Is September 14 the day we finally get the official Canon EOS R3 announcement?

[EOS 4 Life]

He actually might know better. A company is only as good as it's employees which are just regular people that don't know everything.

While that is very true there is a sentiment on these forums that people know what cameras other people want.
That is also a possibility.
However, the sentiment seems to be if a camera is not for me then it is not for anyone.

 

[Joules]

Being wrong is fine. Quadrupling down on being wrong is ridiculous.

Just to be sure, I am not disagreeing with you there. I would be acting holier than I am if I were to pretend that I never find it entertaining to see some flat earthers, anti vaxxers, young earth creationists and so on ridiculed.

I just wanted to acknowledge and remind you that doing so is not helping a conversation at all, and thus lamenting the fact that many people stick to positions that are unsopported by facts is somewhat ironic.

Seeing that you also frequently remind people of how their statements impact the impression they leave on you and others, I'm sure you can take some constructive criticism well yourself.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

R1 at the moment is a mystery, but will have to compete with Sony a1 and Nikon Z9, so ideally it would have 45MP or more, although an ultrafast 36MP is an alternative.

IMHO 36MP is too close to the 39MP needed for 8K UHD which is all that the Sony a1 is capable of.
The 1DX series is also known for great video so I would expect no less than 8K DCI which is why people are throwing around 45MP.
I can't see R5, R5c, and R1 all being 45MP so I expect the R1 to be higher than the 50MP of the a1.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I am less certain about the demise of the DSLR.

The 5D is a top seller on B & H and the Rebel cameras are top sellers on Amazon.
There is still a market for DSLR cameras.
I do not claim to know whether or not Canon will stay in that market.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I’ve used my 600F4 on safari handheld. Too much of it can cause serious injury. I was wrecked after it. Interesting hand position on the tripod foot . It’s a great lens but most times a zoom is more practical . I’ve a large vanguard bag for it, heavy tripod and wimberly gimbal. It’s like a workout carrying it all.

No injuries yet. I carry it on a BlackRapid Sport-L strap. I'm no bodybuilder, but I did spend many years carrying my kids around and the lens is significantly lighter than them.

RE the hand position, when walking with the lens on the strap at my left side, I still have my hand wrapped around the lens foot. Bringing the lens up directly results in my hand being rotated compared to the 'normal' position of how a left hand would be wrapped around a lens barrel, but I find that with my wrist straight instead of twisted into that 'normal' position, the weight is more directly transferred to my forearm, which is supported by my elbow against my body. The 'normal' way (wrist supinated) means using your biceps muscle to support most of the weight. Having the wrist pronated when holding the heavy lens ends up being a very stable support that I can hold for quite some time with relative ease – rather than holding the weight with the biceps, it's mainly the pectoral muscles stabilizing the weight supported by my elbow pressed to my trunk. It's also faster, just lift and shoot rather than needing to spin my hand around under the tripod foot. May sound and look unusual, but it works very well for me.

 

[degos]

Probably technology made this now possible.

The 24-70, 24-105, 70-300 and 100-400 have always been telescoping zooms. I don't know why the 70-200 was unique in being fixed-length ( until the 200-400 came along ).

 

[SteveC]

You only ever see a digital image of the world: your eye has a digital sensor, and it doesn't have a mirror.

Actually, it sort of does.

Your rods and cones actually point towards the back of your eyeball (one of those crazy kludges evolution produces that no intelligent designer would actually create), and there is a reflective layer there. That's where red-eye comes from, and that's why animal eyes appear to glow in the dark (if they're looking at, say, your campfire)--it's the reflective layer.

However, it's not the flappy kind of mirror.

 

[Monte]

Exactly! If I’m going out specifically to shoot birds, at a location to which I can drive, I take the 600/4 II. If I’m going with family or traveling by plane, I’ll take a shorter focal length lens (like the RF 100-500 that was delivered yesterday) and crop.

Incidentally, while I do have a tripod and gimbal that I use with the 600/4 when shooting winter raptors (long periods of stationary shooting), I frequently hike with the lens and shoot handheld. This is me from a few years ago, at the start of a 1.5 mile hike shooting entirely handheld (I carry a monopod suitable for the 600/4, but only use it if I'm stopped in one place for a while).

View attachment 199792

When I handhold my EF400 f2.8 IS mki(11.8 lbs) I hold it the same way as shown here. Other wise when I’m in a planned spot it’s on a mono pod or tripod/gimbal. It works for me and buys me some time before it gets too heavy.

 

[AlanF]

Actually, it sort of does.

Your rods and cones actually point towards the back of your eyeball (one of those crazy kludges evolution produces that no intelligent designer would actually create), and there is a reflective layer there. That's where red-eye comes from, and that's why animal eyes appear to glow in the dark (if they're looking at, say, your campfire)--it's the reflective layer.

However, it's not the flappy kind of mirror.

Light is reflected from the choroid whose function among others is to absorb reflected light.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Actually, it sort of does.

Your rods and cones actually point towards the back of your eyeball (one of those crazy kludges evolution produces that no intelligent designer would actually create), and there is a reflective layer there. That's where red-eye comes from, and that's why animal eyes appear to glow in the dark (if they're looking at, say, your campfire)--it's the reflective layer.

However, it's not the flappy kind of mirror.

Many factual errors there.

In humans, the layers behind the photosensitive layer of the retina absorb light. Most proximal is the retinal pigmented epithelium (RPE), behind that is the choroid. The pigments there absorb light to reduce scatter, which increases acuity. Several vertebrate species have a tapetum lucidum, a reflective layer that is derived from either the RPE or the choroid (depending on species). The tapetum lucidum reflects light back to the photoreceptors, which increases low-light sensitivity at the cost of some loss of acuity due to scatter. The tapetum lucidum is responsible for the eyeshine you see in animals at night.

Humans do not have a tapetum lucidum. Red-eye results from reflection of on-axis light from the fundus of the eye, and is red because of the blood.

In animals, you can see both eyeshine and red-eye – they are separate effects with different causes.

So sorry, but no – the human eye does not 'sort of' contain a mirror, and when you look through an EVF you're not 'looking through a mirror'. Unless you're this cute little guy.

 

[entoman]

IMHO 36MP is too close to the 39MP needed for 8K UHD which is all that the Sony a1 is capable of.
The 1DX series is also known for great video so I would expect no less than 8K DCI which is why people are throwing around 45MP.
I can't see R5, R5c, and R1 all being 45MP so I expect the R1 to be higher than the 50MP of the a1.

The actual minimum figure I've seen quoted to make 8K possible is 33.17mp.

What is 8K? And what does it mean to photographers and videomakers?

With the Canon EOS R5 and Sony A1 now a reality, here's all you need to know if you're wondering "What is 8K?"

www.digitalcameraworld.com

I think this would be a figure that pleased most camps. The sports guts who prefer 24mp would probably be content to settle for 33mp, as the file sizes would still be quite small. Those who are still convinced that "less is better" regarding DR and noise would also probably be OK with 33mp, as would the 8K guys. And although I personally would prefer 45mp or thereabouts, most of the hi-res seekers would also probably find 33mp an acceptable compromise.

Note the multiple use of "I think" and "probably", to keep a certain poster happy that I'm just expressing an opinion

 

[entoman]

No. For RAW you only get one resolution without cropping. Everything else is processed and hence not RAW anymore. The 'mRAW' and 'sRAW' Canon offered in the past were downscaled, debayered TIFFs, not actual RAW files.
The current models allow only full resolution RAWs, you only get to pick between lossless or lossy compression. Or enter crop mode.

If that's the case, Canon were misleading their customers. I'd always assumed that mRAW and sRAW were still RAW files, despite being downsized, and I'd guess that most people were similarly misled.

 

[entoman]

Exactly! If I’m going out specifically to shoot birds, at a location to which I can drive, I take the 600/4 II. If I’m going with family or traveling by plane, I’ll take a shorter focal length lens (like the RF 100-500 that was delivered yesterday) and crop.

Incidentally, while I do have a tripod and gimbal that I use with the 600/4 when shooting winter raptors (long periods of stationary shooting), I frequently hike with the lens and shoot handheld. This is me from a few years ago, at the start of a 1.5 mile hike shooting entirely handheld (I carry a monopod suitable for the 600/4, but only use it if I'm stopped in one place for a while).

View attachment 199792

Well I'm still using a 100-400mm with 1.4 extender. If I could afford a 600mm F4, and had the strength to carry it and use it handheld for hours on end, I'd get one. A lot of my wildlife and bird photography is done from a hide or a vehicle, so in those circumstances a heavy lens isn't a huge problem. But the distance from which I photograph animals can vary from 15 feet to 1/4 mile away, and subjects can range from BIF to elephants. So for me, the most suitable optic in the RF range would probably be the 100-500mm.

 

[SteveC]

Similarly, if Canon polled customers and asked them if they wanted a 100-500 mm lens to have a maximum aperture of f5.6 or f7.1 at the long end, or that such a lens would take an extender through its full range or only from 300mm onward, it's safe to assume most customers would choose the faster lens and the wider zoom range.

They probably instead asked if customers would like their 100-400 to be able to extend to 500mm even if it were only 7.1 at that end.

 

[SteveC]

Many factual errors there.

In humans, the layers behind the photosensitive layer of the retina absorb light. Most proximal is the retinal pigmented epithelium (RPE), behind that is the choroid. The pigments there absorb light to reduce scatter, which increases acuity. Several vertebrate species have a tapetum lucidum, a reflective layer that is derived from either the RPE or the choroid (depending on species). The tapetum lucidum reflects light back to the photoreceptors, which increases low-light sensitivity at the cost of some loss of acuity due to scatter. The tapetum lucidum is responsible for the eyeshine you see in animals at night.

Humans do not have a tapetum lucidum. Red-eye results from reflection of on-axis light from the fundus of the eye, and is red because of the blood.

In animals, you can see both eyeshine and red-eye – they are separate effects with different causes.

So sorry, but no – the human eye does not 'sort of' contain a mirror, and when you look through an EVF you're not 'looking through a mirror'. Unless you're this cute little guy.

View attachment 199797

Yes, I was thinking of the tapetum lucidum, but I did get it totally wrong with respect to Homo sapiens.

Someone else said "looking through a mirror" I believe, not me.

Thanks for the corrections.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

The actual minimum figure I've seen quoted to make 8K possible is 33.17mp.

That would be the figure if the sensor had a 16:9 ratio. For a 3:2 ratio you need additional pixels, even if those are not used while shooting a video.

 

[rbielefeld]

Well I'm still using a 100-400mm with 1.4 extender. If I could afford a 600mm F4, and had the strength to carry it and use it handheld for hours on end, I'd get one. A lot of my wildlife and bird photography is done from a hide or a vehicle, so in those circumstances a heavy lens isn't a huge problem. But the distance from which I photograph animals can vary from 15 feet to 1/4 mile away, and subjects can range from BIF to elephants. So for me, the most suitable optic in the RF range would probably be the 100-500mm.

Here is how I carry my 600 f/4 and never get tired arms or hands. Just FYI. Link to my video:

 

[rbielefeld]

No injuries yet. I carry it on a BlackRapid Sport-L strap. I'm no bodybuilder, but I did spend many years carrying my kids around and the lens is significantly lighter than them.

RE the hand position, when walking with the lens on the strap at my left side, I still have my hand wrapped around the lens foot. Bringing the lens up directly results in my hand being rotated compared to the 'normal' position of how a left hand would be wrapped around a lens barrel, but I find that with my wrist straight instead of twisted into that 'normal' position, the weight is more directly transferred to my forearm, which is supported by my elbow against my body. The 'normal' way (wrist supinated) means using your biceps muscle to support most of the weight. Having the wrist pronated when holding the heavy lens ends up being a very stable support that I can hold for quite some time with relative ease – rather than holding the weight with the biceps, it's mainly the pectoral muscles stabilizing the weight supported by my elbow pressed to my trunk. It's also faster, just lift and shoot rather than needing to spin my hand around under the tripod foot. May sound and look unusual, but it works very well for me.

Here is another way to "hold" a 600 f/4, or any rig, for hours and not get tired hands or arms. I find it very versatile and allows quick changes from standing to sitting to even prone shooting. Just FYI. Link to my video:

 

[neuroanatomist]

Here is another way to "hold" a 600 f/4, or any rig, for hours and not get tired hands or arms. I find it very versatile and allows quick changes from standing to sitting to even prone shooting. Just FYI.

Thanks! Actually, I tried a version of that years ago (my RRS full pano-gimbal configured as a side-mount, attached to my RRS monopod, with the foot in a flag pole holder), and went right back to handholding it. It wasn’t about the in-use aspect as much as the walking around with aspect.

 

[Chig]

I use the 100-500mm daily, and very often with the RF 2x. So, a 200-1000mm f/9-f/14 with TC would have been my choice at the minimal expense of 2cm or so in length. Anyway, I have another theory of the why the RF TCs extend so far into the lens - it was designed by the prime team who had converted the EF 400 and 60omm IIIs to the RF versions by bolting on an extension ring. Those lenses weren't so good with the EF extenders and so they had to design RF extenders that went inside the new extension ring, and this was done a couple of years ago and they forgot to tell the zoom design team, or simply ignored them. Anyway, whatever the reason why really is, the restricted zoom range imposed by the RF TCs is an annoyance for me.

I agree Alan , I have an EF100-400 ii on my 7Dii and I hope to get an R5 but would probably keep using this lens along with my 1.4x & 2x mark ii extenders even though the RF100-500 is a bit better lens and slightly lighter. Also here in New Zealand the RF lens is $5,559NZD vs $3,140NZD for my EF lens. The RF extenders are very pricy too and can't be stacked unlike my EF mark ii ones.
I'd rather have 100-400 , 140-560 , 200-800 & 280-1180 (stacked 1.4x & 2x) options than 100-500 , 420-700 & 600-1000 as this is so much more versatile and is better for Birds in Flight as it's easier to find the bird with a shorter focal length before zooming in.
With the wide angle lenses making them more compact is great but for longer telephotos and extenders the loss of versatility is a big disadvantage to make the lenses slightly shorter and slightly lighter.