AlanF said:

The battery life of the R7 is good compared with the EOS R5 and R5ii - I get at least twice as many shots with it.

Click to expand...

Anybody coming from a DSLR will not like the battery life of a mirrorless. She's been known, especially in migration season, to head out in the morning with the camera and shoot all day. A battery grip would have gone a long way to helping her enjoy her R7. That and a little more substantial 'heft' for the inevitable times that it gets banged around off trees and branches.

She just ordered a used EF-S 18-135 USM lens, and an adapter, thinking that the heavier lens would give a better feel. I think, really, that that 18-150 lens is such a lightweight thing that it feels incredibly cheap. Like a toy. A rather expensive toy, given what it costs new. That lens might have been what made her feel like it was less of a camera than her 2 Nikon DSLR bodies. Her 7200 died, but way over 200k shots on it, so it served her well for a long time.

As for me, I always carry an extra battery or two when I go out to photograph birds, or just about anything else really. I did the Cleveland air show Labor Day weekend, and swapped out the battery about 3/4 of the way through the show, just before the Thunderbirds showed up, so that I wouldn't have to deal with a dead battery at the wrong time. It still had around 10% on it, but definitely better to have a fresh one in there.

The cat photo is focused on the cat's chest. Indeed, the fence is sharper than the eyes and nose. Wide open the depth of field is narrow, but with relatively static photos like that, the eyes should be sharp. What camera and settings did you use?

Eloniel said:

Actually I secretly hope the 15-35 MK2 will instead be a 16-35 f2.0 with internal zoom

Click to expand...

I wouldn't trade 15mm for f/2, how often are UWAs used fully open?
Yet, tastes are different. An RF 24-70 f/2: Anytime!

Bob Howland said:

Before I bought my R7, I seriously considered buying an OM-1 and a trinity of lenses. One compelling calculation was that the R7 and OM-1 have pixels of about the same size, about the same size as an 83MP FF sensor. The R7 has more pixels than the OM-1 because it has a larger sensor, but I don't know of any FF camera with 83MP.

Click to expand...

That's maybe true for now but we will get to 100 mp Full Frame sensors, so if you invest in Full Frame lens at some point you will be able to get it on FF.

While I agree that I'd prefer Canon's RF mount to be more open, I think that most of the decline in lens manufacturing is due to the general decline of the camera market

Del Paso said:

15-35 internal zoom? No priority in my opinion, the current one is excellent. If you think of the so-called dust issue, please read Roger Cicala's comments on what seems to be a non-issue, based on a multitude of disassemblies...
Fully agree on the other lenses, I miss them too.

Click to expand...

Actually I secretly hope the 15-35 MK2 will instead be a 16-35 f2.0 with internal zoom

phils.pix said:

Why not get a used EF 300 f/2.8 L Mk. II? You can get them between 2.800 - 3.500€. It's still quite ligthweight and compact and works great with the 1.4x and 2.0x Extenders, without sacrificing much image quality. It works stellar on the R Cameras.

Click to expand...

I don’t know if I’d consider it particularly light weight or compact. Sony’s weighs a full kg less. I’m sure Canon could make something similar if they wanted.

AlanF said:

What I was getting at as I explained in my earlier reply and emphasized by others that a 1.6x crop factor doesn't automatically give 1.6x resolution, but just a 1.6x change in field of view. The change in resolution depends on the relative pixel densities of the FF and APS-C sensors. There is a load of misinformation provided by manufacturers by deception and others from ignorance. For example, Olympus will tell you that their 400mm lens is equivalent to 800mm on a full frame. But that maybe true for a 20 Mpx FF sensor, but it's equivalent to only 540mm for a 45 Mpx FF.

Click to expand...

Before I bought my R7, I seriously considered buying an OM-1 and a trinity of lenses. One compelling calculation was that the R7 and OM-1 have pixels of about the same size, about the same size as an 8381MP FF sensor. The R7 has more pixels than the OM-1 because it has a larger sensor, but I don't know of any FF camera with 8381MP.

Eloniel said:

On the high end too.
Where are the equivalent to 50-150 f2.0 with internal zoom, a lighter 28-70 f2.0 with internal zoom or extend it to 24mm, a 15-35mm f2.8 with internal zoom, the 35mm f1.2, tilt shift lenses, etc... And I'm not even talking about telephotos lenses.

They have a least 10-15 lenses to release to have an offer that could satisfy most people. Hopefully some of these needed lenses will be announced in November.

Click to expand...

15-35 internal zoom? No priority in my opinion, the current one is excellent. If you think of the so-called dust issue, please read Roger Cicala's comments on what seems to be a non-issue, based on a multitude of disassemblies...
Fully agree on the other lenses, I miss them too.

Did I miss something about the shipping date of the Canon C50? I tought it would be mid November?
I was hoping sooner than later, but now I read December?

Kharan said:

And that's the real issue for me. There's nothing in RF mount like the TTArtisan 40mm f/2 I recently got. I tried the RF 50mm f/1.8 and I hated it, I think it's shamefully poor for a 2020's lens. The Chinese lens is smaller, made out of metal, has an aperture ring, and while its bokeh is worse, it delivers more even resolution across the field... and also happens to be my favorite focal length. Mind you, the Sony 40mm f/2.5 was never an option either, considering how damned expensive it is for how mediocre the results are ("pixie dust" is the bare minimum I expect for $550!) That Sony also make the most interesting standard zoom on the market right now is a bonus (the 20-70mm f/4).

And then, I wanted to have AF and some EXIF for my vast collection of vintage glass, which was what originally sold me on E-mount, and the Sony + adapter have delivered that in spades

Click to expand...

While I absolutely like my second non-L Rf lens, the one you hate. From f/2,8, it is tack sharp. Of course mechanically speaking, it is not up to L standard, but what can you expect for the Euro 170 I paid for it?
Light, inexpensive, sharp, nice bokeh (mostly), and AF!
To be honest, I bought it to give it a try because it was so cheap - and kept it!

Sylvester said:

While entirely correct, and something I have certainly done with my R5ii, the key difference that that using the R5/R5ii in 1.6 crop mode results in an image with far less pixels on the subject that using the same lenses with an APS-C body with around 30M MP. For smaller subjects in the frame the APS-C option either gives you either more detail or additional ability to crop without loosing too many pixels in the final image vs a FF in 1.6 crop mode.

Click to expand...

What I was getting at as I explained in my earlier reply and emphasized by others that a 1.6x crop factor doesn't automatically give 1.6x resolution, but just a 1.6x change in field of view. The change in resolution depends on the relative pixel densities of the FF and APS-C sensors. There is a load of misinformation provided by manufacturers by deception and others from ignorance. For example, Olympus will tell you that their 400mm lens is equivalent to 800mm on a full frame. But that maybe true for a 20 Mpx FF sensor, but it's equivalent to only 540mm for a 45 Mpx FF.

Bob Howland said:

At B&H, the R5-2 sells for $4100 or $430550 more than the R6-2 and R7 combined ($22202100 + $1450)

Click to expand...

For this generation, for R6-3 + R7-2 you will probably be at least the price of the R5-2 if not more. Not fair to compare old generation camera 2-bodies scenario with one of the new generation.

Also I guess it depends if your main work is wildlife (2 bodies scenario) or portrait/landscape/event/action and higher end single body scenario.

Very nice shot, shire guy.

Eloniel said:

Of course dedicated top of the line APSC body will always be able provide more details/reach than high MP Full frame bodies but at some point you will be able with a single body to do both wildlife + others.
I would say for someone that don't want to have to deal with 2 bodies and having to buy a R6 camera + R7 camera it can worth it to just buy a single R5 line camera.

At least for an amateur like me I could totally see myself trying a bit of wildlife photography with a R5 without buying a R7, 17 mp would be enough for my use case. Once R5 in 1,6 crop mode will have 30mp the needs would only really matter for the very high end of professionnal wildlife photographer.

Click to expand...

At B&H, the R5-2 sells for $4100 or $430550 more than the R6-2 and R7 combined ($22202100 + $1450)

ShowMeTheEagles said:

Yeah, not buying that. Plenty of R body examples where Canon has announced two models simultaneously or back to back. Sure availability was backlogged after release but that didn't stop Canon from announcing and releasing. Really that seems to be the photo industry standard operation. Also Canon does not make cameras and lenses in the same factory so there in no reason Canon can't produce the 300-600 lens concurrent with whatever new bodies are announced this year or next.

If the R5 II and R1 are examples of Canon's ability to ramp up production I suspect the R6III and C50V backlogs will be filled within a few months of release so there doesn't seem to be production capacity problem with a late winter R7II announcement / early spring R7 II release. If the R7 II is going to be a success out of the gate Canon needs to release for spring migration season or I think a lot of people will move on from it.

Click to expand...

Spring migration season is definitely going to be important for the R7 Mk ii! Would have liked to see it announced now and released in time to get under the Christmas tree. Now the hope is just to get it in time for migration.

ISO is relative and not absolute. So even if you used the same lens (different lenses of the same aperture do have different light transmission) there is so much variability...

And I am not even talking about the environment....

Sylvester said:

While entirely correct, and something I have certainly done with my R5ii, the key difference that that using the R5/R5ii in 1.6 crop mode results in an image with far less pixels on the subject that using the same lenses with an APS-C body with around 30M MP. For smaller subjects in the frame the APS-C option either gives you either more detail or additional ability to crop without loosing too many pixels in the final image vs a FF in 1.6 crop mode.

Click to expand...

Of course dedicated top of the line APSC body will always be able provide more details/reach than high MP Full frame bodies but at some point you will be able with a single body to do both wildlife + others.
I would say for someone that don't want to have to deal with 2 bodies and having to buy a R6 camera + R7 camera it can worth it to just buy a single R5 line camera.

At least for an amateur like me I could totally see myself trying a bit of wildlife photography with a R5 without buying a R7, 17 mp would be enough for my use case. Once R5 in 1,6 crop mode will have 30mp the needs would only really matter for the very high end of professionnal wildlife photographer.

Sylvester said:

While entirely correct, and something I have certainly done with my R5ii, the key difference that that using the R5/R5ii in 1.6 crop mode results in an image with far less pixels on the subject that using the same lenses with an APS-C body with around 30M MP. For smaller subjects in the frame the APS-C option either gives you either more detail or additional ability to crop without loosing too many pixels in the final image vs a FF in 1.6 crop mode.

Click to expand...

And far more noise as a counterpart. Don't forget it.

Crippled buffer incoming ;P

I'm disappointed, but not surprised. I can't afford it yet anyway (well, I can, but not the 100-500mm to go along with it), but It would have been nice to have a few extra months of reviews and testing by others before I make the decision to purchase.

Bob Howland said:

I own an R50V and it's pretty good. I'm thinking of something a bit upmarket from there, an R7V perhaps, to compete with the Sony FX30.

Click to expand...

Right, if the R50V competes more with the ZV-E10 II then there's a gap in Canon's lineup (if they want to fill it) to compete with the FX30.

Jethro said:

Oh dear, do we really need to get into another argument about the 'equivalence' of f/ numbers as between APS-C and FF sensors?

Click to expand...

Apparently.

AlanF said:

If a 1.6x crop factor turns my RF 100-500 into a 160-800 f/7.1, then clicking my R5 into 1.6 crop mode would do the same. Or, cropping a full frame image by 1.6x in post processing would also lengthen the lens.

Click to expand...

While entirely correct, and something I have certainly done with my R5ii, the key difference that that using the R5/R5ii in 1.6 crop mode results in an image with far less pixels on the subject that using the same lenses with an APS-C body with around 30M MP. For smaller subjects in the frame the APS-C option either gives you either more detail or additional ability to crop without loosing too many pixels in the final image vs a FF in 1.6 crop mode.

Powerful Owl

There was another Powerful Owl higher up in the tree but I couldn't see a nest. From the droppings below it looks like they had enjoyed a possum recently.


View attachment 226593

snapshot said:

may still have differences in exposure?

Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely, that’s normal