erader said:

hell yeah. did canon let sigma design those horrible lens caps

Click to expand...

m4ndr4ke said:

You mean zooming manually? It responds very well.

Basically, there's two modes, you either use the W-T area, or you use the focal lengths.
When you're in the W-T area, the default position is the middle, like in this photograph. There's a spring mechanism that sets it back to the middle. You can go left to the W, or right to the T, the ring doesn't turn past those letters (hard stops). You can adjust how fast you zoom with your movement, by rotating more or less. Maximum speed was decent, not crazy fast, but I think it can be further adjusted on RV cameras (I didn't bother trying the R6V, I was using my original R6).

View attachment 229500

The switch PZ/MZ on the side of the lens (seen on many other pictures) lets you go the other zone of the ring, on the right. You hold the switch, rotate to the focal lengths, and then release it.
The manual zoom is operated electrically with two nano USM motors, so it responds every well, in general use there's no lag at all; you can provoke lag if you turn the ring like a jerk, on purpose, however it's minor.
There's hard stops at 20 and 50, but there's no resistance on rotation (is "dampening" the proper word? I'm not sure), the ring turns as easily as the lightest electronic focus ring you can imagine.

Click to expand...

Michael Clark said:

Interestingly enough, the EOS RP and EOS R8 use the same Canon battery grip

Click to expand...

GreenViper said:

I'm getting 24-105 L F4 image quality vibes rather than 24-70 L F2.8 so far which aligns with the price too

Click to expand...

foxfender said:

So fed-up with this kind of peremptory “I know everything” comments.

For a videographer, a mechanical shutter is a very positive point and a practical way to avoid dust on the sensor when switching lenses.

Click to expand...

john1970 said:

The advantages (IMO) are: 1) internal zoom, 2) ⅔ stop faster at 400 mm, 3) with TC you can get out to 560 mm @ f6.3, 4) reasonably lightweight at ~ 4.4 lbs (with the hood). In contrast, my Canon RF 100-300 mm f2.8 with 2x TC (600 mm f5.6) weighs in at almost 7 lbs. Ideally, for me I would love to have a RF 100-400 mm f4.5 DO with 1.4x TC built in with a weight of less than 5 lbs. One can always dream.

Click to expand...

Math68 said:

When will there be a version of the R6 without the video, so I can get an affordable camera?

Click to expand...

Del Paso said:

Am I the only one who doesn't understand the "hype" about the Sony 4,5/100-400?
The EF 4,5-5,6 100-400 cost half, was lighter and at longer focals about 1/2 aperture slower...
The Sony is certainly a brillant lens, but I still don't get it.

Click to expand...

jeff89 said:

How many birders would opt for a R6 I/II over the R7? How many will opt for a R6 III or wait for the R7 II? I am in the wait crowd, as my current travel combo now is the R1 & R5 II.

Click to expand...

OldrockyGN said:

Makmut - my understanding of the physics of optics is that a faster 100-500 would have to also be
larger (diameter). That means it will be both heavier and a lot more expensive. When I got the R5m2
I didn't understand how much importance the extra dynamic range of the sensor would be. As in -
the R5m2 made my RF 100-500 better. Perhaps "better glass" might mean "better tech in the body"?

Click to expand...

Mr. Warbucks said:

What about the connection with the unveiling of FCC-registration (DS126933)? Doesn’t that not hint anymore towards R7ii?

Click to expand...

Steve_FR said:

Absolutely disagree. This is a video-centric camera aimed at videographer/cinematographer/ type people.

Not having a mechanical shutter (a moving part to which can fail eventually) far extends the life of this camera for video work. Remember when people went nuts with intervalometer (timelapse) use, and blew out their shutters?

It’s a video tool for video people. Sucks for people wanting a photo camera - but there are plenty of other options. I do wish Canon would make a dual line with this compact body (replacement for M6II) one aimed at photographers - and one aimed at videographers which they just did perfectly.

For a videographer, having a mechanical shutter is a negative failure point. Don’t get me started on shutter-strike-damage with deep rear manual focus adapted lens protrusions.

Click to expand...

Brown said:

Is the RP still in production?

Click to expand...

1ll said:

I'm a photographer who is not interested in using a mirrorless, full-frame camera for video. I'd like to purchase a photographers only camera. Canon could make the R3M2 for that purpose. Without video capabilities the camera might cost less and not succumb to overheating issues.

Click to expand...

scyrene said:

Lower prices

Click to expand...

pererik_2000 said:

I started switching to Sony long time ago (2012?) because I wanted to use my Canon FD lenses on a digital camera, the first was a NEX-3 and later I went full frame (A7) but I also keep my Sony APS-C system. Now I am in the market for a video camera, I do not have any good Sony video capable camera (A6600 and A7R3a are my current best and they are very good for photo but limited and cumbersome for video and I also want a separate system for video). I still have my Canon systems (FD-film, EF-film and EF-S-digital and have started to look for a Canon mirrorless camera with good video and the possibiity to use EF/EF-S lenses. The R6III ($3900 in Sweden) and R6V ($3200) are too expensive for me, I am therefore looking for something like the R8. To the point: For R8 mark 2 I want IBIS and I do not want a selfie-type of screen but a photo/video-oriented flipup screen. A 32 Mpix sensor would be good for the use of EF-S lenses in 4k video. I already have an AE-1 so no need to imitate it...

Click to expand...