Three new stacked sensor cameras coming from Canon [CR2]

[neuroanatomist]

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.

Agreed – I'm not planning to buy any new EF lenses. But for lenses which there is no benefit to me with the updated RF version (e.g. 100L Macro, 600/4) or no RF version exists (TS-E lenses, 11-24), I will happily keep using the EF version I already own.

 

[roby17269]

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).

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

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.

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.

 

[koenkooi]

[...]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.[...]

The hole that was big enough to buy an EF lens for my RF cameras was the 180L Macro, there wasn't anything else that would give me the extra working distance at 1:1. That lens as well as the MP-E that I bought more than a decade ago are the only EF lenses I still use on RF bodies, the others have 'better' RF replacements.

 

[roby17269]

Agreed – I'm not planning to buy any new EF lenses. But for lenses which there is no benefit to me with the updated RF version (e.g. 100L Macro, 600/4) or no RF version exists (TS-E lenses, 11-24), I will happily keep using the EF version I already own.

Exactly my approach (minus the 600/4... envy! )

 

[neuroanatomist]

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.

Here is where the argument that Canon should open the mount to 3rd parties comes in – doing so would accelerate the pace at which a broader range of lenses was available to customers.

The problem with that argument is that those additional lenses would not be as profitable for Canon as their own. Then the argument goes, "Yeah but Sony and Nikon did it!" Yes, and Sony and Nikon were and are in a very different market position than Canon.

Here are some basic, relevant facts:

• Up until three years ago (2020), DSLRs outsold MILCs
• Canon has made nearly 50% of all ILCs sold every year for the past decade
• Over the past 5 years, Sony has gained significant market share while Nikon has lost significant market share
• Overall camera sales and have dropped over the past 5 years, though the decline in ILC sales has moderated recently

Adding what I think is a reasonable assumption that the useful lifespan of an ILC is ~5 years, some basic conclusions can be drawn:

• 70-80% of ILCs in use today are Canon, with the remainder split mainly between Sony and Nikon
• More DSLRs are in use today than MILCs

So, the reality of the market is that the largest single user segment in the ILC market are owners of Canon DLSRs and EF lenses. When Sony got into the game, they needed the help of 3rd parties to build up a lens catalog. Nikon now needs to pull out all the stops in order to help mitigate their hemorrhaging market share. Canon...mainly needs to sell to Canon owners. Different motivations, different strategies.

One more basic fact:

• The people on this forum and their buying habits (myself included) are not representative of Canon's broad customer base.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The hole that was big enough to buy an EF lens for my RF cameras was the 180L Macro, there wasn't anything else that would give me the extra working distance at 1:1.

Is true 1x magnification critical for you? As @AlanF has pointed out, the RF 100-400 with the RF 2x TC gets you to 0.82x magnification. Importantly since you mention working distance, it does so at close to double the working distance (880mm for the RF 100-400 vs. 480mm for the EF 180L Macro).

 

[clearwaterphotog]

Here are some basic, relevant facts:

• Up until three years ago (2020), DSLRs outsold MILCs
• Canon has made nearly 50% of all ILCs sold every year for the past decade
• Over the past 5 years, Sony has gained significant market share while Nikon has lost significant market share
• Overall camera sales and have dropped over the past 5 years, though the decline in ILC sales has moderated recently

Would you please share your sources for these facts? Particularly Canon making almost 50% of all ILCs sold for the past decade.

 

[P-visie]

Is true 1x magnification critical for you? As @AlanF has pointed out, the RF 100-400 with the RF 2x TC gets you to 0.82x magnification. Importantly since you mention working distance, it does so at close to double the working distance (880mm for the RF 100-400 vs. 480mm for the EF 180L Macro).

Your reasoning is correct, but the image quality of the EF 180 mm macro is so very good, that I do not think that the RF 100-400 mm with a 2x TC will match that.
This is not to disqualify the RF 100-400 mm, since the image quality of the EF 180 comes with a price (in weight and € / $).

 

[neuroanatomist]

Would you please share your sources for these facts? Particularly Canon making almost 50% of all ILCs sold for the past decade.

Overall market data are from CIPA. The brand market share data are from the annual reports published by Techno Systems Research, typically those are reported in The Nikkei sometime in 4Q for the prior year (e.g. the 2022 camera market share data will be reported later this year). They are quickly picked up by multiple sites (PetaPixel, NiknoRumors, etc.). Occasionally a market analysis from International Data Corporation will also become public.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Your reasoning is correct, but the image quality of the EF 180 mm macro is so very good, that I do not think that the RF 100-400 mm with a 2x TC will match that.
This is not to disqualify the RF 100-400 mm, since the image quality of the EF 180 comes with a price (in weight and € / $).

@AlanF has posted some excellent images with the combination of RF 100-400 and 2x. Although I have both, I haven't personally tried the combination.

 

[roby17269]

The hole that was big enough to buy an EF lens for my RF cameras was the 180L Macro, there wasn't anything else that would give me the extra working distance at 1:1. That lens as well as the MP-E that I bought more than a decade ago are the only EF lenses I still use on RF bodies, the others have 'better' RF replacements.

We share the MP-E which, incidentally, I find much more useful on the R5 because of the MF aids it offers.
My other 2 EF lenses are the TS-E 17 and 24 II, which have RF substitutes yet. Also for these 2 I find them more useful on R because of the MF aids

 

[neuroanatomist]

We share the MP-E which, incidentally, I find much more useful on the R5 because of the MF aids it offers.
My other 2 EF lenses are the TS-E 17 and 24 II, which have RF substitutes yet. Also for these 2 I find them more useful on R because of the MF aids

For me it's the 600/4 II, TS-E 17 and 24, 11-24/4L, 100L Macro, MP-E 65 and the 85/1.4L. The drop-in filter adapter is a big benefit for the TS-E 17 and 11-24/4. The MF aids are great, although they fail when moderate or greater amounts of shift are applied, at least at 17mm.

 

[Walrus]

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

I know EF works better then ever on R cameras, I re-discovered a couple of my lenses that I was on the verge of selling because they were not performing on DSLR and yes, of course it's about business, but also opportunity; they couldn't keep EF around forever as a permanent solution, as the adapter in the middle is a pain in the axx, and of course just redoing EF repacked with an integrated adapter (something I read they did with a couple of RF supertelephoto) would have been lousy...also because, let's admit, 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.
So it was business, yes, but was also the need to adapt new optical schemes to the new flange distance, and to re-do some L lenses that weren't up to the task, in fact both RF 50 L and 85 L are now amazing even wide open, while the EF's were easily beaten by the 50€ nifty fifty at all comparable apertures up to f4/f5.6

Surely the 28-70 f2 would have been technically possible with EF, but at what size, and at what price, considering that both of them for the RF lens are stellar...maybe with the longer flange distance, a comparable EF would have been an even bigger beast to manufacture, and very few would have bought it, or could have afforded it.

 

[roby17269]

For me it's the 600/4 II,

there you go, keep twisting the knife

TS-E 17 and 24, 11-24/4L, 100L Macro, MP-E 65 and the 85/1.4L. The drop-in filter adapter is a big benefit for the TS-E 17 and 11-24/4. The MF aids are great, although they fail when moderate or greater amounts of shift are applied, at least at 17mm.

I've bought the RF 85 1.2 because it is just magical... and the RF 100 macro for the 1.4x. But in the latter case it is less clear cut as the EF 100 macro L was (is) a stellar performer.
Regardless of MF aids, I always focus and expose TS lenses un-shifted and un-tilted. It's cumbersome but I've learnt to live with it because of the results those 2 amazing lenses (TS 24 II and 17) can do

 

[neuroanatomist]

I've bought the RF 85 1.2 because it is just magical... and the RF 100 macro for the 1.4x. But in the latter case it is less clear cut as the EF 100 macro L was (is) a stellar performer.

I had the 85/1.2L II, switched to the 85/1.4L but realistically I don't use it enough that the RF 85/1.2 makes sense. I typically shot the EF versions at f/1.6-2 anyway, and I find that 70mm f/2 is close enough for most of my needs so I'm using the 85/1.4L even less now.

Perhaps I'm overly concerned about the reported (and acknowledged by Canon) focus shift issue of the RF 100/2.8. With the MP-E 65, I'm covered for over 1x, so the 1.4x capability of the RF version is not a motivator for me.

Regardless of MF aids, I always focus and expose TS lenses un-shifted and un-tilted. It's cumbersome but I've learnt to live with it because of the results those 2 amazing lenses (TS 24 II and 17) can do

Yes, with a DSLR one had to set the exposure with no movements since those affected the metering sensor. That's not an issue with MILCs. Focusing before shift I get...how do you focus before you tilt? I don't use tilt all that much, but for me there's almost always some iterative alternation between focus and tilt, not just focus-apply tilt-shoot.

 

[Del Paso]

there you go, keep twisting the knife

I've bought the RF 85 1.2 because it is just magical... and the RF 100 macro for the 1.4x. But in the latter case it is less clear cut as the EF 100 macro L was (is) a stellar performer.
Regardless of MF aids, I always focus and expose TS lenses un-shifted and un-tilted. It's cumbersome but I've learnt to live with it because of the results those 2 amazing lenses (TS 24 II and 17) can do

Well, the TSE lenses should be focused and have the exposition checked prior to shifting them. Quite an easy task with WA TS lenses, since they aren't usually set in a hurry.
PS: since you own or have owned both lenses, does the RF 100 macro perform better than the EF at infinity setting?
Because I plan to have a 100 macro mounted on my second body when hiking, and a 35mm on the other one. So, the 100 should be dead sharp at infinity as well. I usually have the EF 100-400L II on a capture peak clip mounted on a backpack strap. Quite risky in rocky areas...

 

[roby17269]

Well, the TSE lenses should be focused and have the exposition checked prior to shifting or tilting them. Quite an easy task with WA TS lenses, since they aren't usually set in a hurry.
PS: since you own or have owned both lenses, does the RF 100 macro perform better than the EF at infinity setting?
Because I plan to have a 100 macro mounted on my second body when hiking, and a 35mm on the other one. So, the 100 should be dead sharp at infinity as well. I usually have the EF 100-400L II on a capture peak clip mounted on a backpack strap. Quite risky in rocky areas...

I find the 2 100 macros to be equivalent at infinity, both really good (albeit not quick at focusing). Mind me, I have sold the EF one so I cannot do a quick test... I'm talking out of memory

 

[roby17269]

I had the 85/1.2L II, switched to the 85/1.4L but realistically I don't use it enough that the RF 85/1.2 makes sense. I typically shot the EF versions at f/1.6-2 anyway, and I find that 70mm f/2 is close enough for most of my needs so I'm using the 85/1.4L even less now.

The 85 1.2 is my most used lens (at EF times and RF times as well). The RF 1.2 is so good at 1.2 that I find it usable (with modern AF), while the EF was iffy at best at 1.2... Sure I'd love for it to be smaller and lighter, but I am willing to carry it around because of image quality alone.

Perhaps I'm overly concerned about the reported (and acknowledged by Canon) focus shift issue of the RF 100/2.8. With the MP-E 65, I'm covered for over 1x, so the 1.4x capability of the RF version is not a motivator for me.

I have the MP-E, but it is much more cumbersome and I use it only for extreme macro outings.

Yes, with a DSLR one had to set the exposure with no movements since those affected the metering sensor. That's not an issue with MILCs. Focusing before shift I get...how do you focus before you tilt? I don't use tilt all that much, but for me there's almost always some iterative alternation between focus and tilt, not just focus-apply tilt-shoot.

You're right I was imprecise ... only metering is required to be done before tilting or shifting... for tilting (which, as you, I do much less than shifting, and, depending on use case, it may make more sense with longer TS lenses anyways) you need to focus after

 

[neuroanatomist]

I have the MP-E, but it is much more cumbersome and I use it only for extreme macro outings.

I find that I use the MP-E more than the 100/2.8. "Go big or go home." Though in fairness, I use it at home quite a lot.

 

[koenkooi]

Is true 1x magnification critical for you? As @AlanF has pointed out, the RF 100-400 with the RF 2x TC gets you to 0.82x magnification. Importantly since you mention working distance, it does so at close to double the working distance (880mm for the RF 100-400 vs. 480mm for the EF 180L Macro).

Better than 0.5x would work for most of the shots as well, but I’ve noticed that I use it in low light a lot and frequently wider than f/6.3.
I do still have the 100-400 high on my wishlist though