Oh ok, yes!! My bad!
as a photographer I was not considering the R5C, as I identify it as a cinema/movie camera and so my mind routinely skip her existence
Upvote
0
Three new stacked sensor cameras coming from Canon [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
as a photographer I was not considering the R5C, as I identify it as a cinema/movie camera and so my mind routinely skip her existence Wide/fast and 50mm/1.4 FF primes and wide zooms for APS-C are missing. Although Canon has never had much focus on wide/fast primes
We have TS, long macro, zoom fisheye, 1-5x macro etc specialty lenses in EF that haven't been updated to RF. Without going through the introduction dates, I would hesitate to say that they were introduced within the first 5 years of the EF introduction.
Are there any of these available in Sony or 3rd party on E mount?
Definitely some reuse... perhaps a different way of looking at it is how many distinct sensors are currently being used in R bodies?
R3/R5/R6/R6ii/R/RP for full frame.
I'm not as familiar with the APS-C bodies.
Upvote
0
Well, we could argue that the EF lens system was pretty much complete... so why would Canon bother even creating the RF lens system?
Of course they had to, since they want to sell more lenses.
So I am comparing RF to EF and RF has a number of holes. The fact that RF is new or that other systems have holes as well does not make the RF holes disappear.
RF-S bodies (4) use 2 sensors which come from the EF-S / M past.
4 RF FF bodies have seen 3 new sensors so far, the other 3 cameras have all different sensors, but they were all used before in EF bodies.
I'm not sure we can extract any more intelligence from these data points... don't seem enough to change my opinion... or yours.
Upvote
0
I just don't understand the "RF lens holes" debate. Wide angle zoom for RF-S is the main deficiency at the moment
Canon has generally released RF lenses that have something additional to their EF counterparts where a direct comparison can be made. Optical quality, focus speed, size/weight, focal length, etc and of course price. Not always in the same lens of course and the 600/800 big whites are an exception to this.
The RF28-70/2 is pretty unique and could be considered to replace a few primes. Similarly the RF100-300/2.8 and RF5.2/2.8 are special.
And not all are especially expensive eg the RF100-400/5.6-8 and the RF600/800 non-L primes as well.
I see the RF lenses as being complementary to the existing EF lenses. I have no need to migrate to RF14-35/4 or RF100mm/2.8 until my EF lenses fail and even then I may just replace them with EF ones although 14mm wide with 77mm filter is very tempting.
Reuse is common and commercially prudent but Canon is currently using a fair number of sensors in the current bodies.
I don't think that we can dismiss the 6Dii's sensor especially for stills as being obsolete for instance. What would you expect in a USD1k full frame body?
Upvote
0
Perhaps Canon will have 2 versions of the R1 with a lower mp sports model using a stacked sensor of about 24-30 mp and very high fps of say 40-50fps and a second R1s with a high mp stacked sensor for wildlife with say 50-60 mp and a bit lower fps of about 30 fps ?
Upvote
0
Because world went mirrorless, Canon followed (late), and mirrorless is best served with new optical schemes, due to the flange distance difference; so it's not about "wanting to sell more lenses", it's about the new bodies require newer lenses for enhanced quality and brightness (so we saw the 28-70 f2 that probably wasn't doable with DSLR's schemes).
But then, what they have created is either uber expensive lenses or crappy dark variable zooms, with (almost; the STM primes are good enough) nothing in the middle; they certainly are doing a very lousy job at the moment, as all the people I personally know that switched from DSLR to R cameras are still mostly using EF adapted lenses, rather then buy the new RF lenses.
Upvote
0
The rumor is 3 new stacked sensor cameras.
I assume this is the point you are already making, but it says nothing about how many new sensors there will be.
The R3 II could use more megapixels and the R1 should be even higher.
I am not sure how Canon would reuse the R3, R3 II, or R1 sensors in other models but it would be a way to keep costs down.
Upvote
0
If you are not open to used lenses then Canon and third parties have discontinued EF lenses that have no RF replacements whatsoever.
There seems to be no correlation between the lenses they discontinue and the lenses they introduce.
Upvote
0
The RF 100-400mm f/8 is not a crappy lens and actually beats out the RF 100-500mm at mfd for near macro work.
The decreased flange distance is immaterial for longer focal length lenses and does not give them enhanced quality and brightness.
Edit: Just seen the new thread where the RF 100-400mm is listed as the best selling RF lens!
BCN Lens Sale Rankings for the First Half of 2023
BCN has released its lens rankings for the first half of 2023. Just in case you don’t know, BCN is a sales tracking company in Japan. They track well over 50% of all sales in Japan and assemble the results for us. So this data is quite indicative of the Japanese camera market. You can See full...
www.canonrumors.com
Upvote
0
I don't mind being in that boat.
My EF lenses work well enough for me and I am not going to replace well enough for better no matter what Canon does.
Upvote
0
It is rather interesting and might correlate to Canon adding sports, wildlife, and aircraft capabilities throughout their lineup.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
I think an R7 Mark II would be a good place for this technology, since the 7 has traditionally been the APS-C sports/action/BIF speed champ. But I also agree that it's a little too early for a Mark II at this point, being only 15 months since the original R7 announcement. Also considering that 7-series DSLR updates were very infrequent.
Upvote
0
The RF 100-400mm f/8 is not a crappy lens and actually beats out the RF 100-500mm at mfd for near macro work.
The decreased flange distance is immaterial for longer focal length lenses and does not give them enhanced quality and brightness.
Edit: Just seen the new thread where the RF 100-400mm is listed as the best selling RF lens!
BCN Lens Sale Rankings for the First Half of 2023
BCN has released its lens rankings for the first half of 2023. Just in case you don’t know, BCN is a sales tracking company in Japan. They track well over 50% of all sales in Japan and assemble the results for us. So this data is quite indicative of the Japanese camera market. You can See full...
I don't discuss the quality of the 100-400, and (partially) not even it's low max aperture; I was thinking more of 15-30, 24-105 and 24-240 STM's, which are dark as hell...the 24-105 is f7.1 at longest focal length, while in EF days kit/cheap lenses were f5.6 at long end (even longer then 105...see EF 28-135 IS), and middle range std zooms (like my backup EF 28-105 f3.5-4.5 or the very similar EF 24-85 with equal brightness) were even brighter, just a third stop darker then f4. And the RF flange distance makes manufacturing faster lenses (hello 28-70 f2) easier, not the opposite.
So I respect your opinion, but for me (personal opinion, which of course is debatable) the STM zooms are (generally) too dark, and certainly over expensive for what they offer...the RF 15-30 cost 20/30% more then a used EF 16-35 f4 L, c'mon...15-30 and 24-105 RF should cost no more then 200/250€ max for what they offer, their price is simply outrageous.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
In EF days they had to be, because of AF system limitations that mirrorless eliminates. Meanwhile, in the heyday of lenses line the 28-135, ISO 1600 was a noisy mess whereas with today’s sensors and NR there’s almost no more noise at ISO 1600 than at ISO 100. If you want ‘brighter’ then gaining several usable stops of ISO is far better than losing a stop of light in the lens.
“Why can’t I have both?,” you ask. You can, just use an old EF 28-135 with an adapter. I know, that’s not good enough, either. You want faster native lenses. You want them small. You want them cheap. You want great IQ. I bet you want a tripod that’s light, stable and cheap, too. Good luck!
Upvote
0
There's absolutely no reason to buy a new lens if one is still satisfied with the "old" EF ones. I'm currently using some lenses that were even produced in the late sixties (Leica M), as well as 14 EF lenses.
I have no issues with using the RF EF adapters.
But, as soon as a new RF TSE , an f2 zoom or a 180mm RF macro comes out...
I'll buy whatever brings ME an advantage over my EFs, and I'm quite sure this could soon be the case.
Upvote
0
You may be right, but the rumor says: "We have been told that Canon will be announcing 3 new camera bodies, all with different resolution stacked image sensors", that's why I wrote what I wrote. I agree with you that some reuse is more likely
Upvote
0
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.
Yes reuse is more common with low-end bodies and less common (but not unheard of) with high-end ones.
Not sure who is dismissing the RP / 6D II sensor? I was just citing it as an example of reuse. We're not debating sensors' quality, At least I wasn't.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
