Latest activity

snapshot · Oct 21, 2025

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

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

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

AlanF · Oct 21, 2025

EOS 4 Life said:
That depends on the focus distance.
People misunderstand and think that an 800 mm lens will always have more magnification than a 600 mm lens at the same distance.
Most people test the performance of super telephoto lenses far too close.
The weird thing is that I even hear this mistake from experts.
That you want to get close to a subject with a super-telephoto lens.
Super telephoto lenses are designed to focus on faraway subjects unless they have some macro capabilities.

I have done most of the testing of the RF 200-800mm posted on this site, and I do it at distances that are compatible with its use in real life for me - photographing birds. You need a supertelephoto to get well-defined images of a small bird at 20m as well as larger ones at longer distances or birds in flight. I just about always have the lens fully extended at 800mm, because I always get more magnification than at 600mm (I use 400-600mm for fast small birds in flight). The resolution might not be any better at 800mm than 600mm, but more pixels on target pick out small details with less pixellation at the limits of resolution. Also, the eyeAF/bird AF picks up birds at further distances at 800mm than using 600mm.

https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/summary-of-my-rf-200-800mm-testing.43239/

Michael Clark · Oct 21, 2025

roby17269 said:
My experience is that ISO 6400 with the R5 is useable with AI NR. Personally I use AI NR above ISO 800.

Beware that there is a significant penalty in processing time when you use any AI NR, especially if your computer is not powerful.

AI NR is materially better than "classic" NR, but it is not magic and the higher the ISO, the more detail you'll lose (the loss will be less compared to "classic" NR, but still present)

roby17269 said:
Nope I meant 800. I should qualify it with "and when I am taking photos in badly lit environments" which happens frequently when I am taking photos at indoor birthday parties...

Incidentally I had a EF 50 1.4 and absolutely hated it - sold it for a EF 50 1.2 and did not like that one as well... that sort of put me off the 50mm fl, until Canon saw fit to provide a 50mm that I liked, the RF 1.2

My point is in your initial post you blamed needing NR on the ISO setting, when the real culprit was the poor lighting conditions which you only acknowledged in your follow up post in reply to another comment. You can get photos with virtually no noise at high ISO if you are willing to let small specular highlights blow out and use long enough exposure times to allow enough light into the camera.

Michael Clark · Oct 21, 2025

m4ndr4ke said:
Maybe we should check Sony alpha rumors and Nikon rumors

I briefly had the EF 50mm f/1.8 II, then the STM version, and later the 1.4. The reason I got the 1.4 was because the 1.8 had such low resistance to specular highlights in the background it annoyed me.

A few years later I finally upgraded to the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art and never looked back.

Currently, I no longer own any EF lens. Truth is, after I got the 28-70mm f/2, I can barely find the need for a prime lens in that range, at least for work. I "want" a good 50, and now there's the VCM, but I'm yet to really feel the need.

I tend to use my 35mm and 135mm primes far more than my 85mm, and the 50mm even less than the 85mm. So it's not a high priority focal length for me. I shoot with the original EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L a lot. As maligned as that lens is (mostly because of its retrofocus design and two tilt adjustments located in the front of the lens it can be knocked out of optical alignment fairly easily if the hood is not protecting the extended barrel from lateral bumps and bangs) I get photos that are good enough for my purposes out of it. My lens seems to still be in excellent optical alignment, though I've tended to baby it over the years I've had it.

ctk · Oct 21, 2025

m4ndr4ke said:
Of course it is, and that's exactly the point: they could have made all these lenses with internal focus.

With internal focus at least I can put my camera face down in my shoulder bag, or put the lens face down with an attached hood in the right position, knowing I won't find the lens fully extended when I take it out, like with the RF 35mm f/1.8, neither it will damage the motor if I turn my camera on/off/wake it from sleep/change SD card when it's facing down, gets knocked, neither will water enter the lens barrel as easily.

OK, that's a fair concern, though I don't know if a camera in a padded bag is enough to ruin the AF mechanism. Hopefully Canon took that into consideration; I'd wager the focusing elements retract on shutdown.

shawnc said:
No longer a stills-focused camera and Canon wants me to get a refurbed Mk II. Got it.

How is this any less stills focused than the Mk II? Same 40fps with 40% more stills resolution. It's not like the Mk II was some pure stills camera to begin with.

rombe3jr said:
Good points here. It is interesting that some feature improvements, perhaps even just one (the right one for that person) may be sufficient to upgrade (such as the improved EVF). I suppose across a fairly large target market a lot of improvements will make it easier for a lot of people to upgrade. Even if individually, there may have been just a couple of key features that they wanted. For me, the video features are key. And price.

Plus its worth considering that generation updates rarely warrant upgrades. I.e. the MkII wasn't a "must buy" from the MkI and that didn't make it a failure or bad camera. And IMO the step up from Mk2 to Mk3 is much bigger than the step up from Mk1 to Mk2. I had an EOS R and currently have an a7C II. R6's 20-24MP was a non-starter. Now the R6 is interesting to me.

Dragon · Oct 21, 2025

AlanF said:
There are examples in the past where, for example, Sigma EF mount lens would stop working properly when Canon changed their camera firmware. So, Sigma and Tamron introduced docks so that the lens firmware could be upgraded.

The docks were partly needed because Sigma and Tamron had reverse engineered EF protocol and missed some subtle points. A licensing situation is different because there, the protocol should be provided to the licensee. The China case is different for two reasons. Firstly, the manufacturer may choose to not implement the protocol completely and more importantly may decide to bow out of the agreement and continue using the technology anyway. Doing business in China is always a challenge.

ISv · Oct 21, 2025

dpc said:
View attachment 226553

Beautiful!

AlanF · Oct 21, 2025

Dragon said:
Licensing is more complicated than you might think when you add in the support angle. If you buy a "licensed" Chinese lens for RF mount and the Chinese manufacturer offers no support, then the support call will go to Canon, who will be expected to somehow magically make the Chinese lens work. Canon has so far only licensed manufacturers who have decent support in their own right and I suspect that will be the case in the future. A manual focus lens from 7artisans is one thing. An AF lens with all the software support to deal with CA, distortion, etc. is quite another.

There are examples in the past where, for example, Sigma EF mount lens would stop working properly when Canon changed their camera firmware. So, Sigma and Tamron introduced docks so that the lens firmware could be upgraded.

P-visie · Oct 21, 2025

AJ said:
I would think that patent rights are easier to enforce when you have them on a leash (i.e. under a licensing agreement)

Yes, 1) but Canon need to be able to enforce their IP in a court of law, the track record in China is not very good. 2) The subject of the IP can be stolen, copied etc. It is not like the pipeline in your analogy.

Dragon · Oct 21, 2025

AlanF said:
I baby my RF 200-800mm, which is my way of handling it properly.

I treat mine well, too. Love that lens.

Dragon · Oct 21, 2025

AJ said:
I would think that patent rights are easier to enforce when you have them on a leash (i.e. under a licensing agreement)

Once you transfer the tech, leashes are useless in China as so many companies have discovered.

AlanF · Oct 21, 2025

Dragon said:
The 200-800 may not be the most robust design, but somehow, I doubt they broke in two if handled properly. The point is that they could get them repaired. Not so much with the Chinese brands. Tamron and Sigma are pretty good with repairs, at least in the US, but they are not bargain basement anymore, either.

I baby my RF 200-800mm, which is my way of handling it properly.

AJ · Oct 21, 2025

P-visie said:
They will be careful to whom they will provide licences. For brand and reputation protection, complexity of integrating third party lenses (as pointed out by others) and legal reasons. Chinese companies do not have a good reputation with protection of IP rights and Canon will want to be able to legally enforce the license agreement.

I would think that patent rights are easier to enforce when you have them on a leash (i.e. under a licensing agreement)

AJ · Oct 21, 2025

Dragon said:
Licensing is more complicated than you might think when you add in the support angle. If you buy a "licensed" Chinese lens for RF mount and the Chinese manufacturer offers no support, then the support call will go to Canon, who will be expected to somehow magically make the Chinese lens work. Canon has so far only licensed manufacturers who have decent support in their own right and I suspect that will be the case in the future. A manual focus lens from 7artisans is one thing. An AF lens with all the software support to deal with CA, distortion, etc. is quite another.

I don't think so. If I buy a third-party cable release or battery or flash, I expect no support from Canon.

P-visie · Oct 21, 2025

AJ said:
It seems like the options up for discussion are (1) open mount, or (2) completely closed mount.
But there is a third option: license. Canon could make a profit on each Yuongno, Meike, Samyang, 7artisans, and whatnot, RF lens sold.
Maybe people would buy a third-party lens, get fed up with it, and then buy the Canon equivalent. Canon would profit twice.
I really don't understand why they haven't gone after licensing more, aside a few piddly Sigma RF-S lenses.
In business, there is value in keeping the competition on a short leash. I used to be in the oil and gas business. If your competition has a gas well and you own the pipeline to market, then you have control. You don't shut out that well - you profit from it through transportation fees.

Canon will probably start licensing AF full frame lenses when they think it will be beneficial for Canon or they think it becomes detrimental if they don’t. They probably monitor market sentiment (users of this forum not representative

). The RF APS-C lenses by Sigma and Tamron are the precedent. Canon will wait until the RF lens line up is more complete. They will be careful to whom they will provide licences. For brand and reputation protection, complexity of integrating third party lenses (as pointed out by others) and legal reasons. Chinese companies do not have a good reputation with protection of IP rights and Canon will want to be able to legally enforce the license agreement.

Dragon · Oct 21, 2025

AJ said:
It seems like the options up for discussion are (1) open mount, or (2) completely closed mount.
But there is a third option: license. Canon could make a profit on each Yuongno, Meike, Samyang, 7artisans, and whatnot, RF lens sold.
Maybe people would buy a third-party lens, get fed up with it, and then buy the Canon equivalent. Canon would profit twice.
I really don't understand why they haven't gone after licensing more, aside a few piddly Sigma RF-S lenses.
In business, there is value in keeping the competition on a short leash. I used to be in the oil and gas business. If your competition has a gas well and you own the pipeline to market, then you have control. You don't shut out that well - you profit from it through transportation fees.

Licensing is more complicated than you might think when you add in the support angle. If you buy a "licensed" Chinese lens for RF mount and the Chinese manufacturer offers no support, then the support call will go to Canon, who will be expected to somehow magically make the Chinese lens work. Canon has so far only licensed manufacturers who have decent support in their own right and I suspect that will be the case in the future. A manual focus lens from 7artisans is one thing. An AF lens with all the software support to deal with CA, distortion, etc. is quite another.

mb66energy · Oct 21, 2025

Canon Rumors said:
The person I was talking to appologizes for explaining it incorrectly.

"This let's you select framerates based on a multiplication factor more efficiently. If you're shooting at 24fps, you can easily switch to 12fps by selecting 0.5x or double the frame rate by selecting 2x."

I am not sure if that are all of the multiplication factors.

Thanks for clarification. Maybe this is one "gene" they keep for their C50 to have some differences. If the price of R6 iii is 3200 € in Europe the C50 at 3800 € is in the same ballpark and the better choice.
To much to choose from in our times - on the other hand: All the tools are really great today if used with knowledge!

AJ · Oct 21, 2025

It seems like the options up for discussion are (1) open mount, or (2) completely closed mount.
But there is a third option: license. Canon could make a profit on each Yuongno, Meike, Samyang, 7artisans, and whatnot, RF lens sold.
Maybe people would buy a third-party lens, get fed up with it, and then buy the Canon equivalent. Canon would profit twice.
I really don't understand why they haven't gone after licensing more, aside a few piddly Sigma RF-S lenses.
In business, there is value in keeping the competition on a short leash. I used to be in the oil and gas business. If your competition has a gas well and you own the pipeline to market, then you have control. You don't shut out that well - you profit from it through transportation fees.

Dragon · Oct 21, 2025

AlanF said:
What after sales support will you get when your 2 grand RF 200-800mm breaks in two? Quite a few complaints posted here about having to pay for the repairs.

The 200-800 may not be the most robust design, but somehow, I doubt they broke in two if handled properly. The point is that they could get them repaired. Not so much with the Chinese brands. Tamron and Sigma are pretty good with repairs, at least in the US, but they are not bargain basement anymore, either.

frankchn · Oct 21, 2025

m4ndr4ke said:
If the double gauss design is confirmed, this could be a successor to the EF50mm f/1.2 L, this time aimed at enthusiasts. A very interesting proposition.

I think this should be considered a successor to the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM. It is about the same price point (after inflation) and a third of a stop faster and a bit wider in terms of field of view. It won't have any of the L lens build or weather sealing or USM, but that's fine given the price point.

RickeyJohnson · Oct 21, 2025

I don't see the C200 on Japan's list. Where is your list pulled from? I have about 20 C200s and I send at least two of them in each year for some sort of repair or maintenance.

P-visie · Oct 21, 2025

m4ndr4ke said:
You just can't put numbers against numbers on what is not quantifiable, that's exactly the problem with online comparison websites.

And a new camera model is usually much more than the sum of the individual feature upgrades.
As an example: I did a comparison of the changes between the different Mk's of the EOS 5D, See: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...-r1-is-now-expected-in-july.43625/post-997909

m4ndr4ke · Oct 21, 2025

rombe3jr said:
I like to do these comparison spreadsheets for myself and thought it could be helpful to others

That's the thing, they're fallacious.

For instance, by your spreadsheets, the original R6 and the R6 Mark II would be rated at the same level of IBIS. Actually, all cameras with IBIS would, yet there are at least three different versions of Canon IBIS.
The same with pre capture, only the R5 Mark II and the R1 have real pre capture, all other cameras released so far are a PITA to use it.
Lens breathing correction also requires compatible lenses.

You just can't put numbers against numbers on what is not quantifiable, that's exactly the problem with online comparison websites.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics