Camera Size updated with R and adapters/lenses

[keeponkeepingon]

The R is now on camerasize.com with the adapter and lenses.
It's a bit eye opening to see how the R compares to other bodies.

For example here's the smallest 6DII camera/lens combo you can make with canon lenses and the smallest R with canon Lens (native 35mm is bigger than the 40 with adapter).

Source: https://camerasize.com

i am really impressed with the grip of canon R camera, looks like it'll be comfortable even if one has big hands and fingers! i am eager to hold one in my hand to see how it feels!

...and here's what the EOS R might look line with a future pancake lens:

https://camerasize.com/compact/#716.345,799.345.5,799.345,ha,t

Yes! That is exactly what I was hoping for with the initial announcement. There's lots of folks that care a lot about the "look" of the camera while out and about and that certainly goes a long way towards de-DSLRing the look of the R

 

[keeponkeepingon]

Canon did mention that RF was not about the size. 6dii is already at the edge of ergonomics. Hopefully we’ll see some pancake RF lenses. I was really hoping for 6dii size EF mount mirrorless with the mirror space used for IBIS. I had no idea that short flange distance helps to design better optics.

Source?

Canon USA on the R:

"When Canon set forth to develop a new interchangeable lens camera system, they focused on three core optical principles: high-image quality, high-specification performance, and compact design."

Let me bold some additional wording.

Your comparison shows an EOS R with an EF lens and adapter. I think it is clear that the reference above is to native RF lenses.

The following image shows a tale of two approaches:



On the left, the 6D2 + 35/2 vs. EOS R + RF 35/1.8. On the right, 6D2 + 50/1.2 vs. EOS R + RF 50/1.2

To me, the left side represents the size reductions of the EOS R camera and the potential size reductions of the RF lens line up.

The size savings is in the body not the 35mm lens. There is no "size reduction" in the RF lens lineup.

Look at the comparison on the left. This refutes what you are saying.

While the EF 35mm has a slightly bigger diameter according to the specs provided by canon the length of the EF is 2.5" and the length of the RF 35mm is 2.47"
If you can actually see that .03" (.7mm) difference Bravo!

 

[Heritage Cameras]

...and here's what the EOS R might look line with a future pancake lens:

https://camerasize.com/compact/#716.345,799.345.5,799.345,ha,t

Yes! That is exactly what I was hoping for with the initial announcement. There's lots of folks that care a lot about the "look" of the camera while out and about and that certainly goes a long way towards de-DSLRing the look of the R

...and here's a really, really small full frame pancake lens to go with it (Leica M helicoid and loadsamoney required):

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1745517054/35mm-f-27-the-smallest-fastest-pancake-lens-in-the

:-D

--
Dave, HCL

 

[keeponkeepingon]

...and here's what the EOS R might look line with a future pancake lens:

https://camerasize.com/compact/#716.345,799.345.5,799.345,ha,t

Yes! That is exactly what I was hoping for with the initial announcement. There's lots of folks that care a lot about the "look" of the camera while out and about and that certainly goes a long way towards de-DSLRing the look of the R

...and here's a really, really small full frame pancake lens to go with it (Leica M helicoid and loadsamoney required):

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1745517054/35mm-f-27-the-smallest-fastest-pancake-lens-in-the

:-D

It doesn't look much smaller than my Pentax Pancake?

Loading…

www.amazon.com

 

[Heritage Cameras]

...and here's a really, really small full frame pancake lens to go with it (Leica M helicoid and loadsamoney required):

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1745517054/35mm-f-27-the-smallest-fastest-pancake-lens-in-the

:-D

It doesn't look much smaller than my Pentax Pancake?

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0078KOEMA/

Don't forget to add on around 25mm (one inch) for a PK to EOS R adapter... ;-)

Unfortunately CameraSize doesn't seem to have that one. :-O

 

[Rick Knepper]

Canon did mention that RF was not about the size. 6dii is already at the edge of ergonomics. Hopefully we’ll see some pancake RF lenses. I was really hoping for 6dii size EF mount mirrorless with the mirror space used for IBIS. I had no idea that short flange distance helps to design better optics.

Source?

Canon USA on the R:

"When Canon set forth to develop a new interchangeable lens camera system, they focused on three core optical principles: high-image quality, high-specification performance, and compact design."

Let me bold some additional wording.

Your comparison shows an EOS R with an EF lens and adapter. I think it is clear that the reference above is to native RF lenses.

The following image shows a tale of two approaches:



On the left, the 6D2 + 35/2 vs. EOS R + RF 35/1.8. On the right, 6D2 + 50/1.2 vs. EOS R + RF 50/1.2

To me, the left side represents the size reductions of the EOS R camera and the potential size reductions of the RF lens line up.

The size savings is in the body not the 35mm lens. There is no "size reduction" in the RF lens lineup.

Look at the comparison on the left. This refutes what you are saying.

While the EF 35mm has a slightly bigger diameter according to the specs provided by canon the length of the EF is 2.5" and the length of the RF 35mm is 2.47"
If you can actually see that .03" (.7mm) difference Bravo!

Yes, the absolute size is minor almost to the point of being a distinction without a difference if I may borrow from a logical fallacy. For the sake of argument, let's say they are both exactly the same physical size. We are talking about an f1.8 design vs an f2 design plus it is likely the RF lens is sharper across the frame than the EF at most wider apertures. In relative terms, this would mean the RF lens is more compact if you see what I am getting at.

--
Once you've done fifty, anything less is iffy.

 

[keeponkeepingon]

...and here's a really, really small full frame pancake lens to go with it (Leica M helicoid and loadsamoney required):

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1745517054/35mm-f-27-the-smallest-fastest-pancake-lens-in-the

:-D

It doesn't look much smaller than my Pentax Pancake?

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0078KOEMA/

Don't forget to add on around 25mm (one inch) for a PK to EOS R adapter... ;-)

Unfortunately CameraSize doesn't seem to have that one. :-O

You still need an adapter. They made it a Leica mount:

"Adapters from M39 or Leica M to virtually any mirrorless mount are available from third party manufacturers. With them, the lens seamlessly fits Sony E Mount / Sony Nex, Fuji X, Canon EOS M, Canon EOS R, Micro4/3 (MicroFourThirds / MFT), Leica L, Nikon 1, Nikon Z, Samsung NX, Blackmagic, Pentax Q, C-Mount, D-Mount, and many more."

 

[Heritage Cameras]

Don't forget to add on around 25mm (one inch) for a PK to EOS R adapter... ;-)

Unfortunately CameraSize doesn't seem to have that one. :-O

You still need an adapter. They made it a Leica mount:
"Adapters from M39 or Leica M to virtually any mirrorless mount are available from third party manufacturers. With them, the lens seamlessly fits Sony E Mount / Sony Nex, Fuji X, Canon EOS M, Canon EOS R, Micro4/3 (MicroFourThirds / MFT), Leica L, Nikon 1, Nikon Z, Samsung NX, Blackmagic, Pentax Q, C-Mount, D-Mount, and many more."

You're right, of course – just under 8mm (1/3-inch) for Leica M to EOS R.

With a helicoid adapter you could even focus it!

 

[byDMP]

While the EF 35mm has a slightly bigger diameter according to the specs provided by canon the length of the EF is 2.5" and the length of the RF 35mm is 2.47"
If you can actually see that .03" (.7mm) difference Bravo!

Yes, the absolute size is minor almost to the point of being a distinction without a difference if I may borrow from a logical fallacy. For the sake of argument, let's say they are both exactly the same physical size. We are talking about an f1.8 design vs an f2 design plus it is likely the RF lens is sharper across the frame than the EF at most wider apertures. In relative terms, this would mean the RF lens is more compact if you see what I am getting at.

Exactly. How much larger/heavier would the EF f/2 version need to be to achieve the same sharpness across the frame as the R f/1.8? The 'size advantage' of the R lenses might manifest in one of two ways; a physically smaller lens with performance matching a larger EF equivalent, or superior optical performance over an EF equivalent lens, but at a comparable size.

 

[keeponkeepingon]

While the EF 35mm has a slightly bigger diameter according to the specs provided by canon the length of the EF is 2.5" and the length of the RF 35mm is 2.47"
If you can actually see that .03" (.7mm) difference Bravo!

Yes, the absolute size is minor almost to the point of being a distinction without a difference if I may borrow from a logical fallacy. For the sake of argument, let's say they are both exactly the same physical size. We are talking about an f1.8 design vs an f2 design plus it is likely the RF lens is sharper across the frame than the EF at most wider apertures. In relative terms, this would mean the RF lens is more compact if you see what I am getting at.

Exactly. How much larger/heavier would the EF f/2 version need to be to achieve the same sharpness across the frame as the R f/1.8? The 'size advantage' of the R lenses might manifest in one of two ways; a physically smaller lens with performance matching a larger EF equivalent, or superior optical performance over an EF equivalent lens, but at a comparable size.

I get what you are saying but I still stand by my original statement. Every R lens is bigger or the same size as it's EF counterpart. Currently there is no significant physical "size reduction" in the RF lens lineup and canon has gone out of it's way (huge 50, huge 70-20, no pancakes) to make the system unattractive for folks looking for a compact full frame alternative.

 

[byDMP]

While the EF 35mm has a slightly bigger diameter according to the specs provided by canon the length of the EF is 2.5" and the length of the RF 35mm is 2.47"
If you can actually see that .03" (.7mm) difference Bravo!

Yes, the absolute size is minor almost to the point of being a distinction without a difference if I may borrow from a logical fallacy. For the sake of argument, let's say they are both exactly the same physical size. We are talking about an f1.8 design vs an f2 design plus it is likely the RF lens is sharper across the frame than the EF at most wider apertures. In relative terms, this would mean the RF lens is more compact if you see what I am getting at.

Exactly. How much larger/heavier would the EF f/2 version need to be to achieve the same sharpness across the frame as the R f/1.8? The 'size advantage' of the R lenses might manifest in one of two ways; a physically smaller lens with performance matching a larger EF equivalent, or superior optical performance over an EF equivalent lens, but at a comparable size.

I get what you are saying but I still stand by my original statement. Every R lens is bigger or the same size as it's EF counterpart. Currently there is no significant physical "size reduction" in the RF lens lineup and canon has gone out of it's way (huge 50, huge 70-20, no pancakes) to make the system unattractive for folks looking for a compact full frame alternative.

By '70-20' I assume you mean 28-70?

Perhaps Canon's priority was to launch with some high performance optics that a) demonstrate this is a serious mount (50 1.2, f/2 zoom lens) and b) give a couple of general purpose options that most people might find useful (35mm, f/4 zoom)?

Statements like 'canon has gone out of it's way...to make the system unattractive' just sound dramatic and provocative - it's the first four lenses out of what will no doubt grow to be many dozens - if it's not for you, so be it, but cut the drama please - it doesn't contribute anything positive.

 

[Yake]

Ineteresting that the eye piece projects that far out on the EOS R, also given the relatively position of the sensors in the bodies...

Can’t say that I mind, though. As a left eye-shooter, an eye-piece that is more offset to the body means a less scrunched up nose

Regards, Mike

Probably to allow some extra clearance for a thumb to operate touch AF.

Good point. Wasn’t thinking - ahem - past my own nose at first...

I like that it projects further.

Me too.

Regards, Mike

Also it makes the camera look bigger in the comparison tool. If you line up the backs of the camera, you can see how much thinner the body of the R is.

Exactly! The R is looking "bigger" because of its eyepiece, but that eyepiece sticking out so much is a great feature — a more functional design.