Latest activity

shire_guy · Wednesday at 5:59 PM

ISv said:
Nice photo and I'm pretty sure it's first for the species in this forum!

Thank you ISv.

@zajicekpavel · Wednesday at 3:49 PM

I already have a Sigma 17-40 for vacation photos with the R7.

justaCanonuser · Wednesday at 3:47 PM

RP -> RiP

justaCanonuser · Wednesday at 3:42 PM

AlanF said:
The OM SYSTEM M. Zuiko 150-400mm f/4.5 TC 1.25 IS PRO Lens costs $8,600 from B&H! That gives Canon some scope.

Plus, even if this tele zoom is quite fast with f/4.5, it needs substantially smaller lenses for the m34 sensor format. So, the production of such a zoom should be cheaper than of a comparable tele lens/zoom that has to cover a FF image circle. From that perspective, I guess that you get more high quality glass for the money when you buy a Canon tele lens

- depends on the particular lens, of course...

@zajicekpavel · Wednesday at 3:33 PM

Carduelis carduelis - European goldfinch

justaCanonuser · Wednesday at 3:30 PM

riker said:
I've been eyeing with the 600/4 III for some time, but now I'm just waiting for the rumored 300-600/5.6.

Hope you'll will wait sucessfully - this could turn out to be the most rumored tele zoom that never hit the market. That said, if it came, I'd be certainly very interested myself.

esglord · Wednesday at 3:20 PM

koenkooi said:
I did the same, a local camera store had the option to rent the R+RP+RF50L for free and that made me realize the R wasn't €1000 better than the RP. So I bought an RP + EF100L macro lens and sold my EF100-non-L macro.

I'm not sure what features in an R8II would make me replace my R8, it still works great for everything I do. Flash with ES is the bare minimum, but not enough

Funny, I also picked up a used EF100L and a 50mm in 2020 to do newborn photos when my daughter was born during Covid lockdown. Yeah, I don’t think the R8 really needs any new bells and whistles, at least for photography.

Del Paso · Wednesday at 2:32 PM

candyman said:
I think more of us. I understand completely. It is an increasingly important argument for me too. I now use my 100-400II more often on a gimbal head in a photo hide. And less often in my hand all day in nature.

The EF 100-400 L II is one of the lenses I still regret

, great at every focal and aperture. Sure, the 100-500 is optically as good, maybe even better, but I prefered the EF's "tactile" quality. It was a tank!

Aldherrian · Wednesday at 2:14 PM

A lens I really wanted to see in the RF line-up and quite surprised it's coming so late after the Tamron 11-20 but negotiations must have been tedious
I would have bought it two years ago before I pivoted to FF but it's great to see the offering getting more diverse in the APSC realm

ScreensMatter · Wednesday at 1:58 PM

ctk said:
There is a lot of great used FF gear. But the implication that the only way into photography is through a new FF camera just isnt true. If anything that's gatekeeping. Id wager the vast majority of folks who started photography with a digital camera did not start on full frame.

I don't care about digital sensor sizes. But I am a true believer of 6x6 negative film

. What else has there really been to recommend on the low end for a new mirrorless camera? Around the same price class there has been the A6100, Z50, R50, E-M10 Mark IV and G-97. None of them are bad cameras, most of them use old tech. All the systems have enough lenses to get you by. I don't really know what to say about the current stat of all the systems except RF, they seem a bit on life support.

mangobutter · Wednesday at 1:44 PM

ive seen the 100-400L II value spike back up after some decline, after canon announced they stopped making them. ive gotten some good offers on mine from the big stores, but i hesitate to sell it cause it's so good. i use it on my 40mp x-t5 too with spectacular performance.

MISTAKENIDENTITY · Wednesday at 1:40 PM

Weeee!

DocInfoSci · Wednesday at 1:07 PM

neuroanatomist said:
Canon's spec is with an f/1.2 lens (without a DS coating), yes. But even something like –4 or –3 EV is really dark...say a landscape under a gibbous moon instead of a sliver of a moon.

Totally agreed — it's been a game changer for my 300 f/4 + 1.4x and 2x extenders in the PNW forests. Figured I'd throw that out there because a) you'd probably educate me if I were off (ha!) and b) people are trying to understand the impact of DOF preview impacts (probably more pertinent if the button is changed to a switch instead of a hold-down preview).

neuroanatomist · Wednesday at 1:03 PM

DocInfoSci said:
But that's for an f/1.2 aperture, right? Aperture limited scenarios, like lenses with a base f/4 or adding extenders, does reduce the performative effect, right? (As opposed to just stopping down, which the camera largely ignores when focusing.) Being pedantic, an R3's -7.5 EV for an f/1.2 lens would effectively become -4.0 if the attached lens is natively f/4 (7.5 reduced by ~ 3.5 stops penalty for the f/4 maximum aperture). That's not nothing, but it's there.

Canon's spec is with an f/1.2 lens (without a DS coating), yes. But even something like –4 or –3 EV is really dark...say a landscape under a gibbous moon instead of a sliver of a moon.

candyman · Wednesday at 12:43 PM

Del Paso said:
And looking for lighter gear, yet not at all ready to sacrifice optical quality!

I think more of us. I understand completely. It is an increasingly important argument for me too. I now use my 100-400II more often on a gimbal head in a photo hide. And less often in my hand all day in nature.

Del Paso · Wednesday at 12:34 PM

candyman said:
Ah, I see you suffer from G.A.S.
Since I am ok with my 100-400 II and 70-200 f/4 II, my G.A.S. is limited to 20-50 only

Not only from GAS, but also from no longer being 20 (far from it) as well as from knee damage.
And looking for lighter gear, yet not at all ready to sacrifice optical quality!

DocInfoSci · Wednesday at 12:21 PM

neuroanatomist said:
What do you mean by low light? AF sensitivity for current MILCs is below –6 EV (the R8 is –6.5 EV, for example). That light level is something like a 8 minute exposure at f/5.6, like shooting a landscape under a sliver of moonlight. In moderately dim light, when I stopped the 28-70/2 down to f/22, it opened the aperture to around f/11 for AF (video in a prior thread on the RF 45/1.2 discussing focus shift).

But that's for an f/1.2 aperture, right? Aperture limited scenarios, like lenses with a base f/4 or adding extenders, does reduce the performative effect, right? (As opposed to just stopping down, which the camera largely ignores when focusing.) Being pedantic, an R3's -7.5 EV for an f/1.2 lens would effectively become -4.0 if the attached lens is natively f/4 (7.5 reduced by ~ 3.5 stops penalty for the f/4 maximum aperture). That's not nothing, but it's there.

Click · Wednesday at 12:09 PM

Very nice shot, zajicekpavel.

danfaz · Wednesday at 11:59 AM

Del Paso said:
My dilemma is named 100-500. Should I replace it, along with the 70-200 f/4, with the 70-200 Z + 2X?
On the other hand, the Z is almost as long and heavy as the 100-500, while the f/4 70-200 is sooo compact and light...

I'm pretty much in the same boat, although I'm in a post-purchase dilemma.

The 70-200 Z is surprisingly light, 302 grams or 11 oz lighter than the 100-500. However, when you add the 2X extender, it's a little more than an ounce or 33 grams heavier. My 100-500 has also started gathering dust in it. Not a huge deal, but the internal zoom of the 70-200 is really nice.

oten68 · Wednesday at 11:57 AM

Im honestly very excited for this camera, MPEX shipped two days ago and will arrive today. But it was deff very tricky from canon to release this after the R6 Mark iii and the C50, i think a lot of people would pick this one if they were all released at the same time.

PinholeR5 · Wednesday at 11:32 AM

Del Paso said:
Not really an issue, since in low-light situations the aperture usually stays fully open.

neuroanatomist said:
What do you mean by low light? AF sensitivity for current MILCs is below –6 EV (the R8 is –6.5 EV, for example). That light level is something like a 8 minute exposure at f/5.6, like shooting a landscape under a sliver of moonlight. In moderately dim light, when I stopped the 28-70/2 down to f/22, it opened the aperture to around f/11 for AF (video in a prior thread on the RF 45/1.2 discussing focus shift).

Thanks guys. Yes, clearly not an issue..

neuroanatomist · Wednesday at 11:14 AM

PinholeR5 said:
Using Exposure + DOF simulation will hurt low-light AF performance, won't it? I've switched to having Exposure + DOF simulation as the default setting on my cameras, but on occasion I'll switch it off in some low-light conditions (if I remember).

What do you mean by low light? AF sensitivity for current MILCs is below –6 EV (the R8 is –6.5 EV, for example). That light level is something like a 8 minute exposure at f/5.6, like shooting a landscape under a sliver of moonlight. In moderately dim light, when I stopped the 28-70/2 down to f/22, it opened the aperture to around f/11 for AF (video in a prior thread on the RF 45/1.2 discussing focus shift).

InternalRevenue · Wednesday at 11:07 AM

Long overdue, I’m still confused why this wasn’t Tamron first RF mount lens first since it has no true direct competitor from Sigma (the 18-50 trades stabilization and focal range for compactness). I no longer have interest in this lens since I have an R7 and Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8, but this will be a very compelling option for R100, R50/V, and R10 owners, especially those interested in handheld video.

candyman · Wednesday at 11:06 AM

Del Paso said:
It is a mouth watering lens, according to all its happy owners.
My dilemma is named 100-500. Should I replace it, along with the 70-200 f/4, with the 70-200 Z + 2X?
It would be a huge weight and space advantage for mountain hikes, my standard lens being the 70-200 f/4, the 100-500 for longer distances being kept in the backpack.
On the other hand, the Z is almost as long and heavy as the 100-500, while the f/4 70-200 is sooo compact and light...
Buying the 70-200 Z and keeping the rest is no option, one lens will become fully superfluous and collect dust.
I am really at a loss what to do.

Ah, I see you suffer from G.A.S.

Since I am ok with my 100-400 II and 70-200 f/4 II, my G.A.S. is limited to 20-50 only

Del Paso · Wednesday at 11:01 AM

PinholeR5 said:
Using Exposure + DOF simulation will hurt low-light AF performance, won't it? I've switched to having Exposure + DOF simulation as the default setting on my cameras, but on occasion I'll switch it off in some low-light conditions (if I remember). I also often use the camera in burst mode and that helps get good images, but is tedious in post.

I've read somewhere about possibly setting it to Exposure only and have DOF only when pressing the DOF button (which I currently have assigned to other functions), so the idea would be to focus then press the DOF button and then the shutter while still holding the DOF button. I haven't tried it, but seems cumbersome to me.

I rarelly, if ever, have issues with both at the same time, so it is more of a settings management topic I guess.

Curious to learn how others have managed the focus shift vs low-light settings.

Not really an issue, since in low-light situations the aperture usually stays fully open.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics