Two ‘Big Whites’ coming for the RF mount in 2021 [CR2]

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,478
2,340
Oh, now I see it. I messed up the pronounciation of the 'ough' in ploughman. You are right, having listened to it on the internet, the German 'au' sound much more appropriate. Not sure what gave me the impression it would sound like something else than what you described.

I'm not sure if I see where 'thought' sound like the German 'a' though :)

Local differences in language are really amazing. At work we had a conference recently, where participants from all parts of Germany and neighboring countries participated (With masks and distance and proper ventilation, of course). It was quite the contrast hearing the different speakers give their talks with only short interruptions, as of course the language is all similar enough to understand it, but those dialects do influence the tone and flow quite a lot.

We have a number of what we call (mistakenly) "short a" sounds, and there really isn't an exact match in German for any of them. "hat" (Deutsch, second person plural haben) is sort of, but not really, like our "hot" to my ears, and as far as I know there's just no German match for the vowel in "hot" [and I am talking about my particular accent, which will be different from the UK's "received pronunciation"/"Queen's English"], meanwhile our word also spelled "hat" (head covering) has a sound (which linguists call "ash" and represent with æ) which really doesn't appear in many languages, it's the stereotypical "English" vowel because it appears in no other really major language. [Apparently we all, regardless of country, pronounce the word "trap" with that sound.]
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joules

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,742
2,145
Hamburg, Germany
With the Olympics next year (hopefully) 300mm 2.8 and 600mm f/4 would be my guess with R1's in select Canon sports shooters hands at the Olympics.
I wonder if the thought of these olympics having much impact on these products is not misguided.

The Tokyo olympics were delayed for a reason, the same reason is likely to also delay product launches. And since Canon would not originally have aimed for these products to launch right around an olympic, I don't see it as likely that they would pour in extra resources in these already trying times just to change their plans. On the other hand, if these products were orignally schedules to be released before the fall of 2021 anyway, it does sound plausible that they would at least make greater efforts to keep on track.
 

kcfp

I'm New Here
CR Pro
I wonder if the thought of these olympics having much impact on these products is not misguided.

The Tokyo olympics were delayed for a reason, the same reason is likely to also delay product launches. And since Canon would not originally have aimed for these products to launch right around an olympic, I don't see it as likely that they would pour in extra resources in these already trying times just to change their plans. On the other hand, if these products were orignally schedules to be released before the fall of 2021 anyway, it does sound plausible that they would at least make greater efforts to keep on track.

These days, I think it would be tough for any Corporation to plan and time anything other than to keep innovating and pushing products out as best you can. I am sure Canon would love not to be having the extended backorder status on EOS R/RF products right about now.
 

neonlight

EOS 90D
Jul 10, 2015
135
16
Suspect it will be a 500 f/4, partly because the 400, 600 have been updated, and that may well go with both an R1 and R7.
Think that the 400 RF f/2.8, 600 RF f/4 and 800 RF f/4 will be DO,
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
996
833
www.flickr.com
No it's fatter, and longer at 200mm

The old 70-300L is shorter when retracted, does that make it a miracle lens?
I didn't say that there are miracle lenses. The RF70-200mm is shorter when retracted which is the common measurement and what makes the difference when traveling or storage. Fatter due to extending design. I don't think that anyone has complained about the extended length.
The OP was comparing EF and RF versions. Perhaps a RF70-300mm will be shorter than the EF70-300mm :)
 

Methodical

EOS 90D
Oct 27, 2013
100
19
This is great news but I hope Canon has the manufacturing/assembly capacity needed to add a 3rd new R family camera. They are struggling right now to get R5/R6s delivered to their retail partners. I have been waiting 2 months for my R5 and I am sure there are others that have been waiting longer than that.

I feel like I cut in line. I got on a wait list with a small retailer and about 1 week or so, I was placing my order for the R5, which arrived on October 3rd.
 
Last edited:

secant

EOS M50
Jun 11, 2020
29
27
Is it just me or anybody else liking the parallel between the Canon R1 and R6 and the Yamaha R1 and R6? I have an urge to just get the R6 just to match my Yamaha R6 lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dba101

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
526
506
I just don't think that target is important, since the 1DX mk. III only debuted 8 months ago and will, in summer 2021, be less than 1.5 years old. TBH, Canon already hit its target, which was to have the 1DX mk. III ready for the 2020 Olympics. That those Olympics didn't take place doesn't imply that they need to ready a new pro camera for 2021.

I predict that Canon will give an R1 development announcement in September/October 2021 and will release the R1 in February/March 2022, with select photographers shooting on it for the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics ;)
Given the traditional lifetime of 1 series designs, you may well be correct, but the R5 AF would be pretty compelling in a sports camera. Maybe they will just encourage some folks to use the R5 for certain events.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

Methodical

EOS 90D
Oct 27, 2013
100
19
Does anyone have an idea what the max. magnification of the RF 300mm f2.8 L might be? I've never had anything close to a "big white" before, but would consider this lens if it gave me beautiful close-up shots as well as far-away shots (I'm not a professional and don't cover sports events).

A 300 f4 IS would give you all of that. I consider it a pseudo macro lens.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,247
2,133
Kentucky, USA
A 300 f4 IS would give you all of that. I consider it a pseudo macro lens.
Thanks, Methodical. I agree completely, *if* the 300 f4 IS has a large max. magnification. In fact, my previous Olympus MFT 300mm f4 IS pro lens had a max. magnification of 0.24X which is on a 2x crop sensor, so the image when displayed has the FF equivalent size of 0.48X magnification. It takes the most beautiful flower & insect pictures I could hope for in an easily handheld lens without need for flash assistance and with a very comfortable distance to the subject. I'll attach a few examples of images from it:

P6230856_M_2k85%.jpg


P8150842_1_90%.jpg


P8243744_M_2k85%.jpg


Now if they would give us a RF 300mm f4L IS (half) macro lens, with 0.5X max magnification, then it should be able to take photos like this with the added benefit of a 45MB image on my R5 with all the new AF & other technology (like 8K raw video enabling extracting 8KPixel wide still frames).

I would like to mention that I'm getting the RF 100-500mm f4.5-7.1L IS lens (whenever it shows up) which should take close up photos like this as well.

If Canon came out with a RF 300mm f4L IS 1:1 macro then it would be even better than either of those mentioned above and would take *spectacular* close up (true macro) photos, and I would definitely buy one in addition to the RF 100-500 that I'm expecting soon.

Oh my, Canon, you're coming out with so many great lenses now. Maybe you could squeeze one more in and give us a RF 300mm f4L IS 1:1 macro, please? :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: Methodical

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,522
5,779
Thanks, Methodical. I agree completely, *if* the 300 f4 IS has a large max. magnification. In fact, my previous Olympus MFT 300mm f4 IS pro lens had a max. magnification of 0.24X which is on a 2x crop sensor, so the image when displayed has the FF equivalent size of 0.48X magnification.
No that's not how it works, max magnification is literal size as projected onto the sensor. The projection doesn’t care what sized sensor is behind it but a 1:4 projection makes the subject the same size regardless of sensor size.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dantana

Bert63

What’s in da box?
CR Pro
Dec 3, 2017
1,063
2,333
Thanks, Methodical. I agree completely, *if* the 300 f4 IS has a large max. magnification. In fact, my previous Olympus MFT 300mm f4 IS pro lens had a max. magnification of 0.24X which is on a 2x crop sensor, so the image when displayed has the FF equivalent size of 0.48X magnification. It takes the most beautiful flower & insect pictures I could hope for in an easily handheld lens without need for flash assistance and with a very comfortable distance to the subject. I'll attach a few examples of images from it:

View attachment 193191

View attachment 193192

View attachment 193193

Now if they would give us a RF 300mm f4L IS (half) macro lens, with 0.5X max magnification, then it should be able to take photos like this with the added benefit of a 45MB image on my R5 with all the new AF & other technology (like 8K raw video enabling extracting 8KPixel wide still frames).

I would like to mention that I'm getting the RF 100-500mm f4.5-7.1L IS lens (whenever it shows up) which should take close up photos like this as well.

If Canon came out with a RF 300mm f4L IS 1:1 macro then it would be even better than either of those mentioned above and would take *spectacular* close up (true macro) photos, and I would definitely buy one in addition to the RF 100-500 that I'm expecting soon.

Oh my, Canon, you're coming out with so many great lenses now. Maybe you could squeeze one more in and give us a RF 300mm f4L IS 1:1 macro, please? :p



Oh my.

This is exactly what I needed to see this morning.

Most excellent and beautiful color. Wow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,247
2,133
Kentucky, USA
No that's not how it works, max magnification is literal size as projected onto the sensor. The projection doesn’t care what sized sensor is behind it but a 1:4 projection makes the subject the same size regardless of sensor size.
You can argue all you want about definitions, but I was careful to explain what I'm talking about. A FF sensor with 1/4 magnification will have in focus a 36/4 x 24/4 = 9 x 6mm image. a 2x crop sensor with 1/2 magnification will have in focus (if a 3:2 aspect ratio) a 18/2 x 12/2 = 9 x 6mm image. If you print both images to an equal size print, they will both print the same focused 9 x 6mm object in view. That's why I'm calling them equivalent.

Now if you want to go further, and consider depth of view in the OOF foreground and background so that those components have to be identical also, then a 2x crop sensor (if it was a 3:2 aspect ratio) with a 300mm f4 lens would be exactly the same image as a FF sensor with a 600mm f8 lens. Furthermore, both those cameras & lenses will have the same aperture (300/4 = 75mm = 600/8) and since they have the same aperture to input photons, of the same image, then they will have the same number of photons hitting their respective *total* sensor. Now, I will agree, that the FF sensor will have a 4x greater well depth (assuming the same sensor sensitivity) and thus you have the option to expose the FF image 4x longer if you wish to get a 4x better IQ. But as far as the what's in view in the image and OOF foreground & background, they're the same.

By the way, I don't think anyone here wants a long argument over equivalency. How about if we agree to disagree and then comment on the gist of the post - which is hoping Canon can come out with a RF 300mm f4L IS lens with 0.5x(or 1:1) max magnification? Wouldn't you think that it would be a stunningly beautiful lens? I think so - so maybe we can agree on that - what do you say? :)
 
Last edited:

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,247
2,133
Kentucky, USA
Oh my.

This is exactly what I needed to see this morning.

Most excellent and beautiful color. Wow.
Thanks, Bert63. I really like the smooth gradation between different colors in the OOF background and I always strive to align my camera and subject so that the background (in-line) has a couple of different colors (preferably darker) to blend together which brings your eye to the subject in focus first, and then it can move around the pleasingly smooth gradients of the OOF background.

Thanks again for your kind words! :)
 
  • Love
Reactions: Bert63

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,522
5,779
You can argue all you want about definitions, but I was careful to explain what I'm talking about. A FF sensor with 1/4 magnification will have in focus a 36/4 x 24/4 = 9 x 6mm image. a 2x crop sensor with 1/2 magnification will have in focus (if a 3:2 aspect ratio) a 18/2 x 12/2 = 9 x 6mm image. If you print both images to an equal size print, they will both print the same focused 9 x 6mm object in view. That's why I'm calling them equivalent.

Now if you want to go further, and consider depth of view in the OOF foreground and background so that those components have to be identical also, then a 2x crop sensor (if it was a 3:2 aspect ratio) with a 300mm f4 lens would be exactly the same image as a FF sensor with a 600mm f8 lens. Furthermore, both those cameras & lenses will have the same aperture (300/4 = 75mm = 600/8) and since they have the same aperture to input photons, of the same image, then they will have the same number of photons hitting their respective *total* sensor. Now, I will agree, that the FF sensor will have a 4x greater well depth (assuming the same sensor sensitivity) and thus you have the option to expose the FF image 4x longer if you wish to get a 4x better IQ. But as far as the what's in view in the image and OOF foreground & background, they're the same.

By the way, I don't think anyone here wants a long argument over equivalency. How about if we agree to disagree and then comment on the gist of the post - which is hoping Canon can come out with a RF 300mm f4L IS lens with 0.5x(or 1:1) max magnification? Wouldn't you think that it would be a stunningly beautiful lens? I think so - so maybe we can agree on that - what do you say? :)
All I am pointing out was that your terminology, however well you think you explained around it and don’t want to get into any kind of discussion, is wrong.

There is no crop factor applied to a reproduction ratio when used as you did. If a bug is 15mm long and you shoot it at 1:1 it is 15mm long on your sensor, it doesn’t matter if that is a crop sensor or a full frame sensor. 1:1 is 1:1.

A Canon 100mm f2.8 IS Macro lens is a 1:1 macro lens regardless of wether you use it on a ff camera or a crop camera.

We can choose to disagree about anything you like, but to choose to disagree with a fact seems obtuse.
 

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,247
2,133
Kentucky, USA
All I am pointing out was that your terminology, however well you think you explained around it and don’t want to get into any kind of discussion, is wrong.

There is no crop factor applied to a reproduction ratio when used as you did. If a bug is 15mm long and you shoot it at 1:1 it is 15mm long on your sensor, it doesn’t matter if that is a crop sensor or a full frame sensor. 1:1 is 1:1.

A Canon 100mm f2.8 IS Macro lens is a 1:1 macro lens regardless of wether you use it on a ff camera or a crop camera.

We can choose to disagree about anything you like, but to choose to disagree with a fact seems obtuse.
A 15mm bug will indeed be 15mm long *on the sensor* of a true 1:1 FF macro lens and sensor, as well as on a true 1:1 2x crop lens and sensor. But if you print the image from each of these, then that 15mm bug from the FF camera will only fill 15/36 = 42% the width of the picture, while the same 15mm bug from the 2x crop camera (assuming a 3:2 aspect ratio) will fill 15/18 = 83% the width of the picture.

Now if you you print both of those photos to a 12x8 size and ask an average person if they're the same picture, I don't think they'd say so.

As far as calling me "obtuse", I will refrain from acting in the same way, and thus I won't call you anything.

By the way, you didn't once comment on the benefit of the Canon RF 300mm f4L IS, so I guess you aren't interested in that part of the post. After all, that's the reason I posted the pictures in the first place. I'm hoping that Canon might see the post and possibly decide to make that lens. It's a long shot, but that's the main reason I posted it.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,522
5,779
A FF sensor with 1/4 magnification will have in focus a 36/4 x 24/4 = 9 x 6mm image. a 2x crop sensor with 1/2 magnification will have in focus (if a 3:2 aspect ratio) a 18/2 x 12/2 = 9 x 6mm image. If you print both images to an equal size print, they will both print the same focused 9 x 6mm object in view. That's why I'm calling them equivalent.
If your bug is 12mm long, if it is shot at 1:4 on a ff camera (truth is it doesn’t matter what size the sensor is) it will be 3mm long on the sensor. If you shoot that same sized bug at 1:2 with crop sensor it will be 6mm long on the sensor. If you then print to the same size the bug will be over 10 times larger (by area) in the crop camera print because you shot it at twice the magnification and you then enlarged it 1.6 times more (2x2) x(1.6x1.6)= 10.24

Your mistake is you are comparing a 36mm x 24mm sized object as well as sensor, for the crop example you are comparing a different sized object, 18mm x 12mm. That isn’t a valid comparison.
 
Last edited: