C300: C300 mkiii RF Mount Coming?

RF mount makes changing from PL mount to EF mount easier and cheaper. Switching mounts on the C70 takes 10-20 seconds as opposed to switching mounts and dealing with screws on the C300 Mark III takes a couple to a few minutes. The Metabones RF to PL mount adapter I got is $369 while the PL mount for the C300 Mark III is $1600. That said, most C-series owners don't have PL mount lenses, and while I do have PL mount Ultra primes, I've yet to have them requested with my C-series cameras so have only used them with my Arris. I guess I just need two Ultra Prime rentals to pay for the PL mounts I got for the C-series I have. Will see if or when that happens.

There is also an RF mount to LPL adapter while I don't believe you can use LPL on the C300 Mark III. Additionally, you can use the speed booster to get fake full frame and an extra stop of light. I've heard the speed booster has limited lens comparability, though.

As for RF lenses, if you want auto-focus I gather they're supposed to be a bit better than typical EF lenses. If you want cinema lenses, I'm not aware of any RF cinema lenses so no real advantage there aside from the ability to take LPL lenses.
 
NorBro said:
Surprisingly, Fujinon makes their two S35 zooms for the RF mount:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1603697-REG/fujinon_38512012_mk_r_18_55mm_t2_9_lens.html

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1603698-REG/fujinon_38512013_mk_r_50_135mm_t2_9_lens.html
Click to expand...

Aha. That must be a new thing (of course, considering that RF is new).

The thing is the flange distance. These lenses were already worked out for M43 and E mount but no other lens mount, so that indicates that their optics require a short flange distance. It must have been easy to redesign them for RF.
 
I'm going to be pretty disappointed if they leave us c300 III owners out in the cold without an RF mount. It would be so easy to offer it.

C500 II owners too.

Sometimes you have to think about your customers. Especially now when Canons lead over Sony has basically evaporated.
 
Ya, the transition to the RF mount is a bit of a pain. But if we're lucky (and if Canon sticks to their history), it'll be around for a long while. My first Canon camera, a very-well used F1, had an FD mount. So here's what Google says is Canon's history with mounts (skipping over a couple minor tweaks that were usually backwards compatible, IIRC):

FD Mount: 1970-1989
EF Mount: 1987-2021(ish)
RF Mount: 2018- Who knows when?

So with luck (depending on how you feel about the RF mount), it'll be around for at least a couple decades. Maybe.


I'm going to be pretty disappointed if they leave us c300 III [and C500II] owners out in the cold without an RF mount. It would be so easy to offer it.
Click to expand...

Do you mean as a mod to existing EF or PL C-series owners? Or an after-market adapter? I'm no expert but would that be possible?

Arri PL mount has a 52mm flange-focal distance
Canon EF mount = 42mm
Canon RF mount = 20mm
(Sony E mount = 18mm)

So making EF and PL lenses fit RF (and E) clearly works. But the other direction? What would happen to the optical properties of the RF glass if they were mounted at twice the flange distance? And even with some serious machining (and factoring how much room the ND filters require), could you make a RF-to-C300III adapter without destroying the camera? I'd guess not, but I have no idea.

Anyone now with some sort of definity?
 
Ben_Ericson said:
I briefly owned the RF 24 - 105 and found the IS to be worse than the 24 - 105 EF. The IS feels jumpy and not smooth and fluid like the EF model. The other issue I noticed is that the lens flares had a jumpy look to them, similar to warp stabilizing a clip with lens flares. (This maybe needs to be test further, but I have seen this issue with other C70 footage on YouTube.) The control ring also makes the lens difficult to work with. (In my opinion.) I would rather have one large focus ring.

Edit:

Found an example of the jumpy lens flares. I queued it up below. There must be an internal piece of glass that moves around, because in the later sections the image is steady, but the lens flares are not. Of course I didn't do any scientific tests, but from my initial tests, this is something I noticed.

https://youtu.be/IqOUYemds98?t=353
Click to expand...


Ben, I'm bummed to hear about your experiences with the RF 24-105. Did the IS issue feel like something that could be addressed with a firmware update, or something that's just going to be that way with that lens forever?
 
derbrocks09 said:
I'm going to be pretty disappointed if they leave us c300 III owners out in the cold without an RF mount. It would be so easy to offer it.

C500 II owners too.

Sometimes you have to think about your customers. Especially now when Canons lead over Sony has basically evaporated.
Click to expand...

If you're actually looking for a physical RF mount for those cameras then that will never happen.

As far as any leads, it all depends on the context. Canon sells more photography cameras and lenses than anyone.
 
The transition from EF to EF shaved more off the outgoing models than they would have suffered otherwise.

On the other hand, C300 MKIII and C500 MKII were very good buys when they came out, so one can't really blame Canon from both ends.
 
NorBro said:
If you're actually looking for a physical RF mount for those cameras then that will never happen.

As far as any leads, it all depends on the context. Canon sells more photography cameras and lenses than anyone.
Click to expand...


I agree when it comes to stills. Bu Canon no longer shares a noticeable edge over Sony, IMO, when it comes to the cinema line. Sony's AF is better. The electronic variable ND is awesome by comparison. Sony low light, ditto. Even the color science edge is much smaller than it was two years ago IMO.

The 300 mkiii isn't that old. The interchangeable mount, to me anyway, indicated that an RF mount would surely be easy to build and I expected it to be available by now. If Canon decides to force me to buy another Canon I might. But I also might jump ship because as a customer I don't like being treated that way.

Just my opinion and $0.02

I hope Canon is listening.
 
derbrocks09 said:
I agree when it comes to stills. Bu Canon no longer shares a noticeable edge over Sony, IMO, when it comes to the cinema line. Sony's AF is better. The electronic variable ND is awesome by comparison. Sony low light, ditto. Even the color science edge is much smaller than it was two years ago IMO.

The 300 mkiii isn't that old. The interchangeable mount, to me anyway, indicated that an RF mount would surely be easy to build and I expected it to be available by now. If Canon decides to force me to buy another Canon I might. But I also might jump ship because as a customer I don't like being treated that way.

Just my opinion and $0.02

I hope Canon is listening.
Click to expand...

Japanese business practices aside, Sony has a lot of momentum right now and that's something that isn't always a result from a meticulously planned roadmap.

But with that said, it's that way primarily because of the FX6. If that camera didn't exist then the overall perception would be different because most would only have the a7SIII as an option (from Sony) which would be compared to the R5 (and that's a tough climb).

After that, it would only be the $11K FX9 which is out of reach for most and also has less favorable features for some than cameras like the C70 and C200.

___

And definitely forget about a RF mount option for the current C300 Mark III and C500 Mark II...that would be horrible business for a corporation.
 
derbrocks09 said:
I agree when it comes to stills. Bu Canon no longer shares a noticeable edge over Sony, IMO, when it comes to the cinema line. Sony's AF is better. The electronic variable ND is awesome by comparison. Sony low light, ditto. Even the color science edge is much smaller than it was two years ago IMO.

The 300 mkiii isn't that old. The interchangeable mount, to me anyway, indicated that an RF mount would surely be easy to build and I expected it to be available by now. If Canon decides to force me to buy another Canon I might. But I also might jump ship because as a customer I don't like being treated that way.

Just my opinion and $0.02

I hope Canon is listening.
Click to expand...

I remember seeing a schematic of the ND filter motor for the cinema ef line that indicated that the ND filters would interfere with the required flange clearance for the RF mount. I might be wrong and it would be interesting to see how the C70 ND filter motor is designed. In any case, I would guess you might have to send the C500II or C300III into Canon for the RF mount change if they ever decided to design it.
 
derbrocks09 said:
I'm going to be pretty disappointed if they leave us c300 III owners out in the cold without an RF mount. It would be so easy to offer it.

C500 II owners too.

Sometimes you have to think about your customers. Especially now when Canons lead over Sony has basically evaporated.
Click to expand...

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you're going to be disappointed. The only way you'll get an RF mount 300/III or 500/II is if they create completely new/re-engineered cameras. A simple mount swap with the current bodies won't work. The RF mount is too shallow.
 
Hickup said:
for example I haven't found a way to put Digital Image Stabilization to a user assignable button.
Click to expand...

I have mine assigned to a button on the C300mkIII, same process as assigning any other feature. Strange if it can’t be done on the 500 (?)
 
Run&Gun said:
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you're going to be disappointed. The only way you'll get an RF mount 300/III or 500/II is if they create completely new/re-engineered cameras. A simple mount swap with the current bodies won't work. The RF mount is too shallow.
Click to expand...

Because of the design of the ND filters?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top