scyrene said:

One thing I'll never quite get my head around is the status anxiety of Sony users specifically - I don't recall other brands' users spamming these boards with their cult-like devotion. I also find it strange how, if the competition is so inferior, why they feel so anxious to attack everyone else, as if deep down they're not convinced after all.

Click to expand...

Roger Cicala’s 2018 definition applies to @mimbu : “Sonyfanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy with other equipment.”

One thing I'll never quite get my head around is the status anxiety of Sony users specifically - I don't recall other brands' users spamming these boards with their cult-like devotion. I also find it strange how, if the competition is so inferior, why they feel so anxious to attack everyone else, as if deep down they're not convinced after all.

Malm said:

One issue with the RF mount is the lack of modern lenses as Canon is excluding 3rd party AF glasses and the older EF lenses are not always an alternative.

Click to expand...

Canon’s RF lenses aren’t ’modern lenses’? Oh, ok.

Who else makes a 24-105/2.8? Sigma’s ‘modern’ 14/1.4 is twice the weight and far larger than Canon’s RF 14/1.4*.

Question I’ve asked several times that no one has ever answered: Canon RF has a set of three full frame zooms that cover 15mm to 400mm for under $1700, what 3rd party or other OEM kit can cover that range for that cost or less?


* I know, you don’t like the need for distortion correction, that’s fine; I wouldn’t want to carry the Sigma beast along with my other lenses, it’s why the EF 11-24/4 often stayed home but the RF 10-20/4 usually goes in the bag, and that’s also fine. For all its bulk and weight, the Sigma 14/1.4 still has plenty of distortion and vignetting, enough that I’d use a lens profile to correct it anyway.

One could also argue that lenses designed to be smaller, lighter and cheaper by incorporating digital correction into their design are more modern than lenses that are larger, heavier and more expensive than they need to be in this current era where the lens output cannot be seen optically, only digitally.

mimbu said:

....

I doubt Canon will ever let FF AF lenses from Sigma onto RF. Or Viltrox. Or Laowa. Or Tamron. Or anyone else.

Click to expand...

I start to worry that you are right.
Sigma is building the best lenses for my area of interest (astro), and Canon seems to prefer heavy digital corrections to make it's lenses more video-friendly (were I'm not interested in). So I'm thinking about my way ahead, with or without Canon.

mimbu said:

Even the guy running this site would agree the R100 is a POS.

Click to expand...

You’re confusing the guy running this site with one of the writers for the site.

Regardless, the R100 is a far more capable camera than the entry-level DSLR that was my first. For many people, it will be the best camera they can afford. It’s a capable camera that can deliver great results in the right hands, if not in yours.

Your opinion of it is irrelevant.

mimbu said:

Smart people ignore sarcasm when it's just a mild shield for the actual truth.

Click to expand...

Smart people admit their mistakes and learn from them.

Fools don’t, nor do asshats. Those two categories aren’t mutually exclusive, as you effectively demonstrate.

mimbu said:

Canon sees you as a paypig that they will bleed and bleed.

Click to expand...

Nice to know that Sony's little crappies come as a gift to Sony loverboyz.

blackcoffee17 said:

So the only camera you can pick on is the bottom R100, made for the lowest income countries and people. It's selling for like $399 when on offer, half the price of the cheapest Sony. That matters a lot when your salary is $500 a month.

Click to expand...

The R50 is junk tier too, just not complete garbage tier like the R100 is.

Interesting you mention "lowest income countries" for the R100 when it is consistently the #1 or #2 camera sold on Amazon.com. I guess the US has become a "low income country" now?

Canon has always been great at marketing & selling vast numbers of low end cameras. That's why they have long had the overall #1 ILC market share, because that is the only way a company can get that #1 market share. Those are the cameras that sell in the highest volumes, but also with the very lowest of lowest profit levels. Razor thin margins. Those margins get subsidized by not allowing 3rd party FF AF glass onto the mount, so anyone who buys a decent camera has to buy expensive RF glass.

David - Sydney said:

Clearly incorrect. There are no issues with manual RF mount lenses (I love my full frame Astrhori 6/2.8).
Be specific if you going to make claims. Otherwise you are just a troll.

The Chinese lens manufacturers don't seem to have a problem with annoying Canon - similar to what Sigma and Tamron did in the EF era. Different story for them today.

Click to expand...

Sure, we can add AF to the disclaimer. It's the same for Laowa. Laowa even offers MF versions of their FF 10/2.8 and 12/2.8 lenses for RF mount, but AF versions on other mounts. Viltrox withdrew their RF AF lenses after legal threats from Canon. So the line seems to be at AF, and probably at AE as well.

I doubt Canon will ever let FF AF lenses from Sigma onto RF. Or Viltrox. Or Laowa. Or Tamron. Or anyone else.

I find 24mm fine for walk around work. 70mm is ok, but the 105mm is a better top end. That said the 23-105 f2.8 is too heavy for my liking. I found the 24-105 f4 to fail to focus correctly in low light on the R5 Mark II, so I stuck with the 24-70 f2.8. Perhaps that was an early focus issue with the mark II, which has been fixed? Anyone having problems with that combo (R5 II, 24-105 f4 at night time with lit buildings or bridges)

24mm seems plenty wide enough, unless you go indoors, when the 10-20mm is king.

VivaLasVegas said:

....By the end of year, RF will have more native glass than Sony. C.....

Click to expand...

You like Canon which is completely OK, but it's useless to 'fight' for the better camera system. We have different alternatives and everybody can chose what he prefers.

One issue with the RF mount is the lack of modern lenses as Canon is excluding 3rd party AF glasses and the older EF lenses are not always an alternative. One of the strong points of the EF system was the large amount of different lenses where everyone could find the optimum lenses for his interest. This is not the case for the RF mount any more and Canon will not be able to fill that gap with his 5-10 new lenses per year.
I understand the economic argumentation concerning the sell of native lenses, but unhappy clients moving to another brand have also an economic impact.

ISv said:

Yeah, the first photo is great but the series after that is showing a behavior and from my view point it's as important as a great shot.

Click to expand...

Absolutely agree.

mimbu said:

Even the guy running this site would agree the R100 is a POS.

Click to expand...

So the only camera you can pick on is the bottom R100, made for the lowest income countries and people. It's selling for like $399 when on offer, half the price of the cheapest Sony. That matters a lot when your salary is $500 a month.

mimbu said:

Which is why Canon has blocked all 3rd party native glass from FF RF, and probably will do so in perpetuity.

Click to expand...

Clearly incorrect. There are no issues with manual RF mount lenses (I love my full frame Astrhori 6/2.8).
Be specific if you going to make claims. Otherwise you are just a troll.

The Chinese lens manufacturers don't seem to have a problem with annoying Canon - similar to what Sigma and Tamron did in the EF era. Different story for them today.

eero said:

People complain the 100-300mm + 2X is not sharp at f/5.6. If the new lens was razor sharp all the way to 600mm wide open, that might please all the birders out there. What is your opinion of the 100-300mm - 2x at f/5.6? I have noticed that it is indeed sharper with 1.4x when fully open, but you usually have to pixel-peep to notice. However, this minor sharpness issue plus the possibility to go even further with extenders is very tempting to me.

Click to expand...

I would certainly expect a $12k 300-600/5.6 to be razor sharp throughout the range, and to remain excellent with a 1.4x TC as a 420-840/8.0.

neuroanatomist said:

Despite your characterization of Canon's entry level models, if you can't take excellent pictures with one then the only thing that is rank garbage at the bottom of the trash pile is your skill as a photographer.

Click to expand...

Even the guy running this site would agree the R100 is a POS.

neuroanatomist said:

Smart people can recognize sarcasm. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Click to expand...

Smart people ignore sarcasm when it's just a mild shield for the actual truth.

Del Paso said:

Oh my God, Canon hates me!
This makes me so sad I could cry all night long!
Time to jump ship and get tenderly loved by sweet Sony!

Click to expand...

Canon sees you as a paypig that they will bleed and bleed.

Ph0t0 said:

On the other hand ... If it is not cheaper, the 100-300mm 2.8 + a 2xTC could be a more compelling option for many that value the 100-300mm range as well as 300-600mm focal distance.

Click to expand...

The 100-300/2.8 + 2x TC will not compare to the 300-600/5.6 natively, nor will it give you a likely very good 420-840/8.0.

For me today's walk was not very productive: just this Yellow-faced Canary...

josephandrews222 said:

Three Pairs with R5II and 200-800 @ 800

American Robin, European Starling and Northern Mockingbird

View attachment 228548

View attachment 228549

View attachment 228550

View attachment 228551

View attachment 228552

View attachment 228553

Click to expand...

I'm envious for the last shot: we have the Northern Mockingbird on Oahu (and I have seen it twice!) but I still have no photo! For the first one (very nice photo!) I'm not really envious: I already figured out that to be envious for birds not present in your area means to be constantly envious !

Click said:

Very nice series, antonn. He really seems to hate the rain in the second photo

Click to expand...

Most importantly it shows the habit of the Sparrow hawks to remove the feathers of the pray before consuming it!

AlanF said:

The love life of Peregrine Falcons. Male flying, Female perched, mating, separating, smooching, arguing. (RF5ii, 200-800mm).

View attachment 228533View attachment 228534View attachment 228535View attachment 228536View attachment 228537View attachment 228538

Click to expand...

Yeah, the first photo is great but the series after that is showing a behavior and from my view point it's as important as a great shot.

Three Pairs with R5II and 200-800 @ 800

American Robin, European Starling and Northern Mockingbird

Generally speaking, I think that for the 2x controversy it's possible for everyone to be right:

• The quality of the original lens matters the most: the 2x TC magnifies what is being captured. (Yeah, obviously.)
• Imperfect copies of either the base lens or the TC will skew the final image.
• Air quality between the lens and the subject matters — temperature differences in the hood (think cold days from a warm car with the window down), temperature differences between the ambient air and the ground (or water), etc. all create thermal currents that skew the result because the image entering the glass might be subject to shimmer, which will be magnified. The closer the subject, generally the less impact from shimmer (hood aside).
• Similarly, light spill and other factors will also be magnified and skew a casual inspection. Uncontrolled light really kills TC outcomes.
• Use of digital aids, like DLO, can make a monstrous difference.

I think within one's own stable of lenses it's possible to form a solid opinion on whether a copy of the 2x TC is working or not. I think that it's a very subjective thing to take a sentance-or-two answer from someone else and apply it to one's own situation. Obviously credibility of the source counts for a lot, but situation and the transparency into the scenarios counts for more.

I have used EF II and III 2x extenders with close outcomes. When I test, versus just chimp on images, I try to equally to fill the frame with a subject — easy enough to do with a tripod and stand-in subject. My 300 f4 IS works very well with DLO, my 70-200 f4 non-IS is for emergency use only when any serious distance is considered — like what I'd put between me and a mamma bear with cub — but if I just want a close at hand duck or chipmunk then it's actually pretty fine with some minor editing.

For my copy of the II, light control is imperative for quality outcomes.

Can you draw anything from that? Well, if you have a 300mm f4 IS and a 70-200 f4 non-IS and you trust me to do this decently then yes. If you have any other lens or don't trust me... I'd consider the bullet points, a good friend or camera store, and some education by the Digital Picture.

I have found that my friend's 70-200 f/4 IS ii with 2x III makes perfectly fine images with DLO turned on. For anything but the most critical work when travelling light I wouldn't blink to slap that on, get some great shots when travelling light, and print the outcomes.

Sucks if you get a bad copy. These are expensive experiments! It helps a lot of you have a sympathetic camera store with long aisles.