foxfender said:

So fed-up with this kind of peremptory “I know everything” comments.

For a videographer, a mechanical shutter is a very positive point and a practical way to avoid dust on the sensor when switching lenses.

Click to expand...

Of all the highly decorated smartasses on this forum, I am flattered you selected me to be their ambassador. Truly an honor, thank you.

I agree the lack of a mechanical shutter is a real bummer on the R6v. I do not agree with it being an intentional nerf (or “cripple hammer” as some like to call it) but I see the R6v as being a cheaper toned down C50 cinema camera. Getting close to a C50 for $$1400 cheaper is not such a bad deal - but what makes zero sense is that the R6v doesn’t have a cinema operating system. It’s a photo OS camera with no mechanical shutter - that makes no sense to me either. And where is our detachable viewfinder?

I really just wish we would get a proper EOS M6II successor with full frame / ibis & RF mount.

AlanF said:

Please forgive a fellow experimental scientist for using your image to test those theories - after all as Max Planck wrote: "Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal, the rest is poetry, imagination." (especially what's on Facebook).

View attachment 229615

Click to expand...

I have lots to post here but for now will limit my response to this: in the process of trying to 'normalize' all three original images I learned some things I didn't know about gamma correction--it is now part of my 'toolbox' when modifying images.

If Canon brings something like Sony's 4,5/100-400 GM at same price I would go for it right away

I'd love to see a silver-class 500mm f/5.6 with full extender support, as well as a replacement for the L-class 24-70 f/4 in the spirit of quality and price. Any enhancement to the 24-70 would be welcomed, such as 2.8 in the 4.0 spirit, or an expanded range like 20-70. Either of those lenses (and both) would be the tickets for me to switch to the dark side of RF from EF sensibility. If the 500 came out I'd very likely grab it and the 200-800 for a combo of light-control and flexible reach as luxury or situation demanded.

Lovely shot!

ronbyram said:

Hello Gang,
I am a R6 Mark II owner but I am thinking about moving up to either the Mark III and or R5 or a used R1 for my sport photography.
Does anyone recomend a brand and or size.

Does anyone know if the 4.0 format is supported? I know Memory is high $ but wanted to ask.

I currently use Prograde 256 cards on my Mark II

Click to expand...

The camera will use v4 cards just fine, you just don't get the speed from the camera because the camera is not fast enough to make use of it. The benefit is when you dump the card to a PC if you have a V4 card reader, that will go much faster. I use delkin power 1tb cards in my R1 and they work very well.

Hector1970 said:

A 14 or 15mm TS-E would be nice. Even better if it were a Zoom 14-24mm TS-E. I'm sure I'll be waiting.
I assume there will be more Роwеr Zооm Аdарtеrѕ compatible lens.
No good to a photographer unless shooting remotely.
Its leaves alot of little holes in the lens and contacts exposed to the elements. I assume its all well sealed but the lens looks more vulnerable.
I'm surprised they can't build it into the lens yet (I'm sure some day they will).
I'm ensure eventually I'll be able to send my Canon droid out to take photos with my Canon camera with a 14-300mm TS-E. It will select what photos to take autonomously.

Click to expand...

Yes, this 14-24 TS-E zoom would be a sensation!
Gimme! Gimme! Gimme quick!

The 1.2’s, while nearly perfect optically, are starting to feel a little long in the tooth. Both are too fat. This is especially noticeable when compared to shooting with the newer designed 135mm 1.8L. Mark two versions of these two classics that preserve the near perfect optics but which focused internally and were even just a little skinnier would convince me to replace my 50 and finally jump to buying the 85. And where is a hi-res body to take advantage of all that lens sharpness and compete with Sony?

Wouldn't it be logic for canon to release with the R8 MkII a 70-200mm like f/2.8 stm lens ? We know that the missing piece of the 2.8 stm trinity and it's kind of the same targeted costumers.

Del Paso said:

Not so sure, as a replacement for the RF 24-70.

Click to expand...

Yes, I can see an RF 20-70/2.8L coming out as a 'replacement' for the 24-70/2.8 (though maybe they drop the price of the latter and keep it in the lineup).

blackcoffee17 said:

20-70 just after the 20-50? That's the least likely.

Click to expand...

Not so sure, as a replacement for the RF 24-70.

Getting Fed up of waiting for the r72 and a decent 300 F2.8 Replacement maybe time to move over to the dark side ? the thoughts of them bringing out a 300-600 as kept me here ?

Dragon said:

Pretty country. Always liked the drive over Tioga.

Click to expand...

Yep. I'm gonna have to go back in the fall, supposed to be really nice.

alFR said:

I think what people get confused by (as I was myself until I did some reading up about the physics of it) is the difference in the effect on noise of total light and that of light per unit area. Good explanation (the one that finally made it click for me) from Richard Butler on this DPreview thread, with the bit that I think people get led astray by in bold:


I know that's what you've been saying but it puts it in a slightly different way that I personally found easier.

Click to expand...

That's fair enough, and this subject not particularly intuitive; but the bigger problem (on this forum and in the world generally) is when people who don't understand things cling doggedly to their ignorance in the face of any and all evidence and explanations. A little humility goes a long way - nobody knows everything, and all of us had to learn each thing for the first time once upon a time. But those people don't have that attitude, they start from a position of absolute self confidence (and even if they do finally concede, an apology is rarely forthcoming).

tron said:

Yes, because RF100-500 is such a bad lens that needs to be updated!

Click to expand...

Reminds me that mine is now over 5 years old. It's an absolute cracker of a lens, really sharp and lightning fast AF in a relatively light package.

Gino_FOTO said:

I hope one of those two mentioned lenses will be in line with the spirit of the RF 45mm f/1.2, only longer, while similarly reasonably priced.

Click to expand...

Since the 45mm has so poor IQ, at least without correction (and the corners even if corrected) - I really hope for a jump in price for better optical performance Saw Photo Feaver comparison on the 45mm vs 50 f1.8 about a week ago - and there was no competition. The RF 50 f1.8 had way better performance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98OlSjp7Lbg

I hope one of those two mentioned lenses will be in line with the spirit of the RF 45mm f/1.2, only longer, while similarly reasonably priced.

neuroanatomist said:

Same pixels, same pixel efficiency, less area used to capture the image, less total light gathered...therefore more noise and thus less DR.

Click to expand...

I think what people get confused by (as I was myself until I did some reading up about the physics of it) is the difference in the effect on noise of total light and that of light per unit area. Good explanation (the one that finally made it click for me) from Richard Butler on this DPreview thread, with the bit that I think people get led astray by in bold:

The thing to remember is that exposure (determined by shutter speed and aperture value), at a given illumination level, describes light per unit area. ie: if you set a large sensor and small sensor to the same f-number and shutter speed, each square mm of sensor will receive the same amount of light. So if you look at the image captured by 1sqmm of both sensors, the noise level will typically be similar.

However, the larger sensor will capture each element of the scene over more sqmm of its sensor and therefore captures more light about every scene element. So if you scale both images (and I'm assuming you're taking the same image from the same position, in this scenario), the larger sensor's image will be less noisy in proportion to the difference in size.

Click to expand...

I know that's what you've been saying but it puts it in a slightly different way that I personally found easier.

SnowMiku said:

The R8 II is going to be interesting, I'd actually prefer the older 24MP sensor over the new 32.5MP sensor, the lower the MP the faster the post processing, better low light performance and smaller file size. A few weeks ago the R6 II was around $700 AUD more then the R8. The R8 II is going to have to sit between them price wise or maybe they will discontinue the R6 II when the R8 II gets released? I think now is a good time to get an R6 II if you want one.

Click to expand...

I also wish they kept the 24MP sensor and update other things, like: better EVF, bigger battery, joystick, control wheel, etc. Sensor resolution is a good differentiator.

Anything on the photography only side of things will be amazing as far as I am concerned. I understand the economy of scales for the hybrid way that photography is moving, but nah, I don't like video.

Blackburnian Warbler

EOS 4 Life said:

That is a combination that Canon does not really have without CHDK

Click to expand...

Well they can make a hs740 with raw

neuroanatomist said:

I'm still waiting for someone to demonstrate in the final image the inferiority of digital geometric distortion correction, compared to optical correction that some people claim is superior. I tried and failed, finding that digital correction was just as good. Since you clearly believe that optical correction is better, perhaps you'll be the one to actually show some evidence to support that belief?

I won't hold my breath.

Click to expand...

I agree. So far i have no complaints on my 14-35mm or 20mm despite dark corners in raw. The difference is quite easy to calculate with basic geometry, if the distorsion is 10% shouldnt the resolution decrease due to stretching be about the same? The same goes for sensor resolution: you need to basically double the pixel count to get a meaningful difference in linnear resolution, for example the difference between a7rvii and r5 may sound much but is only about 22%

ashmadux said:

My old Canon heart breaks every time every time I think about how they refused to re-release this. What a slap in the face. I was hoping for a turnaround in attitude with canon crop.. . Boring bodies with ancient sensor iq .. no thank you.

My M gear is like gold to me.

Click to expand...

I think the Canon APS-C RF bodies are much better than the EF-S equivalents. No more unreliable and slow AF with 9 focus points, proper video specs (uncropped 4K), etc. But they are still somewhat boring. But Canon is barely doing the essential in the lenses department. Lucky we have Sigma with some really cool lenses.