Latest activity

PinholeR5 · Dec 3, 2025

HenWin said:
Have there been any problems/complaints with the new firmware that came out last week (11/26/25)? I ask because I'm about to take a long trip and I don't want to install something that's being problematical.

I've installed the update on my R5II and haven't had any problems, but YMMV.

PinholeR5 · Dec 3, 2025

johnchio said:
firmware upgrade that magically allows all 3rd party lenses to be used on RF mount without limitations

Love it. You guys are on a roll! It should also allow us to dial in the desired Sensor Pixel density, readout speed and dynamic range.

johnchio · Dec 3, 2025

EricN said:
Anyone dream about a firmware upgrade offering ability to buy rumored lenses?

firmware upgrade that magically allows all 3rd party lenses to be used on RF mount without limitations

EricN · Dec 3, 2025

Anyone dream about a firmware upgrade offering ability to buy rumored lenses?

neuroanatomist · Dec 3, 2025

Walrus said:
They should cost same money, then you go for the 45 if you don't care about corners and never go narrower then f4(let's say location and outdoor), or the 50 if you need more uniformity across the frame and good stopped down corners (studio/products).

45mm f/1.2, 50mm f/1.8. Why do you expect to get a stop of light for free? Or are you suggesting that Canon increase the price of the RF 50/1.8 to match? Please, don’t give them ideas…

Walrus · Dec 3, 2025

Maximilian said:
When I look at TDP, my opinion is that at f/1.8 for both they are equal in the center (+some purple fringing), RF 45 much better in the midframe.
And let's not talk about the corners of the 45
What do you think?

That's exactly what I saw at TDP, too; basically equal in the center, midframe the 45 is WAY better up to f5.6 where the 50 catches up, then in the corners the 50 is much better and the 45 never catches up.
They should cost same money, then you go for the 45 if you don't care about corners and never go narrower then f4(let's say location and outdoor), or the 50 if you need more uniformity across the frame and good stopped down corners (studio/products).

Probably the 45 does look much better on my R6 then the 33/45mpx sensors where it was tested by all reviews, but still, for what I would use it for it's not good enough to be a primary lens, and as a backup lens is too expensive; it's better then the 50 STM if you don't look in the corners, but not 2 to 3 times better as the price would suggest (I paid mine 125€ shipped so it's closer to be 4 times cheaper)

pablofu · Dec 3, 2025

Guys, I have been patiently waiting for this lens to come out...But I do not want to wait any longer. I keep renting telephoto lenses for my rocket launches (and occasionally bird hunting), and at one point, it might be cheaper to just purchase an existing lens.
Considering that many of the rocket launches happen at night, that I am normally shooting from 5 miles distance to the rocket before departure, and that I like cropping images, what would you recommend? I own an R6 Mark II and an R6 Mark III, and I am planning to sell the Mark II and replace it with an R5 Mark II. Thanks for your advice!

HenWin · Dec 3, 2025

Have there been any problems/complaints with the new firmware that came out last week (11/26/25)? I ask because I'm about to take a long trip and I don't want to install something that's being problematical.

Eloniel · Dec 3, 2025

We can dream but i would love if they added C4 and C5 modes to R5 MK2, let me have a action mode, a standard mode, a portrait mode, a filet mode, an exposure bracketing mode or focus bracketing mode.

neuroanatomist · Dec 3, 2025

P-visie said:
You better be careful what you eat and be nice to her

P-visie said:
ISO 12800: did you do noise reduction on the posted image?

DeepPrime 3 in DxO PhotoLab 9. Was getting dark out and a wintry mix was falling while I was taking the shot.

CJaurelius · Dec 3, 2025

EOS 4 Life said:
The R6 III does plenty that the a1 can't do, though.

Care to name what plenty is?

I'm not sure if you are mixing up camera names as this comment make no sense.

CJaurelius · Dec 3, 2025

EOS 4 Life said:
All true, but supposedly the build of the a7 V is much better.
It is basically in the body of an a9 III.
It is still not up to R6 III level.

The A7V use the A7RV body with a new ruberized grip not the A9III body.

While how a body feels in your hand is personal and debatable, to say it's not up to the R6III level as a difinitive statement is pretty fanboyish. The A7V has a 4 axis screen which none of the Canon modesl have yet.

PinholeR5 · Dec 3, 2025

DhlcadR6 said:
Cheaper 3rd parties with 15fps handicap. I rather adapt EF or native RF with R6iii 40fps.

blackcoffee17 said:
To be fair, 15fps is more than enough for 99% of stuff. I rather have a Sigma 14mm 1.4 limited to 15fps than nothing at all.

I actually shoot both my R5 II and my R1 at 15fps most of the time (>95%) for sports and wildlife. I find it to be the sweet spot for me. The trade-off betwen the exact precise moment and the overhead of culling images in post.

I would more than welcome the possibility of using third party lenses and if 15fps is the only limitation, then it means virtually no limitation for me (though I get it would be a deal breaker for others)! For most of the mainstream zooms/primes I use I'd probably stick with Canon even if cheaper and close in quality third-party were available with no limitations. But I would love the option to get some of the third-party offerings for less mainstream lenses.

dafrank · Dec 3, 2025

What Pinhole said. As a predominate stills shooter, an improved multi-shot mode - especially since Canon seems loathe to exceed 45MP even with their most professional cameras - would be greatly appreciated. Their "AI upscaling" is not up to par and no substitute for real pixels. The other improvements, great for bird and sport shooters and very good for video, don't often apply to my way of working; I only shoot video when my stills clients demand it, and birds and baseball are far from my typical subject matter.

PinholeR5 said:
Yes! This would be my biggest ask. Since it is in the R6 III, it makes sense to port to the R5 II and R1. Both these cameras should(?) have longer refresh cycles and matching functionality with the R6 III for simple FW features early in the cycle makes sense. At least it makes owners of the R5 II / R1 happy and more likely to keep R5 / R1 series cameras.

UVC/UAC Live Streaming is another one I would like to see. The R6 III allows the user to set the video output quality up to 4K60p. The R5II/R1 has a fixed 2K30p output. That would be another nice update.

I don't do a lot of video aside from the talking head streaming, so not too sure of those features. Open Gate for instance, isn't that just recording the full sensor as opposed, say, to a 4K subset (or sampling the whole sensor and outputing 4K in oversampled/high quality mode)? If that is the case, doesn't the R5 II (and R5 for that matter) already provide an "Opener" Gate by recording in 8K, as opposed to the R6 III 7K Open Gate?

At any rate, useful feature updates are exciting!!! Aside from features released in the R6 III, we have the features present in in the older cameras like 400MP images in the R5 (which I'd like if they can make it actually work with improved IQ over AI upscaling) and the R3's 195fps burst mode, which is useful for certain settings. These are niche, though, so not sure we'd see Canon spending time on them.

Then there is actual new functionailty that hasn't been introduced before. Unless there is some competitive pressure, I wouldn't expect to see a lot of them, except mabybe some trial features like the 400MP Pixel Shift or the 195fps high burst rate.

What I would expect (ok, hope) is that they would come up with significant AF improvements for the R5 II and R1 that leverage the Digic Accelerator to make the AF capability of these cameras more noticeably better than the non-Accelerated cameras to help differentiate the higher end models.

P-visie · Dec 3, 2025

neuroanatomist said:
My wife planted them. She said that she has something specific in mind for them, but she won’t tell me what that is…

You better be careful what you eat and be nice to her

. ISO 12800: did you do noise reduction on the posted image?

Bob Howland · Dec 3, 2025

EOS 4 Life said:
That assumes that the firmware between different camera systems is compatible.
I have never seen Canon source code, but working on Magic Lantern has shown me that there is a lot of variation from camera to camera.
It is much worse now with Digic X.

I'm assuming that the RF code architecture is relatively new and was developed from the ground up to be reusable.

neuroanatomist · Dec 3, 2025

Click said:
A photograph of a flower that is rarely seen. Nicely done, Neuro. Glad to see you back on the forum.

My wife planted them. She said that she has something specific in mind for them, but she won’t tell me what that is…

EOS 4 Life · Dec 3, 2025

Canon Rumors said:
Lenses definitely matter. There can be 200 lenses available, how many are you actually buying? (some of us crazies around here aside). Some of the unique and niche ones will sway some customers for sure.

There are more than a few lenses that lead me to choose Canon, but I am jealous of a few on other systems.
I wish that I liked Nikon cameras because they have access to F mount, Z mount, E mount, and X mount lenses.

EOS 4 Life · Dec 3, 2025

Etnaphele said:
Why should the A7 eat into the A1, while the R6 not eat into the R5 and R1?

We are hoping for firmware updates.
I do not see anything that the a7 V does that the a1 can't do, though.
The R6 III does plenty that the a1 can't do, though.

EOS 4 Life · Dec 3, 2025

Wushuliu said:
As someone who is new to Canon (for bird photography), but has spent time using Sony I have to say that IMO they take an extremely cynical approach to their consumer cameras. When I got hold of the A7rV I was in shock at the cheap build, the poor quality feel for the almost $4K price tag. Uncomfortable grip, the chintzy buttons and dials. I tried to ignore it but returned it shortly after. I think the A7rII, which I owned for a time, was better built than the A7rV albeit not by much. Every brand I've owned/demo'd has felt more comfortable in the hand than Sony. I genuinely think they make their cameras as cheap as they can, including smaller size to save a few yen (and sell tons of battery grips). It's evident in the (literal) painful incremental increase in grip size a few mm's every couple of years. It's evident in the adding features to new cheaper models while leaving flagships stranded.

But boy, they got marketing clout to spare, especially the Youtubers.

All true, but supposedly the build of the a7 V is much better.
It is basically in the body of an a9 III.
It is still not up to R6 III level.

EOS 4 Life · Dec 3, 2025

Bob Howland said:
Adding features by firmware is a non-recurring expense. Once the developers have created the necessary libraries and assuming the the camera has the underlying hardware to support the new functions, there is no additional expense per camera to add it. However, creating a price hierarchy of camera models can be more difficult.

That assumes that the firmware between different camera systems is compatible.
I have never seen Canon source code, but working on Magic Lantern has shown me that there is a lot of variation from camera to camera.
It is much worse now with Digic X.

CJaurelius · Dec 3, 2025

ThomasTH said:
Each camera has some strengths and weaknesses. Canon only has 12 bit in electronic shutter mode, Sony has no Open Gate or 6K video. I think the next generation of Sony sensors is going to be more interesting.

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.

CJaurelius · Dec 3, 2025

JohanCruyff said:
Just a few good / excellent lenses are better than many average lenses.

RF 14-35mm F/4 L, RF 24-105 F/4 L, RF 70-200 F/2.8 and RF 100-500 L are my current zoom lenses, from tourism in cities to safaris.

I'm happy with my light RF 35mm F/1.8 prime and I plan to switch from a very good adapted Sigma 50mm Art 1.4 to an excellent RF 50mm 1.2 in 2026, mainly for indoor family portraits,

Then... who knows, everything else is not necessary.
Maybe - in 2027 - a RF 85mm F/1.4 or even F/1.2, definitely not necessary when one owns a RF 70-200 F/2.8 and (the 1.2) a bit heavy, but probably worth the effort.

So I don't complain about Canon's product range. 6 or 7 lenses are more than enough for me.

That might work for you but with the Chinese ramping up the quality of their lenses in the recent years I doubt that will be the same for most people.

Let's say you want to pick up an 85mm for portraits on lower end. On Canon your option would be Canon RF 85 f/2 at $690 that has no aperture ring and no programable button. Meanwhile 3rd party Viltrox offers a 85mm f/2 at $275 with the features Canon left out. If you step up to the f/1.4 you're paying $1650 on the Canon side and $600 from Viltrox. So you're talking $1050 less for a lens with the same features and a pro metal body.

We'll see from a business side who made the right choice but from a potential customer perspective 3rd party lens options are clearly benefitial.

Click · Dec 3, 2025

neuroanatomist said:
First winter storm of the season today, though what was initially predicted to be up to 20-30 cm of snow turned out to be more like 4-6 cm of snow with a fair amount of rain and sleet as temps hovered around freezing.

"Frozen Foxglove"

EOS R1, RF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM, 1/50 s, f/10, ISO 12800

A photograph of a flower that is rarely seen. Nicely done, Neuro. Glad to see you back on the forum.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics