• UPDATE



    The forum will be moving to a new domain in the near future (canonrumorsforum.com). I have turned off "read-only", but I will only leave the two forum nodes you see active for the time being.

    I don't know at this time how quickly the change will happen, but that will move at a good pace I am sure.

    ------------------------------------------------------------

Latest activity

Trending threads Hot Threads

Latest activity

 Posts Media

Canon EOS R7 Mark II is Reportedly in the Wild

AlanF
MSH411 said:
Well for $539 vs $1500 for the R7, I was just looking for something to get by while I waited for the release of an improved APS-C in the Canon line. I got my money's worth but I'm glad you like your R7.
Click to expand...

I posted a thread on this 3 years ago.


The "noise" that put you off the R7 about the rolling shutter and shutter slap on the R7 comes as usual from those who don't know how to use a particular camera (or lens). It's the constant problem on the net - complaints from those who haven't tried or haven't the ability to work around problems or who are just chronic naysayers. Use ES in situations of speeds where shutter shock would cause problems and rolling shutter is not problematic. That actually covers by far the most of its use. Rolling shutter can become problematic where there is fast movement. But, that is the situation where you usually need fast shutter speeds and that is where there aren't any problems from shutter shock if you use mechanical shutter, or you can use EFCS. My wife uses the R7 for birding and it's always in ES mode for what she does with no problems for static birds and she switches to another shutter mode for BIF. When I borrow it for insects with rapidly moving wings, I use ms or EFCS. I presume you do the same with your R50.
Click to expand...
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0

RF 100-400 or RF 100-500

R
john1970 said:
I have the RF 100-500 mm, but I do not have the 100-400 mm. The 100-500 mm for me is an excellent travel lens for wildlife photography especially on a R5 or R5 Mk2 where you can crop in a bit more due to the higher resolution sensor.
Click to expand...
I have the chance to go to Richmond VA in October and photograph Bald Eagles on the James River. Should I use the 100-400? or rent a 100-500? Didnt know if the 100-400 can keep up speed wise. opinion?
Click to expand...
Upvote 0

Canon RF 300-600mm f/5.6L IS USM, Here We Go Again

B
scyrene said:
I do not recognise this analysis. What is wrong with the R6? They have more super telephoto options at a wider range of prices than when I started in 2012. ONE lens clearly has design/construction issues in a minority of cases. Previously they were praised for their internal construction by eg Roger(?) who did the teardowns. Your pessimism is overstated.
Click to expand...

The original R6 was known for serious overheating issues, even in still mode. It was probably the first unreliable camera from Canon for a very long time.
Then they choose this weird plastic outside material for their RF lenses that feels cheap and gets smudges and dirt stuck to them just by looking at it.

I own the EF-RF adapter that seems to has a much better quality exterior plastic.
Click to expand...
Upvote 0

Canon EOS R7 Mark II is Reportedly in the Wild

AlanF
MSH411 said:
I going to assume that Canon heard everyone and resolved those issues but only so I can give them my money when it's released. I wanted a APS-C and because of all the noise around the focus and rolling shutter issues picked up a R50, decent little camera but......
Click to expand...
The R50 has a sensor readout time of 35.3ms, which means more rolling shutter than the R7 with 29.2ms time. I don't find AF problems with the R7. it's by far the best Canon APS-C.
Click to expand...
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

Viltrox to Release the AF 56mm F1.2 Pro for Everyone but Us

Walrus
Besisika said:
Some of EF lenses adapted to the RF have some issues as they were optimized for EF bodies. If the lens is optimized to be used with an adapter on RF bodies, this might be interesting solution for us. I can't wait to see this Laowa version of the 200F2. That is my portraiture focal length.
Click to expand...
I have to say that all my past and present EF lenses (either from Canon or third parties) work much better on R bodies then they've ever made on DSLR, especially bright f1.4 primes shot wide open at close distance, where the eye-AF makes a ton of difference from the old "optical viewfinder" AF, regardless of how many focus points/zones it had, the hit rate is now basically perfect, like 95% tack sharp, while with my 6D perfectly tack sharp eye hit rate from close distance was around 50% to 60% at best.

I have yet to find any EF lens performing worse on R, and I tested I think not less then 20 EF lenses in the last 4 years, since I moved from dslr to R, having tried most of them on a range of 3 FF (R, RP and R6) and two APS (R10 and R100) bodies.
Of course it's just my personal experience.
Click to expand...
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Canon RF 300-600mm f/5.6L IS USM, Here We Go Again

justaCanonuser
AlanF said:
I would never go on an important nature trip without a back-up body and lens (and back-up everything else). For local use my, 200-800 is treated like any other lens to give it every chance of breaking where I can deal with it best, and test it. On my very first serious bird watching trip, to the Pantanal some 13 years ago, I took just a 7D and an EF 100-400mm (first version). The AF broke on my last day when the camera and lens fell between my legs on to the car mat, lens down, through only about 15-20 cm. Lucky it wasn't the first day. A useful lesson.
Click to expand...
Oops, that wasn't funny, I can feel that with you.

Of course I have always backup lenses with me when I travel but I do not carry more than one big lens, max. 2 cameras and extenders and 1-2 short lenses with me when I hike. That's why I prefer a really rugged gear, and Canon never let me down. In Norway, e.g., many years ago I had my old EF 500mm f/4.5 with the original 7D mounted on a tripod in quite stormy weather. When I turned to my backpack to change a battery, I suddenly heard a massive crash behind my back. Unfortunately I didn't recognize beforehand in the grass a deep hole right next to one leg of my tripod, and the wind shifted it right into it. So the tripod toppled over and the combo crashed, fortunately with the 7D as a "buffer" in front, on the sharp edge of a stone. I thought, okay, that's it - but camera and lens survived, the 7D just had a scar. If the camera were broken, I would have had a 5D3 in my backpack, aber a broken super tele lens would have ended my day trip (back then my back-up would have been an EF 400mm f/5.6).

That's only one example for a critical incident, this now 30 years old lens survived sand-salt water storms on shores because I wanted to shoot birds hiding in sand holes in that hell, etc. This year, I finally upgraded to an EF 600mm III, because the mount of the old 500mm is quite worn out and doesn't provide reliable contacts anymore. But I still keep that old club of a lens... ;)
Click to expand...
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Canon EOS R7 Mark II is Reportedly in the Wild

tiggy@mac.com
When the D7 Mark II came out, it was great primarily because it could shoot so many frames per second (10!) For some users it was better than a 5DIII mostly for this reason. Now that FPS is now a solved, making an action crop camera may take some borrowing from other 3/1-series features. Because of the mention of the big top lump, perhaps pupil autofocus control? That was a nice add to the R5 II.
Click to expand...
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Canon RF 300-600mm f/5.6L IS USM, Here We Go Again

P-visie
AlanF said:
You have missed the crucial point in @Chig's post that he is comparing a 800mm on a 24 Mpx sensor with a Sony 600mm on a 50 mpx sensor - the Sony system is equivalent to an 866mm on the Canon. So, @Chig's comparison shows that the 200-800 is resolving as well as the equivalent of an 866mm Sony lens.

You have also missed the threads I linked to in my post. I have posted comparison charts of the RF 200-800m at 800mm and 600mm. Here they are again, with a collage of some parts, and the 600mm ones also upscaled with Photoshop, which you claimed would resolve as much detail. You can see the 800mm shots have resolved more than the upscaled 600mm. Best to download the images to see the differences.
Click to expand...
Thank you Alan and Chig. Facts will not change @mimbu’s opinion. He is repeating his opinions from earlier posts without having the RF 200-800mm. Anyone who has actually used the RF200-800mm knows that, in the hands of a capable photographer, it is a good lens.
Click to expand...
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

Viltrox to Release the AF 56mm F1.2 Pro for Everyone but Us

DhlcadR6
mimbu said:
Canon has never been friendly to 3rd party glass, I don't find it surprising that they doubled-down on this with RF. I also don't expect it to change, Canon will do everything they can to keep almost all 3rd party glass off RF.
Click to expand...
No. They let Yongnuo to have AF FF primes, other manufacturers should consider similar way to make "RF" lenses.
Click to expand...
Upvote 0
Load more

Filter

Forum statistics

Threads
37,185
Messages
964,199
Members
24,545
Latest member
shotbyfoxtrot

Latest albums

20250323 Thunder and Lightning over Arizona
20250323 Thunder and Lightning over Arizona
20250323 Thunder and Lightning over Arizona
Lilith
barbados
Birds of the Netherlands
Canon R5 - abraxas
Alex Russell’s shots
Nature
Birds
R5+ 70-200 backfocus test
Nature

Gallery statistics

Categories
1
Albums
29
Uploaded media
353
Embedded media
1
Comments
25
Disk usage
982.4 MB
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu