Keep posting, my friend, you bring light into my darkness.

Click said:

Thanks for sharing your pictures, ISv. We are in that time of year when everything becomes dark and dreary here. It makes me feel good to look at your photos.

Click to expand...

"We are in that time of year when everything becomes dark and dreary here. It makes me feel good to look at your photos."
Here is that time of the year when everybody becomes a birder. It makes me feel good to look at alive birds !
And talking about birds: last Friday, at the remote North-West side of Oahu somebody reported Blue Rock thrush! First report for Hawaii, probably cage escapee. It looks like from the local birders it's only me who didn't go there to chase the bird (and I don't mention the non-locals). On other hand I have seen it back in the time in Bulgaria (no more than 1-2 times). Should find my way there!

P-visie said:

I’m not that optimistic about the price either. The rumored price is +/- 50-55% of the EF200-400mm f4 L launch price of 2013.

Click to expand...

Indeed, and yikes!

If Canon wants to announce an $11k+ 300-600 f/5.6, frankly I don't see how that would be a good market choice. The 600 f/4.0 is right there, and you can put a 2x on the 100-300L with good results. It would be an extremely marginal case for the lens. That's why I hope, perhaps naively, that it will be more like $8k.

Great skiing. My roommate was from Connecticut so we used to bounce inbetween states to ski. It’s beautiful.

We used to come into Canada to drink cause of the drinking age. lol and at that time our USA money got us more cheaper. Lol

Still no sign of a high mega pixel R5 style camera. It's bit niche but its getting hard to distinguish between top end cameras .
A 100MP+ photography focussed camera I think would sell reasonably okay.
I'd forsake all fancy video requirements.
The 120MP sensor hasn't shown up in mirrorless cameras. I'd assume it would be a slowish camera but you don't need 30FPS on a 120MP camera.
I know for most people 20MP is enough but I think there are a few who like more than that.
Maybe its easier to make lightweight 2.8 14mm-600mm Lens

AlanF said:

I can't find where. But, go to optyczne.pl and look at the sections on camera tests where they measure the resolution of each. https://www.optyczne.pl/457.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_R5_Rozdzielczość.html and https://www.optyczne.pl/510.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_R5_Mark_II_Rozdzielczość.html. There's not much in it but the R5 has a small edge on the pixel peeping level.

Click to expand...

i looked but i am disappointed with the test procedure. is this really seeing a RF50 1.2L vs RF28-70 2.8L @ F4+ comparison? if so i am impressed honestly that the RF28-70 competes very favorably. to bad they didnt show the RF50 1.2L at 2.8 also. is the idea really that noise reduction in the raw files significantly impact camera resolution? if so i would advise them to find a high resolution lens they can adapt to any major system and manually focus it. as it is i see a fun curve peaking at F/4 and tailing off.

scyrene said:

You're welcome to feel that way, but it's no more correct.

Click to expand...

It isn’t more correct, but it provides an important understanding of the device.

scyrene said:

Unless your display device magically got bigger, than you will do that at least some of the time.

Click to expand...

Sure, downsizing happens all the time in the real world. But I’d be surprised if it’s more often for quality purposes — I suspect other concerns are more typically being addressed, such as saving on storage for the purpose of speed (network, printer processing relative to maximum effective resolution) or cost (less disk on a server).

For example, the maximum pixel peeping resolution in pixel terms for a Canon Pixma Pro 200 is 600ppi. Sending 1,200ppi won’t make the output sharper / cleaner — it just takes more time.

All things being equal. A smaller PNG is cheaper to store in the cloud than a larger PNG.

But , can it improve perceived quality in terms of noise due to the average that occurs on downsizing? Yeah. Is it wrong for this purpose? No. Is it useful for comparing sensors? Only if the target output is the same and in reach of both. Otherwise, it just hides pragmatic performance.

PinholeR5 said:

I guess you are right in the canabilization. I would definitively sell my 28-70mm F2 if I bought the 35-135mm F2, even though the 28-70 F2 is by far my most used lens outside of sports (100-300 F2.8) and wildlife (100-500mm probably, but EF 400mm f2.8 iii, EF 600mm f4 ii, RF 200-800 and 100-300mm).

I do have some hope, though.

The RF 28-70mm F2 was released 7 years ago. There have been plenty of mentions of a MK II, especially after Sony came out with their much lighter version last year (918g vs 1430g). The RF 28-70mm F2 was a trailblazer, a halo lens, the kind of lens that makes you want to switch systesm. A 70-135mm F2 lens would be really underwhelming in the face of Sony's 50-150mm. Canon releaseing their own 50-150mm F2 would be great, but not exactly a standout lens. A 35-135mm F2, on the other hand, would be a one of a kind new lens. While 35mm isn't exactly wide enough to replace a standard zoom, 28mm barely is, it is wide enough to make it quite usable in a lot of settings! Yes, the 15-35mm f2.8 could complement it very well. Actually, even the RF 16-28mm F2.8 could fill the wider end.







Well, the current Sony 50-150mm F2 (1340g) is ligher than the Canon RF 28-70mm F2 (1430g). So it is possible to have a 50-150mm with reasonable weight, that is, if you can manage the Canon RF 28-70mm F2, a 50-150mm F2 should be manageable.

it is priced at $4k vs the Canon 28-70mm F2's $3.3k, but the Sony is a newer lens. So the cost isn't that different.

I agree that all things equal, lighter is better . But, if we fix cost and IQ, then, for me:

Good trade-off:
50-150mm F2 -> 50-135mm F2 that is lighter/smaller
50-135mm F2 -> 35-135mm F2 that is heavier/larger

In other words, I'd trade-off focal length range on the long end for size/weight, but I'd happily deal with larger weight/size to get move focal length range on the wide side.

If 1kg is already heavy and at the max for you, then perhaps an RF 28-70mm MK II at ~900g and an RF 70-135mm F2 at ~900g would be the ideal. I'd go for a 1500g RF 35-135mm F2 in a heartbeat!

Click to expand...

My gosh. You guys act like switching systems, or like what some other manufacturer does, should influence somebody not in that system. Honestly, I choose what I choose because that's what I like. Period.

This handwringing and telling others, "You want this, but that would be underwhelming compared to that." Not to me it wouldn't.

Will Canon ever put out a 70-135? Probably not. Whether they do or not doesn't make me lust for ergonomically challenged Sony. Or color science challenged Sony. I'm in the Canon system. Does not matter to me Sony does.

I do worry about water with the mic on the top and these two other small "holes". Not that I considered my 6v2 or R5 as waterproof by any means, but any holes on the top plate are a worry.

jimim said:

Canadians count! I went to school outside buffalo New York. Had many a crazy nights across the border way way backV

Click to expand...

For us in Montreal it was Vermont, man I love Vermont.

Mine was just delivered! Will try to get some pictures of the snow storm.

Kiton said:

I got mine an hour ago.
Does Canada count?

The CRIPPLE hammer has struck right away.
First thing to setup is camera to phone transfer.

NOT permitted without the new P battery. I have at least 10 variants of the older battery, which seem to power the camera just fine but not the wifi transfer feature.

Not sure yet if two of the last gen batteries in a battery grip would be enough to power it, will play around with that later, but I really like the R6 2 stripped down, I do not want to add the grip to that setup.

Click to expand...

Canadians count! I went to school outside buffalo New York. Had many a crazy nights across the border way way back.

snapshot said:

do you have a link to the other thread? i felt the ES wasnt worth much to me on the R5 (20FPS for fast action is cool, but fast action produces rolling shutter artifacts - not cool). ES on R52 is barely ok for tennis and another factor of 2 in read out speed would be great. In terms of resolution in EFC, i dont know that i see a difference between R5 and R52. I believe you are a much more critical eye than i am, have you seen anything in your pictures?

Click to expand...

I can't find where. But, go to optyczne.pl and look at the sections on camera tests where they measure the resolution of each. https://www.optyczne.pl/457.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_R5_Rozdzielczość.html and https://www.optyczne.pl/510.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_R5_Mark_II_Rozdzielczość.html. There's not much in it but the R5 has a small edge on the pixel peeping level.

PinholeR5 said:

I do agree with @Exploreshootshare that it would have to be really compact and light, i.e., less than 500g like the 16-28mm and the 28-70mm. The 70-200mm F4 is only 695g, so even then the difference in weight (and probably size) wouldn't be that large, but for that focal length F2.8 vs F4 would make a difference.

Click to expand...

The bokeh of the F4 version is really pretty good (especially for a F4 lens) and for landscapes F4 is perfect. If one shoots action and sports, F2.8 does matter.

PinholeR5 said:

Also, the RF 70-200mm F2.8 is 1Kg, so the weight difference is considerable

Click to expand...

That puts it in perspective and really creates a market for the lens, but only if you need F2.8.

PinholeR5 said:

and I'd assume an RF 70-180mm F2.8 would be less than 50% the cost of the RF 70-200mm F2.8.

Click to expand...

If pricing aligns with the other two F2.8 STM than probably even more than 50%.

My adaptor ring came so I’m out with the old and in with the new. Nothing like skipping a decade or 2 for upgrading. I can’t wait. My wife has me in the kitchen for tomorrow so I don’t know if I’m going to even get to playing with it tonight.

PinholeR5 said:

...especially after Sony came out with their much lighter version last year (918g vs 1430g).

Click to expand...

Those numbers really hit me every time time for a mkii!

PinholeR5 said:

The RF 28-70mm F2 was a trailblazer, a halo lens, the kind of lens that makes you want to switch systesm.

Click to expand...

With emphasis on "was", it is not anymore.

PinholeR5 said:

A 70-135mm F2 lens would be really underwhelming in the face of Sony's 50-150mm. Well, the current Sony 50-150mm F2 (1340g) is ligher than the Canon RF 28-70mm F2 (1430g).

Click to expand...

70-135mm would only be underwhelming if it would weigh around 1.340gr. If a 70-135mm would weigh something like 700-900gr, that would be a blessing. A lot of people would buy that.

PinholeR5 said:

So it is possible to have a 50-150mm with reasonable weight, that is, if you can manage the Canon RF 28-70mm F2, a 50-150mm F2 should be manageable.

Click to expand...

To me personally, 1.430 gr for a 50-150mm is not reasonable because I´d like to carry it around all the time, even when traveling. For sports e.g. 1.430 gr is an absolute steel For this use case, I´d go with it as well.

PinholeR5 said:

If 1kg is already heavy and at the max for you, then perhaps an RF 28-70mm MK II at ~900g and an RF 70-135mm F2 at ~900g would be the ideal. I'd go for a 1500g RF 35-135mm F2 in a heartbeat!

Click to expand...

And if Canon would be really, really nice that'd give us both what we want and need The only way I see that happening it if the 35-150mm - no wait, gotta be better than Tamron - 30-150mm has a variable aperture like F2-2.8. But I'm honestly guessing Sony put Canon in quite a pickle: the 50-150mm was pretty unexpected by most people and it is really good. Now, if Canon releases a 70-135mm it must be dramatically lighter and absolutely can´t be a brick again. If they release a 50-150mm F2 it has to be better head-to-head at least on the spec sheet. Though nut to crack. Therefore, it'll probably (and sadly) take a while...

rombe3jr said:

Is anybody else interested in the last of the STM zoom holy trinity? They already have the 16-28 f/2.8 and 28-70 f/2.8 so the only lens missing now is the 70-180 f/2.8 STM. They just filed a patent this fall so does that mean it will be “years” before release or sometime sooner?

Click to expand...

Exploreshootshare said:

I am interested in the 70-180 f/2.8 STM but I don´t see myself buying this lens because I own the marvelous (imo) 70-200mm F4 lens. I'd only be interested in the rumored 70-180 f/2.8 STM if it really reaches 180mm and weighs less than 500 gr.

Currently, there is a Black Friday offer: R8 and 28-70mm F2.8 for 1.899 €. I am thinking about this combo and selling my 24-105mm. Like the lighter weight, the higher magnification and lower minimum focus distance and maybe even 2.8 for some situations. Mostly importantly, the 2.8 balances better on the R8 than the 24-105mm F4. But I might miss going to 105mm and especially having 24mm. Plus, it was my first RF lens I am a bit torn on this matter.

The 16-28 f/2.8 seems to be really good, but the weight savings compared to the 14-35mm F4 are too small, price difference isn't that big and you really loose two valuable mm of focal length. Plus, with the L lens you get better magnification.

Click to expand...

I've been wondering about that as well. I do have the RF 16-28mm & 28-70mm f/2.8 that I use with the R8 in a small/light kit (I have an even smaller/lighter R50 based one). I've used the 70-200mm F4 with it and it is fine. Actually, the 70-200mm F/2.8 is compact enough that it can fit in my small kit bag. It is heavier, but compact enough to fit so I often use the 2.8 version.

I do agree with @Exploreshootshare that it would have to be really compact and light, i.e., less than 500g like the 16-28mm and the 28-70mm. The 70-200mm F4 is only 695g, so even then the difference in weight (and probably size) wouldn't be that large, but for that focal length F2.8 vs F4 would make a difference. Also, the RF 70-200mm F2.8 is 1Kg, so the weight difference is considerable and I'd assume an RF 70-180mm F2.8 would be less than 50% the cost of the RF 70-200mm F2.8.

I did look into the RF 14-35mm F4, and perhaps that would have been the better option. The 14mm vs 16mm is a significant advantage and the 35mm vs 28mm is as well. The F2.8 vs F4 tends to be not that great of an advantage for me.

Eloniel said:

Exactly over all the range is stated i would find the 35-135 f2.0 the most useful as the ultimate portrait lens, with it + the 15-35 f2.8 you can do almost anything except macro and wildlife/ outdoor sport.

But i fear the range would canibalize too much the 28-70 and thus that they would make it start at least at 50mm...

Click to expand...

I guess you are right in the canabilization. I would definitively sell my 28-70mm F2 if I bought the 35-135mm F2, even though the 28-70 F2 is by far my most used lens outside of sports (100-300 F2.8) and wildlife (100-500mm probably, but EF 400mm f2.8 iii, EF 600mm f4 ii, RF 200-800 and 100-300mm).

I do have some hope, though.

The RF 28-70mm F2 was released 7 years ago. There have been plenty of mentions of a MK II, especially after Sony came out with their much lighter version last year (918g vs 1430g). The RF 28-70mm F2 was a trailblazer, a halo lens, the kind of lens that makes you want to switch systesm. A 70-135mm F2 lens would be really underwhelming in the face of Sony's 50-150mm. Canon releaseing their own 50-150mm F2 would be great, but not exactly a standout lens. A 35-135mm F2, on the other hand, would be a one of a kind new lens. While 35mm isn't exactly wide enough to replace a standard zoom, 28mm barely is, it is wide enough to make it quite usable in a lot of settings! Yes, the 15-35mm f2.8 could complement it very well. Actually, even the RF 16-28mm F2.8 could fill the wider end.

Ozarker said:

I don't worry about what other manufacturers put out. I don't switch systems because of a lens. Do you have $ for that? Great.

I don't know how big the front element would have to be for 150mm f/2 or 180mm f/2, but it's going to be a huge lens. I'm a portrait photographer. WTF do I need with a tripod dependent monster?

Click to expand...

Ozarker said:

A 50-150 or 35-135 would not be as good for me. I'd already have 28-70 covered. The 28-70 is $3k. A 50-150 f/2?

I wonder how the Sony looks compared to the Canon at the same focal lengths? Something tells me the Sony would fall short. I'm not talking about pixel peeping or corner sharpness. How they render.

Click to expand...

Exploreshootshare said:

While the Sony 50-150mm F2 is really nice, it kind of hits a different tone. 50-150mm is according suited for sports (of course, portraits as well) and that is what Sony intended according to their marketing while a 70-135mm seems more like a classic portrait focal length(s?), although you could use it for sports as well.

I´d love a Canon F2 lens to be as light as possible and therefore a 70-135mm F2 sounds more appealing to me. If Canon has sports in mind just like Sony, I´d prefer 70-180mm F2 (if possible). In the end, I am pretty sure I´d purchase any kind of 50-150mm, 70-135mm, 70-180mm F2 zoom as long as it weighs around 1 kg (max). The current 28-70mm F2 is just too heavy... I was tempted several times and I rented three times already

That sounds dreadfully heavy imo. Tamrons offering with a variable 2-2.8 is already near 1.2 kg and the f2.8 starts at around 60mm already. I simply can't image how heavy a constant F2 aperture would be that covers the 35-150mm zoom range.

Click to expand...

Well, the current Sony 50-150mm F2 (1340g) is ligher than the Canon RF 28-70mm F2 (1430g). So it is possible to have a 50-150mm with reasonable weight, that is, if you can manage the Canon RF 28-70mm F2, a 50-150mm F2 should be manageable.

it is priced at $4k vs the Canon 28-70mm F2's $3.3k, but the Sony is a newer lens. So the cost isn't that different.

I agree that all things equal, lighter is better . But, if we fix cost and IQ, then, for me:

Good trade-off:
50-150mm F2 -> 50-135mm F2 that is lighter/smaller
50-135mm F2 -> 35-135mm F2 that is heavier/larger

In other words, I'd trade-off focal length range on the long end for size/weight, but I'd happily deal with larger weight/size to get move focal length range on the wide side.

If 1kg is already heavy and at the max for you, then perhaps an RF 28-70mm MK II at ~900g and an RF 70-135mm F2 at ~900g would be the ideal. I'd go for a 1500g RF 35-135mm F2 in a heartbeat!

AlanF said:

He's right on resolution too. R5ii has slightly less resolution than the R5. They have been compared by optyczne.pl, and we discussed them in another thread.

Click to expand...

do you have a link to the other thread? i felt the ES wasnt worth much to me on the R5 (20FPS for fast action is cool, but fast action produces rolling shutter artifacts - not cool). ES on R52 is barely ok for tennis and another factor of 2 in read out speed would be great. In terms of resolution in EFC, i dont know that i see a difference between R5 and R52. I believe you are a much more critical eye than i am, have you seen anything in your pictures?

John D P said:

Canon should give us an idea what's going on!!!!

Click to expand...

I think that only happened once in Canons history it wasn't really official. The CR lens road map from 2022 was extremely precise for a rumor site (aside the face the TS lenses and the 35mm F1.2 are still missing in action) and I bet Canon intentionally leaked it, so people would know without Canon being accountable. Worked in their favor, nobody can "demand" the above mentioned and missing lenses.

Sorry but RF being the acronym for "Revolutionary Flange" is completely false information and must be made up by the author. The correct answer is that RF stands for "Re-imagined Focus".

DocInfoSci said:

That stated, I think that the first comparison must always be pixel to pixel -- not downsized.

Click to expand...

You're welcome to feel that way, but it's no more correct.

DocInfoSci said:

why would I [downsize]? I wouldn't.

Click to expand...

Unless your display device magically got bigger, than you will do that at least some of the time.

I got mine an hour ago.
Does Canada count?

The CRIPPLE hammer has struck right away.
First thing to setup is camera to phone transfer.

NOT permitted without the new P battery. I have at least 10 variants of the older battery, which seem to power the camera just fine but not the wifi transfer feature.

Not sure yet if two of the last gen batteries in a battery grip would be enough to power it, will play around with that later, but I really like the R6 2 stripped down, I do not want to add the grip to that setup.

Thanks! Very interesting to see this. Overall quite positive and not a crazy sacrifice for the pixels gained. Super happy to see this, and maybe with the R6 iv they'll keep the pixels but bump the ISO back up -- which would be a killer combo for this tier.

That stated, I think that the first comparison must always be pixel to pixel -- not downsized. If I buy a matrix of pixels then I want to use all of those pixels -- downsizing is a silly comparison. If I downsize of my R6 20mp images to 10mp they're amazing even at 52k ISO -- but why would I do that? I wouldn't. Crop, yes, but downsize for quality? Nope. I use all of those pixels to the best that I can and each pixel must stand on its own.

Noreaster said:

It is darker than the inside of a cow by 4pm around here

Click to expand...

I've told you before to be careful where you put your head.