Latest activity

Tirmite · Mar 25, 2026

roby17269 said:
I could get behind that (literally and figuratively)... for $2.5K

$2500 per week for one year at 0%. Apply Now!

DocInfoSci · Mar 25, 2026

Dragon said:
sharpness is largely about nailing focus, which is hard.

It's hella hard when hand held and things don't wait.

Temperature also has a huge effect on the cheap mirrors, in my experience. It's not just acclimation, although that minimizes heat shimmer, but I think that the assembly also assumes a particular climate — like that of the region making the lens, such as Shenzen or Masan. Slapping on a lens heater sleeve to warm all of the components, even on cool summer days, tends to help a lot when I can tripod the lens, such as to catch birds at nesting houses. My Opteka performs best when the mirror and front reflector are both at around 28C.

Tirmite · Mar 25, 2026

Zadak said:
Paragraphs....

Happy?

AlanF · Mar 25, 2026

Dragon said:
Contrast can be adjusted in post if the ISO isn't too high and sharpness is largely about nailing focus, which is hard. None of the mirrors are as sharp as equivalent refractors, but some are decent and the new 250mm TTartisans is actually very decent, so with modern Canon tech, I suspect a mirror could be quite good and if AF could be made to work reliably, we could have an interesting lens. The bokeh can be distracting in some scenes and very creative in others, so not always bad.

Do I recall you once had the Minolta AF mirror lens?

antonn · Mar 25, 2026

R1/R52R/52 + RF600/4 + TC2.0, Accipiter nisus in the rain

Dragon · Mar 25, 2026

AlanF said:
In contrast, yours do have decent contrast and sharpness.

Contrast can be adjusted in post if the ISO isn't too high and sharpness is largely about nailing focus, which is hard. None of the mirrors are as sharp as equivalent refractors, but some are decent and the new 250mm TTartisans is actually very decent, so with modern Canon tech, I suspect a mirror could be quite good and if AF could be made to work reliably, we could have an interesting lens. The bokeh can be distracting in some scenes and very creative in others, so not always bad.

neuroanatomist · Mar 25, 2026

scyrene said:
Here we go again! Just like when marginally lower DR was going to sink them. Why not cite Nokia or Kodak - go the full cliché.

Once Canon improved their low ISO DR (after many years of being behind Sony and Nikon in that particular metric, despite continuing to lead the camera market), the trolls needed some new hobby horse to ride.

For a while it was ‘Canon is so late to mirrorless they will never catch up’, but of course they did, and now hold a solid lead (though obviously some delusional trolls continue to deny that).

Then the argument du jour became a lack of third-party lenses, which has now become a lack of full frame third-party lenses.

Trolls gonna troll.

AlanF · Mar 25, 2026

Dragon said:
I posted a bunch of hummer shots with various mirrors starting here and on the following pages. https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/show-your-bird-portraits.1280/page-1616#post-1034065 . Some of the old mirrors are pretty sharp. The catch is nailing focus, so AF would be a huge improvement.

In contrast, yours do have decent contrast and sharpness.

DocInfoSci · Mar 25, 2026

AlanF said:
It is horrible. Blurred and poor contrast.

Hahaha! Yeah, but for only $72 and a whim — and only in-camera. On a bright day. For random giggles.

The point being imagine if serious tech were applied in Canon fashion, given the history of legendary mirrors, the f/11 primes as odd-ball examples, and a splash of DLO.

AlanF · Mar 25, 2026

DocInfoSci said:
I would seriously consider such a creature!

I bag images like this when using my ultra-cheapo 3rd party mirror lenses when I'm in the mood for an amusing challenge. This was taken probably about 50 feet away from the bird using an Opteka 500mm with T2 adapter on my R6 with basically some in-camera sharpening and clarity applied. I have to emphasis ultra-cheap third party trash lens, and yet this.

View attachment 228522

I have no doubt Canon prowess in physical and digital work would make wonders of what you described. And it would be hilarious. I mean, recall the horror when the f/11 primes were released — the Internet would burn down on this one!

It is horrible. Blurred and poor contrast.

DocInfoSci · Mar 25, 2026

Dragon said:
I posted a bunch of hummer shots with various mirrors starting here and on the following pages. https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/show-your-bird-portraits.1280/page-1616#post-1034065 . Some of the old mirrors are pretty sharp. The catch is nailing focus, so AF would be a huge improvement.

Sweet! Fantastic work with the tools at hand! Mirrors are not my go to by any means, but creating a solid outcome based much more on years of experience than digital trickery sometimes makes the result all the sweeter. Especially when your good pal right beside you is still faffing about to get the same shot with a lens worth more than the cameras.

Dragon · Mar 25, 2026

DocInfoSci said:
I would seriously consider such a creature!

I bag images like this when using my ultra-cheapo 3rd party mirror lenses when I'm in the mood for an amusing challenge. This was taken probably about 50 feet away from the bird.

View attachment 228522

I have no doubt Canon prowess in physical and digital work would make wonders of what you described.

I posted a bunch of hummer shots with various mirrors starting here and on the following pages. https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/show-your-bird-portraits.1280/page-1616#post-1034065 . Some of the old mirrors are pretty sharp. The catch is nailing focus, so AF would be a huge improvement.

DocInfoSci · Mar 25, 2026

mimbu said:
I'm not sure if Sony will start to produce junk tier cameras like that as well, but I suppose if there is profit there, they might.

I dunno. I looked at my friend's Sony the other month and it looked like junk. My R6 is totally sexier.

DocInfoSci · Mar 25, 2026

Dragon said:
Let's see, a catadioptric zoom with AF and IS and maybe a little DO thrown in for good measure. That would be small and light and definitely not "normal". It would also likely be able to make a whole different price point. I would nab an AF mirror lens in a hot second.

I would seriously consider such a creature!

I bag images like this when using my ultra-cheapo 3rd party mirror lenses when I'm in the mood for an amusing challenge. This was taken probably about 50 feet away from the bird using an Opteka 500mm with T2 adapter on my R6 with basically some in-camera sharpening and clarity applied. I have to emphasis ultra-cheap third party trash lens, and yet this.

I have no doubt Canon prowess in physical and digital work would make wonders of what you described. And it would be hilarious. I mean, recall the horror when the f/11 primes were released — the Internet would burn down on this one!

ShowMeTheEagles · Mar 25, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
The base price of the M5 Pro MBP did go up by $200, though. I suspect that if the rumored redesign for the M6 happens, there will be a fairly steep price increase at that point.

Kind of a moot point because, at least per Gurman, it's not going to be a replacement for the M5 MacBook Pro, but rather a level up, a new flagship something like a MacBook Ultra. So by default it will be more expensive. The M5 Pro/Max won't get discontinued at the new model's release. When the M6 Pro MBP released in '27 I doubt it will get another price bump. Apple's margins are healthy enough, it's engineering savvy enough, and buying power huge enough that it doesn't need to pass on every $ increase.

blackcoffee17 · Mar 25, 2026

I'd rather see a an L version of the 200-800 with 6.3 aperture and L build quality but $5K.

Dragon · Mar 25, 2026

mimbu said:
Something we can agree on.

The timing was good, but it wasn't just luck. I no longer needed my huge full pro kit and wanted to downsize to a compact mirrorless setup. Access to 3rd party glass was extremely important to me as I've always enjoyed having choice. I considered Fuji but decided I wanted to stay with full frame. Since neither RF nor Z was allowing any 3rd party glass at that time, the decision was between Sony and Panasonic. At the time Panasonic was still refusing to implement PD AF so even though I liked the idea of L mount it wasn't a realistic choice. So, E mount it was. No regrets.

If you bought Sony and love it, why are you wasting your time bashing Canon? Is Sony paying you or are you just a volunteer evangelist. In either case, you are wasting your time on this forum.

Steve Balcombe · Mar 25, 2026

koenkooi said:
I have the Astrhori clone [snip]

But it works best for video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uztXc4fTJWY

Very cool!

AlanF · Mar 25, 2026

The love life of Peregrine Falcons. Male flying, Female perched, mating, separating, smooching, arguing. (RF5ii, 200-800mm).

neuroanatomist · Mar 25, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
...smart people buy Sony and not Canon.

mimbu said:
Something we can agree on.

Smart people can recognize sarcasm. Quod erat demonstrandum.

neuroanatomist · Mar 25, 2026

mimbu said:
And yes, it is truly garbage tier.

Despite your characterization of Canon's entry level models, if you can't take excellent pictures with one then the only thing that is rank garbage at the bottom of the trash pile is your skill as a photographer.

Sporgon · Mar 25, 2026

It’s an excellent lens. Also, the uncorrected distortion and vignetting is such that unless I’ve got issues with verticals I like to leave the lens uncorrected.

Michael Clark · Mar 25, 2026

jeff89 said:
I was a 7D guy in 2012 when they released the 5DIII and 6D and wouldn’t even consider the 6D, as I felt it inferior to the 7D, which was in my opinion a flagship APS-C for Canon. While I purchased a 6D years later for astrophotography, I’ve always viewed the 6-series as a budget FF camera with limitations that didn’t do much for me and would rather save longer to get the 5-series.

In my opinion, this is a return to the status quo for Canon, and a camera I would likely add to my R1 and R5II lineup. Bravo Canon!

The 2017 6D Mark II was practically a 2012 5D Mark III inside a polycarbonate housing. There were very few differences on the spec sheet between the 5D Mark III and the 6D Mark II.

mimbu · Mar 25, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
Like I said...whatever you need to tell yourself. Sony sells the most mirrorless cameras. Ok, well, no but they sell almost as many as Canon. I mean, Canon only sells 26% more than Sony so that's really close, right? And Canon only sells more because most of their cameras are cheap crap. And smart people like you buy Sony. All clear.

Low end cameras will always sell the most volume. I think even to someone like you, that should be obvious. Canon is the master of shoveling garbage tier cameras like the R100 out the door. And yes, it is truly garbage tier. Embarrassingly bad camera, but Canon sells them by the truckload. So they've got that going for them, which is nice.

mimbu · Mar 25, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
Yes, smart people buy Sony and not Canon.

Something we can agree on.

neuroanatomist said:
And it turns out that you did, too...but that was just dumb luck.

The timing was good, but it wasn't just luck. I no longer needed my huge full pro kit and wanted to downsize to a compact mirrorless setup. Access to 3rd party glass was extremely important to me as I've always enjoyed having choice. I considered Fuji but decided I wanted to stay with full frame. Since neither RF nor Z was allowing any 3rd party glass at that time, the decision was between Sony and Panasonic. At the time Panasonic was still refusing to implement PD AF so even though I liked the idea of L mount it wasn't a realistic choice. So, E mount it was. No regrets.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics