Latest activity

m4ndr4ke · Oct 17, 2025

koenkooi said:
The original R5 had a firmware update where Canon admitted that IBIS would always rotate the sensor when taking a picture, in anticipation of people rotating the camera when mashing the shutter button.

That was not it. It was purely a bug, not a feature. The R6 had the same issue.
The camera would rotate the sensor exclusively when taking a photograph after waking up from sleep. The first time we hit the shutter button, it would do that. If the camera didn't enter sleep, it wouldn't happen.

koenkooi said:
1/160s on a 28mm lens with electronic shutter shouldn't be an issue for an R5II, but it seems to be.

What about using EFCS or MS?

Exploreshootshare said:
Yeah, but if you're using a lens without IS, one could not turn it IBIS off.

You can.
It is when you're using a lens with IS that the option is unavailable in the menu, and stabilisation is entirely controlled by the switch on the lens.

Exploreshootshare · Oct 17, 2025

Mekos said:
So: 34.2mp, €2900, the same LCD mechanism... More pixels, more money, same LCD mechanism, not much above my R6II...

Nope, not more money. If 2.899 € (or 2900 €) is true the RRP is identical with the RRP of the mkii. How do people not get that? It has been pointed out several times now.

Exploreshootshare · Oct 17, 2025

Nazuxela said:
I think you can, but only if you disable the one on the lense.
They only work together.

Yeah, but if you're using a lens without IS, one could not turn it IBIS off.
I think it is in the menu, but I´d to go and check.

P-visie · Oct 17, 2025

David - Sydney said:
The RF protocols are a different issue. They may be under patent but the implementation won't be disclosed.
It is simple to encrypt the protocols so reverse engineering can't be done. Combining lens IS and IBIS is not a simple implementation.

And all the other functions that need information about the lens characteristics, e.g. lens aberration corrections and corrections for lens breathing for video.

koenkooi · Oct 17, 2025

GMCPhotographics said:
Actually, after handling a years worth of files from both cameras, I’ve found the files from the R8 slightly sharper than those from the R6II. This I suspect is due to the lack of IBIS, which gives it a slight edge. It’s not revolutionary, but they are slightly crisper, drier and less “wet” looking.
That said, I’ve never found the files from the R6II disappointing.
In a direct comparison with the R5 images, it’s surprising how much detail the R6ii’s sensor can capture. I’ve not done a R8 vs R5 comparison unfortunately. I think it would be surprising.

With unstabilized prime lenses (RF28, 50STM, 50VCM) I tend to get better results with the R8 than with my R5II when doing candids around the house. With other styles of photography and/or stabilized lenses, the R5II is significantly better.
The original R5 had a firmware update where Canon admitted that IBIS would always rotate the sensor when taking a picture, in anticipation of people rotating the camera when mashing the shutter button. So if you didn't mash the shutter, you'd still get motion blur! That firmware update alleviated that issue, but I'm not convinced it was totally fixed. 1/160s on a 28mm lens with electronic shutter shouldn't be an issue for an R5II, but it seems to be. I had always assumed it was an issue with how I hold the camera, but the R8 showed that that's not the complete truth

When IBIS is not detrimental, the R5II wins, easily.

Michael Clark · Oct 17, 2025

mimbu said:
It's always been a problem, and Canon has never addressed it. Canon isn't big on admitting mistakes.

How is offering consumers more choices a problem?

Some folks prefer 1.5X APS-C sensors. There are plenty on the market.
Some folks prefer 1.6X APS-C sensors. Canon offers those.

Pick whichever you want.
Be happy with what you choose for yourself.
There's no need for you to insist you get to choose for everyone else, just as there's no need for anyone else to tell you what to choose.

You don't have to insist that your choice is the only correct choice for everyone. Not everyone has the same preferences as you and not everyone uses cameras and lenses in the same way that you do.

GMCPhotographics · Oct 17, 2025

blackcoffee17 said:
I still don't understand why there is no option to disable IBIS on these cameras...

Yes, it's certainly an oversight by Canon's engineers. Simple mode options like "All off", Lens IS, Sensor IS and Hybrid IS can't be that hard to engineer / code?

On a similar note, Canon could easily remove the mechanical shutter from the R6iii by simply taking away it's option in the menu. Leaving just the 1st curtain shutter and the EC. However, lt makes more sense with a camera like the R3 and R5ii with their stacked sensor to remove the mechanical shutter on those cameras first.

Michael Clark · Oct 17, 2025

mimbu said:
Indeed, but since there is only one camera in a given price bracket, everyone gets stuck with the same trade-offs. I'm not a fan of trading off image quality & low light performance in the name of faster readout speeds. There are plenty of other cameras on the market that already have faster readouts.

Thus: "You pay your money and you make your choice."

There are far more than one camera in each price bracket. All of the major manufacturers offer their own camera in pretty much each price bracket. Sometimes each manufacturer offers more than one.

It isn't that hard to understand. No one is forcing anyone to buy from a specific manufacturer. Yet you seem to want to force every camera maker to design all of their products for only your needs and none to make cameras that are better suited to other use cases?

Mekos · Oct 17, 2025

So: 34.2mp, €2900, the same LCD mechanism... More pixels, more money, same LCD mechanism, not much above my R6II... I'll keep it till a "new" R6IV. And still hoping for a politics change towards 3rd party AF lenses!!! That's why after 47 years of a Canon maniac I bought last month a Fujifilm X-E5 ! What a camera for a pocket and amazing playing in street photography, and not only! And lenses from "everywhere" (including my EF and... FD lenses!!!). Come on Canon...

AlanF · Oct 17, 2025

josephandrews222 said:
A bit of background: 99% of my shooting is jpeg only.

A bit more background: DxO and other 'tricks' used by experts who post here? I have zero experience with DxO etc.

I do own Topaz Photo, the Topaz folks offer regular updates.

I suspect Topaz Photo offers more than I know how to use.

But here is my latest effort:

R5MkII & 200-800 @ 800; not much light [6:07pm CDT image acquired/sunset on what was a clear day 6:18pm]; ISO 12800; wide open at f9.5; 1/250s; cropped jpeg straight from camera--

View attachment 226512

...the latest version of Topaz Photo has a one-step one-click fix-up that is still in beta form. Topaz refers to it as 'Wonder', I think.

The above image after the one-click 'Wonder':

View attachment 226513

...with no snark intended, I'm certain the pixel-peepers can criticize the Wonder treatment--no doubt with good reason.

But I am amazed.

ISO 12800.

My pair of Tufted Titmice never looked so good (sort of).

Oh my.

Comments and suggestions more than welcome.

Thanks for reading.

Just downloaded the new Topaz Photo to try out the Wonder mode. But, it was going to take 107 minutes to process the first image from RAW and the same for a jpeg on my MacBook Air, which is the latest model. How long did it take on your computer?

(I also own a perpetual licence for Photo AI, and have got a complimentary to the new Topaz Photo, but in future it will be on subscription).

Michael Clark · Oct 17, 2025

mimbu said:
It's a difference of 30 square mm between the formats. Yes, it matters. More sensor real estate is better.

It's less than a 10% difference in area. If one is so concerned with more sensor size, everyone offers FF cameras.

And by the way, Canon's FF sensors are an honest 36mm x 24mm while most of Sony's & Nikon's are actually 35.9mm x 23.9mm. That's a 7% difference in area! Where's your crying over that?

Michael Clark · Oct 17, 2025

roby17269 said:
Nope I meant 800. I should qualify it with "and when I am taking photos in badly lit environments" which happens frequently when I am taking photos at indoor birthday parties...

You're blaming ISO for poor performance when the real issue is lack of light, and what little light there is being of very poor quality.

Michael Clark · Oct 17, 2025

RSD5 Soe Nonac said:
Yes, Canon has identified a specific malfunction in some EF 50mm f/1.4 USM lenses, where the focus operation stops when moving from infinity to a closer distance, affecting both autofocus and manual focus. Other reports mention issues with softness at wide apertures, difficulty achieving sharp images, and even focus motor failure over time, leading some users to consider it a fragile lens with a reputation for poor quality control or a tendency to fail. (Canon Community Forum) btw, Made in Japan ? A widely held distinction which increases values, ... debunked. I have one I bought in a kit with a 5D and a 24-105L, I'm thinking it's been used less than 100 shots total. I tried to sell it and it's like new, couldn't even get $100 so it collects age because? Where am I going to get AF 1.4 for less than $100 that communicates Canon on Canon? It's original manual lens purpose was to be the color reference standard for the Canon system. People with good copies don't really comment, all that's mainly heard is bad experiences. Forums are all about da gripe, not da praise is my point here with some facts to back it up .... it's all about dreaming what it will be like going to a big amusement park for the first time and then after that it's all downhill ...the complaints grow and the happy are not on Forms whining like it's a self-support group for remorseful buyers. Really, if something is great then the last place I'd be is on a forum reading, I'd be so delighted I'd wear out a shutter in a day ....thanks for helping me break out of my block and helping me use my eyes and not my thoughts again ..."gone shooting" I appreciate your assistance in this matter very much ....stop thinking , what a concept?

The AF issue had nothing to do with optical performance when the focus elements are able to reach the intended position. The issue was a mechanical weakness in the helical collar that could cause the lenses to get stuck at certain focus positions if the lens had been bumped even moderately with the front of the lens extended as it is for close focusing.

Michael Clark · Oct 17, 2025

m4ndr4ke said:
You make me wonder if I had a bad copy. My EF 50mm f/1.4, wide open, was the softest autofocus lens I ever had, even on the 20MP R6. I bought it brand new in 2018, and made barely over 1000 shots with it.

Stopping down of course helped a lot, but so it did with other lenses.

In terms of image quality, my EF 50mm f/1.4 is no better than the EF 50mm f/1.8 II that preceded it at f/2 and beyond. At f/1.8 the 1.4 is *slightly* sharper.

The big difference for me was usability and not worrying that the mount ring would crack in two during the middle of a shoot. Now that the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM has been around with all of the same usability and "build quality" advantages of the 50/1.4, I'd have zero qualms using it instead of the 50/1.4 should my current 50/1.4 break. (Though the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM seems to be getting pretty hard to find since it has been discontinued.)

Michael Clark · Oct 17, 2025

mimbu said:
If it makes you happier to think that, go ahead.

Personally I want Canon to do better. And Nikon to do better. And Sony to do better. None of them are perfect.

Canon puts crappy AF motors into many of their lenses and sells "RF" super-teles that are just EF lenses with flanges. Worse, they sell the 800 and 1200 that are ridiculously the 400 and 600 with 2x TCs built in. "But they perform better than using the standard 2x extender" I hear you say. Then why didn't Canon just make & sell special 2x extenders for their 400 & 600? Charge $1k for them. Nope, gotta charge $20k for a lens with an extender permanently installed instead. SMH.

Nikon to their credit has been working on a lot of their issues. Their AF has gotten a LOT better, and the new ZR looks very promising as a start of a cine lineup. But they still won't allow Sigma onto FF Z, they seem to be terrified of them. They also limit Tamron. And of course many Z lenses still have STM AF, even a number of quite expensive S line lenses. There are various video issues as well. Nikon is also very bad about cutting corners to hit price points and has too many recalls. Lenses falling off cameras. Strap lugs falling out of cameras. The Z8 is made of plastic instead of a full magnesium frame. They've been working hard. If I was buying into mirrorless today from scratch, I would seriously consider a Z8 even with the issues.

Sony is fanatical about keeping their different cameras segmented. The upcoming A7V is almost certainly going to use the A7IV sensor and still be limited to 10fps because Sony will not put a faster sensor into their base FF camera, they will not allow it to get closer in performance to their higher end bodies. They won't give it better video features so it can't steal sales from the A7S series. They limit video features in their FX line to protect sales of higher end cine cameras. They won't/can't bring out something to compete with the Z8 or R5II because they're terrified it would cannibalize A1 sales. Sony is also very bad about firmware updates. They didn't used to be this way (original A9 got GREAT firmware updates) but in recent years they have not provided anywhere near the same level of firmware support as (for example) Nikon has done. Sony also charges the most for their cameras. Oh, and while Sony does let pretty much any 3rd party glass onto E, they limit it all to 15fps and do not allow teleconverters. They also don't support some forms of in-camera correction such as the useful focus breathing correction in video.

None of these brands are perfect. They all have areas to improve. This is a Canon forum so it would be weird for me to talk about Sony or Nikon shortcomings here. It's important to call out these makers and push for them to do better. They DO read the forums. Of course they don't always listen.

Things will get even more interesting when the Chinese start making cameras. That day is coming fast. The early ones will likely suck but they will improve very quickly. If the Japanese makers don't get their houses in order PDQ, things are going to get ugly.

Imagine that! Timex refuses to sell watches at very cheap prices that are as good as expensive Rolex watches! What is this world coming to?

AlanF · Oct 17, 2025

Canon Rumors said:
This is what I have to say about this sort of software correction. Topaz Labs products have gone down the toilet, they turn everything into mush now. I won't promote them on the site anymore. Their new subscription model is insanity. They think they're Adobe or something, and even Adobe annoys me.

If you want something to deal with noise and all of that. DXO PureRAW 5 is the ticket. There is a fully functional demo on their web site. Everyone should have PureRAW. If there is nothing else you buy in software, buy that. No affiliate link, I paid full price for my license.

As for the photos, it looks like you're shooting in the evening when all the contrast is gone. Once the "golden hour" leaves, it's time to put the camera away. You also need to get closer.

Stop shooting JPG only. You need RAW files to get the best out of software.

I have to agree 100% with what you say about both Topaz and DxO (though I use DxO PL as a standalone application rather than PureRaw). Topaz was once a pretty good denoising and sharpening tool, and Gigapixel the best upsizing. Since going over to AI, you have to work hard to remove the artefacts it introduces. PS beta has a generative upsizing tool, from which I posted images comparing it with Topaz, and found fewer artefacts. $37/month is plain ridiculous for renting the software.

https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/photoshop-generative-upscale-vs-topaz-ai.44748/

Michael Clark · Oct 17, 2025

EOS 4 Life said:
I was not talking about the launch price.
I was referring to the current price

But you are comparing it to the possible launch price of another camera.

ZephyrWentworth · Oct 17, 2025

Michael Clark said:
The freeware app APT – Astro Photography Tool (free) worked for me when I tried it with DiG!C 6/6+ and DiG!C 5 processors. I have no idea if the shutter count feature works with DiG!C X cameras, but the app says it can be used to control all of the R series cameras for tethered astrophotography.

It's listed at this post from Camera Troll which aggregates several apps that can read the shutter count on various Canon cameras. The Camera Troll page is Swedish language, but Google translate works just fine to see it in English.

Thank you, you made my weekend. I was actually searching for a game online through which I can easily make money while sitting at home and I found Sweet Bonanza game and when I was looking for it online, I also found link to your post.

Thank you, you made my weekend.

Klendothir · Oct 17, 2025

nwardrip said:
I wanted to share my (positive) experience. I downloaded and installed the ST-E10 and EL-5 firmware last night and installed on my 2x ST-E10s and 2x EL-5s. Historically, that combo drops connections within a few minutes and won't reconnect until both the transmitter and speedlite are power-cycled. It has been horribly frustrating to the point that I wouldn't use the wireless connection to the flashes. Last night, after the FW update, I tested the transmitter and speedlites and they stayed connected for 30 minutes or so, after which I was tired and shut things down. They even immediately reconnected after only power cycling one device at a time.

So far, this looks like the update we've been waiting for for years. Not holding my breath and will continue to test it. Would be curious to see if others see an improvement.

I did some tests with an ST-E10 + EL-5. It seems to work flawlessly. Both even reconnect automatically after waking up from sleep mode. It looks like Canon finally solved the issue...

Nazuxela · Oct 17, 2025

blackcoffee17 said:
I still don't understand why there is no option to disable IBIS on these cameras...

I think you can, but only if you disable the one on the lense.
They only work together.

blackcoffee17 · Oct 17, 2025

GMCPhotographics said:
Actually, after handling a years worth of files from both cameras, I’ve found the files from the R8 slightly sharper than those from the R6II. This I suspect is due to the lack of IBIS, which gives it a slight edge. It’s not revolutionary, but they are slightly crisper, drier and less “wet” looking.
That said, I’ve never found the files from the R6II disappointing.
In a direct comparison with the R5 images, it’s surprising how much detail the R6ii’s sensor can capture. I’ve not done a R8 vs R5 comparison unfortunately. I think it would be surprising.

I still don't understand why there is no option to disable IBIS on these cameras...

m4ndr4ke · Oct 17, 2025

David - Sydney said:
If @Canon Rumors is saying that he only uses slow (and hence cheap) SD cards then that qualification should be made rather than a blanket statement

He doesn’t have to, he doesn’t even have to own the camera.
I am the target user for the R6 series and I use v30 SD cards because I can and because they’re enough for my needs.
Free will, you know?

It’s a wrong assumption to think that everyone is buying the fastest memory cards a camera can take. Not everyone is doing video, not everyone is shooting in bursts. The R6 has buffer for over a hundred photographs, and I’d be working the same way if it had half of that, as I’m not burst shooting.

I’d get pissed if they converted the R6 series to using two different memory cards, one being at 10 times the price.

I own several pairs of memory cards, that would increase the price of the camera to me by 10 to 20% right away, in order to keep working the same way. That’s just crazy for this price point.

xmarijan · Oct 17, 2025

After Nikon released two new DX lenses, I convinced myself that the still unknown “Fourth Lens” is going to be Canon’s first APSC prime for the RF-mount, maybe the long-rumored 32mm f/1.4, lens that was very popular on the EF-M mount, and is going to be announced very soon, before the end of October.

David - Sydney · Oct 17, 2025

DhlcadR6 said:
3rd Party lenses is just matter of time, RF patent will run out eventually. And to be honest current RF is lacking the Tamron Sigma exotics, other things Canon got it covered.

The physical RF mount hasn't been an impediment for new lenses for either manual or EF auto focus protocols. 3rd party EF lenses still had some issues with compatibility over time.

The RF protocols are a different issue. They may be under patent but the implementation won't be disclosed.
It is simple to encrypt the protocols so reverse engineering can't be done. Combining lens IS and IBIS is not a simple implementation.
Sigma and Tamron are playing a long game and will license with Canon's permission. There is no indication that this strategy will change.
The Chinese lens manufacturers are a different story.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics