Three new stacked sensor cameras coming from Canon [CR2]

[David - Sydney]

These:

• 28-300L
• 70-300L
• 14/2.8L II
• 15/2.8 fisheye
• 24/1.4L II
• 40/2.8 pancake
• 100/2 (maybe the 85/2 is the replacement, but interestingly the 85/1.8 is not on the discontinued list)
• 200/2L
• 3002/2.8L II (maybe the 100-300/2.8 is the replacement)
• 500/4L IS II
• MP-E 65/2.8
• 180/3.5L Macro
• TS-E 135/4L Macro
• Plus a whole bunch of EF-S lenses for which there's no RF-S replacement

The above are all on Canon Japan's list of EF LENS Discontinued Products.

Of course, Canon knows the sales volume for each which would determine the priority to release a RF version and whether a RF version is warranted at all.
We can only assume that the key EF-M lenses will be repackaged into RF-S lenses but when is a good question.

Assuming the discontinued date is the "updated" date when you click through., it looks like Canon did a clean out during the 2021/2022 covid years. Perhaps due to supply chain issues vs sales. None of these dates were before the R mount was released in 2018.
2021
15/2.8 fisheye (19/3/2021) => unique lens but the EF8-15mm/4 would have covered 99% of the requirements for this one
100/2 (maybe the 85/2 is the replacement, but interestingly the 85/1.8 is not on the discontinued list). (30/3/2021) => I was never sure what was the use case for this one. Maybe 85mm is the new 100mm. The RF100/2.8 and EF macro versions are great portrait lenses

2022 January
70-300L (18/1/2022, 31/3/2021, 31/3/2021) => They weren't great optically. The RF100-300/2.8 covers the focal length if not the price bracket
14/2.8L II (18/1/2022) => expensive for what it was and not great optically for astrolandscapes. I don't think it sold much
28-300L (20/1/2022) => never a big seller and wasn't great optically. I recall seeing only one in the wild
180/3.5L Macro (20/1/2022) => perhaps RF100-400 + 2xTC as you have mentioned before

2022 March
500/4L IS II (29/3/2022) => head scratcher... Maybe the sales volume was so low that 400/600/800 are all that are needed and 600/4 is much more useful than 500/4
40/2.8 pancake (31/3/2022) => replaced with 28/2.8 pancake? same focal length if on APS-c sensors.
200/2L (31/3/2022) => I wonder what the sales volume for this one was. I can't imagine that it was high given the price.
300/2.8L II (maybe the 100-300/2.8 is the replacement) (30/3/2022) => I think that we can safely assume that the RF100-300/2.8 is the replacement

2023 May=> these are very recent... is that telling us something??
24/1.4L II (29/5/2023)
MP-E 65/2.8 (29/5/2023)
TS-E 135/4L Macro (29/5/2023) => I'm not a TS-E user but would consider a TS-E 14mm for architecture and landscapes in the future. What are the longer TS-E lenses used for?

 

[Chig]

That would be an R3 II.

Not really I think as the R3 is not a flagship and a few shortcomings such as a mix of different card slots.
Canon will have a flagship R1 but I think it's possible they'll choose to have 2 flagships like they did with the 1D and 1Ds:

• an R1 sports model aimed at sports pros with moderate file sizes
• an R1s wildlife model aimed at professional and wealthy amateur wildlife shooters with higher resolution

 

[Walrus]

The cheap(er) RF lenses with darker apertures are only possible with mirrorless and the quality of the sensors has moved up.
I don't think that most users would notice the difference and those that do are likely to spend their money on brighter ones.
How can the 600/800 f11 lenses (+TCs) not be competitive? They can bring in newbies to telephoto and then have GAS for brighter ones.
The RF100-500 appears to be darker at 500mm vs the EF100-400 but not discernible vs EF100-400 + 1.4TC. The length/weight and flexibility of 5x zoom is offset by TCs restricting 100-300mm range. The RF100-500 may be more expensive but when you add the TC + EF100-400 + adaptor then the difference is much closer.

You are sounding like a troll now with your statement "they know that RF lenses are the worst choices for the R bodies"

You talk 600, 800, 100-400, 100-500, TC's; I'm a wedding and portrait photographer, so I'm not sensitive to all those long (and dark) focal lengths.
200 f2.8 on the 70-200 is the longest, and the darkest, I'll go; I don't need anything longer then 200, and f2.8 is the limit aperture for me, and I already consider it borderline dark for my uses.

It's not about trolling, it's about the use of the lenses and their prices; I could certainly buy the RF's 50 L, 85 L, 28-70 f2 and the new compact 70-200, those would be perfectly fine for me, but their price is simply unbearable for me as a professional, the 28-70 alone almost cost like all my entire actual lens line-up. So my option for now is staying with what I have in EF mount, and waiting for third parties. But to the fan boys (I'm not talking about you) this seems like a capital offence.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Not really I think as the R3 is not a flagship and a few shortcomings such as a mix of different card slots.

There is nothing saying that the R3 II needs to have different card slots and the 1DX II had different card slots.
I do get your point but having two R1 cameras and an R3 seems a bit much.
I also would not mind a single CF Express C slot in the R1.
Introducing 2 would be a problem since it would be breaking in a new card format.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I am not open to second hand lenses.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I meant you in the hypothetical sense.
I should have stated "if you were to" instead of "if you".
You are a polite enough person but I do not claim to know you or assume much about you.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Sensors are sensors whether used in DLSR bodies or mirrorless. Canon still has to make them and manage the multiple part numbers associated with them.

My point was that they were used before in other bodies.
The R3 is the only sensor used in only a single body.

 

[neuroanatomist]

So my option for now is staying with what I have in EF mount, and waiting for third parties. But to the fan boys (I'm not talking about you) this seems like a capital offence.

Again you miss the point. Consider the following:

“I want Canon to charge less for their RF lenses, or open the RF mount to 3rd parties to meet that need.”

“Canon’s RF pricing is outrageous, no one will pay that much and if Canon doesn’t correct their mistake and open the RF mount to 3rd parties everyone will switch to Sony and Canon will suffer.”

Can you see the difference there? The first is a reasonable opinion (and that’s how most of your posts read), the second…not so much.

Incidentally, personally I am a fan boy of facts, data, and the logical conclusions derived from them.

 

[EricN]

You talk 600, 800, 100-400, 100-500, TC's; I'm a wedding and portrait photographer, so I'm not sensitive to all those long (and dark) focal lengths.
200 f2.8 on the 70-200 is the longest, and the darkest, I'll go; I don't need anything longer then 200, and f2.8 is the limit aperture for me, and I already consider it borderline dark for my uses.

It's not about trolling, it's about the use of the lenses and their prices; I could certainly buy the RF's 50 L, 85 L, 28-70 f2 and the new compact 70-200, those would be perfectly fine for me, but their price is simply unbearable for me as a professional, the 28-70 alone almost cost like all my entire actual lens line-up. So my option for now is staying with what I have in EF mount, and waiting for third parties. But to the fan boys (I'm not talking about you) this seems like a capital offence.

It seems reasonable for you to stay with ef for now and maybe get a used rf. I have seen more than one used rf 85L rated at excellent or 9 for less than $2,000. Considering the mkii debuted at $2199, it's not too bad. Probably as time passes we'll see lower prices.

There is another advantage of EF lenses over RF as well that I don't often see mentioned: You can still use them with a Eos 1v for offering film packages to your clients.

 

[Walrus]

It seems reasonable for you to stay with ef for now and maybe get a used rf. I have seen more than one used rf 85L rated at excellent or 9 for less than $2,000. Considering the mkii debuted at $2199, it's not too bad. Probably as time passes we'll see lower prices.

2.000$€ would still be too much for me; of course max spending limit depends on lens type, lens usage, etc, but to give a general ceiling, my spending limit on lenses is 1.000€, I can't justify anything more expensive, I'm on a special taxation system (I'm poor ahahah) so I only pay 15% of taxes on all my income, but the other side of it is that of course I can't deduct professional expense from my income, so everything I buy is totally out of my pocket, so that's why I almost only buy used, and has to be cheapest then possible.

I remember spending 800€ for the 70-200, but it was like 12/15 years ago (and I wasn't living out of photography, so it was a leisure purchase) and I still have it today, I spent around the same money for the 50 Art and 135 Art in 2014, and when recently I reorganized my stuff (shaving extra gear I wasn't fully using) I spent 750€ for the 85 Art (but I sold for the same money the 135 Art, so it was a "zero money" purchase) and 755€ for the 40 Art, this time new (and again I sold the 50 Art and the RF 35 for a little bit more money then that, so zero money purchase).
Actually I also sold the RF 85 STM whose performances I didn't like, so I end up with 500€ extra profit from the main gear reorganization.

My budget is pretty restricted; I could spend 2000/3000€ on a single lens, but it needs to be a 20-150 f1.4

 

[AlanF]

Incidentally, personally I am a fan boy of facts, data, and the logical conclusions derived from them.

I'm afraid you are in a minority, and that goes far beyond photography. I sometimes read the readers comments to some articles in The Times (London), and the absence of logic, acceptance of facts and the refusal to accept evidence by many is more than alarming.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

the absence of logic, acceptance of facts and the refusal to accept evidence by many is more than alarming

People are not logical in general.
That was kind of the point of Mr. Spock being from another planet on Star Trek.
"Refusal to accept evidence" is called certainty.
That is also part of human nature.

 

[P-visie]

I'm afraid you are in a minority, and that goes far beyond photography. I sometimes read the readers comments to some articles in The Times (London), and the absence of logic, acceptance of facts and the refusal to accept evidence by many is more than alarming.

Are you sure it is the readers comments you‘re reading? and not what politicians say?

 

[AccipiterQ]

• an R1s wildlife model aimed at professional and wealthy amateur wildlife shooters with higher resolution

Don't give me hope.....

 

[neonlight]

Some suggest a fast read out is needed for a global shutter. Actually, not. Global shutter sensors have pixels that store the image data, at least the last time I looked -which was a few years ago. That's the main point. The image is stored while the read-out electronics does its thing. The problem with a storage cell in each pixel is one of size - it gets bigger, so there is less chance of a high Mp sensor.
Unless, perhaps, the stacked sensor can implement the storage cell under the light sensitive part.
Otherwise, rolling shutter distortion will only be minimised by faster readouts that cut the time between the first and last line of pixels being read. Combining a storage cell with an imaging pixel may be noisier - and a design challenge to get the transistors needed into a small space.
However, optimising the performance may still need a mechanical shutter if the storage cell cannot be completely isolated from new light once the image has been captured.
A protective shield (rather than a shutter) might be a cheaper option which is only opened/closed with the camera on/off button. So yes, the manufacturers have an incentive to make electronic shutters work and global shutters to work too.

 

[EricN]

2.000$€ would still be too much for me; of course max spending limit depends on lens type, lens usage, etc, but to give a general ceiling, my spending limit on lenses is 1.000€, I can't justify anything more expensive, I'm on a special taxation system (I'm poor ahahah) so I only pay 15% of taxes on all my income, but the other side of it is that of course I can't deduct professional expense from my income, so everything I buy is totally out of my pocket, so that's why I almost only buy used, and has to be cheapest then possible.

I remember spending 800€ for the 70-200, but it was like 12/15 years ago (and I wasn't living out of photography, so it was a leisure purchase) and I still have it today, I spent around the same money for the 50 Art and 135 Art in 2014, and when recently I reorganized my stuff (shaving extra gear I wasn't fully using) I spent 750€ for the 85 Art (but I sold for the same money the 135 Art, so it was a "zero money" purchase) and 755€ for the 40 Art, this time new (and again I sold the 50 Art and the RF 35 for a little bit more money then that, so zero money purchase).
Actually I also sold the RF 85 STM whose performances I didn't like, so I end up with 500€ extra profit from the main gear reorganization.

My budget is pretty restricted; I could spend 2000/3000€ on a single lens, but it needs to be a 20-150 f1.4

I think it'll be a while before any of the RF L primes get that low, except the 100.
I'm thinking about the 28 -70 f2 and then 20-150 f1.4! Even if it relied heavily on correction like the RF ultra wides, it must still be too big, heavy, and expensive

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Some suggest a fast read out is needed for a global shutter. Actually, not. Global shutter sensors have pixels that store the image data, at least the last time I looked -which was a few years ago. That's the main point. The image is stored while the read-out electronics does its thing. The problem with a storage cell in each pixel is one of size - it gets bigger, so there is less chance of a high Mp sensor.
Unless, perhaps, the stacked sensor can implement the storage cell under the light sensitive part.
Otherwise, rolling shutter distortion will only be minimised by faster readouts that cut the time between the first and last line of pixels being read. Combining a storage cell with an imaging pixel may be noisier - and a design challenge to get the transistors needed into a small space.
However, optimising the performance may still need a mechanical shutter if the storage cell cannot be completely isolated from new light once the image has been captured.
A protective shield (rather than a shutter) might be a cheaper option which is only opened/closed with the camera on/off button. So yes, the manufacturers have an incentive to make electronic shutters work and global shutters to work too.

I do not understand your post.
A global shutter exposes the entire sensor in one go.
The readout can take all of the time until the next exposure to read the image into memory.
Therefore, the readout speed can be pretty slow.
A rolling shutter only exposes the area of the sensor that is being read.
It is not necessarily a single line of photosites but most folks seem to say line by line.
I guess a line that is 2 photosites wide it still a line.

 

[Michael Clark]

The R1 is a given. The R3 already has one. The R5ii is expected to have one.

The current R3 will be 2 years old in a couple of weeks. It is possible that it could be refreshed like the R6ii but I am not sure what additional benefit a newer sensor would bring. Any R3 owners feel that there is significant sensor improvements to make? 30fps not sufficient vs R6ii's 40fps?

The R5c came about due to perceived video inadequacies of the R5 and added cinema menus (with now reduced switch over times) but without IBIS. They share most internals and although it seems logical that a twin R5ii/R5c ii would be released, I now wonder if there won't be a R5ii cinema twin.

Any heating issues will be managed well in a R5ii (including 8k60 - not raw) based on the weird bollocking that Canon received for the R5.
If that is the case, then I could imagine a R5ii merging a more advanced R5 and R5c combined similar to the merging of the 1D-C back into the 1 series bodies.

I believe that Canon will retain the R5 (similar to R6 and R6ii) and is still seen as a great body. Maybe USD3500 for the R5 given it is already USD3600 and USD4300 for R5ii as the R5c is currently USD4k from USD4300. Advanced video and stacked sensor for stills being the main justification for the price difference.

In this scenario, the 3rd sensor basically leaves a higher specced APS-C. Given that Canon only has the R2/R4 nomenclature left, I imagine it would be a R7ii at a higher price point retaining the R7 where it is. This all means that there will be a lot of Canon R mount bodies available for purchase!

Seeing as how the R5c has the exact sensor width in pixels needed for 8K video, I'd highly doubt there will be an R5c Mark II with the same resolution as a 61MP R5 Mark II. The 5Dc will continue to be the "cinema centric" R5 model.

 

[Michael Clark]

I am happy that Canon is not re-doing the EF system mm per mm, stop per stop. I love the new 85 and 50 1.2 lenses. I am excited for every new new lens, even the ones I am not going to buy. Similarly I was not impressed by Canon's treatment of the big white primes which are essentially re-branded EF versions with minor tweaks. And I am generally putting my money where my mouth is.

But, because I do like (most of) the new RF lenses, I have decided time ago to switch to RF completely, and I do not want to invest money in EF lenses, no matter how good they are. In this context, yes I reiterate that there are holes in the RF system. There may be no holes in the RF + EF system, but just RF is a different matter.

Lots of folks complained about the RF Big Whites being "the same old designs" as the last generation of EF Big Whites. I suspect the vast majority of those making the most noise aren't even Canon shooters, much less Canon shooters who have ever actually owned Big Whites (other than "reviewers" and "influencers" who make a living by generating clicks - and we all know nothing generates clicks in camera land as much as accusing "Big Canon" of ripping people off).

Not too many who have actually used both EF and RF Big Whites have complained about the actual optical performance of either series. Nor has anyone complained that other manufacturers are making "more modern" Super Telephoto lenses that perform any better. The EF versions were already among the best performing lenses in the world, and the RF versions still are.

At the size and cost of the Big Whites it is fairly trivial to keep an EF→RF adapter more or less permanently attached to each EF Big White one might own and keep using the EF versions one already has. It's not exactly like an EF→RF adapter increases the size, weight, or cost of the latest EF Super Telephotos to any significant degree.

 

[Michael Clark]

I'm not going over to Sony with its superb 200-600/6.3 or Nikon with its Z8 and incredible 800/6.3 or new 180-600mm/6.3 for the simple reasons that the R5 is pretty much in the same league, the R7 a reach wonder, and above all, the RF 100-400mm and RF 100-500mm are so much lighter to walk around with and be general purpose wild life lenses and smaller as well for air travel restrictions.

It's not like Canon ever had an EF 200-600/6.3 to begin with, though. (Though I guess one might argue that the EF 200-400/4 with the 1.4X built in extender comes pretty close to that at 560mm/5.6 - and does it for $3-4K less than the upcoming Nikkor 180-600/6.3 lens while the much cheaper Sony 200-600/5.6-6.3 is not quite in the same league IQ wise at longer FLs/distances). Or an EF 800mm as lightweight as the Nikkor 800/6.3. Neither of those are lenses that Canon once offered and then discontinued in the EF mount and are now "ignoring" in the RF mount.

Similarly, where are the 100-300mm f/2.8 zooms or the 100/500mm lenses as lightweight as Canon's in the E-mount and Z-mount? Has Nikon release their F mount 120-300/2.8 in the Z mount?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Not too many who have actually used both EF and RF Big Whites have complained about the actual optical performance of either series.

At the size and cost of the Big Whites it is fairly trivial to keep an EF→RF adapter more or less permanently attached to each EF Big White one might own and keep using the EF versions one already has. It's not exactly like an EF→RF adapter increases the size, weight, or cost of the latest EF Super Telephotos to any significant degree.

If anything, the optics of the EF 600/4 III (= RF 600/4) have been reported to be a slight step down from the EF MkII, still excellent but just not quite as excellent as the predecessor. That was the main reason I didn't upgrade to the MkIII – the weight savings and better balance are nice, but I don't have issues using the MkII.

But I think it's about more than just the optical performance, or the insignificant weight/size increase with an adapter. As one who has used both EF and RF big whites, I find that with the first Big White designed for RF (the 100-300/2.8), the inclusion of the control ring and the well-placed L.Fn button near the mount in addition to the set of them near the end of the barrel are meaningful improvements over the bolted-on adapter ± TC route Canon went for the RF 400/600/800/1200. OTOH, for those who frequently use a drop-in filter with a supertele, if the omission of that feature from the 100-3400/2.8 is carried over to other lenses in the future, that could be problematic.