Dragon said:

Thanks, catadioptric bokeh is not all donuts with the right background and can often be interesting.

Click to expand...

Or catastrophic bokeh with the wrong background.

Michael Clark said:

My experience with an EF 135mm f/2 L + EF1.4X III was rather disappointing. The images were well below the quality of the bare lens or even my EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II at 135mm.

I did AFMA with the Camera + 1.4X + 135/2 before the shoot for which I used it while my EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II was off to CPS for a new IS unit (at age 9 years and a LOT of heavy use with plenty of hard bumps and bangs along the way).

I've never noticed any offensive colors of specular highlights with the EF 135mm f/2 L. But then I usually shoot with it in darker environments where there aren't a lot of bright points in the out of focus areas.

Click to expand...

Yes, you've reminded me that I really should send my EF 70-200mm f2.8 II L off to Canon for a service. Mine is a bit battered too and I've recenently noticed that the center moves when I zoom. It's not the IS, it looks like some of the internals are de-centered slightly. It still gives amazing and sharp images...but zoom bursts look a bit off center to to the optical alignment.

Bob Howland said:

I use my R7 a lot for stuff that moves rapdily. Could this new type shutter be expected to reduce/eliminate the amount of tilt in trees, motorcycles and cars?

Click to expand...

What you are seeing there is Electronic Shutter distortion due to the slow sensor read out. The R7's readout is suprisingly poor at nearly 30ms. The R6ii and R5 come in at around 15ms and the 1st Curtain shutter is around 3ms. The stacked sensor in the R3 and R5ii come in around 5-6ms. With the R1 being Canon's fastest at sub 3ms.
If you use the R7's 1st curtain shutter you will not see any of the shutter / sensor readout disortion but you will only have 15fps. If the R7ii has a stacked sensor design, then we can expect a huge reduction in sensor read out speed compared to the very poor 30ms of the current R7.
Some people find that the R7 is better suited to 15 fps because the AF can struggle to keep up with the full ES 30 fps, epecially in low light situations.

Michael Clark said:

Again, not everyone's thumbs can reach the LCD touchscreen from the right side of the camera. My left thumb is otherwise occupied seeing that it is attached to my left hand, which properly supports the weight of the lens and camera with the heel and palm. My left fingers operate the ring(s) on the lenses. On some zoom lenses the left thumb moves the zoom ring while the fingers operate the focus ring if needed.

The 5D Mark IV allows setting AF points with the LCD screen in Live View. I've used it when doing tripod mounted landscape work. But that's also with a wired shutter release when the time comes to actually take the photo, so I'm not holding the camera at all in that situation.

I also shoot left-eyed because Canon cameras have enough diopter adjustment to accommodate my uncorrected left eye, but not my more myopic uncorrected right eye. So my nose is pressed on the right half of the touchscreen. I used to wear contact lenses (which the diopter adjustment could barely accommodate in the opposite direction due to advancing presbyopia), but as I've aged my eyes no longer tolerate the semirigid RGPs required for my astigmatism that I wore for around 40 years. I can't stand shooting with eyeglasses, so I take them off and use the viewfinder adjusted to to work with my uncorrected left eye.

Click to expand...

I wear a fully-soft soft contact lens in my right eye, which does provide astigmatism correction. I experimented with "progressive contacts" which were pointless - uncomfortably thick and only provided a very shallow range of focus. Instead I do "monovision" - one lens only, and the brain attributes any detail one eye sees to both. I suspect that contact lens technology has advanced over the years and you may be able to get comfortable ones now. I'll be 76 years old in January, so I've had time to experiment with many kinds of glasses and contacts, not just cameras.

I shoot right-eyed and use my right thumb on the screen. By the way - This might or might not work for you, but Canon lets you dedicate different regions of the touchscreen for focus point dragging, so you might be able to get it to work for you with your right thumb on the bottom right quarter of the screen, down near the traditional location for the control dial, further away from your nose even than the traditional joystick location. Set it not to "absolute" but "relative" location, which is how the joystick operates.

"This could, unfortunately, open up the market to other, more disruptive companies, such as the Chinese manufacturers, who are already experimenting with the fusion between smartphones and compact or ILCs."

Why "unfortunately" though? These are not system cameras: buying one does not mean you have to necessarily add a new system or migrate to it. If innovative manufacturers jump on this it will mean more new choices

m4ndr4ke said:

That, to me is the one that got away.
Well, actually, I sent it away, because I absolutely had no use for it, but no other prime lens has ever impressed me as much as the Sigma 40mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art.
I would have loved keeping the lens. It cost me less than 600€ (a returned item, again) and it's just so, so good...I wanted to keep it as guilty pleasure.

Click to expand...

I had the Sigma 50 Art for like 10yrs (before I used the 50 1.8 classic, the one with distance window and metal mount), and then I got the RF 35 STM (in an usual happy eBay occasion); wasn't really using the 35mm much, as I've always been a 50mm guy, so I planned to sell it.
In those days I discovered that 40 Art was existing (from years, but I don't know how, I had missed it), I saw reviews and got blown away, found one brand new for the same resell price of 35 + 50, so I decided to sell both, to get one that could cover both focals, as from time to time I felt the need of something a little more wider then 50mm but with same brightness, superior to the f2.8 zooms I had.

Years after I'm still happy with the choice, lens is astonishing, and even if size and weight are huge, that's not the real problem (I also got the 105 Art, so I'm used to heavy stuff), but I understood that the 40mm is "too 35mm" for my taste, I've to confirm I'm a 50mm guy, I shot it for more then 20yrs and I can tell the small difference with 40mm, and I don't feel fully connected with it.

That's why I look with great hope for the 45 f1.2 as it's much closer to my 50mm feel while still retaining a small wide kick (if it's not real 48mm as they say, of course ), it's brighter, I can sell the 40 Art without any extra expense (hopefully I can even have some extra in return for the swap), and also solves the side problems of size&weight, plus ditching the adapter; but of course, while it won't be tack sharp corner to corner wide open as the 40 Art, it needs to be at least better then the 50 Art at f1.4
If it's (clearly) better then the 50 Art, with the bonus of the extra aperture kick, then I think I can deal with losing the incredible sharpness of the 40 Art, balanced by all the other advantages that the 45 STM will bring.

Michael Clark said:

Sony can't break the laws of optics any more than Canon can.

If you want a good wide angle astro lens you have to give up smooth out of focus areas to have flat field performance with little to no coma. If you want smooth out of focus areas for your portrait lens, you have to give up some of that flat field correction and accept some coma for in focus point sources near the edges and corners. Some of the use cases you list have design requirements which are diametrically opposed to some of the other use cases you listed.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying it would be the best lens possible for these use cases. Of course prime lenses would be better individually but a 16-35 F2.0 could provide different use case in a single package and that could be enough for me.

There is rumor that Sony is working on a ultra wide f2.0 zoom, so we will see but that would complete their f2.0 trinity.

And I'm sure that if Sony release one trinity of f2.0 zoom Canon will have no other choice than release one too.

Walrus said:

the 40 Art which is probably the sharpest lens on the market, period

Click to expand...

That, to me is the one that got away.
Well, actually, I sent it away, because I absolutely had no use for it, but no other prime lens has ever impressed me as much as the Sigma 40mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art.
I would have loved keeping the lens. It cost me less than 600€ (a returned item, again) and it's just so, so good...I wanted to keep it as guilty pleasure.

DocInfoSci said:

They had several choices -- the 6D / RP sensor, the R sensor

Click to expand...

Those sensors (from the 6D Mark II and 5D Mark IV, respectively) were older and had already been used on mirrorless cameras.
The EOS R was released in 2018, the EOS RP was released in 2019, and the EOS R6 and R5 were released in 2020.

BFG9000 said:

I'd never dare to say that a line of shamelessly optically uncorrected lenses with extreme vignetting is 'a great accomplishment'. I don't even think the VCM line is worth of the red ring. At that price tag the least I expect is the lenses to be optically corrected.

Click to expand...

The 50 and the 85 are somewhat similar to their predecessors in that regard. It's just the shorter lenses that have a lot of distortion correction via software but, even with such correction, they're delivering higher image quality than their predecessors.
Actually, in terms of vignetting, there are many EF lenses with tons of it as well. Some are even worse than the VCMs.


As you can see, the 85 VCM is the only one that seems slightly worse.


And resolution improvement is there, for the ones with significant distortion.

Michael Clark said:

Then the EF 50mm f/1.2 L is not a lens for you. But just because it does not meet your needs doesn't mean it is not an excellent lens for other use cases.

Click to expand...

I know, I went with the Sigma
I no longer own it though, I sold all my remaining EF lenses last year.
Actually the Sigma 50mm Art was the last to go.
I went with the intermediate solution, the 28-70mm f/2. It replaced my 28mm f/1.4 Art, the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 II, and the 50mm f/1.4 Art.
I still like to own a few prime lenses but now I don’t really use them for work, and this 45 will probably suit me in that scenario.

Michael Clark said:

Having said that, way back at the beginning of this discussion I said that the R6 Mark III "matching" the R5 in a way that was reminiscent of the 6D Mark II matching the 5D Mark III was, in both cases, on the spec sheet, but not in terms of build quality.

Click to expand...

They R6s don't match the R5s in terms of weather sealing, but they mostly match in terms of overall build quality.

The 6D Mark II is made out of polycarbonate resin with a few parts of magnesium alloy, with its weather sealing relying on tightly assembled plastics - it's mostly a plastic camera (I had it, I upgraded to the R6). Plastic on top, plastic at the bottom, plastic on the sides, plastic doors.

The R6s have pretty much an entirely magnesium alloy structure and feature weather sealing gaskets. The R5s feature more weather sealing gaskets.
Heck, the originals R6 and R5 are so similar they share the same cage models.

In terms of shutter expectancy:
The 6D Mark II was rated I think at 150k;
The RP is rated at 100k (it had a lower release price);
The R6s are rated at 300k;
The R5s are rated at 500k.

The R6 is nothing like what the 6D cameras were, it went upmarket. The mirrorless transition brought the 6-series much closer to what the 5D were - minus the resolution, that is.
From basic sensors to high performing sensors.
From basic autofocus to the same features at the high end cameras.
Higher framerates, improved durability, improved build quality, 1/4000s shutter speed limit removed, second memory card slot.
And I'm going to ignore video, as I don't care for that.

I don't buy the "love letter" story though, sorry. The R6 was released at almost 1000€ more than the 6D Mark II, here. The camera went upmarket and we paid for it.

To be honest, I've been imagining the R6s in the future will take the place the 5D DSLRs had in the market, with the R5s going to an upper level, above €5000, closer to the concept of the Sony A1. Clearly that's not happening now, but I'd say it may happen within a generation or two.

Bob Howland said:

I use my R7 a lot for stuff that moves rapdily. Could this new type shutter be expected to reduce/eliminate the amount of tilt in trees, motorcycles and cars?

Click to expand...

Yes - it also helps with LED flickerring and improves AF performance

I use my R7 for a lot for stuff that moves rapidly. Could this new type shutter sensor be expected to reduce/eliminate the amount of tilt in trees, motorcycles and cars?

P-visie said:

I’m not one of those “believers”. Yes I would like to have optically corrected lenses, but those have a cost, in price, size and weight. @neuroanatomist frequently challenged those who would state that optical corrections are superior to digital corrections, but AFAIK, no one could deliver the ‘evidence’.

I can only speak from experience of the EF 11-24mm f4 lens, optically corrected, and the RF 10-20mm f4, which relies on digital corrections a.o. to fill the corners of the frame from 10-13mm and correct distortion and vignetting. When you pixel peep at corners, it is hard to tell them apart. Corner image quality of the EF lens was not it’s strong point.
The EF lens weighs 1180 gram and is big, the RF 10-20mm weighs 570 gram and is compact. I frequently left the EF lens at home because of the weight and size (it would not fit into my 40 liter backpack when filled with 2 bodies and 3-4 other lenses and filters). I know which lens I prefer.

Uses cases where optical corrections can be superior:

• Astrophotography where ‘stretching’ the image corners to fill the frame might result in distorted stars. The RF20mm f1.4 VCM shows that digital corrections without distortions are possible (see this thread by @neuroanatomist).
• Stitching panorama’s and focus stacking.
• Severe lens vignetting (3-4 stops) needs a lot ‘burning’ to lighten the image corners. This causes noise in the corners of the image. When you need to lift the shadows of the image by 1 -2 stops, you would get 4-6 stops of brightness correction in the corners of the image. This would have a visible negative impact on image quality.

To be exact: It is Adobe Camera RAW that has the lens profiles, not Photoshop (sorry couldn’t resist ).

Click to expand...

Burning makes the resultant photo darker in the area that is burned. Dodging makes an area of the photo lighter. Photo sensitive paper develops darker the longer it is exposed to light from an enlarger.

Eloniel said:

If Sony release one they will have to do it.

Click to expand...

Sony can't break the laws of optics any more than Canon can.

If you want a good wide angle astro lens you have to give up smooth out of focus areas to have flat field performance with little to no coma. If you want smooth out of focus areas for your portrait lens, you have to give up some of that flat field correction and accept some coma for in focus point sources near the edges and corners. Some of the use cases you list have design requirements which are diametrically opposed to some of the other use cases you listed.

I will have to check again to see what lenses are available for RF-S. IIRC it's a pretty complete system. Like @Exploreshootshare said this would leave room for an IBIS equipped R10. Though to be honest, that's kind of what the R7 could become if they don't discontinue it.

This pose makes it seem like the robin is intently observing the world. But it's more likely that he's keeping a close eye on the birds of prey.

Canon EOS R5 Mark II
EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM
Shot at 371mm with f/5.6, ISO 8000, 1/640
Manual
Distance: 6 meter
DxO PureRAW 5

AJ said:

If your competition has a gas well and you own the pipeline to market, then you have control. You don't shut out that well - you profit from it through transportation fees.

Click to expand...

If your pipeline traverses another country and the government of that country seizes it, then what do you have?

AJ said:

It seems like the options up for discussion are (1) open mount, or (2) completely closed mount.
But there is a third option: license. Canon could make a profit on each Yuongno, Meike, Samyang, 7artisans, and whatnot, RF lens sold.
Maybe people would buy a third-party lens, get fed up with it, and then buy the Canon equivalent. Canon would profit twice.
I really don't understand why they haven't gone after licensing more, aside a few piddly Sigma RF-S lenses.
In business, there is value in keeping the competition on a short leash. I used to be in the oil and gas business. If your competition has a gas well and you own the pipeline to market, then you have control. You don't shut out that well - you profit from it through transportation fees.

Click to expand...

Licensing to Chinese companies is the same thing as making it an open mount. That's because China does not, for the most part, enforce intellectual property laws for IP held by non-Chinese entities. Give one Chinese company the technology and license them to produce 50,000 copies of a lens, and the next thing you know there are 18 Chinese companies pumping out 100,000 copies. Each.

To me, it makes sense. Make it a real wildlife pro camera and move it up in the line-up. The R10 could be become what essentially is the current R7: An APS-C all-around camera equipped with IBIS.

I´d bet that the R7ii will be compatible with a BG!

Quackator said:

And I am still on the fence for a reasonably priced pre-owned 2.8/120-300mm SPORTS.

Click to expand...

I had one for a while. It's only one copy, so it's anecdotal. I bought it used from map camera in Japan.

It wasn't a whole lot better from 200-300mm than just using my EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II and cropping.

This was with a Canon 7D Mark II and exhaustive use of the Sigma dock to adjust/test/adjust/test/ad nauseum the lens to the specific camera body at the distances I used it for field sports. And it weighed as much as a bowling ball. I sold it after I stopped doing field sports in 2023.

Admittedly, I either have the sharpest EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II around or I use better technique than anyone else who shoots with that lens whose full resolution files I have access to. I highly doubt it is the latter. It seems to be even slightly sharper now, after Canon replaced the IS unit in 2019, than when it was new in 2010. Maybe the pixel density of the 20 MP APS-C 7D Mark II (about the same pixel density as the 50 MP EOD 5Ds/5Ds R) has something to do with it?

Michael Clark said:

Well, I guess if you consider those shots to be sharp... (maybe it's the resizing?)

Click to expand...

They are (pics where screen grabs, not even exports, to show lens used), it's just I don't have any medium/long distance shots, because I only used the combination indoor for closeup art nudes details, so the DoF is always razor thin, and it's not easy to show you examples because I have to censor the parts that are actually in focus.
I guess the following belly button, that I can post full size (hope it opens that way when you click and then zoom) and with no censor, show how sharp it felt (it's f11 in this instance), on the very thin focus plane you can see single body hairs, and the texture of the skin




This instead is the EF 70-200 f2.8 L classic (non-IS) with the same EF2.0 II extender, again at f11

Dragon said:

Swarovski includes the warranty in the pricing .

Click to expand...

It's all very odd. They have this very strange business model based on quality, durability and an after sales service for even their cheapest models, and people still buy them. The serious birders must be off their heads as 9/10 here have a pair of their binoculars. Fortunately, we don't have to put up with such nonsense from the camera makers unless we buy their top of the range goods.

ICYMI, here's the updated photo of the 45mm f/1.2:

https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-eos-r6-mark-iii-rf-45mm-f-1-2-stm-latest-specifications/

DhlcadR6 said:

No mention of Yongnuo? They made their long way from reverse engineer NifftyFiffty to better price-performance ratio 50/85mm f1.8 than Canon/Sony /Nikon.

EF mount was never open officially like Sony E and Fuji X ever did. It was open because it was out more than 10 years. And times were slower back in the days.

Right now Canon needs to bring more affordable zooms. Cheap primes both Canon and Yongnuo provide adequate amount. And RF-S has Sigma covered.

Click to expand...

I bought a Yongnuo 35mm f/2 a while back. I used it maybe four times taking a total of less than 100 frames. For a sub $100 lens, the images weren't too bad if stopped down to f/2.8 or narrower, but f/2 was horrible.

Then the aperture quit working. It will not stop down. Period. So now it's a $99 paperweight.

speg said:

Is the R10 the best we’re going to get? How does this compare to the R50V? I don’t really need video so it seems silly to get such a video centric unit. But I want something small and compact for traveling with the family. I’ll probably keep the 28mm on it most of the time for ultimate portability.

Click to expand...

If all I wanted to use was a 28mm lens, I'd leave the camera bag at home and just use my phone.

Has anyone had any compatibility issues with the newer cameras?

Click to expand...

I haven't. But then I haven't used any of my Flashpoint/Godox lights with the newer cameras.

Sorry no one who has actually used them with newer bodies hasn't answered you!

But I think things like real lights and modifiers are more things actual photographers would be worried about, rather than what gearhead fanboys who haven't a clue how to actually light a portrait are concerned with.