Three new stacked sensor cameras coming from Canon [CR2]

[Michael Clark]

Canon is a business. It is absolutely about selling. All EF lenses work perfectly, even better on RF bodies than how they worked on EF bodies.
Yes, new technologies, larger mount, etc. have unlocked new possibilities. I am not 100% sure a 28-70 f/2 would have been impossible on EF. Sony made 1.2 primes when people were saying that the E mount was too narrow for that. In any case, Canon needed some halo lenses to convince people to buy RF glass instead of simply continuing using their EF lenses. And convinced me they have

Agreed. I do think that they should be allowed more time, after all how long it took for EF lenses to reach "completeness"? And that happened in a time of massive sales growth for digital cameras.

The EF mount was introduced in early 1987. Practical digital even for organizations with deep pockets such as National Geographic (which published their first digital project, Joe MacNally's 'What's Next In The Air', in their December 2003 issue) didn't occur until almost 15 years later with the original EOS 1D released in November, 2001. By the beginning of 2001 the EF lens lineup was quite extensive and just as "complete" as any other lens mount system in the world at the time.

For example, everyone had 28-70/2.8 lenses by 2001. No one had a 24-70/2.8 lens before 2001. So a lens system at the beginning of 2001 did not "need" a 24-70/2.8 to be "complete" because there had never been such a thing prior to 2001. Canon released the EF 28-70/2.8 in 1993. The EF 24-70/2.8 came along in 2002, right at the cusp of the digital revolution. Sigma did introduce the world's first 24-70/2.8 in 2001, but it was not exactly a world beater in terms of optical performance (fairly low contrast) or AF (very noisy and slow). Sigma's Global Vision lenses (ART, SPORTS, and Contemporary series) were still a decade away in 2001. Back then they were almost, but not quite, the Yongnuo of that time.

The transition from 80-200/2.8 lenses that had been around for a while to 70-200/2.8 lenses occurred in 1995, long before the digital revolution was getting off the ground anywhere except at places such as NASA and the NSA.

 

[roby17269]

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).

Well, I have been shooting with Canon for a couple of decades now (yikes!) and I used to own the "small" big white (EF 200mm f/2L IS) for fashion and I rented the EF 400mm f/2.8L IS a couple of times for safaris.... and I do not have a YT channel. Does this qualify me?

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.

Sure, no one (at least not I) says that they are bad lenses. On the contrary.
But Canon did upgrade in various ways all the RF lenses that have a perfect or close EF equivalent... apart for the big whites. Nikon could have done the same as Canon has, but they have created new big black exotics with some welcome upgrades compared to their predecessors.
Put it in another way: for me it was a no-brainer to buy the RF 85mm f/1.2L because it is (imho) significantly better than the EF one (which I had and liked) in the ways that matter to me. But if I were in the market for a 400 2.8 or a 600 4 I wouldn't consider the current RF versions given the price differential with the EF ones.

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.

Sure, 100% agreed... and how is that good for Canon, exactly?

 

[roby17269]

The EF mount was introduced in early 1987. Practical digital even for organizations with deep pockets such as National Geographic (which published their first digital project, Joe MacNally's 'What's Next In The Air', in their December 2003 issue) didn't occur until almost 15 years later with the original EOS 1D released in November, 2001. By the beginning of 2001 the EF lens lineup was quite extensive and just as "complete" as any other lens mount system in the world at the time.

For example, everyone had 28-70/2.8 lenses by 2001. No one had a 24-70/2.8 lens before 2001. So a lens system at the beginning of 2001 did not "need" a 24-70/2.8 to be "complete" because there had never been such a thing prior to 2001. Canon released the EF 28-70/2.8 in 1993. The EF 24-70/2.8 came along in 2002, right at the cusp of the digital revolution. Sigma did introduce the world's first 24-70/2.8 in 2001, but it was not exactly a world beater in terms of optical performance (fairly low contrast) or AF (very noisy and slow). Sigma's Global Vision lenses (ART, SPORTS, and Contemporary series) were still a decade away in 2001. Back then they were almost, but not quite, the Yongnuo of that time.

The transition from 80-200/2.8 lenses that had been around for a while to 70-200/2.8 lenses occurred in 1995, long before the digital revolution was getting off the ground anywhere except at places such as NASA and the NSA.

All true, but expectations do change. I am not looking at the RF system thinking about how good we have it compared to 20 years ago. I look at it comparing it to offerings in the current competitor systems (Z, E and EF mainly).

I see lenses I love in RF and other lenses I prefer in the Z or E mounts. And no, I'm not going to puff my cheeks until they become blue if Canon does not release the RF lenses I want (well, I might do just that if they delay the 35mm f/1.2L for much longer ), nor I am going to threaten to leave Canon for differently greener pastures.

But this is my hobby, where I put my money and my time and my passion... so I am free to say that, from my perspective, nowadays, there are holes in the RF system

 

[Michael Clark]

If anything, the optics of the EF 600/4 III (= RF 600/4) have been reported to 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.

WRT the EF 600/4 III I've not seen any difference between it and the EF 600/4 II tested by the same entity using the same testing regimen that wasn't within the realistic range of sample variation. Uncle Roger doesn't even trust his tests of them using OLAF because he says the precision equipment he uses isn't that accurate at those kinds of FLs. And those small differences only really matter if your goal is to do flat document reproduction. YMMV.

Sure, there are nice features like extra buttons the RF Big Whites have that the EF ones lacked, but at the end of the day in terms of optical performance there's no practical difference. All of them, EF and RF, also give better AF performance with the newer RF bodies than with the older bodies.

In terms of usability, I see no working pros getting shots with the newer RF lenses that the working pros shooting right next to them with EF lenses adapted to RF mount bodies aren't getting as well. Same thing with Canon RF or EF shooters kneeling next to Sony E Mount or Nikon Z mount shooters behind the end zones at NFL or major college football games. Some of the top guys still using ancient EF generation 1 400/2.8s are continuing to outshoot the younger folks next to them with the latest and greatest Sony/Nikon/Canon gear.

 

[Michael Clark]

Well, I have been shooting with Canon for a couple of decades now (yikes!) and I used to own the "small" big white (EF 200mm f/2L IS) for fashion and I rented the EF 400mm f/2.8L IS a couple of times for safaris.... and I do not have a YT channel. Does this qualify me?

Then you're not part of the "vast majority" that makes a lot of noise about how Canon is ripping everyone off selling the same lens in a different mount, are you?

Sure, no one (at least not I) says that they are bad lenses. On the contrary.
But Canon did upgrade in various ways all the RF lenses that have a perfect or close EF equivalent... apart for the big whites. Nikon could have done the same as Canon has, but they have created new big black exotics with some welcome upgrades compared to their predecessors.
Put it in another way: for me it was a no-brainer to buy the RF 85mm f/1.2L because it is (imho) significantly better than the EF one (which I had and liked) in the ways that matter to me. But if I were in the market for a 400 2.8 or a 600 4 I wouldn't consider the current RF versions given the price differential with the EF ones.

Which is kind of my point, along with the fact that some of Nikon's newer "upgraded" Super Telephotos are not surpassing Canon's Big Whites so much as finally catching up to them. Both Canon and Nikon have introduced new lenses in the RF and Z mounts, respectively, that the other does not have a one-to-one equivalent to match.

Sure, 100% agreed... and how is that good for Canon, exactly?

They can stop producing the EF lenses and only make the RF ones, which almost certainly have designs that allow more automation in their manufacture. This seems to be the case along their entire line of newer EF and most all RF lenses. They're making more money per unit spending less per unit to make them and charging more per unit to sell them. This helps to offset the development cost when the total number of units sold has decreased across the entire industry (though not so much in the Super Telephoto category, which has always been extremely low volume compared to "standard", "wide angle", and shorter "telephoto" lenses).

 

[neuroanatomist]

WRT the EF 600/4 III I've not seen any difference between it and the EF 600/4 II tested by the same entity using the same testing regimen that wasn't within the realistic range of sample variation. Uncle Roger doesn't even trust his tests of them using OLAF because he says the precision equipment he uses isn't that accurate at those kinds of FLs. And those small differences only really matter if your goal is to do flat document reproduction. YMMV.

Sure, there are nice features like extra buttons the RF Big Whites have that the EF ones lacked, but at the end of the day in terms of optical performance there's no practical difference. All of them, EF and RF, also give better AF performance with the newer RF bodies than with the older bodies.

In terms of usability, I see no working pros getting shots with the newer RF lenses that the working pros shooting right next to them with EF lenses adapted to RF mount bodies aren't getting as well. Same thing with Canon RF or EF shooters kneeling next to Sony E Mount or Nikon Z mount shooters behind the end zones at NFL or major college football games. Some of the top guys still using ancient EF generation 1 400/2.8s are continuing to outshoot the younger folks next to them with the latest and greatest Sony/Nikon/Canon gear.

Already agreed the optics aren't differentiating. Speaking for myself, if there was an RF 600/4 that offered improvements over the EF MkII, I would have already bought it.

 

[EricN]

They can stop producing the EF lenses and only make the RF ones, which almost certainly have designs that allow more automation in their manufacture. This seems to be the case along their entire line of newer EF and most all RF lenses. They're making more money per unit spending less per unit to make them and charging more per unit to sell them. This helps to offset the development cost when the total number of units sold has decreased across the entire industry (though not so much in the Super Telephoto category, which has always been extremely low volume compared to "standard", "wide angle", and shorter "telephoto" lenses).

All of that is important for everyone who wants Canon to continue to producing RF lenses and bodies. I don't understand people complaining that Canon is selling whatever. If we don't think it's a good product for the money, nobody is forcing us to buy it.

 

[Michael Clark]

All true, but expectations do change. I am not looking at the RF system thinking about how good we have it compared to 20 years ago. I look at it comparing it to offerings in the current competitor systems (Z, E and EF mainly).

I see lenses I love in RF and other lenses I prefer in the Z or E mounts. And no, I'm not going to puff my cheeks until they become blue if Canon does not release the RF lenses I want (well, I might do just that if they delay the 35mm f/1.2L for much longer ), nor I am going to threaten to leave Canon for differently greener pastures.

But this is my hobby, where I put my money and my time and my passion... so I am free to say that, from my perspective, nowadays, there are holes in the RF system

There have always been niche lenses that one manufacturer had that the others did not. Nikon had the 14-24/2.8 for years with no rival from anyone else. Even when Canon finally got around to it, the 11-24mm was only f/4 (though in reality, Nikon's 14-24 f/2.8 was actually closer to f/3 at 14mm and f/3.3 at 24mm, but then again the EF 11-24 is actually around f/4.5 for most of its FL range).

On the other hand, Nikon's never made a Perspective Control lens like the latest Canon TS-E lenses that have the ability to rotate between the tilt and shift mechanisms at any angle on the fly, rather than just at 90° intervals that require taking the lens apart.

 

[Michael Clark]

I don't understand people complaining that Canon is selling whatever.

Most of the folks complaining about the optical formulae being the same for the RF Big Whites and the last EF Big Whites are doing so because they love bashing anything about Canon.

Most of them are not even Canon shooters. In many cases they're not even "anything" shooters beyond their smart phones. They're Sony fanboys who have never actually held a Super Telephoto of any brand in their own hands. Either that or they are "reviewers" and "influencers" who will say or do anything to get clicks because clicks are what pay their bills, and the Sony fanboys, many of whom have never used, much less owned, pro-level gear made by anyone will click on anything that bashes Canon.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Even when Canon finally got around to it, the 11-24mm was only f/4

Yeah but it goes to 11.

 

[Michael Clark]

EF's are good, but not perfect...the two 50 L have horrible sharpness up to f4 at least, the 85 1.2 L has slow AF and lousy corners, and the 85 1.4 L is good but not as good as the 85 Art which is pretty cheaper.

That is true if your primary use case is to reproduce flat two-dimensional subjects that are parallel to the camera's sensor and don't have the sense to stop your solidly mounted lens down because you can use as much light or as long an exposure time as needed to use the narrower aperture.

But anyone with any sense at all did not buy the 50/1.0 L, 50/1.2 L, or 85/1.2 L to do flat document reproduction. The tasks for which those lenses were designed and used have no need for sharp edges and corners, especially if those sharp edges and corners come at a cost to the properties of out of focus areas in the image.

Even the EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS, though it is not as sharp reproducing the edges and corners of flat test charts with the aperture wide open as the Sigma 85mm ART, has better bokeh than the Sigma ART, which is designed specifically to perform at its best imaging flat test charts with the aperture wide open rather than giving creamy smooth out of focus areas of photos of a three-dimensional world.

 

[Michael Clark]

Then, from my point of view, they have failed, at least for now 80% of the new lenses are either uber expensive or uber dark apertures.
They're not competitive at all to my eyes; maybe that's why they are fighting third party lenses, they know that RF lenses are the worst choices for the R bodies.

They are the worst choice for EOS R bodies, except for all of the others.

Oh... wait...

 

[roby17269]

Then you're not part of the "vast majority" that makes a lot of noise about how Canon is ripping everyone off selling the same lens in a different mount, are you?

No I am not saying that they are ripping anyone off. I am saying that in the case of those lenses I prefer the approach that Nikon has taken. And that, were I willing to buy a big white prime, at this point I'd go for the EF versions. Because the price differential makes no sense to me.
If that puts me in the "vast majority", so be it.

Which is kind of my point, along with the fact that some of Nikon's newer "upgraded" Super Telephotos are not surpassing Canon's Big Whites so much as finally catching up to them. Both Canon and Nikon have introduced new lenses in the RF and Z mounts, respectively, that the other does not have a one-to-one equivalent to match.

For what I read the Nikon Z exotics are pretty great. I do not know nor care which manufacturer has now the best ones or, even less care about which manufacturer had the best ones in the past. The Canon ones are (would be) more than good enough for me.

They can stop producing the EF lenses and only make the RF ones, which almost certainly have designs that allow more automation in their manufacture.

The cost of big exotics is mostly about making the big glass elements, AFAIK. That plus the design being pretty much the same, makes me believe that the cost to make the RF 400 2.8 and 600 4 is pretty much the same as for their EF mkIII predecessors.

This seems to be the case along their entire line of newer EF and most all RF lenses. They're making more money per unit spending less per unit to make them and charging more per unit to sell them. This helps to offset the development cost when the total number of units sold has decreased across the entire industry (though not so much in the Super Telephoto category, which has always been extremely low volume compared to "standard", "wide angle", and shorter "telephoto" lenses).

But... are they selling? I have no idea about sales data. But Canon's aim is to sell RF lenses (agreed) and how many of those 2 exotics will they be selling if there is no improvement vs the EF ones apart for the need of the adapter? And then there are some small disadvantages as well. But everything pales in front of the cost differential.

For me it is all for show: they made the RF 400 2.8 and 600 4 this way so that they could show a more complete system with a very small investment.

 

[roby17269]

There have always been niche lenses that one manufacturer had that the others did not. Nikon had the 14-24/2.8 for years with no rival from anyone else. Even when Canon finally got around to it, the 11-24mm was only f/4 (though in reality, Nikon's 14-24 f/2.8 was actually closer to f/3 at 14mm and f/3.3 at 24mm, but then again the EF 11-24 is actually around f/4.5 for most of its FL range).

On the other hand, Nikon's never made a Perspective Control lens like the latest Canon TS-E lenses that have the ability to rotate between the tilt and shift mechanisms at any angle on the fly, rather than just at 90° intervals that require taking the lens apart.

This is all obvious.

What this is not, for me at least, is a competition to decide which manufacturer has the best system.

I am firmly in Canon's camp since early 2000's and I have already a 2nd system (Hasselblad) and have no intention to get into another FF mirrorless system.

Having said so, I think I should be free to voice my desire for higher resolution than 45mp, for a fast 35mm prime, and also I should be free to say my opinion on the RF 400 2.8 and 600 4, without crying about Canon being d00med (they aren't) or evil for not listening to me (they don't have to and I will still remain a Canon user).

 

[neuroanatomist]

For me it is all for show: they made the RF 400 2.8 and 600 4 this way so that they could show a more complete system with a very small investment.

I recall around the time of their launch, in an interview a Canon exec stated that these two lenses were released at the request of professional photographers wanting them in a native RF mount, with the implication that they'd have made more design changes if there hadn't been a need to get the lenses launched early. Take that for what it's worth...

 

[Michael Clark]

Maybe the rf 16 f2.8 is for the ef 14 f2.8L?
Is it possible that the ef 85 f1.8 sells well enough that they aren't going to discontinue it anytime soon?

My guess is that they haven't cancelled the EF 85mm f/1.8 yet because they still have plenty of inventory from the last production run who knows how long ago. But that's just a guess. I highly doubt they'll ever make another production run of them.

I've had an EF 85mm f/1.8 for years that started glitching when used with flash (with either an active flash on the hot shoe or an active trigger on the hot shoe). It would work OK for a few shots and then lock the camera up. The battery would have to be pulled/reinserted with the lens removed to be able to reset the camera. I'd then have to use another lens anyway because once it started it would do it again the very next time I tried to take a photo. Every time I got home, though, I could never reproduce the issue when troubleshooting.

Back in November of 2022 the Canon USA refurb store had the EF 85mm f/1.8 on sale for $179 and I got one. The 10-digit serial number indicates it was made in either November 2020 or October 2012. The date code for both of those months is the same. According to Bryan Carnathan's article at The-Digital-Picture Canon started using the updated 10-digit serial numbers that include date codes in the first two digits in 2008 and had almost completely phased out shorter serial numbers for lenses without a separate date code by around 2012.

It was probably made in 2020, but it wouldn't shock me if it was made way back in 2012 (at the very peak of the digital camera sales wave right before it crashed) and only got sold and then returned shortly before I bought it refurbished in late 2022.

 

[Michael Clark]

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.

The 100/2 was a relic from a time when zoom lenses, particularly non-L zoom lenses, weren't all that great and most serious shooters used prime lenses, rather than zooms. Canon had moderately fast non-L EF primes in many focal lengths: 15/2.8 FE, 20/2.8, 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 100/2, 135/2.8 SF. All were extremely affordable compared to "L" primes and in the catalog by 1992. The 28/1.8 and 50/1.4 were added by 1995. The EF 135mm f/2 L (1996) and the EF 200mm f/2.8 L (1991) were also two of the lowest priced "L" primes in the catalog. All of these were well before the first 24L (1997 - unless you count the TS-E 24 in 1991) and 35L (1998).

As for using 90mm/100mm Macros for portraits I've never cared for the way they look unless one is shooting head shots at fairly pedestrian apertures, say f/8, in front of a diffused backdrop. The flat field correction and optimization that makes them good for Macro work also tends to make out of focus highlights in a three dimensional scene a bit harsh or "busy" for my taste.

Then there's the issue with a subject who is wearing a textured blouse, shirt, or jacket posed with the torso at a 45° angle so that the forward shoulder is the same optical distance from the camera as the subject's eyes. The weave of the fabric on the edge of the subject's right shoulder is often screaming "LOOK AT ME" where it's noticeably sharper than the rest of the fabric that is further from the camera. A lens with uncorrected field curvature, such as an EF 85mm f/1.2 L or even EF 100mm f/2 would not have the same issue. An EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro (L or non-L, which are near identical optically) would.

 

[EricN]

This is all obvious.

What this is not, for me at least, is a competition to decide which manufacturer has the best system.

I am firmly in Canon's camp since early 2000's and I have already a 2nd system (Hasselblad) and have no intention to get into another FF mirrorless system.

Having said so, I think I should be free to voice my desire for higher resolution than 45mp, for a fast 35mm prime, and also I should be free to say my opinion on the RF 400 2.8 and 600 4, without crying about Canon being d00med (they aren't) or evil for not listening to me (they don't have to and I will still remain a Canon user).

You're more reasonable than many people posting here.

As someone who already has Canon equipment, what do you recommend about Hasselblad?

I think if noise can be kept down and the lenses are able to retain good quality under higher resolutions, there's no reason why Canon won't offer something higher than 45mp. I don't see why they won't offer a fast 35 soon either. I think it'll happen, hopefully in the next year. As Neuro mentioned, there was some demand to have the 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4. I interpreted Canon's statement to imply that there will be another design at some point.

 

[Michael Clark]

40/2.8 pancake (31/3/2022) => replaced with 28/2.8 pancake? same focal length if on APS-c sensors.

Maybe it wasn't worth the trouble for the margin they were making on it? Or maybe they were losing money on it after the price of a component or the price of shipping components in and finished products out went up with the supply chain issues during COVID? I think when they ran out of existing inventory they discontinued it. One day it was in stock and in the catalog, the next day it was officially discontinued and no one anywhere, at least in the U.S., had one to sell. They'll probably discontinue the EF -S 28/2.8 pancake when they run out of those, too? Or maybe the crop lens just sold that much more to make a very slim margin on it worth the production capacity it takes?

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.

Part of the hill the $5.7K 2008 EF 200mm f/2 L IS had to climb is that it followed the 1988 EF 200mm f/1.8 L which was legendary in terms of the images it could make but had known reliability issues. The EF 200mm f/1.8 L was an early manual focus-by-wire lens so it couldn't be used with manual focus if the USM motor went out - which it tended to do more often than most other USM lenses. It was discontinued in 2004, well before the slightly slower 200/2 L IS was introduced in 2008. By then, the first stabilized EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS had been out since 2001 and the image quality of zooms was gaining a lot of ground on the superior primes. The EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II that debuted as perhaps the best mass production zoom lens in the world at the time in early 2010 was better enough optically than the 2001 70-200/2.8 L that it began putting the nails in the coffin for the 200/2.8 L IS. It wasn't deemed worth the extra $3.4K for only one extra stop for most shooters. Face it, f/1.8 to f/2.8 sounds like a lot more difference than f/2 to f/2.8 does. Plus almost anyone in the late 2000s who would seriously consider buying a 200/2.8 L IS already needed a 70-200/2.8 as a more general lens, anyway. For many owners of the 1995 non-IS 70-200/2.8 L and even the 2001 70-200/2.8 L IS the 2010 70-200/2.8 IS II was considered improved enough to make it worth the upgrade. Not to mention that the $2.3K price tag of the 70-200/2.8 L IS II was nowhere near the $5.7K price of the 200/2 L IS.

 

[Michael Clark]

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

More 1-Series bodies with more than a single card slot have had dis-similar card slots than have had dual card slots of the same type.

The 1D had a single CF slot.
The 1D Mark II had one CF and one SD slot.
The 1D Mark II N had one CF and one SD slot.
The 1D Mark III had one CF and one SD slot.
The 1D Mark IV had one CF and one SD slot

The 1Ds had a single CF slot.
The 1Ds Mark II had one CF and one SD slot
The 1Ds Mark III had one CF and one SD slot

The 1D X had two CF slots.
The 1D X Mark II had one CFast and one CF slot.
The 1D X Mark III has two CFExpress slots.

The R3 is the R1 sports model.