What’s next from Canon?

[Billybob]

I wonder why the RF 100-400 when there is the 100-500. I read somewhere the RF 100-500 stays at f/5.6 until 400mm. I am not sure if that is true but if it is true why another RF 100-400. If the reports of RF 100-400 is going to be true that is another area Canon missed out IMO. They could have made a 100-400 and then a 200-600.

Mere speculation, because Canon talks to me even less than to the Northrups.

I suspect that the 100-400 will be a 7.1 lens with lower build quality to compete against the Sigma and Tamron offerings. It will likely have a longer minimum focusing distance as well.

As for the 100-500L hitting 5.6 at 400mm, well...sort of. If you set your aperture to increase in 1/2-stop increments, then it will be 5.6 at 400mm. If you leave it at the default 1/3 increments, the expect to see the lens go to 6.3 at 363 (result reported by Gordon Laing at CameraLabs).

The 100-X00L lenses are all about getting reach in a compact rugged package. Before the advent of the consumer superzooms, 400mm was as long as you could go without buying an exotic. Today, the 100-400 is more intermediate than long, which I suspect is why Canon stretched it out to 500mm without making the lens appreciably bigger. It still doesn't compete (in terms of reach) with the longest consumer super lenses, but it gets you a lot closer.

Frankly, I don't think Canon can do a superzoom in a compact package. There is the DO technology, but I don't think anyone has done a zoom employing it. So, when Canon produces a consumer lens, it will probably go to 600 (or 700mm), but it will be (at least) 1-2lbs heavier than the 100-500.

You pay for reach, but you pay even more to put reach into a small, compact package.

 

[Ozarker]

Way to just make stuff up.

DSLRs still constitute a huge share of the market.There will not be a 100% migration to mirrorless in a single generation, if ever.

Canon will not abandon half or more of the full frame market, especially in these highly competitive times when every manufacturer is fighting to hold on to market share.

I don’t know whether DSLRs will survive or not. Yes, they were/are a huge share of the market, but the problem is that the ILC market has contracted horribly in the past several years and is no longer huge itself. Camera makers are fighting to survive. Hopefully, there will be DSLRs for those that want them. Sadly, there might not be a big enough market to support it all at once.

 

[LRPP]

R6 is double the price. So enough, yes, but those who want a 7D can't afford an R6

20MP Full Frame vs 20MP crop 1.6. You cannot compare these two cameras in terms of getting the frame in nature photography. 7D2 owners can just move to the R5 (45MP > 17MP cropped), but in terms of budget (including wide lenses AF-S > RF or EF) it's a disaster.

 

[Pixel]

Is anyone concerned that mirrorless camera wont be as rugged as their DSLR counterparts? I know 1DX3 is a tank but even 5DIV level.

You won’t have that concern anymore when you hold the R5. I’ve held one and it’s as well built as you’d expect from Canon.

 

[SteveC]

Or how about an M7? I want the flagship M camera to have the features and speed of the R6, but with an M mount and 24MP APS-C sensor. I'm sure that they could make one about the size of the X-T30. And if Canon won't create an f/2.8-4 trinity of M lenses, then hopefully Sigma will, when they introduce the APS-C L-mount body and the trinity for that mount.

Could you live with a 32MP sensor, a very fast one of which exists already?

 

[Ozarker]

Mere speculation, because Canon talks to me even less than to the Northrups.

I suspect that the 100-400 will be a 7.1 lens with lower build quality to compete against the Sigma and Tamron offerings. It will likely have a longer minimum focusing distance as well.

As for the 100-500L hitting 5.6 at 400mm, well...sort of. If you set your aperture to increase in 1/2-stop increments, then it will be 5.6 at 400mm. If you leave it at the default 1/3 increments, the expect to see the lens go to 6.3 at 363 (result reported by Gordon Laing at CameraLabs).

The 100-X00L lenses are all about getting reach in a compact rugged package. Before the advent of the consumer superzooms, 400mm was as long as you could go without buying an exotic. Today, the 100-400 is more intermediate than long, which I suspect is why Canon stretched it out to 500mm without making the lens appreciably bigger. It still doesn't compete (in terms of reach) with the longest consumer super lenses, but it gets you a lot closer.

Frankly, I don't think Canon can do a superzoom in a compact package. There is the DO technology, but I don't think anyone has done a zoom employing it. So, when Canon produces a consumer lens, it will probably go to 600 (or 700mm), but it will be (at least) 1-2lbs heavier than the 100-500.

You pay for reach, but you pay even more to put reach into a small, compact package.

Canon had a 70-300mm DO zoom. Don’t know whether or not it was any good, but they did make a DO zoom.

 

[jolyonralph]

I wonder where the R1 is. Wasn't there a late 2020 or early 2021 rumor for an announcement?

The R1 is going to have to be a leap ahead of the R5/6 and 1DX3 - I wouldn't be surprised if we have to wait at least until 2022 for an R1.

 

[privatebydesign]

I don’t know whether DSLRs will survive or not. Yes, they were/are a huge share of the market, but the problem is that the ILC market has contracted horribly in the past several years and is no longer huge itself. Camera makers are fighting to survive. Hopefully, there will be DSLRs for those that want them. Sadly, there might not be a big enough market to support it all at once.

You see the cup as half empty yet it is still half full.

The market has contracted but is still above historical norms and the price per unit is way higher than historically, I am sure Canon have their own analysts who have made projections that they are working to. Lets not forget R&D in one area isn't exclusive, for instance stick the R5 sensor with all the live view capabilities into a 5D V and I'd expect you to have a good selling premium product for comparatively little R&D outlay, indeed the R6 has the 1DX III sensor.

I know I am not alone in finding looking through EVF's for hours to be nauseating, if there was a 1DXs III with the R5 sensor I'd have two of them.

 

[Ozarker]

You see the cup as half empty yet it is still half full.

The market has contracted but is still above historical norms and the price per unit is way higher than historically, I am sure Canon have their own analysts who have made projections that they are working to. Lets not forget R&D in one area isn't exclusive, for instance stick the R5 sensor with all the live view capabilities into a 5D V and I'd expect you to have a good selling premium product for comparatively little R&D outlay, indeed the R6 has the 1DX III sensor.

I know I am not alone in finding looking through EVF's for hours to be nauseating, if there was a 1DXs III with the R5 sensor I'd have two of them.

I don’t see the cup either way. I understand the desire for both formats completely. Since I have never in my life stared through an OVF or EVF for “hours at a time” I wouldn’t know what that is like. I’m sure most people wouldn’t.

 

[drama]

I know I am not alone in finding looking through EVF's for hours to be nauseating, if there was a 1DXs III with the R5 sensor I'd have two of them.

I'm afraid Canon don't care if you do or don't. Looking at it from a profit point of view - what would a 5D DSLR look like today? they want to convert people to the RF mount, getting you to eventually re-buy lenses you've already bought. Well, the camera body you can have is either 45 mpx, or 20 mpx. For those saying that there's a middle ground around 32mpx, I'd gently suggest buying a 5D mk4. They haven't stopped selling them, and some people are in that market still.

Canon don't just half-ass their market planning. There is a long term goal here, and it's to move everything over to RF - this will give you eventually faster, more powerful bodies. They've stated they want this mount to last 25 years. In turn, you're going to re-buy glass that works, so it works differently with the system. Watch them drop the RF mount cinema camera in the next 12 months, and everyone complain about that before realising the existing RF glass handles 8K resolution beautifully, and the next iteration of a C500 / C700 with native 8K becomes a practical reality.

That negativity and resistance tug you feel is realising the marketing is working...

 

[Eclipsed]

Is anyone concerned that mirrorless camera wont be as rugged as their DSLR counterparts? I know 1DX3 is a tank but even 5DIV level.

I'm not sure why eliminating a prism, glass screen, and flippy mirror would weaken a camera.

 

[degos]

Canon had a 70-300mm DO zoom. Don’t know whether or not it was any good, but they did make a DO zoom.

It was awful, but that was more associated with the state of the art of DO in 2004 than a problem with the concept

It's still in the catalogue but the 70-300L beats it easily.

 

[Alam]

The M6-2 doesn't have a built-in viewfinder.

Just wondering, what is M6 detachable evf flaws? I just sold my m100 and planning to get the rumored m50mii, but i think i will miss m100 pocketable size so I'm leaning to get m6ii

 

[BakaBokeh]

Just wondering, what is M6 detachable evf flaws? I just sold my m100 and planning to get the rumored m50mii, but i think i will miss m100 pocketable size so I'm leaning to get m6ii

If you use on camera flash, then you'd be left with a decision. EVF or Flash?

 

[Kjsheldo]

I'd love some more specialty lenses. The new Panasonic 20-50mm lens is such a great concept and if Canon made that 18-45mm an f2 or f2.8 constant, I'd be all over it. Especially if it was an f2.8 and closer to 600-grams.

Also, why can't anyone make a 24mm f2 prime? Either f1.4 (big and heavy) or f2.8 (plastic-y and slow). Gimme more primes like that 85mm f2. Looks solidly built, great balance between speed and size.

 

[Bob Howland]

Could you live with a 32MP sensor, a very fast one of which exists already?

I suppose that I could make do.

 

[SteveC]

Just wondering, what is M6 detachable evf flaws? I just sold my m100 and planning to get the rumored m50mii, but i think i will miss m100 pocketable size so I'm leaning to get m6ii

The biggest flaw is that there's no way to use both it and anything else on the hot shoe.

If they came out with a detachable EVF that had a hotshoe on top of it (somehow) that could maybe quell the complaints, if there's not something else wrong with that idea.

 

[SteveC]

I suppose that I could make do.

In that case, perhaps the (Cr-1 rumored) M5 MkII might fight the bill, no need for an "M7". If you can tolerate a detachable viewfinder, the M6 MkII might be close already.

 

[Alam]

Just wondering, what is M6 detachable evf flaws? I just sold my m100 and planning to get the rumored m50mii, but i think i will miss m100 pocketable size so I'm leaning to get m6ii

The biggest flaw is that there's no way to use both it and anything else on the hot shoe.

If they came out with a detachable EVF that had a hotshoe on top of it (somehow) that could maybe quell the complaints, if there's not something else wrong with that idea.

Nah, I only use it for travel, I'm not kind of professional or anything, if there's no other flaw i will pick m6 then

Thanks

 

[Baron_Karza]

So an M5 Mark II? Its rumored to be coming out this year .

No, because the M5 does not have an articulating screen. M50 is exactly what I want with the 2 extras I mentioned.