fox40phil said:

4.0 is really sad…. Back in the days I wanted this EF 17-55 2.8 soo Hard…
This plus IS would be a premium Apsc lens! They could do it!

But Canon better release something for Wildlife along the R7ii!

Click to expand...

Well,l I'll just have to keep my 17-55 and use the adapter. Not heading in the direction of smaller and lighter though.

Uneternal said:

Canon is like the people who show up late to your motto party, and their costume is a hat.

They're again too late to the compact-camera-trend party, and as always, they'll deliver the bare minimum instead of anything revolutionary.

Click to expand...

Well, 2024 is the latest year for which there are market data but Canon was wearing #2 on their compact camera party hat, about 8% behind Sony.

1. Sony … 470,000 units
2. Canon … 430,000 units
3. Fujifilm … 130,000 units
4. Ricoh … 60,000 units

Incidentally, 8% is the same margin by which #2 Sony was behind #1 Canon in mirrorless ILC sales that year.

Party on!

Canon is like the people who show up late to your motto party, and their costume is a hat.

They're again too late to the compact-camera-trend party, and as always, they'll deliver the bare minimum instead of anything revolutionary.
I bet it's gonna be a lukewarm G7XIII upgrade with a Digic X processor, and I bet they've been testing how much they can charge with this G7X graphite special edition. So it's gonna cost at least $1,299.

Personally, I would've preferred to see the sensor of the Powershot V1 getting used again with the lens of the G1X Mark II. But I guess stinginess is the new black. So we gotta pay more for less.

To me this is quite simple: I want a G1X like camera, nice to hold, good buttons that can be setup to do different things, 24-100 mm equivalent lens. It doesn't need to have F2.8 to big and heavy . I want 1 inch sensor so the camera wont be so big, 24 mp is fine. It can have a little Video stuff to I guess, I frankly don't care, but others do so ok

And Canon for heavens sake it MUST HAVE an EVF!

A sensor for the 'flagship' that's smaller than the 1.4-type sensor in the V1 makes sense. The 1.4-type sensor is a 3:2 aspect ratio version of a m4/3 sensor, with the same 2x crop as m4/3. That means any PowerShot with that sensor and some 'reach' would need a pretty darn big and probably really slow lens to get there.

You can edit EXIF with ExifTool. It's command line, though there's a GUI version for Windows (not Mac). Once installed, you would enter:

ExifTool -model="My Camera" FILE

Click to expand...

...where My Camera is Canon R5II or whatever you want to call it, and FILE is the RAW file/path. On the Mac in Terminal, you can just drag-and-drop the file into the Terminal window after the command.

However, that may not accomplish what you want. There is also a Canon Model ID field, and I'm not sure you can (or should) edit that. For example, I edited the Model of an R1 file, and in the full EXIF dump it shows the edited name for Camera Model Name. But Canon Model ID still shows Canon EOS R1, and that's what shows up in DxO as well. Like the LensID, the Model ID is an integer field that ExifTool and RAW editors (at least DxO) convert to a camera name. Looking a a few RAW files, the modelIDs are

• R1 = 2147484821
• R3 = 2147484752
• R8 = 2147484807

If you're set on this, dig into ExifTool, the documentation and forums have lots of information.

Note that I'm far from an expert here, but this is fresh in my mind since I went through this yesterday and today for a lens + extender combo where I was trying to spoof DxO to use a specific module/profile. It turned out that the Lens Model and LensID were irrelevant for that, I just needed to change the focal length and aperture and DxO made the guess I wanted for the module to use.

The point is that the way different image editors parse the EXIF metadata is not straightforward. But...good luck!

Smiling Eddie said:

How do I change the camera body details that populate the EXIF data?
Mine currently displays R5m2. How can I change it to R5 II or R5-II etc?

Click to expand...

I'd be really surprised if this was possible in-camera, as it defeats automatic recognition of the camera model by various post-processing software that may depend on it (e.g. Canon DPP and Lightroom might apply camera-specific profiles based on this value).

However, you might be able to change this value (at your own risk) on your computer in the JPG or CR3 files using ExifTool.
Have a look here and here (search for the string "model").

Thank you both - you've been most helpful.
The results I'm getting are sometimes so good I have to check to confirm I didn't have a tripod with me, but I was wondering whether I could tinker and get it even better.

Smiling Eddie said:

Ah! So I've misunderstood the error message - thanks for that.
All my lenses are RF with IS, so I wasn't seeing a difference.
Does IBIS engage regardless of which lens I use and whether I've switched IS off at the lens?

Click to expand...

Yes, for lenses with IS the switch on the lens controls all IS, there is no way to separate the Lens IS and the IBIS functions, it's both or none.

IBIS works if the switch of the lens is on. If not, no IBIS with lenses with IS. IS and IBIS are allways working together.
Glad if I could help!

Nemorino said:

Have You tested the lens with TC on a DSLR? Might be a software problem EF/RF as the RF TC works without problems. And it is unlikely both EF-TC fail at the same time.

Click to expand...

I have no DSLR on which to test it. The idea of removing the R-series body from the equation is a good one, though. I did try the EF extenders with 600/4 II on my EOS M6II, which I believe uses the standard EF communication protocol. Same result – bare lens is fine, extenders are F00. So while I agree that it's unlikely they both failed, I do think that's what happened.

I will meet up with someone who has an EF 1.4xIII at some point. In the meantime, as I suggested above I can use the RF 1.4x with the modified adapter, which is what I did yesterday morning.

My idea above that I could edit the EXIF and at least get DxO to use the lens profile for the 600/4II + EF 1.4xIII turned out to be possible with a fair bit of digging. Through some trial and error, it turned out that there is no need to change the Lens Model or Lens ID number in the EXIF, all that's needed is to set the Focal Length to 840.0 mm and set the Aperture to 5.6, then DxO correctly 'guesses' that the combo is the 600/4 II + EF 1.4xIII. (Took a bit longer to get there since Exiftool reports "Sorry, Aperture is not writable," because the real name of that field is fnumber.)

So, does it matter? The lens profile (albeit with the 'wrong' extender) corrects a very small amount of vignetting and barrel distortion (easier to see when dynamically flipping between the images rather than the static images below), but the lens-specific sharpening does make a noticeable difference. Could have gotten there by doing that manually, I suppose. The file with the original EXIF is on top, bottom panels are after changing the focal length and aperture in the EXIF metadata.



So at this point, it's mainly academic. I have a functional combination of 600/4 + 1.4x extender, and a working lens profile for easy RAW conversions. I could buy a used EF 1.4xIII (B&H has a 9+ copy for $300), but I don't really see much point.

I'll stick with using the RF 1.4x on the EF lens, and hope that Canon comes through with a new RF 600/4 with a switchable 1.4x soon. Canon, are you listening?!?

I will probably call Canon and inquire at some point, I think they still service the EF III extenders so I'll at least check repair costs to see if it's worth doing that before selling them, which would be an alternative to using them for juggling practice.

Ah! So I've misunderstood the error message - thanks for that.
All my lenses are RF with IS, so I wasn't seeing a difference.
Does IBIS engage regardless of which lens I use and whether I've switched IS off at the lens?

If the lens itself has IS the function is greyed out. You can turn it of with the switch of the lens. If the lens has no IS You can enable the IBIS in the menu.

Canon could have sent an R5 mkII and R1 to NASA with 2-3 lenses. Talk about good PR. They missed the boat.

Just a somewhat dingy woodpecker from a walk around a local birding spot (Mount Auburn Cemetery) yesterday morning. It's an April/May hotspot for migrating warblers, but yesterday was a bit too early and also rather chilly (a few degrees above freezing, following some April snow the day before).

"Red-bellied Woodpecker"

EOS R1, EF 600mm f/4L IS II + RF 1.4x, 1/2000 s, f/5.6, ISO 500

AlanF said:

Never used the Nikon mirrorless system - used their latest DSLRs with the 500/5.6 PF and absolutely great AF. You are very fortunate, as I am, to have a wife who shares your interest in bird photography. I am paranoid about having back-ups for everything except wives. So, it's a good idea for your wife to have the same make gear as you to have a back up body and telephoto, share batteries, chargers etc. May I recommend that a Canon body with the RF 100-500mm? It's of similar weight and, although shorter, far more versatile than the 600/6.3.

Click to expand...

Thanks Alan, for your nice reply. Yes, I am a lucky man, obviously like you (not only because my wife shares my love for photography). In fact, she "infected" me with photography many years ago (not birds back then, more people, street, landscape). She got her first camera as a young child, I always say, she was born with a camera in her hands. When we were a young couple, she was mostly the photographer and I was the draughtsman at her side, with a pencil and a sketchbook, who sometimes took out his already very vintage Kodak Retina IIIc to make a few images.

Regarding Nikon, she was several times close to changing to Canon, because she noticed that my gear often performed better and was much more rugged (I only once needed a service with my 7D, she several times, broken mirror boxes, dead AF drives, dead buttons), but she also has an extended film gear from Nikon and still loves these cameras, in particular her FM-2 bodies. That keeps her in the system (she made me a gift with an FM-2 many years ago that turned me into a Nikonian for a while).

The RF 100-500 would be too short for her, and I made her the 600mm prime as a gift because we nearly always are shooting at the longest focal distance, typical for birders. In fact, she can shoot her old Sigma 500mm f/4.5, a 3 kg lens, + TC hand-held with her D500, and she is petite with delicate arms and hands (half Chinese). I am always stunned but she uses a technique she learned from ballet dancing, when dancers have to hold their arms straight away from the body for extended moments. It is a special way to use the shoulder joint, I learned. But I thought, since we aren't that young anymore, that the Z 600 f/6.3 would be a good investment in the future when she doesn't want to carry up to 10 kg of glass, cameras, and mono/tripod in/on a backpack anymore. The alternative would be Nikons popular and much cheaper Z 180-600mm Zoom, but that lens isn't as sharp @ 600mm as the prime, and in particular adding a TC erodes the image quality visibly, as I've seen in reviews.

Generally, sharing Canon gear wouldn't help us much, since we both use comparable gear when we are shooting wildlife, macro or street etc. side by side. So we would need a double gear anyway, maybe except some special lenses like my EF 85mm f/1.2 (II). Sharing batteries and chargers wouldn't help us, too, because we need a lot of batteries anyway during a day trip (switching to ML cameras boosted that need, as you know), and in the night we need more than one charger per person anyway to get all of our batteries loaded for the next day, when we are on an extended photo trip.

Excellent sequence. Well done, Alan.

Beautiful shots, Antonn.

Yesterday, we got the whole mating sequence of Eurasian Kingfishers. The male caught a fish and held it head forward to tempt the female. She flew in, he flew over, passed the fish, which she gulped it down in seconds. He then flew round and jumped upon her, sometimes biting the back of her head, and after his efforts flew off. My wife got got the photo of the female accepting the fish (R7+100-500), which I missed (R5ii + 200-800). (We have lots more in the sequence but these are the key events).

neuroanatomist said:

Just to pick one common example, many times someone will comment that a crop sensor is better for macro photography because it gives a deeper DoF. Of course, the deeper DoF is occurring only because the camera is further from the subject, which is fine if that's what you want. But if you want maximum optical magnification (e.g. 1:1), then the camera will be at the same distance from the subject regardless of the sensor size, and the FF camera will deliver a wider FoV at that 1:1 magnification, and the crop sensor will actually have a shallower DoF. Plus, if you're light limited (often the case if you're stopping down to gain DoF), then the crop image will have more noise at the high(ish) ISO you may be using. What all of that means is that 'I use a crop sensor for macro to get deeper DoF' is at best an oversimplification (and note that I haven't even touched on pixel density, diffraction, and other relevant concepts).

Click to expand...

It's always been a pet peeve of mine, but I could never articulate why, so thanks for this!

R52 + RF600/4, Vulpes vulpes

justaCanonuser said:

The symptoms with the Z8 and the Z 600/6.3 are: the camera focuses fast (with no TC attached) and gets in particular very close to in-focus images with the first frame(s), but then starts to struggle with following frames, and the AF sort of micro-pumps around the precise focus position. First we thought it's a problem with object detection but switching off "birds" or switching it completely off doesn't really help (3D tracking activated). So the problem might be sitting deeper in the system, maybe I have to wipe dust off my old lenscal tool and check the system with it. Nikon's menus of the Z cameras allow for AF calibration, I have briefly seen at least for the Z6 III and 7 on the internet. I always thought that AFMA isn't needed anymore with modern ML cameras, but with Nikon you never know...

Click to expand...

Never used the Nikon mirrorless system - used their latest DSLRs with the 500/5.6 PF and absolutely great AF. You are very fortunate, as I am, to have a wife who shares your interest in bird photography. I am paranoid about having back-ups for everything except wives. So, it's a good idea for your wife to have the same make gear as you to have a back up body and telephoto, share batteries, chargers etc. May I recommend that a Canon body with the RF 100-500mm? It's of similar weight and, although shorter, far more versatile than the 600/6.3.

Maximilian said:

I am not pleased yet. I don't get it to work reliably.

At longer distances, I lose detail and the image becomes blurry. I try to never go below 1/2000 so that I’m not the cause (camera shake).
This shot shows that it’s not the extender’s fault. This close-up, for example, shows a lot of detail. So it's not a lemon.
I know that atmospheric disturbances play a role here, but it's not only far away.

Maybe you can give me some additional advice what I have to take care of ...

Click to expand...

They may need more sharpening. DxO's module for the RF100-500mm + 2xTC doesn't work that well and I sometimes export them unsharpened and sharpen in Topaz - nothing strong, just standard settings. I've tested it extensively here on charts etc, and it outresolves on the RF 100-500mm at 1000mm the RF 200-800mm at 800mm. So, I am happy using the RF 100-500mm for travel with the 2xTC as an accessory. Here are some typical shots taken at random from the R5 and R5ii. They are all crops where 1 pixel = 1 pixel of original so no downsizing etc. You may need to send your extender back.