Latest activity

Michael Clark · Oct 30, 2025

roby17269 said:
I haven't seen much furore about this (some complaints yes).

One would hope people have got used to this, since it has been the case for a while now: the faster the sensor, the worse the dynamic range at low ISO, that's the trade off we incur into with current sensor technology.

The decrease in dynamic range is is small and usually imperceptible apart in very specific scenarios... but more dynamic range gives you more good image data that, if correctly processed, can lead to (marginally) better final conversions.
The increase in speed tends to be much more visible and it has other positive side effects apart from the immediate increase of FPS, such as better AF.

Choose your poison

But... but... but... If I underexpose by six stops at ISO 100 I won't be able to recover the shadows!

Michael Clark · Oct 30, 2025

David - Sydney said:
The RF100-500 is great for size/weight but that came after the RF70-200/2.8 in 2020.
The new one dropped almost 40% weight to 1070gm vs 1480gm for the EF70-200/2.8 plus shorter as well
It was an instant buy for me and approved by my wife who reminds me all the time about "can't you get a smaller kit of gear?". I even bought it on special before I had a R body to mount it on!

You wife let you buy a lens you didn't even have a body to use it on? She's a keeper for sure!

Michael Clark · Oct 30, 2025

David - Sydney said:
I hope that Canon retains selling the R5 new for some time to come.
It is great value vs my pre-order currently at 40% price drop.
While the R5ii has a lot of incremental upgrades for some, and a better all round body, the price difference isn't worth it for my usage.

The R5 may be a better upgrade path for R6/R6ii users rather than the R6iii but we won't know how many choose that path.

My prediction, based on past history, is that if the R6 Mark III is essentially the R5 in a lower grade body, then the R5 will very soon disappear from dealers' inventories. It won't be up to Canon corporate. The dealers will return unsold R5 bodies to Canon for credit towards future purchases.

The (2017) 6D Mark II was essentially a (2012) 5D Mark III on the spec sheet. Though the 5D mark IV had supplanted the 5D Mark III in 2016, they were still available from many dealers until the 6D Mark II came along. Then the 5D Mark III vanished form new inventories practically overnight. It may or may not have been Canon corporate requiring them to return unsold 5D Mark III. The dealers surely realized the 5D Mark III would be a hard sell with the 6D Mark II priced roughly $1K less and so they returned them to Canon for credit on their balance sheets.

Scott_7D · Oct 30, 2025

Unless your tolerance for poor image quality is extremely high, wouldn't you care about ISO 100-12800? I have yet to find a situation where going beyond that is useful, regardless of camera. Photons are necessary for pictures, after all.

Look at the R5: it's a better and more expensive camera than an R6 with no discernable difference in image quality at ISO 1600-12k (in lab results there's maybe 1/6 stop in it) and it's limited to 51200. There's no reason to think the R6.3 would be any worse and I'm going to go out on a limb and say it'll probably be a tiny improvement.

I'm still curious about your comments generally though, what exactly are you looking for that this doesn't address?

David - Sydney · Oct 30, 2025

Exploreshootshare said:
I´m currently looking to purchase a used EF 135mm F2. I have been looking at this lens on the used market for nearly two years now and it always around 600 €, sometimes 550 €. It hasn't lost any value since I started looking.

The high 2nd hand price of the ef100-400 and the cost of the 1.4x extender meant that the rf100-500 was a better choice for me. Lighter and shorter as well. I never thought that I would use those focal lengths as much as I have

Michael Clark · Oct 30, 2025

BFG9000 said:
I'd never dare to say that a line of shamelessly optically uncorrected lenses with extreme vignetting is 'a great accomplishment'. I don't even think the VCM line is worth of the red ring. At that price tag the least I expect is the lenses to be optically corrected.

View attachment 226634

Why are three of them "RF VCM" and the other two are "VCM RF"?

DocInfoSci · Oct 30, 2025

scyrene said:
Apart from the 100-500 and the extending 70-200, it's basically no different to how extenders worked for EF, is it?

When they fit. Until then, it's another lens purchase and less room in the bag potentially depending on one's interest. But first world problems, eh?

And small potatoes in my concern. It just piles on the loss of easy instant manual focus, or it probably wouldn't have been noticed by me.

scyrene said:
Apologies if I'm misconstruing what you say but I don't see it that way at all. They had a limited choice of sensor for the R6, they went with one that wasn't too old but that wasn't a new development.

They had several choices -- the 6D / RP sensor, the R sensor, (probably) the 1D II sensor, and the 1D III sensor. They chose the best (as in most all-around performant) of the bunch.

Michael Clark · Oct 30, 2025

Del Paso said:
"Discover the power, unleash your passion"
Could it mean something really interesting will be announced? Or an RF 50mm f/1,8 III?

Key words like "unleash", "passion" and "discover" mean it's aimed at entry level amateurs.

Michael Clark · Oct 30, 2025

Exploreshootshare said:
Nah, it's just marketing talk. Surprisingly, this kind of teasers never give a real hint and are hardly related to the product features. Apple actually kind of perfected that.

That's marketing talk for entry level or lower tier enthusiast products.

DocInfoSci · Oct 30, 2025

Scott_7D said:
I'm really curious to understand how this new release would be anything like a 6D; not even the R8 is as limited as that was.

Virtually every one of the rumoured specs are improvements over the previous R6 in terms of photography, though a couple are more video focused. Personally, the improved EVF, AF, resolution and battery life over my R6.1 are plenty to make the switch tempting.

As for ISO, if you've been shooting long enough, I think you've seen that Canon arbitrarily sets the upper limits; there's no reason to think this would be a downgrade in the ranges that people actually use.

I hope so. If ISO 100 -> 64000 gets me the same or better outcome than ISO 100 -> 102400 then I agree and stand silent! I want that to be true. It would be epic. By as arbitrary as those limits are, ground truth for the R6 I and II is 102400 with real world noise, shadow, etc. Unless ISO 64000 on the c50 chip is just bonkers it still cuts off at 64000 and likely the lesser numbers are also relative in quality. We do see these differences in older chips as well, and sometimes a high quality noise is better than no shot for personal enjoyment.

David - Sydney · Oct 30, 2025

Michael Clark said:
I guess I'm upside down. I tend to use year-month-day

Google tells me that a good chunk of the world’s population also does but not the majority of countries
Japan, China, North Korea, South Korea, Taiwan, Hungary, Lithuania and Iran, and is also used secondarily in some countries in Europe and Asia

P-visie · Oct 30, 2025

Eloniel said:
Thanks for all your feedbacks I will update it.

Hmmm camera connect only propose me 1.1.1

1.1.1 is the latest version. See: https://www.usa.canon.com/support/p/eos-r5-mark-ii#idReference=software-drivers

I’ve used this version since it was released and have not had issues. The AF issues of the previous firmware have ‘disappeared’.

AlanF · Oct 30, 2025

When the rubber of the R7 eyepiece needed replacing after about 6 months from new, Canon tried to get out of its warranty obligations on the grounds the eyepiece was an accessory! Compare this with Swarovski. The one of the rubber eyecup rings of my 3-year old binoculars came off and was lost, and Swarovski within two days sent me a pair of new eyecups as it was within their 10 year warranty.

Eloniel · Oct 30, 2025

Thanks for all your feedbacks I will update it.

OldrockyGN said:
The current version is 1.1.2!

Hmmm camera connect only propose me 1.1.1

OldrockyGN · Oct 30, 2025

OldrockyGN said:
Eloniel,
As with all electronic devices that have any kind of update process - my standard practice is to
ALWAYS update to the latest level during my initial use of a recently acquired device. Always.
My only exception to that would be if the most recent update available is -very- new (last few
days) or has already seen reported problems - this is very rare because usually any company
will have an even later update available before I ever get around to checking for the 'latest'.
However - I also -never- update "as soon as an update has been released" and instead wait
for reports of "no problems".
- Jim

The current version is 1.1.2!

OldrockyGN · Oct 30, 2025

Eloniel said:
Just received my R5 MK2, it has the v1.03 firmware should I update it to v1.11 or there is a major drawback that should prevent me from updating?

Eloniel,
As with all electronic devices that have any kind of update process - my standard practice is to
ALWAYS update to the latest level during my initial use of a recently acquired device. Always.
My only exception to that would be if the most recent update available is -very- new (last few
days) or has already seen reported problems - this is very rare because usually any company
will have an even later update available before I ever get around to checking for the 'latest'.
However - I also -never- update "as soon as an update has been released" and instead wait
for reports of "no problems".

- Jim

Philnick · Oct 30, 2025

We'll see who's right - in about a year, I expect, so we're hardly in the last few months of development.

In the meantime, I've "upgraded" my R7 to avoid low light noise - my principal desire in the next version - by supplying it with reasonably fast lenses.

shoopea · Oct 30, 2025

Eloniel said:
Just received my R5 MK2, it has the v1.03 firmware should I update it to v1.11 or there is a major drawback that should prevent me from updating?

Like Del Paso mentionned, I haven't had a single issue since upgrading.
I would recommend using the app to do it : somehow I couldn't the 1st time and ended up bricking it, but after receiving it back from repairs the app worked and the update went fine.

Del Paso · Oct 30, 2025

Eloniel said:
Just received my R5 MK2, it has the v1.03 firmware should I update it to v1.11 or there is a major drawback that should prevent me from updating?

I have updated my 2 R5 II cameras. No issues at all , after 3 weeks and thousands of pictures. Everything worked perfectly for me. Yet, since I take mostly landscape or architecture pictures, I cannot speak of AF's behaviour under difficult conditions.

Eloniel · Oct 30, 2025

Just received my R5 MK2, it has the v1.03 firmware should I update it to v1.11 or there is a major drawback that should prevent me from updating?

Del Paso · Oct 30, 2025

Walrus said:
I have no proof to that, but I'm ready to bet that there are more prosumers then pros with an R5 in the bag, and more pros then prosumers with a R6 in the bag.

(most of) Serious (and non-serious) prosumers usually like the latest tech because of the passion, have money to buy it because they have another job and so they don't have to "justify" the price and the amortisation, and in the context of those two cameras, rarely care about R5 files being huge, they actually enjoy higher resolutions.

Meanwhile (most of) pros buy tech they need and not tech they want, they invest money in new gear only if new stuff is getting them more money by doing new or better things and so being able to rise prices towards customers, and in the context of those two cameras, many appreciate a smaller file if they don't need to print in big sizes, and a much lower price while retaining 95% of the "pro" features of the R5 like ibis, double card slot, LP-E6 batteries and a proper grip to house two of them, joystick, back dial so total 3 physical dials on the body, etc. And they probably appreciate (I surely do) having the double card slots taking the same card shape, and not two different ones.

I come back to what I was saying in previous post, Canon makes its marketing segmentation choices, surely trying to steer various category of shooters towards certain body and lenses, to maximise their profits, but it's not Canon that decides what's pro, prosumer or amateur for you, but YOU decide in which category falls FOR YOU each item they sell. Prosumers or plain simple (rich) amateurs can buy R1 (and they do, trust me), and pros can buy RP's or even (not exaggerating with R100) a R10, which I also had and it's a war machine, it handles like a mini R6.
If you do exclusively studio headshots, R10 (or R50; R100 s*cks, we all agree ahahah) it's much more then anything you would ever need.

I'd stop "psychoanalysing" Canon marketing choices, who cares if R6 III is tailored by them, in their opinion, for pros, prosumers or amateurs? If it's not for you, in ypur opinion, whatever is the shooting category you feel you're in, just look elsewhere, in Canon or outside Canon

Again lots of conjectures, statements without proofs and many "I believes".

Philnick · Oct 30, 2025

MSH411 said:
I'm very hopeful that the R7 MkII does mirror the body style and layout of the R6 MKII and the other higher end bodies. The layout and design of the R7 along with the rolling shutter has kept me away from adding one. Shooting with it was awkward, the layout was uncomfortable as well as the size of the body to small. Muscle memory from my other R bodies simply caused this body to be ineffective. The nested joystick on the R7 in my opinion was a PITA.

I know that some may say it falls on me but I would respectfully disagree. Here's a crazy idea, standardize the buttons functionality across the R lineup so that people that use the gear can work across different bodies without having to learn a different layout. If rumors are true regarding the R7 MkII I will finally get to add the APS-C I wanted to my gear, if the layout remains the same and it's still has challenges with excessive rolling shutter I'll stick with what I own.

Not making anything up. You said you want a big full-frame camera with the R7's sensor.

Still not getting any response to my proposals of compromises (change the D-pad by the rear screen into a third traditional control dial and add battery grip compatibility). Have you even thought about them? Your turn.

Remember that while Canon may make more money on each full-frame body they sell, they sell a lot more APS-C bodies, which means they risk alienating lots of R7 users if they make the R7 II into an R5/R6 with an R7 sensor. You've gotten two generations of the R5 and R6 (with an R6 III coming). Let us have an improved - not enlarged and upscaled - R7 II.

Why not instead lobby Canon to put an 83mp sensor into the R5 III so you can have 32.5mp in crop mode on that body with no need to learn inconsistent control layouts? Then you wouldn't need to carry two cameras.

PS I've used Canon since the 35mm FT-QL SLR in 1968, and APS-C DSLRs since then - see the history in my signature. I found the ever-increasing size of Canon's DSLRs with every upgrade led me to use them mainly on vacation until the R7 came out, taking the form factor back to the size and weight of the FT-QL, leading me to use it much more often.

P-visie · Oct 30, 2025

Philnick said:
And you wonder why Canon has kept delaying the R7 II. This internecine dispute is a large part of it.

You have posted that theory before and I have explained that these fundamental design decisions are not taken in the last few months of the development. I strongly suspect that the you continue to spread your theory because you hope that Canon will not change the size and control layout. Hope = deferred disappointment.

I have used Canon full frame and APS-C camera side by side since the original 5D was released in 2003 until 2020 when I got the R5. I did not buy the R7 because I did not like the size, layout of the controls, viewfinder and lack of a grip. If the R7 Mk II mirrors the size and controls of the R5 Mk II, it is very likely that I will buy one. And, it is anecdotal evidence, I know several photographers that have the same opinion and buying intention.

scyrene · Oct 30, 2025

DocInfoSci said:
The extender approach for the RF lenses has been a bummer for me.

Apart from the 100-500 and the extending 70-200, it's basically no different to how extenders worked for EF, is it?

DocInfoSci said:
they also went above and beyond for people who'd like this kind of device but don't need this kind of device as a general statement. It really, in my mind, came off as a generous thank you (love letter?) for all those who didn't jump ship at the 6D tier, or came quickly back, while Canon lagged in the mirrorless arena.

Apologies if I'm misconstruing what you say but I don't see it that way at all. They had a limited choice of sensor for the R6, they went with one that wasn't too old but that wasn't a new development.

P-visie · Oct 30, 2025

Ozarker said:
When considering the end result, why? As far as I can tell nearly all lenses need some type of corrections or Photoshop wouldn't have all those profiles.

I’m not one of those “believers”. Yes I would like to have optically corrected lenses, but those have a cost, in price, size and weight. @neuroanatomist frequently challenged those who would state that optical corrections are superior to digital corrections, but AFAIK, no one could deliver the ‘evidence’.

I can only speak from experience of the EF 11-24mm f4 lens, optically corrected, and the RF 10-20mm f4, which relies on digital corrections a.o. to fill the corners of the frame from 10-13mm and correct distortion and vignetting. When you pixel peep at corners, it is hard to tell them apart. Corner image quality of the EF lens was not it’s strong point.
The EF lens weighs 1180 gram and is big, the RF 10-20mm weighs 570 gram and is compact. I frequently left the EF lens at home because of the weight and size (it would not fit into my 40 liter backpack when filled with 2 bodies and 3-4 other lenses and filters). I know which lens I prefer.

Uses cases where optical corrections can be superior:

Astrophotography where ‘stretching’ the image corners to fill the frame might result in distorted stars. The RF20mm f1.4 VCM shows that digital corrections without distortions are possible (see this thread by @neuroanatomist).
Stitching panorama’s and focus stacking.
Severe lens vignetting (3-4 stops) needs a lot ‘~~burning~~’ ‘dodging’ to lighten the image corners. This causes noise in the corners of the image. When you need to lift the shadows of the image by 1 -2 stops, you would get 4-6 stops of brightness correction in the corners of the image. This would have a visible negative impact on image quality.

To be exact: It is Adobe Camera RAW that has the lens profiles, not Photoshop (sorry couldn’t resist

).

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics