roby17269 said:

Not sure I am convinced: lower-tier cameras have caught up with the R3 on some aspects (like AF, and the eye-AF is available in the R5 II as well)
In relative terms, for a very specific set of requirements. maybe it's value for a niche of a niche of a niche.
In general terms, I can't see how such money would be well spent on an R3.

Click to expand...

I think the point is that it's a value compared to the R1. For those looking for a top-shelf, rugged, integrated grip body and wanting to save 1/3 the cost. You're saying the Mercedes has features not too different from the Porsche, I'm talking about getting last year's Porsche for a Mercedes price.

Like this one Or this one

neuroanatomist said:

I think that's the value – very similar specs and features, much lower price tag. Almost the definition of a good value.

Click to expand...

Del Paso said:

Perfect ergonomics, ruggedness, reliability, excellent weather sealing. For large hands and heavy lenses, an ideal and "inexpensive" camera if you don't need high MPs.
Grey market price is around Euro3400. For those who don't really need the R1's additional features, a very good value!

Click to expand...

Not sure I am convinced: lower-tier cameras have caught up with the R3 on some aspects (like AF, and the eye-AF is available in the R5 II as well)
In relative terms, for a very specific set of requirements. maybe it's value for a niche of a niche of a niche.
In general terms, I can't see how such money would be well spent on an R3.

Del Paso said:

Could it be that my carpal tunnel syndrome was caused by having owned a Sony A7* for 2 weeks?

Click to expand...

I'm shocked you didn't have to go to therapy.

We're going to drill into this camera (figuratively speaking.. it's not an R100 after all) a bit more today, but as luck would have it, I'm travelling today. Naturally.

Click said:

Beautiful series, ISv.

Click to expand...

Thanks Click but there are no series (from today...) that may compensate the lack of Orange-Cheeked Waxbill!
It's a beautiful bird, suggested to be extinct for Oahu and I for very easy will trade all the "series" for just a photo of that one - no matter of posing, light and so on... Could you, PLEASE!, send me one actively crying Emogy? I know you can do that and recently I need it like never before: one darn rare bird just under my nose and I cant find it!!!!

Beautiful series, ISv.

ThomasTH said:

You have to keep in mind that these Laowa lenses for RF mount do not have any contacts to the camera so you won't even get EXIF data for focal length and aperture. Before I bought my Laowa macro lens I thought that it wouldn't matter to me but in the end it did.
If you do not need it for low light/astro personally I would recommend the Canon lens. Then you have autofocus as well.

Click to expand...

Thank you!

neuroanatomist said:

If shooting astro, I’d go with the faster aperture. For everything else, the RF 10-20/4L is an excellent lens (though is certainly works for astro, too) and a lot of fun to use. Easy to pack, too (I had the EF 11-24/4L previously, that thing is a beast).

Click to expand...

Thank you!

P-visie said:

The RF10-20mm f4 would be my choice.
Note that you can use normal filters for the Laowa lenses. The RF10-20mm f4 uses either gelatin filters cut to size on the back of the lens or big filter adapters like the NiSi - S6 or Haida M15/M10 Adapter Ring (and others).

Click to expand...

Thank you!

David Pro said:

Don't know about the Laowas but love my 10-20 f/4, unique with the 10mm non-fisheye (but keep it level) and also zooms to 20mm!

Click to expand...

David Pro said:

Not to mention that the 5-6 stops of image stabilization means you can hand-hold this baby for almost anything. I've used it hand-held for 1/2 second waterfall exposures.

Click to expand...

Thank you!

EricN said:

That's impressive! Something else to mention is the Laowa lenses aren't available with autofocus (I think no lens data is sent to the camera as well?). Unless mekos really needs that wider aperture for low light, can you think of anything reasonable criticisim against the 10-20?

Click to expand...

No criticism against the 10-20mm... unless the price

Yesterday someone reported an Orange-Cheeked Waxbill (one bird!) at a park in Waikiki (with photos !!!). So, this morning (took a day-off!) I rushed there - and didn't find it. They did have an established population on Oahu and I have seen one bird back in the time (like 15 years ago...). After that they just went extinct (on Maui they still exist, despite the low numbers)! It's extremely difficult to spot them between the hundreds of Common Waxbill. I was really hard looking for a red rump, orange cheeks and paler underside but everything was the Common.... Took some photos - I use to go after the early light for special birds but once I was there...
Now I know what I will do next weekend.

Took some photos of the Yellow-fronted Canary: according to the literature the female is building the nest. Today it was only the male trying to take building material (and dropping it!!!), like showing the female what she is suppose to do (she was watching with no interest but always present!)!

And Warbling (=Japanese) White eye.

Dragon said:

The keeper rate is not as good as the R7 with 200-800 (by far), but the P1000 does catch some cute shots. Both at ISO 900, 1/640



View attachment 227004


View attachment 227005

Click to expand...

excellent shots.

AlanF said:

They are a month of UK take-home average salary. And pros will get them cheaper because of tax relief.

Click to expand...

In UK salaries are way higher; Italy's average is around 1600/1700€, vs a price for the R6III of 2900€, so roughly two months of salary.

And you may have not tax reliefs depending on how much is your annual turnover; if you've a small business, less then 85.000€ based on 2025 regulations (but used to be around 30k/40k in the past; government changed it recently to "buy" votes from professionals and small businesses), you pay very low taxes, just 15%, but you're not able to deduct vat from purchases, and also can't deduct gear from your expenses, so you pay all the stuff out of your pockets like a private person.

As someone who is new to Canon (for bird photography), but has spent time using Sony I have to say that IMO they take an extremely cynical approach to their consumer cameras. When I got hold of the A7rV I was in shock at the cheap build, the poor quality feel for the almost $4K price tag. Uncomfortable grip, the chintzy buttons and dials. I tried to ignore it but returned it shortly after. I think the A7rII, which I owned for a time, was better built than the A7rV albeit not by much. Every brand I've owned/demo'd has felt more comfortable in the hand than Sony. I genuinely think they make their cameras as cheap as they can, including smaller size to save a few yen (and sell tons of battery grips). It's evident in the (literal) painful incremental increase in grip size a few mm's every couple of years. It's evident in the adding features to new cheaper models while leaving flagships stranded.

But boy, they got marketing clout to spare, especially the Youtubers.

Walrus said:

Newcomers would start with R100 and 18-45 probably, or the Sony/Nikon equivalent, and build from that; certainly neither with R6III or A7V which are professional cameras costing two months of salary for the body only, and almost another month of salary for each of the two zoom lenses you suggested to start with.

Click to expand...

They are a month of UK take-home average salary. And pros will get them cheaper because of tax relief.

Tomba said:

That’s what I’ve said: If I would start as new comer and will likely decide based on lenses. I would start with the lenses I mentioned and R6III.

Click to expand...

Newcomers would start with R100 and 18-45 probably, or the Sony/Nikon equivalent, and build from that; certainly neither with R6III or A7V which are professional cameras costing two months of salary for the body only, and almost another month of salary for each of the two zoom lenses you suggested to start with.

xlksii said:

I somehow overlooked that you guys were specifically talking about first photo gear purchases, so what you're saying is probably true in most cases.

Click to expand...

That’s what I’ve said: If I would start as new comer and will likely decide based on lenses. I would start with the lenses I mentioned and R6III.

The keeper rate is not as good as the R7 with 200-800 (by far), but the P1000 does catch some cute shots, and it does have more DOF (FF equiv. about f/22 for these shots). Both at ISO 900, 1/640. Maybe I will try the 200-800 at f/16 on the R7 and see if I can get the DOF of the P1000 with a bit more detail.

Lovely sky, especially in the second one.

Tomba said:

Both are big and heavy. I would not start with them and have no use chase for both lenses.

Click to expand...

I somehow overlooked that you guys were specifically talking about first photo gear purchases, so what you're saying is probably true in most cases.

Tomba said:

Then I would start with R6III because of the RF 28-70mm f2.8 IS STM. And the RF 16-28mm f2.8 IS STM. And may be add RF 45mm f1.2 STM later.
I own none of these lenses but would start like this. No need for 3rd party.

Click to expand...

my first 2 lens purchases were ef 28-70 f/2.8 and ef 100-400 LIS (mounted to a rebel 2000), I upgraded cameras but stuck with those two lenses for a long time. i think you could make a budget friendly kit in rf now,

xlksii said:

Besides budget there's sheer availability as another reason for 3rd party lenses. Think 35-150mm F/2-2.8, or 200mm F/2.

Click to expand...

Both are big and heavy. I would not start with them and have no use chase for both lenses. I see that they are valuable options but I would not buy them even offered by Canon. I need 24mm 2.8 or better (I use 24 VCM). And 200mm 2.8 is enough for me. I prefer 70-200 zoom lenses for 200mm.
But yes, Sony A7 V is also a good Camera. Especially if you need one ore both lenses.

There was a beautiful orange sunrise this morning...