme. For photography Apple adopted HEIF, a format defined by Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG) (ISO/IEC 23008-12), and made it popular by integrating it with the iPhone, iOS and MacOS. So it is not really an Apple standard so much as a standard that was dormant until a very influential company adopted it. Canon are smart to follow that trend.
I am interested in HEIF, even if I do not have (yet) a 10 bit monitor, because I would be able to take images from the camera with the possibility to correct + - 1 EV the luminosity, so I may not need to swamp my disk drives with RAW files quite so much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
632
643
There is a reason why a standard is adopted, or not. JPG prevailed because the industry converged on a single 8-bit format, with variable compression, and more than enough for the sensors, screens and most printing systems. JPEG2000 suffered from excessive customization possibilities, 1 to 39 bits per channel, different color encodings, and to the best of my knowledge camera manufacturers never got together to standardize to a specific set of specifications such that any application can read all JPG2000 files from any origin, the way they can with JPG.
Some (me) use RAW as an insurance policy, allowing for exposure correction, color balance, shadows or brights assimilation, etc, but from there we produce jpgs to print of share with others, and now that 10-bit monitors and other facilities are there is makes sense to look for something new. Apple does not create standards if there is a competent one out there, they went along with MP3 until it was no longer satisfactory, now you will find most A/D D/A converters supporting Apple Lossless Audio Codec, which is license- and royalty-free under the Apache 2.0 licensing scheme. For photography Apple adopted HEIF, a format defined by Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG) (ISO/IEC 23008-12), and made it popular by integrating it with the iPhone, iOS and MacOS. So it is not really an Apple standard so much as a standard that was dormant until a very influential company adopted it. Canon are smart to follow that trend.
I am interested in HEIF, even if I do not have (yet) a 10 bit monitor, because I would be able to take images from the camera with the possibility to correct + - 1 EV the luminosity, so I may not need to swamp my disk drives with RAW files quite so much.
Actually, the standards that tend to get the widest adoption are the ones that have no royalty attached and don't have multiple players trying to extort money out of anybody they can. JPEG had its trials with patent claims, but they came late in the game and were all shot down. Most of the stuff out of the MPEG committee has been very problematic with respect to patent claims and the MPEG video standard only took off after a central licensing administrator was set up to standardize the process. HEIC definitely has a license requirement because you have to activate it to make Canon DPP read the files (not to mention that some AV software sees it as a root kit). Another alternative that may well win the game is JPEG XL https://jpeg.org/jpegxl/index.html . It has similar efficiency to HEIC along with some other neat tricks and also lossless compression mode that many would find interesting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Rivermist

Mirrorless or bust.
Apr 27, 2019
112
159
Houston
Actually, the standards that tend to get the widest adoption are the ones that have no royalty attached and don't have multiple players trying to extort money out of anybody they can. JPEG had its trials with patent claims, but they came late in the game and were all shot down. Most of the stuff out of the MPEG committee has been very problematic with respect to patent claims and the MPEG video standard only took off after a central licensing administrator was set up to standardize the process. HEIC definitely has a license requirement because you have to activate it to make Canon DPP read the files (not to mention that some AV software sees it as a root kit). Another alternative that may well win the game is JPEG XL https://jpeg.org/jpegxl/index.html . It has similar efficiency to HEIC along with some other neat tricks and also lossless compression mode that many would find interesting.
I worked for 4 years in an industry consortium developing data standards for oil & gas data, our standards had no licensing or royalty fees but they did have a license to which companies that used them had to subscribe, essentially committing to certain terms and conditions when using the intellectual property, but the consortium never solicited any payments. A company building products that used the standards could of course charge for the licensing of their software.
HEIC is free on iOS, MacOS, Windows 10, some Android, etc. There seem to be license fees for some derivatives, e.g. the HEVC video extensions on Windows.
Ultimately a standard "wins" when its adoption is transparent to end-users and it is supported by all the major players in the workflow, in the case of photography camera manufacturers, operating systems of the computers on which pictures are stored, the major software vendors of photographic software and the display systems. HEIC seems to be reaching the tipping point at all steps of the workflow except web browsers. As we learnt with examples such as Betamax versus VHS, it is not always technical merit alone that creates the winners, it is the de facto adoption that matters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

dolina

millennial
Dec 27, 2011
2,322
370
32
34109
www.facebook.com
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users