There are two more APS-C RF mount cameras coming [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
I am not following your point here. The only missing piece for native RF-S is for wide angle glass.
Adapted EF-S (and 3rd party EF-S) lenses can be used today at a reasonable cost.
Can you share your thoughts on why it is in Canon's best interest to allow 3rd party glass and which ones in particular?
Upvote
0
Having the 3 wheels on the R5 is plenty for me so I haven't been using it. Also because I didn't get the control ring R mount adapter so I don't have it on all my lenses. So far, I haven't missed it and I can't use it underwater either in my housing and I use EF glass there (wide/fisheye/macro).
Maybe in the future.
What does everyone use the control ring for once you have ISO/shutter/aperture already available?
Upvote
0
Sony has the no-viewfinder ZV-E10 vlogging camera, and Nikon has the no-viewfinder Z30 vlogging camera, so a no-viewfinder R100 vlogging camera makes sense.
Upvote
0
I tend to use half shutter/rear wheel for this as I fix it to eg -1 stop for indoor sports where I will deliberately underexpose as the uniforms are white and I need a faster shutter speed (using post to push the exposure).
I tried to use exposure compensation for the lunar eclipse but it was useless so I had to use full manual for it.
Upvote
0
Is this to adjust for indoor lighting for jpegs?
For underwater, I need to adjust the white balance for each shot separately (depth + distance-to-subject) so raw shooting + post is the only real option.
Upvote
0
For quite a few years, both Canon and Nikon users have been complaining about this. Neither company has any interest in APS-C as a pro system. Amateur, yes, prosumer, maybe. But the world has been moving on to full frame for some time, and I really don’t see that movement changing. It’s one reason Canon’s “M” series has been so popular. So popular in fact that it’s been either one or two in practically every mirrorless market it competes in, despite cries for better (more Pro-like), and more lenses. Canon has to duplicate that success with the R Mount.
Upvote
0
The question for us (as Canon should already know) is whether there is a significant demand for pro APS-C bodies.
The last was 7Dii then Canon brought out M6ii/90D and now R7.
Would Canon sell more R7 if it was priced higher than R6ii with better weather sealing?
What is missing from the R7 from your perspective? Given 15fps mechanical/30fps, dual slots and pixel density... it seems to fit the "reach" requirement and at a significant discount to the R6ii
Upvote
0
Maybe it is not in Canon's best interest, but it is quite an evil move against its own customers. Canon of course likes to frame it only as a measure against the competition, but for the customer it means that he pays a lot of money for a camera and in return he can't use all third party lenses that Sony and Nikon users can enjoy. That reminds me of Apple. They invented that really bad and slow "Lightning" plug, which even had exposed contacts. The only reason was to be able to charge a huge license fee from all accessory manufacturers who wanted to connect their devices with an iPhone or iPad. With the RF mount it is the same. It is good if a company innovates, but it should not be possible to use that innovation to block competition.
Maybe you can use adapted EF-S lenses, but one of the main points of mirrorless cameras was bringing the lenses closer to the sensor. That allows better optical formulas. At wide angle that difference is more noticeable, while for long tele lenses it does not make any difference.
Yes, there are some native RF-S lenses, but they do not really have a professional quality. There are those really cheap RF-S lenses and if you want a better native RF lens, you have to buy one that costs something like $2,000. There is not really a high end RF-S lens, which would be priced much lower than a high end full frame lens, as it needs much less glass.
We might never know which fantastic third party RF-S lenses we will not get, because they probably not be developed before Canon allows them, as Sony has gone completely full frame.
Sigma has the fantastic 18-35 f/1.8 lens for the EF-S mount. Of course you can adapt it on the RF-S mount, but a native RF-S lens might be even better and it would likely be much lighter. Same with the Sigma 50-100 f/1.8. Canon does not offer anything that compares to those lenses. And then there is the Sigma 30mm f/1.4.
On the Tamron side they completely stopped most of their popular lenses for DLSRs. So there is not even much left to adapt. That might not change until Canon allows third party RF lenses.
Upvote
0
Warning: rant ahead!
Ehm, when Apple introduced lightning the 'competition' was micro-USB, which has the same speed limitations. On top of that, micro-USB
- is not reversible, lightning is
- has an insertion cycle count in the low thousands, lightning has a much higher rating
- has a male plug that can be broken by squishing
- has a two piece female socket that easily breaks due to misalignment
The license fee you quote isn't about lightning, it's about the 'mfi', made for iPhone program and that encompasses a lot more, including IoT products like smart lighting bridges (e.g. Philips Hue). Having worked in that space, I have mixed feelings about it. The $1 per unit I've seen is quite steep and a single company being judge, jury and executioner isn't a good thing to have your product depend on. But their specs and security demands did make sense and improved the product. And it "Just Worked(TM)" for customers.
Now that we have the USB-C connector, the USB-PD spec and USB4, lightning is indeed quant and outdated, but now we're stuck with devices with integrated, non-replaceable cables
And if you need to go beyond 1 meter the cables get expensive, fast. Extension cables for those stupid dongles that support both charging and can do 10Gbit/s USB start at $15 and don't even work with all USB ports. If I plug it into my computer, it drops down to 5GBit/s, but plugging it into my monitor makes it do proper 10Gbit/s.This subject is a bit of a sore spot, in a previous job I had to support devices with mini- and micro-USB connectors as well as customers using their own cables. That took a lot of time and having to replace the connectors under warranty took a large chunk out of the warranty budget as well.
At home I have been trying to get everything to work with USB-C in such a way that I don't have to worry about which cable I use. That runs into issues where some cables won't allow charging and others don't support thunderbolt. Doing the research, emailing companies and stores took way too much time and effort, but I have it working now. And no need to explain things to my kids, the cables work or get cut in half and go to recycling.
And after all this, Canon still uses the micro-USB equivalent for video: micro-HDMI. That connector has an insertion cycle count in the hundreds and if it breaks, you'll have to swap out the complete PCB. Or locate a repair shop that is both adventurous and competent.
So rant over, back to arguing about APS-C lens wishlists.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
$1 sounds okay, but I recently saw a YouTube video that mentioned that Apple wants 10% of the sale price of any product that has a Lightning connector. Not sure if that was mentioned by Marques Brownlee or or someone else.
Some licensing fees are really bad. The MP3 format was invented by a public German research institute. They charged a small license fee for it and invested that money into further research. However one company from the US had a patent on some algorithm that was needed for the MP3 format to work. That might have been 5% of the innovation, but they charged huge licensing fees for that just because they could. So most of the research was done by the German scientist, but most of the money went somewhere else. That is a common trick in patent law. Buy patents for simple things and if those things are needed, charge a large fee for that. Many companies do not innovate at all, but just buy patents to make money from them. Apple and other companies often are the victims of that.
The video I mentioned claimed that Apple might stick with Lightning because of the licensing fees. USB-C is not really a foreign technology for Apple. Apple was one of the companies that developed USB-C together with others. Apple uses the same plug for Thunderbolt for example.
Not having a full size HDMI port on a large camera like the R3 is really embarrassing for Canon, if Sony manages to ship much smaller cameras with a full size HDMI port. Maybe it is about licensing fees again. Not sure who owns the license for HDMI, but a full size HDMI port might cost a few dollars more in license fees than a smaller port. That is the most likely reason. It also was the reason for the video record limit of 29:59 minutes. The EU has higher copyright fees for video cameras that can shoot more than 30 minutes.
I wonder if the R50 will really be a camera like the M50 that is so cheap that you can buy it as you backup camera even if you might hardly ever use it. It should stay below 600 Euros without lens, but I have low hopes for that.
Upvote
0
A lot of speculation and half knowledge, don't you think so?
For example the mentioned record limit on cameras. This was a duty, not a copyright fee. And it was gradually lowered since 2016. It is completely gone since 1st July 2021 for all countries of origin.
Further there was a duty agreement with Japan not to collect duties on cameras years before.
Upvote
0
Last I checked, Canon was a for-profit corporation, not a philanthropic organization.
Sure, sure. I mean, that’s the point of the patent process, but I guess to you that’s just more evil, companies should just give away their intellectual property. To heck with profit, let’s just make people happy. Until we run out of money.
Upvote
0
The equivalent for the lenses would be that Canon would allow third party manufacturers to use the RF mount for their cameras. I would really love to see that. The already allowed that for RED cameras. If Canon are confident with the quality of their cameras and lenses, they should not fear that. If Canon cameras are really better, people will still buy Canon cameras. And wouldn't it be great for Canon if Nikon users bought Canon lenses?
With the EF lenses that already works very well. You can use any Canon EF lens on Nikon and Sony cameras with adapters. On Nikon cameras EF lenses work very well and on Sony cameras they still work okay. So you could buy a Z9 and use all your old Canon EF glass without any major issues and at the same time you could use all third party lenses for F-Mount, Z-Mount and EF-Mount on a Nikon Z-Mount camera. Only RF-Mount lenses can't be used on a NIkon camera so far. Not sure if that is good for Canon. Some Nikon users might want to buy an RF lens.
Upvote
0
Canon get a lot of feedback from reviewers and professional users, and also direct from customers via questionnaires. They won't be reading forums or comments pages themselves because it's just too much to wade through. However, reviewers read forums and comments pages, and are very much in touch with reader's opinions, so I think it's likely that Canon will get to hear about *common* criticisms or suggestions made here.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
