Latest activity

pablofu · Oct 22, 2025

I need a second camera (I won a R6 Mark II) and I have been waiting for the Mark III (and even considered to go for the R5 Mark II). I shoot rockets, mainly at night. The R6 Mark II is great with low light, but I am missing resolution. How good do you expect the Mark III to be when it comes to low light? Thanks guys!!

ctk · Oct 22, 2025

Exploreshootshare said:
Concerning portraits and landscapes, I must say I kind of miss my R. I don´t know what it is or if there is an according spec on any sheet: to me personally, the sensor of the R was absolutely brilliant. I prefer its colors and they seem a bit warmer than R5/ R6. Plus, 30 mp really is a sweet spot. Kinda had a magical touch. Plus, all lenses resolved great! With the R5, you really see some weaknesses in the budget lens department.

Yea the R was really special. The EVF was incredible too. Wonderful colors, and they found a way to render shadows and highlights in an accurate and beautiful way. When I shot in low light around my house, it was like having night vision. The ergonomics were really nice too. It just had too many foibles. Slow burst shooting, weak customization, weak AF-C, no IBIS made handheld video an adventure even with stabilized glass. But man when it worked it was incredible. The photos I got with it are some of my favorites.

Exploreshootshare · Oct 22, 2025

snapshot said:
i wonder is an upgrade from R worth it for landscape / portraits?

I upgraded from the R last year to R5 mainly due to better fps, continuous AF and a joystick and I´m still very happy about it. But I also shoot sports and some wildlife (when I get the chance).

Concerning portraits and landscapes, I must say I kind of miss my R. I don´t know what it is or if there is an according spec on any sheet: to me personally, the sensor of the R was absolutely brilliant. I prefer its colors and they seem a bit warmer than R5/ R6. Plus, 30 mp really is a sweet spot. Kinda had a magical touch. Plus, all lenses resolved great! With the R5, you really see some weaknesses in the budget lens department.

snapshot said:
3 fps -> 40fps
30 Mpix -> 32 Mpix
no ibis -> 6.5 stops ibis
already paid for -> $2800

Concerning landscapes: this list is clearly pro EOS R imo. For portraits, I´d decide on how fast your models and you move. But also, I don´t shoot a lot of portraits, so I am not the one to make the call.

snapshot said:
R takes good pictures, the speed improvement is nice. ibis could help some handheld shots.

I don´t really notice a difference with the R5 compared to the R using the RF 14-35mm F4 and 35mm F1.8 in low light. For telephoto low light I´d use a tripod.

Click · Oct 22, 2025

Pretty cool shot.

dpc · Oct 22, 2025

Foxtail vortex...

Frodo · Oct 22, 2025

Hi kaihp
Yes, the EF 400 DOii takes drop in filters. The reason for the post, is that it is very difficult to find one as it appears they have been discontinued.
Thanks about the malware alert - I don't get one at that site.

P-visie · Oct 22, 2025

Ozarker said:
I thought th a specs said dual SD cards?

The updated specs are: “Dual Slot (CFe Type B & SD UHS-II)”.

Ozarker · Oct 22, 2025

HMC11 said:
I am interested to know where the rolling shutter information come from. Can you enlighten? Also, wouldn't faster readout means less rolling shutter?

I thought th a specs said dual SD cards?

Pixel · Oct 22, 2025

New Super Telephoto Primes Coming in 2026
And then the disclaimer: A patent application doesn’t mean they are going to release this in the next month, or even year, or even at all.

So which is it?

Del Paso · Oct 22, 2025

Kharan said:
Well, I for one got a Sony A7C and two Sony zooms (28-60mm and 20-70mm f/4 G), as well as two Chinese primes. And the awesome TTArtisan adapter that adds AF to old film-era glass. Had Sony closed their mount, I wouldn’t have bought a single thing from them.

This is the key part of their strategy: get the people who buy more than one lens (i.e. enthusiasts and pros) on board, and leave the low end of the market to Canon and OM System. Sony might be #2 in sales, but they outperform Canon in terms of income per unit, indicating that they sell more expensive cameras on average.

I think it’s funny that some people speak of Sony’s decision to open E-mount as some sort of desperate move. Sony love proprietary solutions more than almost any other global company besides Apple, and have become infamous for that. But back in the day they looked at the #1 seller in photography, and noticed that they had the strongest 3rd party support of anyone in the business, thanks to a “live and let live” approach. That company was Canon, of course, in the EF days. That’s why they also dropped the silly Minolta flash shoe, and embraced USB charging in camera before anyone else. Sony, as an outsider company, could see some things that the established players couldn’t, and one of those was how important third party products are for a photo system.

Long, long time ago I had a Sony A7*.
Sold it after 2 weeks, because I hated the ergonomics, in fact, the entire camera.
So it came that I bought a Canon 5D III, after hesitating between it and the corresponding Nikon. Meanwhile, I'm a very happy owner of R5 II + R5 II + 14 RF and EF lenses (mostly RF Ls) and, honestly, don't care at all about cheap Chinese or Japanese lenses. Never had in 14 Canon years one single repair (except when I dropped the 24 TSE II-ouch!), not ever after having used lenses and cameras under heavy rain.
But: That's only my point of view, many will certainly disagree, especially those who actually need (!!!) a lens not-not yet available in the RF system.

m4ndr4ke · Oct 22, 2025

GrunRad said:
According to patent 2024-050580 (upon which the RF 45mm/1.2 is presumably based upon, as implied by the post "Possible Canon RF 45mm f/1.2 STM Patent"), focusing from infinity to MFD is performed by moving the second lens group Lb (the one between the aperture blades and the image plane) away from the image plane. To my (layman's!) eyes this indicates a design where the front lens remains stationary in regard to the lens barrel.

That's very interesting to hear. Thanks. I don't know yet how to read these documents, to be honest

snapshot · Oct 22, 2025

ZiemJank said:
I'm only concerned with photo mode.

I now measured this myself in R62 and got the same number - 1/56s. I would appreciate improvement, but if R63 is not worse, that's good enough for me.

Thanks.

Still, I see no reason to I spend money on this body. Certainly not for 16% bump in resolution.

at 1/300 my evaluation of this camera would be quite different.

Michael Clark · Oct 22, 2025

bn5fg said:
Semi-macro is worth it, and if I need really fast autofocus, I go for VCM. Fast lens switching is also more convenient when the lenses don’t have weather sealing.

Calling the STM lineup 'crude', 'worst' or 'cheap' is a narrow-minded view.

How does a thin rubber O-ring embedded in the lens' flange surface necessitate a longer elapsed time to switch lenses?

keithcooper · Oct 22, 2025

Just testing this on the GFX100S, where it has enough coverage, but unlike the RF/Z mount versions has no ability to change the shift axis direction.
So either a showstopper or irrelevant.
Limited to ±8mm of shift, but that is impressive on a [small] MF sensor
Still need to see how it compares with my 2009 TS-E17

Uploaded quite a few [full res] examples to the MF forum at DPR
This gives a good feel for the coverage [hand held 3200 ISO ~f/6.7]

scyrene · Oct 22, 2025

Philnick said:
Anyone else notice the radio silence on the R7/II?

If they're preparing to release the R6III then that is bound to be the priority.

Philnick said:
Viola! Everyone should be happy

Oh my sweet summer child.

GrunRad · Oct 22, 2025

According to patent 2024-050580 (upon which the RF 45mm/1.2 is presumably based upon, as implied by the post "Possible Canon RF 45mm f/1.2 STM Patent"), focusing from infinity to MFD is performed by moving the second lens group Lb (the one between the aperture blades and the image plane) away from the image plane. To my (layman's!) eyes this indicates a design where the front lens remains stationary in regard to the lens barrel.

tomc · Oct 22, 2025

Take off.

m4ndr4ke · Oct 22, 2025

BFG9000 said:
If the rumor is correct and Canon ends up selling the rumored 45mm f/1.2 lens for 499€ might mean the lens is horribly flawed.
Something like a shamelessly optically uncorrected lens with >3,5EV vignetting open wi—OH, WAIT! That's the VCM L line!

Don’t underestimate the other STM lenses

If you’re looking for vignetting, they all definitely deliver, and some even get you fish-eye abilities…for free!

#jet2holiday

This will be just one more

ctk said:
In the case of chintzy RF STM glass the lens usually isn't the heaviest element. Plus if you know the lens doesn't have internal focus...... just have to be careful

I agree that external focus is needless cynical cost cutting......... but that kind of seems to be part of the design brief for the cheapest RF STM lenses.

Old habits die hard...I probably shoot over a hundred times more with internal focusing lenses, per year.

ZiemJank · Oct 22, 2025

padam said:
Stills mode:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-r6-mark-ii-in-depth-review
"We checked both the rolling shutter rate and the impact on dynamic range of engaging the camera's high speed e-shutter modes. In terms of rolling shutter, we measured it as 18ms (1/56 sec). "

I'm only concerned with photo mode.

I now measured this myself in R62 and got the same number - 1/56s. I would appreciate improvement, but if R63 is not worse, that's good enough for me.

Thanks.

Still, I see no reason to spend money on this body. Certainly not for 16% bump in resolution.

Click · Oct 22, 2025

Nice series, dpc.

Click · Oct 22, 2025

Beautiful colours. Nicely done, dpc.

ctk · Oct 22, 2025

m4ndr4ke said:
I usually rest my cameras on the heavier element. My most used lenses weight two to three times the weight of the cameras.

This is the best way to put them down, big lenses have diameters wide enough for the cameras not to stay still if you rest them in different positions.

In the case of chintzy RF STM glass the lens usually isn't the heaviest element. Plus if you know the lens doesn't have internal focus...... just have to be careful

I agree that external focus is needless cynical cost cutting......... but that kind of seems to be part of the design brief for the cheapest RF STM lenses.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics