Chig said:

I find my 200-800 plenty sharp at 800mm View attachment 225763View attachment 225764

Click to expand...

Maybe my copy is not as sharp as it should be, but I am already on my second copy. The first copy I had would misfocus on well-light subjects on a R3 body so was never able to fix the issue. Luckily my local store did an exchange.

meywd said:

RF 600 F/4 or EF 600 F/4 III?

Click to expand...

They have identical optics but with different mounts and wiring. Canon just adapted the EF lens to fit the RF system without an adapter. There may be minor differences in AF and IS.

Bob Howland said:

How does Leica's triple resolution technology differ from Canon MILC's ability to output JPGs in three or four different resolutions (L, M, S1 and S2 for the R5)? Can the Leica output raw images in multiple resolutions?

Click to expand...

They just use some cropping. In Lightroom, you still can afterwards opt for 28mm, even if you took your picture at "75"mm. No magic...
That's why, when you shoot at 75mm for instance, you won't get the 60MP, but the corresponding cropped MP count.

AlanF said:

It was very helpful for me. I'm very tempted by 70-200 Z. Super sharp, not too heavy and takes the 2x so well. Neuro once wrote, I recall, that the 100-300mm with 2xTC is not as sharp as the RF 100-500 and that is consistent also with Canon's MTF charts. And I was disappointed with the RF 600mm. I could hand hold it for brief periods and f/4 is clearly very useful. It's not as sharp as the 600mm f/4 ii in the TDP charts, and it wasn't outstanding on the target here.

Click to expand...

RF 600 F/4 or EF 600 F/4 III?

Canon Rumors said:

What we have been told is that Canon will announce "major" new firmware for both the Canon EOS R5 Mark II and Canon EOS R1. For now, those were the only two cameras mentioned.

Read the full article

Click to expand...

Do you habe any update on this? I'd love to know if this is still planned. Specifically this part:

• 4K 60fps oversampled mode which has been highly requested

8K oversampled 4K60p would be HUGE! Thank you very much in advance!

Exploreshootshare said:

I´d like to see Canon release a mkii of the 24-70mm F2.8, 15-35mm F2.8 and 28-70mm F2. All three have to lose weight in order to look sexy again
Of course, Nikons mkii did more than that and it really looks like a great upgrade.

Ahh, and Canon, if you're reading this: 24-105mm F4 L could benefit from a mkii as well or even more (focal length).

Click to expand...

I agree! The RF 15-35mm F2.8 needs an update as well! I'd love a more compact version even if they have to drop IS. The Sony 16-35mm GM II is so compact and optically magnificent!

john1970 said:

Fair point. I do own the 200-800 mm myself, and wished it was sharper at 800 mm. With that said, I also own the Nikon 800 mm f6.3 PF lens and when I do need 800 mm of reach that is the outfit I typically use.

Click to expand...

I find my 200-800 plenty sharp at 800mm

How does Leica's triple resolution technology differ from Canon MILC's ability to output JPGs in three or four different resolutions (L, M, S1 and S2 for the R5)? Can the Leica output raw images in multiple resolutions?

SvO2 said:

I don't forget that. But Canon doesn't give a choice. You either take the compromises that come with a "versatile" (slow, awkward zoom design, poor teleconverter compatibility) lens or you spend $12k. Doesn't matter if a middle ground prime would suit your needs better- you just don't have the option

In the other ecosystems you have a lot more options in the $2-3k range. I think there's a pretty large chunk for 100-500 buyers who would buy something akin to a 500 5.6 for the same money if it were available.

Click to expand...

I used to shoot with the Nikon 500 f/5.6 PF, one of my most favourite lenses ever, but found the RF 100-500mm so much more versatile and with virtually indistinguishable IQ that I sold off the Nikon system. But YMMV and others may feel differently, but it is not an open and shut case. Canon presumably know their markets better than us.

Canon Rumors said:

I have up for the most part because of my eyes. I couldn't use one with glasses.

I kept the M9 (my favourite sensor) and a Canadian special edition M4. I don't use either very often. The m4 gets used more. Film looks better out of focus.

This EVF thing was necessary to keep the M line going. They need younger albeit wealthy customers. Though, China is probably their go-to market now.

It'll probably also benefit people with aging eyes, just not me. It's losing its one of a kind experience.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure EVF focusing will be precise enough (and fast enough) with a Noctilux. What I particularly liked about the M was the "on the point focusing", not some kind of spatial focusing.
Yet, you are absolutely right! The new, young and rich M customers will certainly prefer "modern" over "traditional".
But, honestly, I am totally in love with some newer Canon lenses (zooms!), and also bodies. If I entered the Leica sytem nowadays, then certainly wit a Q3.
It is digital, with EVF, but incorporates the Leica "spirit" much better than the fragile luxury M bodies.
Sorry, but I've had too many repairs (VF disadjusted, shutter bounce, winders and motordrives kaputt, loose lenses). I'd presently be bankrupt if I hadn't fixed most issues myself...
And yet, I love the M!

axtstern said:

I would suggest to make an R7 or R7 II part of your combo as it allows a bit more flexibility with adapter ( Speedbooster/Filter inlay/Gold Rim)
The R7 together with the dedicated smallrig cage is still smaller than most full frames and allows you to prepare with the rig for situations that differ from whats conviniend with a naked EOS.

Click to expand...

Ok, i will wait and see if there will be that R7 II or not, i prefer to get R7 II later than R7 now/soon and i will upgrade it later.

EricN said:

Are you intentionally ignoring the difference in ⅕ focal length?

Click to expand...

If my issue is having to deal with too much noise at 500mm due to a slow lens, being able to zoom out to 100mm does nothing to fix that.

blackcoffee17 said:

All of those 600 6.3 lenses are much bigger and heavier. And the Sigma is a fixed lens. You again forget that the 100-500 is meant to be a versatile lens, like a 70-200 with a longer focal length. Making it 2kg or a fixed prime would kill that design objective. Losing the zoom might not be a tradeoff for you but it would be for me and others.

I agree that Canon is lazy and feels like lost it's passion when it comes to lens designs. For example Nikon, (a much smaller company in worst financial situation) managed to design brand new 400 2.8 and 600 F4 primes with teleconverters and also a line of amazing 6.3 primes, taking over the telephoto lead. In the meantime, Canon managed to "solder" an RF adapter to the 6 year old EF designs. Canon used to be a leader in telephoto lenses, now it feel like they are lagging behind Nikon, Sony and even Sigma soon.

Click to expand...

I don't forget that. But Canon doesn't give a choice. You either take the compromises that come with a "versatile" (slow, awkward zoom design, poor teleconverter compatibility) lens or you spend $12k. Doesn't matter if a middle ground prime would suit your needs better- you just don't have the option

In the other ecosystems you have a lot more options in the $2-3k range. I think there's a pretty large chunk for 100-500 buyers who would buy something akin to a 500 5.6 for the same money if it were available.

AlanF said:

For those preferring a 200-600

I'd trade in my 200-800mm for a better made and 800mm-optimised 200-800mm ii. There are real advantages of 800mm over 600mm when having to crop images of small creatures, including being able to work at higher isos because you crop less.

Click to expand...

Fair point. I do own the 200-800 mm myself, and wished it was sharper at 800 mm. With that said, I also own the Nikon 800 mm f6.3 PF lens and when I do need 800 mm of reach that is the outfit I typically use.

I would suggest to make an R7 or R7 II part of your combo as it allows a bit more flexibility with adapter ( Speedbooster/Filter inlay/Gold Rim)
The R7 together with the dedicated smallrig cage is still smaller than most full frames and allows you to prepare with the rig for situations that differ from whats conviniend with a naked EOS.

blackcoffee17 said:

I just wish Canon would be half as proactive as Sigma. Don't understand why they cannot make an RF-S 12 1.4 and sell it for a little more than Sigma. They would make the profit instead of Sigma.

Click to expand...

In business and economics, two important questions are: "At what cost?" and "What are the alternatives?" I suspect that, in this case, the second question is the more important.

I have been a Leica M user since the early 80s. Leica was expensive, but still affordable.
These days are over, pricing is, in my opinion, no longer justifiable. Reliability use to be a main strength of the Ms, nowadays, broken or stuck ISO selector wheels occur quite often, if you don't handle the M like a raw egg. Not to mention freezing...Lenses: I've had to send in for repair or back to the seller at least 5 newer ones (28mm Asph, Summicron 50mm, Elmarit 35 etc...). The reason was always a loose front lens-tube.
If it weren't for the extreme optical quality of the lenses, I would have left the brand long time ago.
Don't misunderstand me, I still like the M. But I deeply regret it has gone a long way from the M3's quality standards, and I'm no longer ready to accept collector's prices for what it should be, a tool. Nothing else!
A purely digital M, with exclusively manual digital focusing? Not for me, but the collectors will enjoy buying a new toy for their showcase.
The Leica SL system is even a different chapter, selling Panasonic or Sigma lenses as Leicas at sometimes the quadruple price is just insane.

For those preferring a 200-600

P-visie said:

Yes, I have. The front end of the 200-800mm lens of a friend of mine was bent. Despite being less than two years old: no warranty, but a 900+ € repair bill.

Click to expand...

I'd trade in my 200-800mm for a better made and 800mm-optimised 200-800mm ii. There are real advantages of 800mm over 600mm when having to crop images of small creatures, including being able to work at higher isos because you crop less.

Nemorino said:

But You get more DOF at the same f-stop if You use an APSC. At all there is no advantage to neither FF nor APSC:
Tested it with a DOF calculator: same pixel count (eg 24mpx), same AOV, same picture size, same distance. Both cameras set to the DLA, You get the same DOF.

Click to expand...

You get more DoF at the same f-number because you're using a shorter focal length, and thus have a narrower entrance pupil at the same f-number, to get the same AoV.

But in the case (rain forest) in the comments above, it's being proposed to use the same focal length with a crop sensor to get a narrower AoV, in which case the higher enlargement ratio means the APS-C camera will have shallower DoF.

AlanF said:

There is a difference between the "Engineering Dynamic Range" of a sensor , which is defined by ISO 15739, based on the relationship between the sensor’s maximum usable signal and the minimum detectable signal where the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) ≥ 1, and "Perceptual Dynamic Range", which depends on how you view the image and for which there is no standard definition. What photonstophotos is doing is to set its own standard definition for viewing, which roughly conforms to that of a print under a set of standard conditions. In doing so, so it gives relative values for different sensors that would approximate to the same relative values when viewed under different conditions or by different means.

Click to expand...

Yes. What you say is correct. But that's not what I'm getting at.

What I am saying is that when two different sensors with the same size but different pixel pitch are both compared at "100%" they're not both being viewed under the same set of conditions because the enlargement ratio is different. Ditto with two different sensors with the same number of pixels but not the same size. So all bets are off.