Latest activity

ctk · Sunday at 10:35 AM

People really think camera gear development is like a tennis match. Even the most GAS afflicted spec sheet chaser is not switching back and forth between systems on every new update. Those folks just deep fry their credit cards and buy everything that comes out.

I went from Nikon to Sony to Canon and now am back with Sony. As much as I admire and envy some of the strides Canon RF has made since I bailed, I really have no appetite or reason to switch again. I feel like Canon, Sony and to a lesser degree Nikon and Panasonic FF MILC systems have more than enough for the vast majority of enthusiasts.

scyrene · Sunday at 10:26 AM

Warranty length depends on your location doesn't it? I think in some countries you would still be covered.

scyrene · Sunday at 10:24 AM

neuroanatomist said:
Also, what makes you think Canon's goal is to compete against any particular Sony product?

This is what I always wonder. "Compete" means one thing to forum dwellers and I think something rather different to the companies involved.

shadowsports · Sunday at 10:13 AM

Thanks @Click
I shot these from a boat. While I captured stationary subjects easily, I couldn't get BIF regardless of shutter speed. There was a 15 mph cross wind that I could not overcome.

ctk · Sunday at 10:13 AM

blackcoffee17 said:
You would be surprised how many people are buying the R100 because the R50 is too expensive for them.

Those people prob arent buying any extra lenses.

I just dont see the point in making the 50 1.8 unnecessarily bad. Canon is capable of making it better, and given how popular it is, they should.

obl918 · Sunday at 9:39 AM

Here are three raw images. The first is a lens-capped calibration dark I took 17 months ago. The sensor was cooler because it was an outdoor winter shoot.

Jan 2025 baseline — 2.5s, ISO 12800, 15°C — clean, no spot: https://filedump.vexelfire.com/-x7qKSw77EJ/088A6821_clean.CR3
Body cap, 15s, ISO 1600, 31°C — spot at its largest: https://filedump.vexelfire.com/-AMpQC97mhD/088A6018_clean.CR3
Body cap, 2s, ISO 1600, 27°C — spot visible even at 2s: https://filedump.vexelfire.com/-SjCRqQVKM2/088A6019_clean.CR3

spartan · Sunday at 8:45 AM

el peso said:
Znie to zaujímavo, ale demo fotky I agree... unfortunately sample pics from Nikon version are far better? why? micro contrast 3 pop

Click · Sunday at 8:41 AM

Nice shots. I especially like the Egret.

Click · Sunday at 8:37 AM

Helmi2010 said:
A kingfisher I managed to photograph a few days ago.

R7 with EF 500mm F4 and 2x TC.

I'm Walking by Helmut Gloor, auf Flickr

Great shot!

scyrene · Sunday at 8:10 AM

Chig said:
Damn, I better sell off my RF 135mm f/1.8 L IS USM and my EF 200mm f/1.8 L USM then , can't understand why they're among my favourite lenses

I'll take them off your hands...

Bob Howland · Sunday at 7:08 AM

Exploreshootshare said:
He meant my weird aversion to half- and third stops aperture in the name of the lens.

A 70-200mm F1.4 or F2 will never happen, but maybe a 70-180mm or something similar. Who knows.

I don´t believe Canon will make another PZ lens with an overlap to the RF 20-50mm, but I could imagine a PZ lens starting at 50mm to couple it with the existing lens. It is basically a question if there is a need for it. Since I don't shoot video at all/ that much, I can't really answer that question nor do I have an opinion about it.

I think the 20-50 is an extremely important lens or, more exactly, an extremely important architecture. It's the first interchangeable lens in a neat package whose focal length is designed to be controlled by the camera body. Previously Canon used a kludgy add-on to do that task. For photographers, this doesn't mean much. For video, this could kill camcorders. Furthermore, it's an L and comparatively cheap.

Regarding overlapping focal lengths, consider the 14/15-35 & 24-70/105, 24-105 & 70-200 and 70-200 & 100-400/500. Canon does this all the time, unlike Sigma that tends to have little or no overlap.

neuroanatomist · Sunday at 6:11 AM

Eloniel said:
Canon will want it's own f2.0 trinity, at this point it's even a question of reputation against Sony that is building it's own.

Yes, I see. Canon must hurry up and match Sony’s f/2 lenses. Their reputation is on the line. I mean, it took Sony what…6 years to come out with a 28-70/2 after Canon launched theirs. But Canon must catch up, or else. Mmmmmmkay.

Chig · Sunday at 5:43 AM

GMCPhotographics said:
The problem Canon had with the rf 135mm, is that the ef version was / is so strong. Sure the new lens is sharper, gains 1/3 stop in brightness and an image stabiliser. However, it’s larger and heavier. Plus is very expensive, you really have to want one to justify the rf version over the ef version. The EF version puts out really great images that are very similar to the rf version. For a lot of users who already have the ef version, there’s not a particularly strong enough reason to upgrade.

I had the EF 135mm f/2 and my RF 135mm f/1.8 is superior in nearly every way: image quality, AF speed, optical IS, ergonomics, build quality, weather sealing, shorter MFD, 1/3 stop faster (37% more light), better bokeh.
Weight is heavier but if you're using the EF-RF adapter(110gm) the difference is only 75gm.
The old lens is still a great lens and good value but depends if you want (and can afford) the best

Eloniel · Sunday at 5:34 AM

Chig said:
Well Sony's 50-150mm f/2 has an entrance pupil of only 75mm versus a 70-200mm f/2 would have one 100mm across and a 70-200mm f/1.8 would be 111mm across which means much bigger front elements and much more cost but perhaps you know some way to defy physics and economics so that Canon can magically sell it for a lower price?

You misunderstood my point, Canon will want to compete against the Sony 50-150mm f2.0 and it's much more likely for the lens to stop at 150-180mm but to avoid competing against the 100-300mm f2.8 I suspect it will NOT accept extender.

They can't sell a 70-180mm f2.0 for the double of the Sony 50-150 to avoid stepping on the toe of the 100-300. They don't have a lot of margin to build a lens cohesive with their own ecosystem while be competitive against Sony.

So the more likely is a 70-150/180mm f2.0 that don't accept extenders for around 4000€

Chig · Sunday at 5:24 AM

Eloniel said:
I can't see this happening if they want to compete against the 50-150 f2.0 from Sony which is way less expensive.

Well Sony's 50-150mm f/2 has an entrance pupil of only 75mm versus a 70-200mm f/2 would have one 100mm across and a 70-200mm f/1.8 would be 111mm across which means much bigger front elements and much more cost but perhaps you know some way to defy physics and economics so that Canon can magically sell it for a lower price?

Chig · Sunday at 5:17 AM

Exploreshootshare said:
I really don´t like the F1.8 as a max aperture. I always associate it with entry-level primes or zooms. In addition, I am a fan of apertures with full stops such as a f2-2.8 zoom. Worst in this regard is the RF 100-500mm with its 4.5-7.1. I´d really prefer a 4-5.6 or even F4-8

So, either make it 70-200mm F2 or a F1.4 please

Yeah, I am weird sometimes

Damn, I better sell off my RF 135mm f/1.8 L IS USM and my EF 200mm f/1.8 L USM then

, can't understand why they're among my favourite lenses

Exploreshootshare · Sunday at 4:38 AM

Bob Howland said:
He did say 70-200 f/1.4 (or f/2)

He meant my weird aversion to half- and third stops aperture in the name of the lens.

A 70-200mm F1.4 or F2 will never happen, but maybe a 70-180mm or something similar. Who knows.

Bob Howland said:
The front element would have to be the same size as a 400 f/2.8. I want a longer sibling to the 20-50 f/4 L IS Z, with the same design philosophy and at the same price, perhaps 35-85 f/2.8 L IS Z or 60-150 f/2.8 L IS Z.

I don´t believe Canon will make another PZ lens with an overlap to the RF 20-50mm, but I could imagine a PZ lens starting at 50mm to couple it with the existing lens. It is basically a question if there is a need for it. Since I don't shoot video at all/ that much, I can't really answer that question nor do I have an opinion about it.

Exploreshootshare · Sunday at 4:32 AM

scyrene said:
What about the 200mm f/1.8L?

Well, the successor had a well-rounded and aperture of F2

No, you're right. The 200mm F1.8L was an absolute beast of a lens and not a typical f1.8 prime.

btw: I even prefer EF 35mm F2 and RF 85mm F2 over their f1.8 siblings

obl918 · Sunday at 3:33 AM

I've had my R1 since December of 2024. It gets very little use -- I just dabble. When I first got it I did some basic astrophotography with great results.

Tonight I decided to do some more -- and to my dismay, noticed that I now have extreme hot pixels in a cluster that were not visible before. I can actually see a white splotch in live view at just 2" and 1600 ISO.

The cluster is so bad that stacking with darks does not remove it.

Claude tells me this is 727 pixels pegged at the sensor's max in that one spot.

I'm attaching a hard-stretch so you can see what I mean.

I'm guessing I am entirely on the hook for this as an out of warranty repair. Anyone have any insight, suggestions, or condolences?

Eloniel · Sunday at 2:15 AM

neuroanatomist said:
150/2 = 75
200/2.8 = 71.4

200/2 = 100

There's a big difference in the amount of glass needed to achieve 200/2 compared to 150/2 (the latter being similar to 200/2.8). Physics.

Also, what makes you think Canon's goal is to compete against any particular Sony product?

That's another reason for it to not happen and the lens to stop at 150-180.

Canon will want it's own f2.0 trinity, at this point it's even a question of reputation against Sony that is building it's own.

shadowsports · Sunday at 1:27 AM

R5 C, RF200-800. Both shots were captured at about 200 yards.

Egret

Heron

Helmi2010 · Sunday at 12:34 AM

Another kingfisher, photographed with an OM 1 MK II, a 150–400 mm zoom lens and a 2x teleconverter.

The little ones mostly eat fish; the undigested bits have to come back out...

Eisi sagt: „Über 30 Grad Mitte Juni, das ist echt zum Kotzen!” by Helmut Gloor, auf Flickr

Helmi2010 · Sunday at 12:29 AM

A kingfisher I managed to photograph a few days ago.

R7 with EF 500mm F4 and 2x TC.

I'm Walking by Helmut Gloor, auf Flickr

neuroanatomist · Saturday at 11:12 PM

Eloniel said:
I can't see this happening if they want to compete against the 50-150 f2.0 from Sony which is way less expensive.

150/2 = 75
200/2.8 = 71.4

200/2 = 100

There's a big difference in the amount of glass needed to achieve 200/2 compared to 150/2 (the latter being similar to 200/2.8). Physics.

Also, what makes you think Canon's goal is to compete against any particular Sony product?

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics