Latest activity

ctk · Oct 23, 2025

Uneternal said:
Not at all, the colors of the R have a Sony-style green hue. Great for nature, but as a portrait photographer, I hated it. It was a pain in the A to get decent skin tones out of this camera, even with fiddling in Lightroom. I loved everything else about the EOS R but that's the main reason I switched to the R5. Which is much closer to the absolutely perfect tones of a Hassy X1D / GFX 50S (notice how with these cameras the skintones look warm, but the hair/beard does not). With the R5 Canon went back to the same recipe that already worked for the older 5D series DSLRs - slightly warm Kodak colors. And I hope the R6 Mark III will also keep these colors.

View attachment 226576

Very interesting. I found the R's color to be more bluish. My context at the time was Sony's 2nd gen colors, which were just universally awful, so the R was a huge upgrade.

Those colors plus the way the 35 1.8 rendered made for some amazing shots.

m4ndr4ke · Oct 23, 2025

snapshot said:
i used the raw file rather than jpg

Sorry, I missed that.

You're right, on a sRGB colour managed browser I don't get as much green as there is in his screenshot, which has a built-in sRGB profile.

I get a lot more magenta on the R5 that's next to it, though, so my image is overall leaning more towards magenta, but I can still see greener tones on the R.

The major difference in his screenshot could be file compression though.

Kharan · Oct 23, 2025

Del Paso said:
But: That's only my point of view, many will certainly disagree, especially those who actually need (!!!) a lens not-not yet available in the RF system.

And that's the real issue for me. There's nothing in RF mount like the TTArtisan 40mm f/2 I recently got. I tried the RF 50mm f/1.8 and I hated it, I think it's shamefully poor for a 2020's lens. The Chinese lens is smaller, made out of metal, has an aperture ring, and while its bokeh is worse, it delivers more even resolution across the field... and also happens to be my favorite focal length. Mind you, the Sony 40mm f/2.5 was never an option either, considering how damned expensive it is for how mediocre the results are ("pixie dust" is the bare minimum I expect for $550!) That Sony also make the most interesting standard zoom on the market right now is a bonus (the 20-70mm f/4).

And then, I wanted to have AF and some EXIF for my vast collection of vintage glass, which was what originally sold me on E-mount, and the Sony + adapter have delivered that in spades

Ozarker · Oct 23, 2025

CJaurelius said:
Look at what they did for TV's. If my 4 year old $600 55" Chinese tv craps out I'd just go buy a brand new 65" for less money and much better picture quality.

Two years ago I happened in to Walmart as they were setting out a pallet of 65" 4k tv's for $188 ( Black Fridayweek deal). Wow. I grabbed one. No problems ever.

The first color tv I ever bought was in 1983. It was a Quazar 19" for $489! Lol

I bought a Mitsubishi big screen 38" for $3k in 1999. Lol

Thank you, China. Trade with you made my lifestyle better.

Side note: In 1989 I paid $174 for a Microsoft mouse. Two buttons and a ball it rolled on. What are mice now? $2 and without the ball? For a basic mouse?

snapshot · Oct 23, 2025

m4ndr4ke said:
The difference on the EOS R is there, you're just too zoomed-in.
Change image size to "Print"

To me, none of the four is neutral, but I'll take magenta over green.

You don't seem to be using the same file though. His comparison jpeg on the EOS R is 11MB, while yours is 13,3MB

i used the raw file rather than jpg, not sure if that matters. i tried print size. i still am not seeing a tint like the first post, but i think the site should do a better job equalizing exposure as i think the R picture is darker.

Ozarker · Oct 23, 2025

ashmadux said:
You know, the comments in this article give me hope that Canon will have to make a real choice sooner than later... and I love how sigma has stolen all of their lens panache. They could send as many YouTubers to thier factory as they want... they haven't changed to meet the moment.

Regardless of market share they are losing a ton of money to Sony. the L Mount might be small but I already have one body and I'm working on my second lens. That is money that is not going to Canon and they have already decided they are not going to make the gear that many consumers actually want. as far as I'm concerned the vcm series is pure blasphemy aside from the 85 mm. I now have a small / cheaper full frame body with ibis, and Canon simply doesn't offer that at all. I guess that's what winning is.

Otherwise they seem to be doing their line of greatest (regular) hits when it comes to L series.. and that's a shame because everybody knows Canon can do so much better.

Curious: What's blasphemous about the VCM series?

m4ndr4ke · Oct 23, 2025

snapshot said:
i wonder if my screen shot of the same image will look similar...

The difference on the EOS R is there, you're just too zoomed-in.
Change image size to "Print"

To me, none of the four is neutral, but I'll take magenta over green.

You don't seem to be using the same file though. His comparison jpeg on the EOS R is 11MB, while yours is 13,3MB

jeffa4444 · Oct 23, 2025

Exploreshootshare said:
Thx for the comparisons. I´d love to see a review that includes a side-by-side comparison of identical images of all three lenses at their maximum aperture and maybe some stopped down. I love the 0,5 magnification of the 85mm F2, therefore I'll keep it. Plus, the lens really punches above its price point.

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 · Oct 23, 2025

Nice graffiti on the train car.

Bob Howland · Oct 23, 2025

jam05 said:
That APS-C "video" 50 level camera has already been released. It's called the R50v.
The C70 was updated/replaced with the C80. Slot for video would be lower at the 100 entry level. R100v maybe.

I own an R50V and it's pretty good. I'm thinking of something a bit upmarket from there, an R7V perhaps, to compete with the Sony FX30.

snapshot · Oct 23, 2025

Uneternal said:
Not at all, the colors of the R have a Sony-style green hue. Great for nature, but as a portrait photographer, I hated it. It was a pain in the A to get decent skin tones out of this camera, even with fiddling in Lightroom. I loved everything else about the EOS R but that's the main reason I switched to the R5. Which is much closer to the absolutely perfect tones of a Hassy X1D / GFX 50S (notice how with these cameras the skintones look warm, but the hair/beard does not). With the R5 Canon went back to the same recipe that already worked for the older 5D series DSLRs - slightly warm Kodak colors. And I hope the R6 Mark III will also keep these colors.

i wonder if my screen shot of the same image will look similar...

i dont see the green tint

i used:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr13_1=canon_eosr&attr13_2=canon_eosr5&attr13_3=canon_eosr5ii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&attr126_3=1&attr171_3=3&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=-0.8799424874191232&y=-0.2127888232133262

jam05 · Oct 23, 2025

Canon Rumors said:
There will be an APS-C C50 sort of camera at some point next year.

I highly doubt that Canon would immediately step on it's R50v APS-C just released in March of this year with another in 2026. The C50 is a Cinema line camera, just being shipped in December. So I highly doubt that they would step on that cinema camera with an APS-C one. The video centric Powershot V1 was just released also along with the R50v. The R50v already wears the badge of video APS-C at the 50 level. It would have to be a lower R100v level. Entry level

jam05 · Oct 23, 2025

Canon Rumors said:
There will be an APS-C C50 sort of camera at some point next year.

I highly doubt that Canon would immediately step on it's R50v APS-C just released in March of this year with another 50v (video) level in 2026. The C50 is a "Cinema" line camera, just being shipped in December. So I highly doubt that they would step on that cinema camera with an APS-C one. The video centric Powershot V1 was also just released also along with the R50v. The R50v already wears the badge of video APS-C at the 50 level. It would have to be a lower R100v level. Entry level and less option than the 50v level.

jam05 · Oct 23, 2025

Canon Rumors said:
There will be an APS-C C50 sort of camera at some point next year.

I highly doubt that Canon would immediately step on it's R50v APS-C just released in March of this year with another in 2026. The C50 is Canon's cinema line camera, just being shipped in December. So I highly doubt that they would step on that cinema camera with an APS-C "cinema" one. Deleniating it's Cinema line with Video.

jam05 · Oct 23, 2025

Bob Howland said:
How likely is it that Canon will introduce a video version, an APS-C/Super-35 version of the C50 to replace the C70, simultaneously with the R7-2? ~~Or am I dreaming again?~~

That APS-C "video" 50 level camera has already been released. It's called the R50v.
The C70 was updated/replaced with the C80. Slot for video would be lower at the 100 entry level. R100v maybe.

dpc · Oct 23, 2025

First snow of the autumn. Melted shortly after falling, thankfully.

roby17269 · Oct 23, 2025

scyrene said:
Higher resolution sensors can reveal lens flaws more clearly when viewed 100%. But a higher resolution sensor cannot resolve less detail with the same lens than a lower resolution sensor at the image level (when all other shooting parameters are equal). And if you downscale from a higher MP sensor to match the lower one, the images will be virtually identical - the higher resolution sensor should always be at least as good, and maybe better, as pixel-level noise will be finer. Technically-minded forum users have been explaining these things for many years (I'm simply paraphrasing them).

You are correct but a lot of people still do not get it...
There are 3 objective downsides to high resolution:

you have to handle bigger files -> less images per card, ingesting in LR (e.g.) takes longer, etc.
all else being equal, higher res will result in slower max FPS and shorter buffer duration
at pixel level, more noise

All the rest is old obsolete lore

Exploreshootshare · Oct 23, 2025

scyrene said:
Higher resolution sensors can reveal lens flaws more clearly when viewed 100%. But a higher resolution sensor cannot resolve less detail with the same lens than a lower resolution sensor at the image level (when all other shooting parameters are equal). And if you downscale from a higher MP sensor to match the lower one, the images will be virtually identical - the higher resolution sensor should always be at least as good, and maybe better, as pixel-level noise will be finer. Technically-minded forum users have been explaining these things for many years (I'm simply paraphrasing them).

Thx for the explanation. I´ve never given this any thought before and I haven't read up about it. I will try it next week.

scyrene · Oct 23, 2025

Exploreshootshare said:
I honestly don't know the answer to that. I thought if the lenses, e.g. the 35mm F1.8 does look noticeably softer on the R5, resolve softer in the original image, than it would also show if I just rescale it. I could try it, but rescaling all images sounds like a lot of work. Atm, I saving up/ looking for a good deal on a R8. It would be my light travel/ back up/ second camera body whenever needed.

Higher resolution sensors can reveal lens flaws more clearly when viewed 100%. But a higher resolution sensor cannot resolve less detail with the same lens than a lower resolution sensor at the image level (when all other shooting parameters are equal). And if you downscale from a higher MP sensor to match the lower one, the images will be virtually identical - the higher resolution sensor should always be at least as good, and maybe better, as pixel-level noise will be finer. Technically-minded forum users have been explaining these things for many years (I'm simply paraphrasing them).

Exploreshootshare · Oct 23, 2025

AdamBotond said:
Being an original R6 user since its release and skipping the R6II completely, I must admit the spec sheet of R6III is very tempting. It makes my long lasting yearning for an R3 obsolete at this point. Looking forward to see how the mk III is going to perform in low light stills and video. Having 32 MP and assuming that its going to oversample in 4K60p mode, it should give more details in video than the R1, R3, R5. My reason to not to go with R5 II was the lower quality of 4K60 and the low light capabilities.

Ahhh finally, a post from somebody who seems to be from the intended target group Canon has in mind. Although you stated nothing mind-blowing, it is really refreshing to read that see a lot of upside in this camera and are looking forward to it! Hope you´ll like the camera and get to enjoy it

Bob Howland · Oct 23, 2025

How likely is it that Canon will introduce a video version, an APS-C/Super-35 version of the C50 to replace the C70, simultaneously with the R7-2? ~~Or am I dreaming again?~~

scyrene · Oct 23, 2025

Not surprising, really. Not much left of this year once the next announcements are out of the way.

Tom R5R7 · Oct 23, 2025

The one I've been waiting on - delayed again. Not the end of the world, but I don't have a strong urge to update my R5, let alone buy an R6.

Tom R5R7 · Oct 23, 2025

Philnick said:
I prefer carrying a camera to carrying a rock. I've used my R7 for the whole three years it's been on the market with no complaints about sturdiness. Perhaps your friend is of the old school of thought that considered the swiveling screen to be a childish weak point and the mark of a toy. Sorry, Canon disagrees - even the flagship R1 model has it.

If I'm going to drive nails, I'll use a hammer. To take pictures, I prefer my R7.

Or, just stick with what you have. I mean, I have an R7 and it's a very good camera, but it's delicate, a little too small, battery life sucks (like most mirrorless), the controls aren't the same as other one-digit series Canons like the R5 and R6. I'd say that the R7 is closer to the top of the line Rebel body than even an xxD level body. I use it for its purpose but it could have been a LOT better. Too much compromise.

AdamBotond · Oct 23, 2025

Being an original R6 user since its release and skipping the R6II completely, I must admit the spec sheet of R6III is very tempting. It makes my long lasting yearning for an R3 obsolete at this point. Looking forward to see how the mk III is going to perform in low light stills and video. Having 32 MP and assuming that its going to oversample in 4K60p mode, it should give more details in video than the R1, R3, R5. My reason to not to go with R5 II was the lower quality of 4K60 and the low light capabilities.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics