Latest activity

Dpcj2 · Dec 4, 2025

Would love to have had better 4K 60. Having worse 4K 60 than the r6 II and iii is what kept me from buying the r5 II.

neuroanatomist · Dec 4, 2025

Michael Clark said:
Probably my second most used lens is an EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II bought in 2010. ... And it's sharper than the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS according to most online tests I've seen.

I had the former, and I have the latter. Not sure which online tests you're referring to, the RF version is certainly sharper than the EF MkII in the TDP comparison, especially away from the center. Granted, that's one copy of each lens and different camera bodies.

But here is a comparison of another copy of each lens (docsmith's EF MkII on top since I'd already sold mine, my RF on bottom) shot by him with his R5.

The bokeh of the RF version (bottom) is more pleasing (to me), as well...smoother, less nervous.

Both are great lenses, but the above examples are 'real world' shots (not controlled shots of a test chart) and to me the RF is clearly the better of the two in terms of sharpness, contrast and bokeh.

jeffa4444 · Dec 4, 2025

GMCPhotographics said:
I agree, getting to play with the raw files in Lightroom will give us all an informed perspective on the R6iii's noise and image quality.
However, the max iso has been reduced from the R6ii by 2/3rd of a stop. thisis uaully an indicator from Canon as to it's expected hit on the increased noise threshold those extra mp cause. If the ios noise between the R6ii to R5 was a whole stop then this increase in rez will affect the noise too. So maybe 1/2 to 2/3rd of a stop is about right.
this morning, I've heared numerous youtube influencers talking about the great features of the R6iii....most of these great features are alredy present in the R6ii....which goes to show how good the R6ii is / was.
Here in the Uk, the launch price is around £2700 GDP...whcih is very high considering I can buy a new R5ii (via grey import) for the same price. A mint used R5 for £1600 and a new R6ii (grey) for on;y £1350....for only a few new fetures...that's a lot of £££ for not a lot of benefits. I can literally buy a pair of R6ii's for the launch price of one R6iii.
I think if I was looking to jump from DSLR to mirrorless, this would be a great camera. I think upgraders from the EOS R and R6mk1 have a lot of milage in this upgrade. but for existing R6ii users....it's more of an expensive side grade. Slightly improved, more of an evolution that definatly builds on the shoulders of it's great predecessor. If Canon continues selling their R6ii alongside the R6iii, then the R6ii may become the true bargain of the canon range.

Having had the EOS R6 MKIII for a week and as a former MKII owner the upgrade is way bigger than the move from the MKI to the MKII.
The autofocus has improved over the MKII, I feel the 32.5 MP sensor is the sweet spot and back to the EOS R but with more refined image quality. The precapture is great for birds and so far I’ve not noticed any skewing.
I shoot landscape, wildlife and portraiture before I had the R6 MKII purely for landscape, an R10 for wildlife and the R5 for portraits. The R6 MKIII can do all three I can crop and not notice picture degradation, I can still have 40FPS in electronic shutter and have 1/250th flash sync it’s a win win with very minor down sides.

Michael Clark · Dec 4, 2025

roby17269 said:
But I hope you would agree that it is better to buy something in a system which is being actively developed vs something in a discontinued system

I categorically do not agree with that statement. Sometimes it is "better". Sometimes it is not.

If gear from a system recently removed from a manufacturer's catalog that still qualifies for warranty/repair work meets a buyers needs at a much lower cost than the brightest, shiniest, expensive new products then I think the better choice is the older system. I've cameras and lenses from the EOS EF system that have not been produced in well over a decade. They all still work as well as when they were new and are sometimes as good a choice as any of my newer gear for many use cases.

One of my most used lenses to this day is the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L discontinued in 2012. Is it as clinically sharp as the 2012 replacement EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II? No, it isn't. But unless you've got the later on a camera mounted on a tripod using mirror lockup and wired cable release you can rarely tell the difference in real world usage. The difference in resolution between the two, assuming both are in proper optical alignment, is less than what you lose shooting handheld in medium or marginal light.

Probably my second most used lens is an EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II bought in 2010. It was discontinued in 2018. I had the IS unit replaced in 2019 when it began to vibrate in certain orientations with respect to gravity. The repair cost around $400 from CPS. Today it's as sharp, maybe even slightly sharper, than when it was brand new over 15 years ago. And it's sharper than the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS according to most online tests I've seen. It isn't as light or as compact when zoomed out to 70mm as the newer RF model, but that's never bothered me.

GMCPhotographics · Dec 4, 2025

AlanF said:
The EF 300mm f/2.8ii + 1.4x and 2xTCs used to be my lens of choice, and I sold it when the EF 400mm f/4 DOii came out. It's too heavy for me now a dozen years on. The Sony lens at about a kg lighter is tempting and almost worth getting a Sony body for one.

Yes...almost, but not quite!
The EF 400mm f4 DO ii is a darling of a lens that is often overlooked. Canon develped the tech of DO, trail blazed and pioneered it and then let Nikon run ahead. It's a bit bizarre, we all thought that Canon was going to bring out a range of DO super white tele's but they seemed to have just brought out the one option.

dawid_gaszynski · Dec 4, 2025

Here is my example

here you can find real point of view

Youtube

dawid_gaszynski · Dec 4, 2025

Hi,

Śląsk Wrocław vs Raków Czestochowa

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

illadvisedhammer · Dec 4, 2025

M. 6. mark. III.

CJaurelius · Dec 4, 2025

Quack said:
The target market is never upgraders. Camera companies know that the average consumer is not buying a new $2000 plus camera every 3 or 4 years. The target market is probably still people moving from DSLR to mirrorless, those going from lower tier models to higher, people who have skipped one or two generations of the same model, as well as people adding a 2nd camera to perhaps supplement a crop camera with full frame, or vice versa, and 1st time camera buyers. Upgrades are slow, not because companies are trying to trickle out upgrades. Upgrades are slow and minimal because camera tech has been mature for many years now. It's really that simple. We don't need some kind of conspiracy theory.

For hobbyist maybe but for Content Creators/Youtubers they are consantly upgrading and the primary reason in video. In a short span we've gone from cameras being photography only to now every camera does video. That video has gone from 1080/24 up to 8k/60 in a short timeframe. If you are making video content your are definitly upgrading way more than a hobbyist shooting still photos.

Take a look at the C50. That camera isn't aimed at someone upgrading drom DSLR. It's aimed at someone upgrading from the R5C which is 3 years old.

Now that video is maturing I agree upgrades will be slow and minimal. Which only leads to my point that they need to trickle those upgrades out slowly. They know they are only a few iterations away from making a camera that most people wont need to upgrade from and that is bad for future business.

dpc · Dec 4, 2025

Mount Rundle...

dpc · Dec 4, 2025

Tourists going for a paddle, Bow River, Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada...

dpc · Dec 4, 2025

Mount Rundle through the trees... (Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada(

AlanF · Dec 4, 2025

GMCPhotographics said:
I've not tried the new 70-200/2.8 Z, but I am very familiar with the older EF 70-200/2.8 II counterpart. It was an astonishingly sharp lens even with a 1.4x tc. It af our resolves any of the current Canon sensors. The 2x less so, still sharp but want's great with close objects and generally needed stopping down 2/3 stop to remove the slight haze around highlights. The thing is, a pair of teleconverters is a lot lighter than lugging around another sized lens. Even the 2x TC works well if that's the only thing you have on you. I appreciate that this new RF Z version is a tad sharper again, but it's still in the same ball park with teleconverters.
The RF 70-200/2.8 is a miracle in packaging and light weight construction by comparison, but we all know of the lack of TC support for this sweet lens.
The RF 100-300mm f2.8 is a very different beast. With tele converters, it's pushing into wildlife and birding reaches. Even with a 2x TC (making a 600mm f5.6) it just about keeps up with the R5's resolution of it's mighty sensor. It's a very viable and versatile lens range (100-300/f2.8 > 140-420/f4>200-600/f5.6) and it only cost you the size and weight of a pair of teleconverters. It's never going to compete directly with a 70-200mm f2.8 even though it's got a fair amount of overlap in the focal range and aperture. The Rf 100-300/2.8 is kind of a bridge lens between the 70-200/2.8 and the longer wild life lenses.
I have a few friends who regaulrly use a EF300mm f2.8 II LIS with a pair of teleconverters as their long lens of choice. It's a back friendly size and weight with a nice price point with an excellent reach / brightness. One of them is considering swapping over to the RF 100-300/2.8 so they can ditch the need fro their EF 70-200/2.8 lens and just use the one lens. If Canon made a RF 400-600 f2.8 - F4 zoom lens that's a simular weight to my EF 400mm f2.8 II L and it's as sharp, then my ears might prick up and colour me curious.

The EF 300mm f/2.8ii + 1.4x and 2xTCs used to be my lens of choice, and I sold it when the EF 400mm f/4 DOii came out. It's too heavy for me now a dozen years on. The Sony lens at about a kg lighter is tempting and almost worth getting a Sony body for one.

CJaurelius · Dec 4, 2025

roby17269 said:
Agreed. If there will be a R3 II it will have to find a different slot in the lineup

It's hard to find a different slot when all the other cameras are becoming increasingly more capable.

roby17269 said:
The R6 went 20 -> 24 -> 33 in a short time. Of course we will see cameras with more mp sooner or later.

The Sony A7 has been at 33 MP for over 4 years now. Canon mailnly increased the MP to match Sony. Sony has a 61MP A7R series and it's really not that beneficial. When you factor in the file size 45-50MP is basically as high as you need to go. That's why you see the flagship A1 at 50MP even though the lower tier A7R is 61MP. The 33MP allow you to get to 7k which is plenty for a 4k camera and 45MP allow you to get to 8K which is why the R5mii is in that range.

roby17269 said:
Until someone does.

I'm sure someone out there could use it but it's just not that useful to be commercially viable. For most people 4k60 is good enough for slo-mo and 4k120 is the upper limit that most people can use.

roby17269 said:
Eventually 8K will be the new 4K.

I don't think so. The obvious reason being that at normal viewing distances their just isn't a perceivable difference for most people. Currently options above 4k are used primarly to be able to reframe/crop and still have a 4k image. As a result 8k displays aren't really a thing. Sure you can buy a $5k 6k Apple pro display but the use case for that is to be able to edit a 4k image while still haveing UI on the display.

roby17269 said:
Technology marches on as well as expectations do. The history of tech is littered with sentences such as "no one will need more than X" and they've all been proven wrong

Sure technology marches on but advancements come in different areas. One of the latest innovations has been precapture. Alowing you to have multiple photos up to 1 second before you actually take a picture is a technological advancement but it doesn't increase the quality of the pictures you can take.

So sure SSC Tuatara can make a street legal car that goes 295 mph, but 99.99% of cars don't go anywhere near that speed because there's no market for it. The top speed of most cars hit a limit and then advancements moved to a differnt area.

Quack · Dec 4, 2025

CJaurelius said:
While comparing these cameras may be interesting on an internet forum in reality I believe both companies are trying to trickle out upgrades as slow as possible. We've basically hit the peak in terms of image quality so they have to find creative wasy to get people to buy the same camera over and over again even though they aren't getting much of an upgrade.

The target market is never upgraders. Camera companies know that the average consumer is not buying a new $2000 plus camera every 3 or 4 years. The target market is probably still people moving from DSLR to mirrorless, those going from lower tier models to higher, people who have skipped one or two generations of the same model, as well as people adding a 2nd camera to perhaps supplement a crop camera with full frame, or vice versa, and 1st time camera buyers. Upgrades are slow, not because companies are trying to trickle out upgrades. Upgrades are slow and minimal because camera tech has been mature for many years now. It's really that simple. We don't need some kind of conspiracy theory.

Ozarker · Dec 4, 2025

Ian K said:
What ever happened to the 0x, 1.4x, 2x TC?

I have 3 of the 0x.

roby17269 · Dec 4, 2025

CJaurelius said:
In terms of model differntiation, as top tier specs trickle down their isn't going to be much of a need for that many. For example what need would a potential R3II fill in Canon's lineup? How would they make it better than R5mii and somehow less than the R1?

Agreed. If there will be a R3 II it will have to find a different slot in the lineup

CJaurelius said:
We're not increasing MP,

The R6 went 20 -> 24 -> 33 in a short time. Of course we will see cameras with more mp sooner or later.

CJaurelius said:
no one needs 4k 240.

Until someone does.

CJaurelius said:
Anything more than 4k is primarily just to recompose.

Eventually 8K will be the new 4K.

Technology marches on as well as expectations do. The history of tech is littered with sentences such as "no one will need more than X" and they've all been proven wrong

Click · Dec 4, 2025

Nicely done, Klas R.

. Keep posting.

tomcat · Dec 4, 2025

Del Paso said:
I will!
(Unfortunately, surgery didn't cost me a cent.)
If only I lived in the USA, I could make a fortune with help by an "ambulance hunter", after having spent it on hospital costs...

I hope they did it using minimally invasive methods.

CJaurelius · Dec 4, 2025

GMCPhotographics said:
It's pretty clear that Canon wanted to slightly eclipse the Sony A7V with every spec. However, I can't see anyone switching systems over such miniscule differences or slight betterment. I'm pretty sure the upcoming A7V was the only reason canon decided to bump the R6x series to 33mp from a previously stated "24mp is going to be our standard for a LONG time" to suddenly....here' s a new 33mp sensor....it's really nice.
It makes me wonder about a potential R3II....seeing what Canon have done with their feature dance with Sony, it really depends on what Sony have cooking in their 2nd tier Pro model. I guess it's a camera that sits between the Sony A1x and A9x range. maybe that's why there's no R3ii yet? There's nothing for it to compete against in the Sony catalogue?
Being an engineer or manager in Sony must be a sweet positon to have at the moment....all those bungs and bribes from Canon must be very useful this time of year! How esle would Canon have been able to upstage the Sony A7V? It also send a clear message that Canon aren't thinking about evolving their own prodct line for their existing customers, they are literally going toe to toe with what ever Sony are doing.

The diffrences between these cameras at this point is pretty much indistinguishable at this point. And I'm not just talking Canon and Sony. At the midrange level Canon, Sony, Nikon and Panasonic all have great options. The difference is going to be how these companies market and position their product.

In terms of model differntiation, as top tier specs trickle down their isn't going to be much of a need for that many. For example what need would a potential R3II fill in Canon's lineup? How would they make it better than R5mii and somehow less than the R1?

At this point I don't see a need for more than 3 options, budget, midrange and flagship and then a seperate "cinema" lineup. And most of the difference between those 3 will be better body features like EVF and then more software options.

We're not increasing MP, no one needs 4k 240. Anything more than 4k is primarily just to recompose. The big additions lately have been things like precapture and open gate which are more about convienence and work flow.

Baywoof · Dec 4, 2025

The original Canon R5 is selling cheaper than either the R6 III or A7 5. If you're a stills shooter and only do a little video, this camera exceeds in every way.

Baywoof · Dec 4, 2025

EOS 4 Life said:
R5 S? Yes!!!

Klas R · Dec 4, 2025

Today I had the opportunity to see and take some photos of a Spotted Nutcracker just outside Stockholm citycenter. Favourite food for the nutcracker is Cembra pine seeds, found in the cones. Years when the cones get scarce in their normal habitat they will just search for any cembra pine tree (hopefully with nice cones with seeds) regardless if they happen to be situated in heavily populated areas.

The pictures were taken handheld with my R5MarkII equipped with my trusty old RF 100-500mm. Stockholm situated at latitude +60N, normally have grey and cloudy weather in nov/dec. This resulted in that two of the pictures were taken with ISO 8000 and one with ISO 10000, all at f6.3, and the zoom set between 363-428mm. Noise reduction and sharpening was done using the facilities within LrC.

Del Paso · Dec 4, 2025

GMCPhotographics said:
I find this kind of intel interesting. I've been a Canon life my entire shooting life. My first SLR was a Canon AV-1. I chose Canon because my Dad had an AE-1p and I could borrow his lenses. I've tried a few Nikons over the years, but I never liked their camera eronomics or the feel of their lenses. I've been with Canon all though the FD>EOS SLR / AF revolution > Digital SLR > Mirrorless and I've never found their cameras or lenses lacking in any way.
I've never even handled a Sony camera or lens, and only a few Nikons.
I choose my cameras out of the Canon portfolio beacuse of changes to my shooting requirements or needing to be on a new model due to my upgrade cycles. Lenses generally last a lot longer, sometimes as long as 20+ years! So I tend to focus on my lenes more than my camera bodies, although the jump to mirrorless was a one time hit that I felt was necessary to gain access to all the morern advancements since the latter DSLR days.

For some time, before buying my second digital camera after the

S**y A7*, I kept hesitating between Canon's 5D III and Nikon's equivalent(D 800?). I was more in favour of the Nikon, having owned an F2 +FE.
But 2 lenses made me chose Canon, my first Canon lenses were quite unusual, to say the least. The EF 24 mm TSE and the 100-400, which were said to be better than the comparable Nikon lenses. I never regretted my choice.
(The A7* was meant to adapt some Leica R lenses, but failed miserably due to poor ergonomics.)

neuroanatomist · Dec 4, 2025

GMCPhotographics said:
It's never going to compete directly with a 70-200mm f2.8 even though it's got a fair amount of overlap in the focal range and aperture. The Rf 100-300/2.8 is kind of a bridge lens between the 70-200/2.8 and the longer wild life lenses.

For me, the 100-300/2.8 is an event lens. Bare lens indoors and for night sports (with high school lighting), I add a 1.4x for daytime field sports and I don't typically use it with the 2x (I have the 600/4 II for that). I also have the RF 70-200/2.8 (non-Z) that I use when I want to be less obtrusive (not that often).

Latest activity

Latest activity

Attachments

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics