GMCPhotographics said:

In the old days of the EF/EF-s mount things were much more clearer.
We had the Red ring for all L lenses and they were the best that Canon could make (and they were generally about 10-15 years ahead of the competition in terms of design, build and optics).
Then we had the Gold ring for the next best prosumer gear. Higher on the optics but lower on the build level. Often not quite as bright as the L lenses.
Then came the Silver ring for pretty much everything else. Generally, cheap, small, light, dim and disposable.

Click to expand...

I mean even in EF days the Ls came in different levels. The 17-40 and 24-105 were much less highly rated than most of the others. Can't say I've ever knowingly encountered silver or gold rings.

OldDudePhotog said:

I used my R5M2 a couple of weeks ago to shoot a night cross-country race, one of the 4 individual races in the event. I then used my R3 to shoot the next few races. Once I was finished and started editing, I found the R5M2 was using a lower ISO than the R3. Both cameras used the same lens, in the same conditions (sun was fully down before all events, and used the same camera settings (shutter priority, same shutter speed) to take the pictures. The R5M2 has really great low-light capabilities that seem to meet, or maybe even exceed the R3, based on my not-so-scientific testing. I took all pictures from the same spot so lighting conditions were consistent. 1/800 shutter, f2.8, R3 had ISO of 10000, R5M2 had ISO of 8000.

Click to expand...

Hmm, can you show an example where the same ISO used and the R5M2 was better? or are you comparing the higher ISO image of the R3, which I guess would still be better due to sensor size. unless what you mean by low light capabilities is the fact that the R5M2 was using a lower ISO?

OldDudePhotog said:

I used my R5M2 a couple of weeks ago to shoot a night cross-country race, one of the 4 individual races in the event. I then used my R3 to shoot the next few races. Once I was finished and started editing, I found the R5M2 was using a lower ISO than the R3. Both cameras used the same lens, in the same conditions (sun was fully down before all events, and used the same camera settings (shutter priority, same shutter speed) to take the pictures. The R5M2 has really great low-light capabilities that seem to meet, or maybe even exceed the R3, based on my not-so-scientific testing. I took all pictures from the same spot so lighting conditions were consistent. 1/800 shutter, f2.8, R3 had ISO of 10000, R5M2 had ISO of 8000.

Click to expand...

Interesting. Thanks!

P-visie said:

I’ve done some testing with my R5 Mk II and my conclusion is that what you are stating is not correct. Eye controlled AF does not need a tracking frame or a subject it ‘ recognizes’ to work correctly:

• When I set ‘subject to detect’ to ‘None’, the Eye controlled AF will move the pointer across the viewfinder and focus when I half press the shutter button.
• The same happens when I select an AF point without ‘Whole area tracking servo AF’ (AF point with a padlock), this disables ‘Subject to detect’. The camera will move the AF point to the pointer and focus when I half press the shutter button.
• This works for ‘AF operation’ set to ‘One shot’. Or ‘Servo’.

With eye controlled AF I can move the pointer at across the whole viewfinder and get the camera to focus on any subject (curtains, tv flatscreen, bowl of fruit, cushions of the couch etc.) when I half press the shutter button.

P.S. I did not test with zucchini and tomato plants as these do not grow in my holiday apartment .

Click to expand...

Yes, my mistake! I always use back button AF, and on the R3 with the Smart Controller set to automatically drive AF point selection, that overrides eye control. Putting AF back on the shutter half press took care of that.

neuroanatomist said:

Canon states, "Eye Control AF has been designed to work alongside the camera's subject detection functionality... Once the system knows which person you want to focus on, it can lock on to their eye or their face, and it can track them as they move." Elsewhere they state, "The camera will use AI to prioritise a human (eyes, head and body, in that order), or an animal, or a vehicle, according to the subject detection preference you've set, to focus on," and you can use Eye Control AF to move the focus point between those identified subjects.

In other words, if the camera's subject detection system doesn't detect a subject, eye control AF 'won't work'. You know a subject has been automatically detected by the camera (assuming the setting is enabled) when a tracking frame appears over the subject:

If there are no tracking frames showing up in your scene, eye control AF will still float the orange circle around the frame as you move your eye, but it won't do anything but float because there's no detected subject for it to lock on to.

I wonder how many people expect the system to enable you to stare at any random point in the frame and have the camera focus on it? If that's the expectation, it makes sense that many people believe it doesn't work for them...that's not how it's supposed to work.

Click to expand...

I’ve done some testing with my R5 Mk II and my conclusion is that what you are stating is not correct. Eye controlled AF does not need a tracking frame or a subject it ‘ recognizes’ to work correctly:

• When I set ‘subject to detect’ to ‘None’, the Eye controlled AF will move the pointer across the viewfinder and focus when I half press the shutter button.
• The same happens when I select an AF point without ‘Whole area tracking servo AF’ (AF point with a padlock), this disables ‘Subject to detect’. The camera will move the AF point to the pointer and focus when I half press the shutter button.
• This works for ‘AF operation’ set to ‘One shot’. Or ‘Servo’.

With eye controlled AF I can move the pointer at across the whole viewfinder and get the camera to focus on any subject (curtains, tv flatscreen, bowl of fruit, cushions of the couch etc.) when I half press the shutter button.

P.S. I did not test with zucchini and tomato plants as these do not grow in my holiday apartment .

OldDudePhotog said:

..... I found the R5M2 was using a lower ISO than the R3. Both cameras used the same lens, in the same conditions (sun was fully down before all events, and used the same camera settings (shutter priority, same shutter speed) to take the pictures. The R5M2 has really great low-light capabilities that seem to meet, or maybe even exceed the R3, based on my not-so-scientific testing. I took all pictures from the same spot so lighting conditions were consistent. 1/800 shutter, f2.8, R3 had ISO of 10000, R5M2 had ISO of 8000.

Click to expand...

Did you use auto ISO? Maybe the new metering (6144 zones from a 96x64 grid) of the R5MK2 is a benefit here? Duade Paton reports that the higher ISO on the R5 MK2 is a tad worse than the R5. Don't know about the R3 but I assume the R3 would do better.

Exploreshootshare said:

Looking at this pic, I'm sooooo glad I got rid of the adapter and adopted natives RF lenses.

Click to expand...

I am also glad that I have switched over to RF lenses for the most part. I will be keeping my adapters for a while, there are no RF TS lenses yet, there may never be an RF version of the MP-E 65, and I don’t see a need to upgrade my 600/4 II, since the MkIII/RF version does not offer any optical improvements.

Look

m4ndr4ke said:

It does look very promising, compared with the new RF 28-70 f/2.8 (Yes, I noticed the GIF compares the two 24-70mm lenses).
A little less resolution on the edges, on the wide end, as I suspected from the RAW files I downloaded, but everything else looks very similar.

Considering this...
View attachment 219788
(using the 24-105 here, since they're very similar)

...and the 400 grams difference, I might go for it.

It's not exactly an upgrade, it's more of a sidegrade, but I believe on rebates I could make this deal for free, or for less than €100. That would leave me with one to zero EF lenses on my kit, since I'm already selling my Sigma 50 Art, and then I could sell the adapters as well, and never look back.

Click to expand...

Looking at this pic, I'm sooooo glad I got rid of the adapter and adopted natives RF lenses. I sold the EF 16-35mm F4 L and EF 100-400mm in 2020 for a very high value and got the RF 14-35mm F4 L (in dec 2022 before I had the 15-35mm for about 10 months) and the RF 100-500mm

mmmm said:

Thanks for the info! Very interesting. Regarding the low light, I assume it makes shooting in the church (if thats what you do) a nicer experience? Thats always a complicated situation with light.

Click to expand...

I used my R5M2 a couple of weeks ago to shoot a night cross-country race, one of the 4 individual races in the event. I then used my R3 to shoot the next few races. Once I was finished and started editing, I found the R5M2 was using a lower ISO than the R3. Both cameras used the same lens, in the same conditions (sun was fully down before all events, and used the same camera settings (shutter priority, same shutter speed) to take the pictures. The R5M2 has really great low-light capabilities that seem to meet, or maybe even exceed the R3, based on my not-so-scientific testing. I took all pictures from the same spot so lighting conditions were consistent. 1/800 shutter, f2.8, R3 had ISO of 10000, R5M2 had ISO of 8000.

m4ndr4ke said:

It does look very promising, compared with the new RF 28-70 f/2.8 (Yes, I noticed the GIF compares the two 24-70mm lenses).

Click to expand...

oops here you go

m4ndr4ke said:

It does look very promising, compared with the new RF 28-70 f/2.8 (Yes, I noticed the GIF compares the two 24-70mm lenses).
A little less resolution on the edges, on the wide end, as I suspected from the RAW files I downloaded, but everything else looks very similar.

Considering this...
View attachment 219788
(using the 24-105 here, since they're very similar)

...and the 400 grams difference, I might go for it.

It's not exactly an upgrade, it's more of a sidegrade, but I believe on rebates I could make this deal for free, or for less than €100. That would leave me with one to zero EF lenses on my kit, since I'm already selling my Sigma 50 Art, and then I could sell the adapters as well, and never look back.

Click to expand...

I will check on Panamoz, as soon as they get it. Price might be interesting. They sell some Canon lenses with a huge discount, other ones can cost more than at local stores. I had a 1000 euro discount on my 2,8/15-35 (euro1650), while the RF 1,8/50 would have cost me 100 euros more than from Amazon, Calumet Fnac etc...

patrickvisuals said:

I have now shot four weddings over the last few weeks with the R3 and have some opinions .

• It's lighter (obv) than the R5 with the battery grip, and you feel appreciate it on a long day of shooting.
• The camera is fast. I mean really fast. No comparison to my old R5. The R5 II probably is on par here, though.
• 24MP is enough. A long time I thought that I need the most MP available, but nowadays not anymore. 24MP are plenty and enough for even bigger prints or photo albums.
• The camera feels incredible nice with the layout and the grip it has.
• AF is better than the R5 ofc.
• Eye AF is a nice gimmick, but not really useful for me. At times, it got me distracted looking for that orange circle. I disabled it pretty quickly.
• I really looked forward to the optical AF control, but that thing is so sensitive, that I stick to the regular joystick. Even the slightest touch moves the AF point around like crazy.
• The battery is decent as well. One battery last me around 2-3h of wedding coverage. The more you shoot, the more battery you will use.
  • I have GPS on all the time and the view finder is on high fps. So you can save same battery there if needed.
• The photo/video switch is super neat and fast.
• Low light is better, but most of my weddings were in bright daylight anyway.

Would I buy the R3 again? 100%.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the info! Very interesting. Regarding the low light, I assume it makes shooting in the church (if thats what you do) a nicer experience? Thats always a complicated situation with light.

Berowne said:

Old but gold. The 35mm Elmarit is from 1964:

1964

2034001

2035000

Leica Elmarit-R 35mm / 2,8

But it is soft, Leica-Glow.

View attachment 219790

Click to expand...

The only one that disappointed me was the R 2,8/28, sides and corners soft until f/11.on digital. But the Apo 180 f/3,4, the Apo Macro 100 f/2,8, the 50 f/2, the 90 f/2, f/2,8, the Macro Elmarit are still incredible lenses despite their high age. Unfortunately, the Leica R bodies had nothing in common with the Leicaflexes (me prefering the SL, not the SL2). Plastic instead of metal, I eventually lost all these cheap plastic parts (film advance lever, + - lever etc...)

Canon Rumors Guy said:

So many good R lenses. I have the Summicron-R 50mm f2 v1.

Click to expand...

Old but gold. The 35mm Elmarit is from 1964:


But it is soft, Leica-Glow.

Canon EOS 550D and Leitz Wetzlar Macro-Elmarit R 1:2.8/60

Del Paso said:

Shocking, how can you possibly use the first version?
PS: This lens is a jewel, mechanically and optically, but this you already know...

Click to expand...

It is the 1973 slot:


50 years old. Was my second Leica-R lens.

Here is an Example: Makro-Elmarit & 550D

HarryFilm said:

If you see RAW (be it standard, light or heavy!) on ANY still photo or cinema camera, it is LOSSY COMPRESSED footage and NOT truly MATHEMATICALLY LOSSLESS!

Click to expand...

ARRIRAW is uncompressed and ARRI and Codex have HDE lossless compressed 2:1.

Better stills cameras have uncompressed RAW option for photography.

HarryFilm said:

Hopefully more and more manufacturers offer TRULY FULL UNCOMPRESSED RAW file record options even in their lower end cameras as the image quality is so pristine in that format. There IS a difference!

Click to expand...

Unlikely because a waste of storage and media management for invisible difference.

3:1 is a great balance and visually lossless and even this is overkill above 6K.

The "Wilkinson Lady" convinced me, I'll get this 28-70.

Berowne said:

R6 with my 60mm Macro-Elmarit.

View attachment 219784

Click to expand...

Shocking, how can you possibly use the first version?
PS: This lens is a jewel, mechanically and optically, but this you already know...

Richard CR said:

I'm not sure if this animated gif will play but here you go. I think you'll be happy with it.
View attachment 219785

Click to expand...

It does look very promising, compared with the new RF 28-70 f/2.8 (Yes, I noticed the GIF compares the two 24-70mm lenses).
A little less resolution on the edges, on the wide end, as I suspected from the RAW files I downloaded, but everything else looks very similar.

Considering this...

(using the 24-105 here, since they're very similar)

...and the 400 grams difference, I might go for it.

It's not exactly an upgrade, it's more of a sidegrade, but I believe on rebates I could make this deal for free, or for less than €100. That would leave me with one to zero EF lenses on my kit, since I'm already selling my Sigma 50 Art, and then I could sell the adapters as well, and never look back.

Michael Clark said:

According to Chuck Westfall, the 1D X and 5D Mark III had the same part number for the PDAF array. The difference, which was noticeable, was all in the software/firmware. The same thing happened with the 5D Mark IV and 1D X mark II. They shared the same PDAF array but not the same software/firmware.

It's not much different from how the R6 got the same sensor that the 1D X Mark III has, but a different low-pass filter and JPEG engine.

Click to expand...

And this is is why I’m not just ruling the R3 out, I also really miss how the «full size» body handles and just how fast, easy to use they are compare to a 5-series. But, now the R5 is old 1-series money so the R1 is sadly out of reach…

A lot depends upon which DNG convertor you use. Adobe's, for instance, strips out all of the maker note section of the EXIF info and also throws away the information from masked pixels. This isn't an issue if you're then going to use Adobe products afterwards, because they ignore all of that data in Canon CR2 and CR3 files anyway. But some other apps do use that information that Adobe discards. Black point and white point are also baked in.

For most DNG convertors, what you end up with is a close equivalent to a 16-bit TIFF that has already been demosaiced and had black/white pints set.

HMC11 said:

A generally accepted norm for 'comfortable' viewing distance (of an image) is about 1.5-2 times the diagonal of the image. Given that the ‘average’ human eye (20/20) can see about 300 microradians of visual acuity and has a near point of 25 cm. That works out to 75 microns, or 338 pixels per inch, or one can approximate the PPI needed for a print viewed at distance x inch using PPI ~ 3327/x. For a 4x6 in image, the PPI at 11inch in viewing distance (the most stringent in the viewing distance range) works out to a PPI of about 302, which translates into about 2.2mpx for the 4x6 print. In fact, this 2.2mpx remains 'constant' even as the image size increases (because the 'comfortable' viewing distance also increases. I have arbitrarily set for myself an acceptable minimum mpx value of about 12mpx, so to be able to crop from 24mpx is reasonable, but a more aggressive cropping would require higher mpx, but there is a limit to how high it is comfortable for me, so I have settled for 30mpx as the 'sweet spot'.

Click to expand...

Yes, those numbers you quote are all linear in nature. Going from 24mp to 30mp gives you an increase in linear resolution of 11.8% but at the cost of 25% larger file sizes. If for some reason that 11.8% increase is really important to you then sure, I guess. To each their own, but numerically it isn't much.

Add in that a LOT of MILC are used either as video-first tools or as hybrids, and the cost/benefit of resolution changes to video shooters is an important consideration for manufacturers.

I was happy to see Nikon stick with 24mp for the Z6iii. Hope the upcoming R6iii remains at 24mp, and that Sony smartens up and abandons the weird 33mp sensor and returns to 24mp too. I also suspect the upcoming FX3ii will be 24mp (up from 12mp), and if Sony keeps the A7S series for another generation, that it will share the same sensor as the FX3ii and also be 24mp.

Anyway... I think Canon has a good thing going with 24mp on the R6 and a significant 37% jump in linear resolution to the 45mp R5.

cayenne said:

Well, believe it or not...I primarily shoot my anamorphic lenses for stills....and having to lug around an external monitor on top everywhere is a bit of a PITA, no?

I believe I saw that Fuji in the GFX line has built in de-squeeze, and I could have sworn that Panasonic and maybe even Sony also had anamorphic de-squeeze built in.....this apparently isnt' rocket science to put into a camera software....

I was hoping Canon might throw something useful in there as that anamorphic lenses ARE getting much more affordable and in use more and more these days...albeit mostly for video....

I love the look it gives in stills....and love shooting that wide aspect ratio and not just cropping half the image away....

cayenne

Click to expand...

How many anamorphic lenses does Canon offer in the RF mount?

Assuming Canon designs stills/hybrid bodies to sell new Canon lenses to the people who buy the bodies, what motivation does Canon have for including this capability in the R5 Mark II? What motivation does Canon have to make it possible to use this capability with older used lenses, most/all of them not even Canon?

There's your answer, I think, even though it's probably not what you want to hear.

It's a little different in the Cinema series, because the higher end Cinema industry is much more "rent" than "own", and it's much more common for folks to choose to rent a lens they want for a certain look and then rent whatever camera can accommodate it. That's likely one reason why Canon's Cinema line is so much more expensive, relative to their stills/hybrid line [Compare the 2012 $6,800 1D X to the 2013 $15,000 1D C, both sharing much of the same hardware including identical sensors]. The business model for Cinema is not based on an expectation that buyers will stick with only Canon lenses, so Canon has to make more profit on the bodies themselves.

m4ndr4ke said:

I’m looking forward to try this lens and put it against my EF 24-70mm f/2.8 II. I’m almost sure they will be at least at the same level, with the new lens costing probably nothing (on a good deal) after selling the old one, saving over 400 grams with the adapter, improving image stabilisation, and a huge size difference.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if this animated gif will play but here you go. I think you'll be happy with it.