Latest activity

BFG9000 · Oct 27, 2025

ImageStream said:
You state that the expected Max ISO of the R6 Mark III is 64,000. Yet, isn't that a downgrade? The Max native ISO of the Mark II is 102,400.

In that case I think is quite irrelevant: I don't think much people work at 64000 ISO.

koenkooi · Oct 27, 2025

jeffa4444 said:
Go on YouTube and watch James Reader review which include all three plus the Sigma 1.4 85mm and the Canon EF 85mm f1.4L IS USM

It's very portrait focussed, but like you say, it does cover a lot of different 85mm lenses: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0Q-ZklDlok

koenkooi · Oct 27, 2025

curiousMonkey said:
I believe it is. I was testing several modes so I can’t be 100% sure[...]

As far as we can deduce as users, the Canon AF algorithms are 'open loop', there body doesn't check if something is actually in focus during exposure, it trusts the lens to have moved to the correct position. The obvious example if this is a branch crossing in front of your subject, at the edge of the 'eye box'. The eye will be out of focus, but the branch will be tack sharp.

I had hoped that Canon would have fixes this, especially with the R5II and R1 having multiple AF processors. Doing a contrast based fine tuning pass at the end would be a great option to have!

camedia · Oct 27, 2025

to launch a 14f2 over 8 years after Sigma launched its 14 1.8 would be pretty disappointing. it would also be many years after Sony launched their 14 1.8 which is quite small. So it has to at least match or else it is shameful and adds more evidence to why a closed system restricts photographers from innovation (even pretty old innovation that's already been around for years!)

I do aurora and I hate how limited the options for UWA fast are compared to Sony. Canon should do better!

mangobutter · Oct 27, 2025

blackcoffee17 said:
Even if it's the same optically, the AF might be much more reliable.

The net upgrade cost alone would be worth it to ditch the adapter. heck you might even profit.

mangobutter · Oct 27, 2025

m4ndr4ke said:
Maybe at 20/24MP it’s good enough to be generally similar in terms of sharpness.
I expect the lens to be shown attached to the R8, as it’s aimed at enthusiasts.

I doubt it will perform as well at 45MP though, it just seems too good to be true, BUT…it’s been 7 years since the RF 50mm f/1.2 was released so, who knows…?
It’s quite a claim, though.

I’m expecting low distortion due to the nature of its focal length, tons of vignetting wide open, build quality similar to that of the 35mm f/1.8.

Actually genius, if it's a re-shuffled double gauss like they did with the EF 50 STM to RF 50 STM conversion--they simply jiggled things for the flange distance and retained the same optics having roughly identical optical performance. I wonder if something similar is going on here where they're taking the already-mature optics of the EF 50 1.2 and repacking for flange distance, with some optimization to keep the size down--or even none. I would welcome it. Yes the RF 50 1.2 is spectacular but i always thought it was too perfect. I want something that has field curvature at large apertures and that has a slight swirl. i hope this RF 45 1.2 delivers especially at this price. instant order. long-time user of Canon digital large sensor glass--film glass used on canon digital sensors--(25 years) and since ive been on the RF mount, i've mostly stuck to EF glass for the reasons above (though i have dabbled in several RF lenses but sold them off since)

The RF 35 1.8 is probably my favorite RF lens.

ImageStream · Oct 27, 2025

The Max native ISO of the R6 Mark II is 102,400, same as the R5 Mark II.

ImageStream · Oct 27, 2025

candyman said:
ISO range voor R5 Mark II

View attachment 226615

EricN · Oct 27, 2025

rombe3jr said:
The R6 III specs keep getting better and better! I have a feeling this is going to blow away the Sony A7V this year. It’s Canon’s turn to shine.

Canon isn't doomed?

EricN · Oct 27, 2025

Walrus said:
Agreed; in this moment I have R6 and RP (and I had R, R10 and R100) and I can't find the difference during shooting, they all look great.

The only advantage of the R6 compared to previous R and RP (and that's something I'm happy to pay for, because it's game changing) is that it doesn't show the captured picture, unless you pull the camera out of your eyes and look at the picture in the rear display, like you would feel when using an OVF., while if you have the review active, R and RP will show picture and/or blackout right in the EVF, so with those I have to keep review off.

The default setting on the RP will show the captured photo as you described, but this can be changed in the menu.

Spacey69 · Oct 27, 2025

I would like to know if folks are testing this outside under "real" photographic conditions especially in areas of 5G influence?

rombe3jr · Oct 27, 2025

The R6 III specs keep getting better and better! I have a feeling this is going to blow away the Sony A7V this year. It’s Canon’s turn to shine.

meywd · Oct 27, 2025

Walrus · Oct 27, 2025

SvO2 said:
Tbh I hardly notice the difference between the EVFs on my r6ii and r5ii. I’ve never tried an r8 to compare

Agreed; in this moment I have R6 and RP (and I had R, R10 and R100) and I can't find the difference during shooting, they all look great.

The only advantage of the R6 compared to previous R and RP (and that's something I'm happy to pay for, because it's game changing) is that it doesn't show the captured picture, unless you pull the camera out of your eyes and look at the picture in the rear display, like you would feel when using an OVF., while if you have the review active, R and RP will show picture and/or blackout right in the EVF, so with those I have to keep review off.

Del Paso · Oct 27, 2025

SvO2 said:
Tbh I hardly notice the difference between the EVFs on my r6ii and r5ii. I’ve never tried an r8 to compare

As I wrote, this is my point of view, knowing that some/many could disagree, and could be right to do so.
Yet, to me, the difference between R6 II and R5 II is absolutely relevant.

I can also confirm what @EricN wrote about the RP, manual focusing can be a chore with it.

m4ndr4ke · Oct 27, 2025

Exploreshootshare said:
I don´t like the overly sharp Sigmas...

Wide open, the Sigma EF 50 Art isn't that sharp, honestly. It's excellent by 10 year old standards (it was released in 2014), but today's lenses are as sharp at 1.2 or 1.4 as the Sigma is stopped down to f/4.

Exploreshootshare said:
Why is the R8´s EVF "horrible"? I only tested in a camera store, but it seemed fine to me. Is 2.36 m dots such a setback?

I don’t find it horrible, it's usable. It's lower resolution, but also a slightly smaller display. It's not smaller to the point of having the same pixel density, but being smaller certainly helps reducing pixelation.

I don't use manual focus, and I don't own manual focusing lenses.

I find the image quality on 3,68MP EVFs to be generally good/very good, and excellent on the 5,76MP models. Beyond that resolution, I can't tell the difference.

Something Canon really NEEDS to address are the huge rubbers. I have to use all my cameras with VF Display Format set to 2, because I can't see corner to corner with glasses, if using the entire screen. It's easier on the RP/R8 because they have smaller displays and rubbers, but on the R6 and above it just doesn't work.
Last week I tried the Leica Q3 and the new M EV1. Those cameras barely have any rubber, I could see corner to corner, easily, to the point I'm considering buying a replacement rubber for the R6 just to cut it.

ImageStream · Oct 27, 2025

Stig Nygaard said:
I think it is to be expected with the MP increase.
For comparision, the 45MP EOS R5 Mark II has a maximum native ISO of 51.200.

Interesting. I chose the R6 MKII over the R5, precisely because of the higher ISO range. Sad if Canon prioritizes MP over high ISO quality on the R6 MKIII...

candyman · Oct 27, 2025

Stig Nygaard said:
For comparision, the 45MP EOS R5 Mark II has a maximum native ISO of 51.200.

ISO range voor R5 Mark II

Stig Nygaard · Oct 27, 2025

ImageStream said:
You state that the expected Max ISO of the R6 Mark III is 64,000. Yet, isn't that a downgrade? The Max native ISO of the Mark II is 102,400.

I think it is to be expected with the MP increase.
For comparision, the 45MP EOS R5 Mark II has a maximum native ISO of 51.200.

EricN · Oct 27, 2025

Del Paso said:
I've once tested a friend's R8's EVF, and didn't like it at all. Honestly, I also hated the EOS R for its 3,7 m. dots. The same for the R6 II, though much better than both R8 and R. High contrast situations aren't welI mastered by low definition EVFs. But this just a matter of very personal preferences!
For me, like in film times, an excellent viewfinder is of the highest importance. The R5 II's EVF mostly meets my demands, the R1 (don't own it!) even more.

RP has the same 2.36 and it's defenitly easy for to make mistakes with manual focus and exposure that I wouldn't have with R5. It is nice to worry less about theft

Tom R5R7 · Oct 26, 2025

Philnick said:
I agree that Canon has always sidelined its APS-C models, trying to force users to go full frame - or at least buy full-frame lenses - by not making fast -S glass. (The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 was a very popular exception, and my main lens before going mirrorless.) That's where the Sigma RF-S lenses come in. Their 10-18mm f/2.8 has the wide end covered, and their others make the R7 quite competitive, giving it parity with the Sony, Fujifilm and Leica APS-C models, which have had the same lenses for a few years, where they're very popular. Nikon's limiting IBIS to their full-frame models puts them that much further behind Canon, since the R7's IBIS lets it stabilize small and light unstabilized APS-C lenses.

Yeah, that 17-55 was nice. I used the 17-40L on my 10D and kept it through, I think, my 40D. It was a pretty sharp lens on a crop body, and it was available before the EF-S lenses were developed. It was the only very good lens that went wide enough before the EF-S lenses came out, and even after, until the 17-55.

Once I tasted the 5D, my wide ventures were mostly full frame. Right now, I have the RF 14-35 f/4 which works pretty well as a wide angle on the R7. Not fast enough for low-light work or extreme subject isolation, but a very good lens that gives me some architectural options if I'm out with the R7. I'd say though, the 100-500 sits on my R7 90% of the time.

SvO2 · Oct 26, 2025

Tbh I hardly notice the difference between the EVFs on my r6ii and r5ii. I’ve never tried an r8 to compare

Del Paso · Oct 26, 2025

Exploreshootshare said:
I liked the R´s EVF. Only the blackout in high-speed shooting is/ was a problem. The R5 on paper has a better EVF, but I never really noticed that difference. The R5 also has a blackout phase, but at least it's shorter than the R´s. I really like the EVF of the R5mkii, it is really beautiful. But, the big EVF hump makes the camera even bulkier.

Why is the R8´s EVF "horrible"? I only tested in a camera store, but it seemed fine to me. Is 2.36 m dots such a setback?

I've once tested a friend's R8's EVF, and didn't like it at all. Honestly, I also hated the EOS R for its 3,7 m. dots. The same for the R6 II, though much better than both R8 and R. High contrast situations aren't welI mastered by low definition EVFs. But this just a matter of very personal preferences!
For me, like in film times, an excellent viewfinder is of the highest importance. The R5 II's EVF mostly meets my demands, the R1 (don't own it!) even more.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics