m4ndr4ke said:

Ok, I got it now, but that’s two different settings.
On the R6, there’s Image Review and then Viewfinder Review as a sub option, which means you can choose to have Image Review only on the rear display.
The RP does not feature the second, only the first, which means it always displays on both screens.

Anyway, you don’t need a R6 for that, the R8 has both options as well.

Honestly, most settings have been available on every full-frame models since the R6/R5, the RP and R were just left behind. People shouldn’t take the R and RP as reference for anything.

But I can clearly see the difference in quality of the two EVFs. Resolution, higher framerate (I always have my cameras set to the highest framerate), larger size and better color accuracy on the R6. The EVF on my RP is green/yellow tinted (lacks magenta), and that camera doesn’t allow adjustments on that regard.
The R8 I suppose features the same EVF (I still have it in my possession), but allows color adjustments.

Click to expand...

Yes, unfortunately RP doesn't allow, but it's ok, it's a 400€ used FF ML camera, for that price I'm already happy that it turns on at all! :-D It's the backup camera, I can shoot with image review always off, and use the play button when needed, not a big deal.
I don't know how R8 works, never laid a hand on it; too expensive for a backup camera, too "poor" (no joystick, no double slot, small battery, no proper battery grip, no three dials on the body) for a main camera.
I have all cameras at lowest EVF framerate to save on battery, so maybe that's why I don't see a tangible difference among R6 and RP; the color cast, may very well be, but frankly I don't really notice, camera is 99% of the time in auto-wb in ambient light (and with strobe, the moment I install the trigger, the wb switches automatically to flash, so I rarely move it from auto), so the colours I see in the EVF are very random, with digital I don't really care about native wb of a raw picture, let alone the cast on the display/evf unless is REALLY bad.

Fun with an old lens. R7 + Nikon 1000mm mirror lens. A lot of junk images, and DOF is paper thin, but if you nail focus the lens is remarkably sharp. Not as good as the 200-800, but certainly usable with enough patience.

David the street guy said:

Hello, I need help, here!

I'm in the market for a new camera, my good old RP is starting to show its limits. This weekend, for example, I really struggled with focusing in low light, even when my subject was relatively still.

I never shoot video, and my most frequent context for photography is music concerts, so generally in very low light. For example, saturday night, I needed 12800 ISO for pictures at 1/30 of a second at F/2,8. Noisy as hell, but usable when I managed to focus.

According to what you know from the rumors mills, will the new R6 mark iii be the very best for my needs? Will it be my best choice, regarding quality in low light and fast autofocus in these conditions? Will it be better than the R5 mark ii?

As we say in French, thank you for your lights!

Click to expand...

Noise levels should be essentially the same.

Autofocus is better on every camera from the R8 and above.

The RP features the original Dual Pixel AF, while every full-frame since the R6/R5 features Dual Pixel AF II and the ability to focus down to at least EV-6.

You’d benefit from a R8, any R6 (I, II or III), and a f/1.4 prime lens. If I were you, I’d seriously consider a R8 and a VCM prime. The R8 even uses the same batteries as your RP.

Walrus said:

I have cameras to my eye, shooting using the EVF's, whith both cameras with image review turned on.
I take a single picture and release the shutter button, keeping the camera to my eye.
The RP shows in the EVF the picture taken, obstructing my view of the actual scene still happening in front of me, while the R6 is not showing the picture in the EVF (acting sort "as an OVF" would), and will show the picture taken only in the rear display, if I remove the camera from my eye and the rear display activates.

Click to expand...

Ok, I got it now, but that’s two different settings.
On the R6, there’s Image Review and then Viewfinder Review as a sub option, which means you can choose to have Image Review only on the rear display.
The RP does not feature the second, only the first, which means it always displays on both screens.

Anyway, you don’t need a R6 for that, the R8 has both options as well.

Honestly, most settings have been available on every full-frame models since the R6/R5, the RP and R were just left behind. People shouldn’t take the R and RP as reference for anything.

But I can clearly see the difference in quality of the two EVFs. Resolution, higher framerate (I always have my cameras set to the highest framerate), larger size and better color accuracy on the R6. The EVF on my RP is green/yellow tinted (lacks magenta), and that camera doesn’t allow adjustments on that regard.
The R8 I suppose features the same EVF (I still have it in my possession), but allows color adjustments.

Walrus said:

I have cameras to my eye, shooting using the EVF's, whith both cameras with image review turned on.
I take a single picture and release the shutter button, keeping the camera to my eye.
The RP shows in the EVF the picture taken, obstructing my view of the actual scene still happening in front of me, while the R6 is not showing the picture in the EVF (acting sort "as an OVF" would), and will show the picture taken only in the rear display, if I remove the camera from my eye and the rear display activates.

Click to expand...

My EOS R never does this! Never!
And I review through the EVF if only I want, using the review button.
I do not understand what you mean at all.

m4ndr4ke said:

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here, could you elaborate? I own both cameras.

Click to expand...

I have cameras to my eye, shooting using the EVF's, whith both cameras with image review turned on.
I take a single picture and release the shutter button, keeping the camera to my eye.
The RP shows in the EVF the picture taken, obstructing my view of the actual scene still happening in front of me, while the R6 is not showing the picture in the EVF (acting sort "as an OVF" would), and will show the picture taken only in the rear display, if I remove the camera from my eye and the rear display activates.

David the street guy said:

Hello, I need help, here!

I'm in the market for a new camera, my good old RP is starting to show its limits. This weekend, for example, I really struggled with focusing in low light, even when my subject was relatively still.

I never shoot video, and my most frequent context for photography is music concerts, so generally in very low light. For example, saturday night, I needed 12800 ISO for pictures at 1/30 of a second at F/2,8. Noisy as hell, but usable when I managed to focus.

According to what you know from the rumors mills, will the new R6 mark iii be the very best for my needs? Will it be my best choice, regarding quality in low light and fast autofocus in these conditions? Will it be better than the R5 mark ii?

As we say in French, thank you for your lights!

Click to expand...

Le R6 III semble etre un excellent choix, surtout si vous utilisez souvent les ISO eleves. Pour des photos "normales", le R5 II que j'utilise fournira des images plus detaillees, quant a l'autofocus, les deux se valent quelque soient les conditions de luminosite.

David the street guy said:

Hello, I need help, here!

I'm in the market for a new camera, my good old RP is starting to show its limits. This weekend, for example, I really struggled with focusing in low light, even when my subject was relatively still.

I never shoot video, and my most frequent context for photography is music concerts, so generally in very low light. For example, saturday night, I needed 12800 ISO for pictures at 1/30 of a second at F/2,8. Noisy as hell, but usable when I managed to focus.

According to what you know from the rumors mills, will the new R6 mark iii be the very best for my needs? Will it be my best choice, regarding quality in low light and fast autofocus in these conditions? Will it be better than the R5 mark ii?

As we say in French, thank you for your lights!

Click to expand...

Just from you short text:
go get the R6ii. Great in low light, fast AF and reliable in dark locations plus it is at great price point atm. The mkiii will cost much more. Save the money and maybe get a f2 prime.

In other news:

Development of a bioinspired soft lens that can adjust its focal length automatically in response to varying light levels, similar to a human eye.

Hello, I need help, here!

I'm in the market for a new camera, my good old RP is starting to show its limits. This weekend, for example, I really struggled with focusing in low light, even when my subject was relatively still.

I never shoot video, and my most frequent context for photography is music concerts, so generally in very low light. For example, saturday night, I needed 12800 ISO for pictures at 1/30 of a second at F/2,8. Noisy as hell, but usable when I managed to focus.

According to what you know from the rumors mills, will the new R6 mark iii be the very best for my needs? Will it be my best choice, regarding quality in low light and fast autofocus in these conditions? Will it be better than the R5 mark ii?

As we say in French, thank you for your lights!

curiousMonkey said:

Here are a few more squirrel shots from about 30 feet away. I varied the aperture by one stop but I think they both look fine in terms of sharpness. The cat photo I posted earlier may just be an anomaly related to shallow DOF and camera movement.View attachment 226618View attachment 226619

Click to expand...

Presumably, you have downsized the full image to about a 1000 px wide? If so it's difficult to assess critically the sharpness. A crop from the original not downsized would be better.

Here are a few more squirrel shots from about 30 feet away. I varied the aperture by one stop but I think they both look fine in terms of sharpness. The cat photo I posted earlier may just be an anomaly related to shallow DOF and camera movement.

We could actually be in for a nice surprise.
Let's not forget how sharp the cheap little RF 28mm f/2,8 is. As sharp as my Leica M 28mm f/2,8 aspherical...
(Cf. the extremely positive OpticalLimits review)

mangobutter said:

Yes the RF 50 1.2 is spectacular but i always thought it was too perfect.

Click to expand...

My main issue with that lens is the general lower contrast look, that I'm not very fond off so, to my eyes it's not perfect

mangobutter said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'd say it's possible they started with a similar concept, but I'd expect this lens to feature some molded plastic elements, and perhaps cheaper coatings (actually I'm unaware if the EF 50 1.2 features expensive coatings or not).

Dmcavoy said:

Given that most RF lenses perform relatively averagely without all the digital corrections applied, surely this 45mm 1.2 could be the same? Even if it's along the lines of the original EF 50 1.2 but with the ability of R series camera to apply a vast array of corrections it must be able to make it appear to be a decent performing lens?

Click to expand...

I'd expect low distortion, due to its focal length, tons of vignetting, and my guess goes to center sharpness at f/1.2 possibly similar to that of the RF 50mm f/1.8 at f/1.8, getting better as it's stopped down.

Walrus said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here, could you elaborate? I own both cameras.

padam said:

View attachment 226617

Click to expand...

Nope, that's the 85, edited, but that lens is much longer.

This 45mm is expected to be 65mm long (according to the patent that was published), and it will use a 67mm filter thread. For perspective, the 35mm f/1.8 is 63mm long, so this lens will be about the same length as the 35, but wider in the front. In the leaked photograph you can see there is a slight curve before the focus ring.

koenkooi said:

I’ve been using the 85STM a bit more this week, the 1:2 magnification comes in handy more often than I realized:
View attachment 226078

Click to expand...

And I'm slowly but surely replacing with the ultra compact 70-200 f/4. But I'll keep the 85 f/2, a lens I really like!
PS: I like your frog picture!

Given that most RF lenses perform relatively averagely without all the digital corrections applied, surely this 45mm 1.2 could be the same? Even if it's along the lines of the original EF 50 1.2 but with the ability of R series camera to apply a vast array of corrections it must be able to make it appear to be a decent performing lens?

And with the non L designation and price point, it's clearly being aimed at casual users and content creators, where shots will end up on a 6 inch display, not being pixel peeped at 200%...

If it does indeed come in at around the £500-600 price mark this thing will sell by the truck load. I know I'll be buying one.

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.

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

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

curiousMonkey said:

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

Click to expand...

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!

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!

blackcoffee17 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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