Show your Bird Portraits

Their genetics is really interesting. You are right, the US Green Teal mitochondrial DNA differs from the European Common Teal by a massive 5.9%. So, the maternal line, down which the the mitochondrial DNA passes, is very different, having diverged some 2.6 million years ago. The nuclear DNAs are much more similar, like 99.7% the same. This may be due to the females always going back to the same place to breed whereas the males travel widely to mate. Interestingly, birds are the opposite of humans for sex linked chromosomes. Whereas human men are XY and women YY, male birds are ZZ and females WZ.
The similarity of the protein coding DNA of the Humans and Mouse is about 85%. Taken the entire genome DNA (incl. non protein codding DNA) similarity is ~50%. It looks like the mouse is 85% Human :p. And yes, I'm suppose to know that it's all about the regulation (aka non-protein codding DNA).
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Show your Bird Portraits

Nice photos! Where in Waikiki did you see the Orange-Cheeked Waxbill?
Most of the tourists know the Ford DeRussy Park in Waikiki. Across the street against that park is situated the Ainahau triangle (big grass field) and next to it is the Brothers in Valor Memorial - also a grass field, small. It's where You have to look for flock(s) of Common Waxbills. The Orange-cheeked is between them.
Look for a red rump and off course for that orange cheeks.
Upvote 0

Show your Bird Portraits

Great pics! :)

Btw: What is your experience with the R5(ii) + RF 200-800mm combo? I´d really like to know what your experience is. Maybe compared to the RF 100-500mm? :) thx in advance!
I tested carefully the RF 200-800mm vs 100-500mm on the R5, and since then found the AF of the RF 200-800mm is significantly improved on the R5ii so it is fast and reliable at 800mm.
and earlier threads, linked within.
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Show your Bird Portraits

R5ii + 200-800 @ 800 (both)

...checking out the master bedroom (female downy woodpecker)

View attachment 228651

=====

Dark-eyed Junco testing a trampoline

View attachment 228652
Great pics! :)

Btw: What is your experience with the R5(ii) + RF 200-800mm combo? I´d really like to know what your experience is. Maybe compared to the RF 100-500mm? :) thx in advance!
Upvote 0

F00 conundrum

A camera body will show F00 and manual focus (MF) when it cannot communicate with a lens, which could be because there is no lens attached, because the lens is fully manual, or because there's a problem with the lens itself.

I went out birding over the weekend, mounted my usual combination of 600/4 II, 1.4xIII and the vanilla EF-EOS R Mount Adapter to my R1 and headed out. When I turned on the camera, it showed F00 and MF. I thought, "Oh, sh!t," and swapped on the 2xIII. That worked...but then it also changed to F00 and MF. So I mounted just the bare lens...and that was perfectly fine so I spent the day shooting like that.

When I got home, I cleaned all the contacts and tested various combinations again, including changing out the vanilla mount adapter for the drop-in version and my 3rd party adapter modified for an RF extender to fit behind it.

The upshot was this, and the situation is seemingly stable (through many trials over a couple of days, no changes). Happens on both the R1 and the R8, and with all three of the mount adapters.
  • Bare 600/4 II – functions normally
  • 600/4 II + 1.4xIII – F00 and MF
  • 600/4 II + 2xIII – varies between:
    • Normal function
    • Showing an aperture value that can be adjusted, but still only MF
    • F00 and MF
    • The variation is caused by physical manipulation – twisting the lens in the mount or moving the lens, e.g., lifting it from pointing down into shooting position, affects the functionality
  • 600/4 II + RF 1.4x (with Commlite adapter) – functions normally
The fact that I see this behavior with two bodies and three adapters suggests the problem is the TCs or the lens.

I haven't used the 2xIII TC quite some time, not since Comet C:2023 A3 Tsuchinshan-ATLAS in October 2024. So maybe the 2xIII failed sometime over the past 18 months (while sitting mostly undisturbed in a Pelican case with a dehumidifier unit), and the 1.4xIII failed sometime in the past 3.5 weeks since I last used it.

If it's the lens and not the TCs, the problem is specific to use with EF TCs and yet the problem exhibits different symptoms with the two TCs, and I don't know why that would be the case. Admittedly, I would prefer it to not be the lens, because the service life for the 600/4 II ended last year, so sending it to Canon is not an option. I could replace it with the RF 600/4, but I suspect we'll see a version of that lens with the 1.4x TC and hopefully fairly soon. I would love to have the latter and would not love buying twice.

One other idea occurred to me, literally as I was typing this post. I started to write that I don't have any other TC-compatible EF lenses with which to test the extenders...and realized that while that is true, I do have three other EF mount lenses that are physically compatible with the extenders, but don't report them to the camera body (TS-E 17, TS-E 24 and MP-E 65). So I tried the 1.4xIII and the 2xIII with the TS-E 24, and I found that the 1.4xIII shows F00, and the 2xIII shows an aperture value that can be adjusted.

It seems rather unlikely that both TCs independently failed, but I am thinking that's exactly what has happened. Sort of a Sherlock Holmes, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth," sort of thing.

From a practical standpoint, assuming that I'm correct and both extenders have failed, I see no need to replace the 2xIII. One option would be to replace the 1.4xIII ($480 new or $280 used), but I can also just use the RF 1.4x behind my modified Commlite mount adapter, and just remember that I'm doing that since it's not reported in the EXIF. The downside to the latter is that I would not benefit from the DxO lens profile for the combo (though I could batch edit the EXIF and I suspect that DxO would use the 600 II + EF 1.4xIII profile, it still won't be the right profile).

Thoughts, suggestions, and sharing prior experience welcome!

Edit: the RF 1.4x itself does show up in the EXIF, but the exposure information doesn't reflect it, remaining 600mm f/4.
Screenshot 2026-03-30 at 2.18.08 PM.png

Canon Will Continue to Expand the RF Lens Lineup at 6 to 8 Lenses a Year

Absolutelly.
And I hope that STM focusing will keep improving if that's the road for future less expensive lenses. I don't know how it is on the 24mm, but when I tried it on the 28mm I hated it, that's the main reason I didn't buy it.
Yeah, my only STM lens is the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM pancake, and I have such a mixed relationship with it: on one hand, I love the compact nature for casual walk-around — but on the other the AF drive and manual interaction really irks me. I won't say I hate it, but I will say the only reason it remains in my kit is the compactness. If that's how STM lenses in general are being done I wouldn't vote for them with my cash. It's been such a turn off I haven't even made time to try the RF editions, but I suppose I should to see if they've improved.

But it's not the tech itself per say that bothers me, it's the implementation. If the speed picked up to be more like my USM lenses (I mean more like that, doesn't need to be perfect) and the FTM interaction had a smidge more resistance (physically dampened control ring?) then I might be won over.

I do appreciate that my 40mm doesn't break when I spin the control ring powered off — I bought an EF lens way back in the day that had a drive that could break when unpowered, but I didn't know that at the time I bought it. Immediately sold it the second I found out. I read horror stories.

I did have the EF 28mm f/1.8 USM, which my kiddo now has. It was only B grade for colour work less than 2.8, but actually pretty awesome for black and white work. Landscapes at 5.6+ were solid with excellent colour. DLO on my R6 improved the overall character at open apertures considerably. Overall feel for use was excellent, very zen. Not pancake compact with an adapter, but fun to use if you find one on the cheap.
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Canon Will Continue to Expand the RF Lens Lineup at 6 to 8 Lenses a Year

but 2019 was 7 years ago, and 2016 was 13 years ago.
I like to think we get to subtract 3 years for the pandemic. 4 years if you were involved in the work tracking the virus pre-North America awareness. 😜 All of my lenses are much fresher that way. And movies. And my own age, to be honest. 🥳
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

Canon Will Continue to Expand the RF Lens Lineup at 6 to 8 Lenses a Year

Iphones dropped 28mm as their main focal length back in 2019, almost seven years ago.
Samsung Galaxy S series dropped 28mm in 2016, even before the RF system existed.
ASUS Zenfone, back when they were a thing, never had 28mm as their main lens.
Not everybody change their iphone every 3 years.
No doubt, I actually own a phone that is over 5 years old, but 2019 was 7 years ago, and 2016 was 13 years ago.

Also the fact that the only 28mm RF Canon produced is a pancake is pretty telling in my opinion in how the lens is marketed. And there is no new 28mm from Sigma, despite having done a huge Art one previously. For me it's just sad.
I'd say it's not a new phenomenon, the market seems to demand 24mm, and Canon just seems to acknowledge that. After 1995, they have released just two 28mm full-frame lenses, but five 24mm full-frame lenses. I think that says a lot.

I doubt I'll ever get that faster RF 28mm I wish for.
  • Sad
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

Show your Bird Portraits

Long story short: I was planing to go today on the other side of the Island but landed in Waikiki: decided to give one more chance to the Orange-Cheeked Waxbil (last seen 2025.12.31! Few more attempts later were unsuccessful) before I check it "eventually lost". It was there!!
Took some photos but my attention got on another Waxbill (for sure the Common Waxbill but "strange"!). I took bunch of photos to document the bird, posting just two.

Starting with photos of Japanese White Eye and Saffron Finch. The last photo is how the Common Waxbill should look.

View attachment 228653View attachment 228654View attachment 228655View attachment 228656View attachment 228657View attachment 228658View attachment 228659
View attachment 228660
Nice photos! Where in Waikiki did you see the Orange-Cheeked Waxbill?
Upvote 0

Canon Will Continue to Expand the RF Lens Lineup at 6 to 8 Lenses a Year

28mm or the equivalent has a rather long history in photography, especially for reportage where it still gives a decently natural looking wide view for situational context. Much better than 35mm. Tired smart phone looks for the 28mm perspective aside, I think that (in the backdrop of zooms) for primes 24mm simply took off and is “close enough” — similar to how 50mm is generally accepted as the natural perspective lens but really a high 40s is closer to that goal. I think 28mm will live a long, long life as a consumer grade lens but for the limited manufacturing and sales space 24 has too much gravity and will remain king across the quality / robustness tiers. Just like the 50mm.
Absolutelly.
And I hope that STM focusing will keep improving if that's the road for future less expensive lenses. I don't know how it is on the 24mm, but when I tried it on the 28mm I hated it, that's the main reason I didn't buy it.
Upvote 0

Canon Will Continue to Expand the RF Lens Lineup at 6 to 8 Lenses a Year

Not everybody change their iphone every 3 years. But I do agree that there is a variety of reasons for why it is not a popular focal lenght in serious cameras, and surely they overlap.
Also the fact that the only 28mm RF Canon produced is a pancake is pretty telling in my opinion in how the lens is marketed.
28mm or the equivalent has a rather long history in photography, especially for reportage where it still gives a decently natural looking wide view for situational context. Much better than 35mm. Tired smart phone looks for the 28mm perspective aside, I think that (in the backdrop of zooms) for primes 24mm simply took off and is “close enough” — similar to how 50mm is generally accepted as the natural perspective lens but really a high 40s is closer to that goal. I think 28mm will live a long, long life as a consumer grade lens but for the limited manufacturing and sales space 24 has too much gravity and will remain king across the quality / robustness tiers. Just like the 50mm.
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

Canon Will Continue to Expand the RF Lens Lineup at 6 to 8 Lenses a Year

He pretty much wrote the opposite.

Iphones dropped 28mm as their main focal length back in 2019, almost seven years ago.
Samsung Galaxy S series dropped 28mm in 2016, even before the RF system existed.
ASUS Zenfone, back when they were a thing, never had 28mm as their main lens.

It’s been a long time since “smartphones used 28mm on their main cameras”, and Canon never invested seriously in this focal length, as there has never been a 28mm L lens in their history. Nikon did invest seriously, Leica does, Sony doesn’t, Canon doesn’t.

As much as I like 28mm, I have to recognise it is not the most common focal length.
Not everybody change their iphone every 3 years. But I do agree that there is a variety of reasons for why it is not a popular focal lenght in serious cameras, and surely they overlap.
Also the fact that the only 28mm RF Canon produced is a pancake is pretty telling in my opinion in how the lens is marketed. And there is no new 28mm from Sigma, despite having done a huge Art one previously. For me it's just sad.
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Canon Will Continue to Expand the RF Lens Lineup at 6 to 8 Lenses a Year

Why these vague statements instead of saying "we are still in the middle of contract negotiations"?
I'm pretty sure there is plenty of interest from third-party manufacturers to produce full-frame lenses (which they already have; they would just have to convert the mount). It would be silly to believe a third-party manufacturer would not be interested in converting lenses for the most popular brand.

This can only mean that Canon either wants excessive licensing fees or some other form of assurances (like exclusive rights).
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Filter

Forum statistics

Threads
37,420
Messages
972,846
Members
24,777
Latest member
EJFUDD

Gallery statistics

Categories
1
Albums
29
Uploaded media
372
Embedded media
1
Comments
25
Disk usage
1 GB