Latest activity

LSXPhotog · Mar 26, 2026

@zajicekpavel said:
I don't know. Will anyone be interested if Sigma makes the RF 17-40mm f/1.8 DC Art?

They already do. The lens is currently sold in RF mount on B&H for $919. How well it has sold is a different matter. I personally plan to buy one after the R7II.

neuroanatomist · Mar 26, 2026

danfaz said:
As has been mentioned numerous times, it would appear Canon's sales do not reflect that.

Doesn't matter. Everyone knows that if Canon doesn't meet the various demands of randos on the internet, their sales will suffer. YAPODFC.

GirlsAreBeautiful · Mar 26, 2026

What's unique about the R52 is eye controlled focus. If you don't want that because you always know and can pre-save which subject you are shooting, I guess it doesn't matter. But it is a beautiful feauture in my opinion.

Groundhog · Mar 26, 2026

tad1111 said:
I would like to see them make an RF-S 22mm or 24mm pancake. I had the EF-S 24mm but sold it as I moved away from adapted lenses. But now I wish I would have kept it.

Given that there already is the 28mm pancake lens for RF there is little hope for a pancake in a similar range as RF-S I guess.
28mm is too long for my personal taste so I would have prefered a 24mm pancake as well.

AJ · Mar 26, 2026

I was under the impression that Canon had no interest in APSC wideangle primes, and thus ceded this territory to Sigma.

GirlsAreBeautiful · Mar 26, 2026

Wow you even declared it? Well done! I've bought my R52 in Tokyo and saved so so much.

danfaz · Mar 26, 2026

Malm said:
One issue with the RF mount is the lack of modern lenses

@neuroanatomist addressed this, but I suggest you take a look at their catalog.

Malm said:
One of the strong points of the EF system was the large amount of different lenses where everyone could find the optimum lenses for his interest. This is not the case for the RF mount any more and Canon will not be able to fill that gap with his 5-10 new lenses per year.

The EF mount had new lens creations for approximately 31 years. Are you expecting the RF mount to be fully fleshed out in just 7-8 years?

Malm said:
I understand the economic argumentation concerning the sell of native lenses, but unhappy clients moving to another brand have also an economic impact.

As has been mentioned numerous times, it would appear Canon's sales do not reflect that.

GirlsAreBeautiful · Mar 26, 2026

- Interface

The 6K2 has amazing menu and overlay. The Canon has good menu that work well for the amount of options that a photo camera has, but very very poor overlay placement. The items are not even aligned, and sometimes they get on top of the image for no reason. Why? I have no clue. It's really something that they should work on because it looks so stupid besides the fact that it can impact operations.

- Aspect ratio

There is a lot to unpack here. The origin of this whole issue is not Canon side, but you would be right to hate on them anyway because they only give this option. So, the digital specifications for video are bonkers. With digital, if you change the aspect ratio, the height stays the same. With 35mm, it is the opposite. Why? I don't know, and for me it doesn't make any sense. So for Canon you start from a 4K full DCI weird aspect ratio that is not even 1.85. You don't get any other aspect ratio in camera. You want something else? You have to crop in post. Basically giving a crop factor to your lens. It is so so bad. On the 6KG2 you also get a single aspect ratio, but at least it is a higher 16/9. You get so much more image. Standard digital specifications do not make any sense, and it's the whole reason why today everybody is looking forward to open gate. It's not to take out tiktok videos from a normal video. It's because the default and only aspect ratio sucks. The solution is pretty straightforward. Since most people are not delivering for cinema, manufacturers should just give us more aspect ratios that do not conform to standards but have higher pixel counts on the vertical side. Imho it is vastly better to resize than to have a crop factor. The non conform 6KG2 feels much better.

- Sound

XLR vs jack connector. Obviously one is better than the other. But is it a significant difference? I am not an audio expert, and it sound like I can get a very similar audio with jack. XLR is locked, but I don't think that you are going to pull the cables by chance that often, if ever. The truly good mics are all XLR obviously, but are you going to want to connect those to a camera instead of an external recorder? I don't think so. And I love the low profile of the Sennheiser MKE 440. What Canon could do on the next camera is implementing 32bit float audio recordings to avoid clipping at any cost, which a lot of manufacturers have already done. It shouldn't be that hard. But the 6KG2 doesn't do that either, so for the sake of this comparison for me they are equal. I do not miss XLR at all

- Stabilisation

I didn't test this much on either camera. The 28mm I am using right now is stabilised so that's already great for me. The 6KG2 has data that Resolve can use, and pixel size to crop in. The R52 has IBIS. They both have their strength, but it is nice to have a baked in IBIS stabilisation available.

- Screen

While the 6KG2 is way bigger, and the overlays are better positioned and drawn, the extra brightness on the R52 was significant. But i could have gone confused with the settings. I should look back at it.

-Overheating, camera noises, battery life

Battery life seemed pretty similar. My test didn't focus on this specifically so don't take my word for it, but at the end of it I had almost finished one battery on both. You clearly have to buy multiple spares for both. Since it was still a cold day, I didn't get to overheat warnings on the R52, but it will happen on a hot day as reported on multiple reviews. For me this is a crucial hybrid tradeoff: if you want a real fan, don't look at photo cameras. Then there are camera noises, in my case those all come from the 28mm doing tracking autofocus. There is no lens at a decent price on RF. On a 6KFF I would probably get the new Sigma 28-70 which is fully quiet. This matters to me since I have the mic on top of the camera, but there is no solution given Canon policy that connects silent focusing to high quality and high price. Which I don't want to spend.

 After all this testing I had a clearer picture in mind.
R52: very compact form factor and decent color quality that needs grading but cannot retain highlights.
6KG2: bulkier form factor with impressive dynamic range, ease of use, and color workflow.

So I have decided to try and sell the 6KG2. While I do not think that there is anything else that matches the value of what this camera can give, for my current usage, form factor is everything. I want to be able to go around with a camera and not care about focusing that much. I'll get by the awful aspect ratio and the clipped highlight. I hope that Canon will implement open gate on the Mark II and seriously improve the dynamic range on the Mark III. I beg people to stop writing that "current cameras are all great", because they are not! But the portability of them is irresistible. And while I am selling the 6KG2, I am still very interested in their new full frame model. Like I said previously in this review it has many significant upgrades: brighter screen (already present on 6K Pro), cfexpress, tracking autofocus, tighter l mount, open gate. For now I am satisfied with Canon hybrid. But if I'll ever shoot on less so run and gun scenarios, I'll definitely consider coming back to Blackmagic. Or maybe I'll not manage to sell the 6KG2 at a decent price, so I'll just keep it on a shelf most of the time and use it in those rare situations where I am sure I don't want autofocus and can tollerate the bigger profile.

GirlsAreBeautiful · Mar 26, 2026

I've got the R5 for a few months now, and have been loving it despite a few shortcomings. In my first review I compared it with my previous body, the 5D Mark III, just to have a crystal clear vision of the differences. I decided to keep the 5D, since two bodies are always useful, but I also had another piece of equipment to compare it with: a proper video camera. I had bought the 6K G2 from Blackmagic to have better low light performances when shooting video than with the 5D. I had some video project in mind, but still didn't use it much. While I am still interested in video, I don't like to keep things on a shelf if i don't use them, and now that I have an R5, which promises great video stuff, I wanted to compare the two and make a final choice about keeping or not the 6K G2.

Disclaimer: this review is very partial. I focus only on the things that I care about, which are still significant in my opinion since I could not find a similar review on youtube or google. I didn't do proper recovery tests, didn't pixel peep, didn't match the framing perfectly etc etc I am dividing this review in sections I care about.

- Settings and gear

I was interested in comparing RAW videos only. On the R52 I did 4K sRAW and 8K cRAW. On the 6KG2 I did 1/8 and 1/3 compression. This gives roughly similar bitrates. On the R52 I was using the EF 28mm opened at f8, 800 ISO. On the 6KG2 the Sigma 18-35 at 18mm f5.6 400 ISO. Which gives me the same DOF, same exposure. On both I had a breakthrough ND filter X3, slightly higher model for the R52, but I doubt that it matters. On interiors I switched to 4000 ISO vs 3200 ISO and tried to match the exposure. For sound, on top of the R52, I used a Sennheiser MKE 440. On the 6KG2, the AT 875R.

- Color

This is probably one of the most important aspect of the comparison. The core of any quality discussion. I graded both the images in Resolve, which gives a significant edge to the 6KG2 since Blackmagic does both the software and hardware in this case. The 6KG2 files are flawlessly interpreted. You just set the white balance, add the contrast that you desire, and you are all set. I didn't even touch nodes for it. On the R52 side, things are completely different. I had to work a bit to try to match the images. It's not too bad, but it is definetely work. Also a very different look to start with that what you get on the R52 camera itself. Eventually the images do match, except for the clothes which can look different. I could have spent more time to make them 99% equal, but I didn't bother. I am also sure that there are tons of LUTs available for the R52, but I prefer to grade myself. So, the 6KG2 is definetely preferable as a workflow if you are inside Davinci, but since you have RAW files with Canon you can do whatever you want with them.

- Dynamic range

That's another crucial element. My biggest complaint in the previous R52 review. As you can clearly see in the comparison screenshots the 6KG2 has two extra stops of dynamic range in the highlights. The R52 completely looses any detail. There is nothing to recover. This is unacceptable from a camera that costs almost double, and I wish that reviewers would start to point this out more often and stop saying that "all cameras are so good nowadays". They are not. The top of the line hybrid Canon still has horrid dynamic range that cannot keep in a normal sunshine day. If Blackmagic can do it, why Canon cannot? What also bothers me is that if you don't use the base ISO on the R52 the image completely implodes, in a way that I do not think happens on the 6KG2. I didn't test this properly, I had just tried to use ISO 100 on the Canon and was so disgusted that I let it go entirely. Again, issues with dynamic range.

- Noise and sharpness

On properly exposed base ISO low videos, I could not notice much noise in either camera. Moving on to base ISO high, the 6K is clearly cleaner, but there could be baked noise reduction going on, so it feels unfair to judge the Canon for this. The files clean up well in Resolve, and there is enough detail, so I don't think I care that much. Speaking of sharpness more broadly, I feel like both cameras do great and increase in detail when you increase resolution or decrease compression. I really didn't want to spend time to pixel peep the difference though. 4K sRAW on the R52 is enough for me. I also think that a softer image benefits narrative videos.

- Size

You gotta love how compact an hybrid camera is. I am also to blame, since I have fully rigged the 6KG2, so in comparison it is quite bulky while the Canon is so light, and I can feel like I can go around all day with it strapped on my neck. I guess that a 6K full frame would be better for a small profile for a variety of reasons: l mount being tighter, full tracking autofocus means you don't need a follow focus, brighter screen means you don't need a sun-hood, cfexpress means no external SSD. It all piles up. For me this is a deciding factor, since I want to go around by myself, but conversely a bigger profile looks more "professional" for a lot of people. So it all depends on your usage.

- Focus

The 6K2 doesn't have tracking. You can pick a spot and it will focus there, but that's it. The R52 has tracking and a good one. But the whole mechanic is super weird unless I've missed something. If AF servo is on it will keep the focus on your subject, but if that gets out of the screen it will try to focus on something else, and it will not come back to that subject if it comes back on screen. Looking at some videos on youtube, it looks like the 6KFF has a way smarter autofocus that you can actually set up to come back to the thing you pointed it out to, or a specific spot. But that's another camera. In this comparison the R52 is clearly easier to use if you are just shooting videos by yourself and are not in a controlled environment. Tracking autofocus is a must to actually focus on what you are shooting instead of having to squint at a screen.

continues...

Crossfire · Mar 26, 2026

Ever since the EF(-S) days, I have been waiting probably close to 10 years for the rumoured 10mm f/2.8 that was patented. And as we all know, every patent gets turned into a released product /s

neuroanatomist said:
I suspect if any of these designs become products, it will be the wide one(s).

I would tend to disagree. But only because of Canon's reluctance (regarding APS-C) to release anything that isn't going to either be incredibly popular or cost-effective.

The R50 has sold quite well from what I understand - but then again, the reasoning to produce the R100 is anyone's guess.

And all the first-party RF-S lenses (excluding the fisheyes) have been within the cost-effective range.

Canon has lost any incentive to take calculated risks or focus on anything other than their professional range of cameras/lenses. I'm just glad the Sigma and Tamron partnerships have proven fruitful.

ThomasTH · Mar 26, 2026

antonn said:
R1/R1/R52 + RF600/4, Ardea cinerea tosses the fish before swallowing it ) Sometimes catches two fish at once.
View attachment 228566

View attachment 228567

View attachment 228568

Awesome photos, as always

tad1111 · Mar 26, 2026

I would like to see them make an RF-S 22mm or 24mm pancake. I had the EF-S 24mm but sold it as I moved away from adapted lenses. But now I wish I would have kept it.

Click · Mar 26, 2026

josephandrews222 said:
Three Pairs with R5II and 200-800 @ 800

American Robin, European Starling and Northern Mockingbird

Nice shots. I especially like the first and last one.

Click · Mar 26, 2026

antonn said:
R1/R1/R52 + RF600/4, Ardea cinerea tosses the fish before swallowing it ) Sometimes catches two fish at once.

Very nice series, antonn.

neuroanatomist · Mar 26, 2026

antonn said:
R1/R1/R52 + RF600/4, Ardea cinerea tosses the fish before swallowing it ) Sometimes catches two fish at once.

Nice shots!

I have seen that on occasion.

EOS M2, EF-M 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM @ 200mm, 1/1600 s, f/6.3, ISO 800

esspy2 · Mar 26, 2026

I would be interested in an RF-S 10mm F/2.8 or RF-S 12mm F/2.8 if it's small enough. I love 12mm on Canon APS-C and the 10mm would be great for video work! So long they don't go too far past their "total lens length" of 65mm, it think it can be compelling. But their 28mm F/2.8 for full-frame is even shorter, I wonder if they can make it even shorter.

On another note, the 12mm and 18mm would be very compelling street-style prime lenses for Canon's smaller APS-C cameras.

Bob Howland · Mar 26, 2026

@zajicekpavel said:
I don't know. Will anyone be interested if Sigma makes the RF 17-40mm f/1.8 DC Art?

And the 10-18 f/2.8.

neuroanatomist · Mar 26, 2026

Warning: digital correction of distortion required.

Interesting that the patent design for the RF-S 28/2.8 looks very different from the existing RF 28/2.8. I suspect if any of these designs become products, it will be the wide one(s).

@zajicekpavel · Mar 26, 2026

I don't know. Will anyone be interested if Sigma makes the RF 17-40mm f/1.8 DC Art?

antonn · Mar 26, 2026

R1/R1/R52 + RF600/4, Ardea cinerea tosses the fish before swallowing it ) Sometimes catches two fish at once.

neuroanatomist · Mar 26, 2026

Malm said:
…Canon seems to prefer heavy digital corrections to make it's lenses more video-friendly (were I'm not interested in).

Some serious conflation going on here. Maybe you don’t want smaller, lighter, and cheaper lenses…but I think that many photographers do. Lenses like the RF 16/2.8, RF 24/1.8, RF 24-240, and many others require digital correction of distortion and are not ‘hybrid’ lenses.

The hybrid lenses (VCM primes and Z zooms) are just that – hybrid, intended for both photo and video use. What makes you think photography use cases are being sacrificed?

The RF 10-20/4 is not a hybrid lens, has STM for AF, and compared to the EF 11-24/4 is much smaller, less than half the weight, and significantly cheaper. All of those are significant benefits to photographers (and videographers).

The 24-105/2.8 Z is a hybrid lens, and would probably have been prohibitively large and expensive without needing correction at the wide end (Canon never made one for EF). The 70-200/2.8 Z is a hybrid lens and is among the sharpest zoom lenses available from any manufacturer. Sacrifices for video there? Nope.

As I suggested above, the requirement for a lens to ‘fill the image circle’ was imposed by the optical viewfinder and by film as a recording medium. In this modern era, those requirements are passé.

P-visie · Mar 26, 2026

scyrene said:
One thing I'll never quite get my head around is the status anxiety of Sony users specifically - I don't recall other brands' users spamming these boards with their cult-like devotion. I also find it strange how, if the competition is so inferior, why they feel so anxious to attack everyone else, as if deep down they're not convinced after all.

Roger Cicala’s 2018 definition applies to @mimbu : “Sonyfanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy with other equipment.”

scyrene · Mar 26, 2026

One thing I'll never quite get my head around is the status anxiety of Sony users specifically - I don't recall other brands' users spamming these boards with their cult-like devotion. I also find it strange how, if the competition is so inferior, why they feel so anxious to attack everyone else, as if deep down they're not convinced after all.

neuroanatomist · Mar 26, 2026

Malm said:
One issue with the RF mount is the lack of modern lenses as Canon is excluding 3rd party AF glasses and the older EF lenses are not always an alternative.

Canon’s RF lenses aren’t ’modern lenses’? Oh, ok.

Who else makes a 24-105/2.8? Sigma’s ‘modern’ 14/1.4 is twice the weight and far larger than Canon’s RF 14/1.4*.

Question I’ve asked several times that no one has ever answered: Canon RF has a set of three full frame zooms that cover 15mm to 400mm for under $1700, what 3rd party or other OEM kit can cover that range for that cost or less?

* I know, you don’t like the need for distortion correction, that’s fine; I wouldn’t want to carry the Sigma beast along with my other lenses, it’s why the EF 11-24/4 often stayed home but the RF 10-20/4 usually goes in the bag, and that’s also fine. For all its bulk and weight, the Sigma 14/1.4 still has plenty of distortion and vignetting, enough that I’d use a lens profile to correct it anyway.

One could also argue that lenses designed to be smaller, lighter and cheaper by incorporating digital correction into their design are more modern than lenses that are larger, heavier and more expensive than they need to be in this current era where the lens output cannot be seen optically, only digitally.

Malm · Mar 26, 2026

mimbu said:
....

I doubt Canon will ever let FF AF lenses from Sigma onto RF. Or Viltrox. Or Laowa. Or Tamron. Or anyone else.

I start to worry that you are right.
Sigma is building the best lenses for my area of interest (astro), and Canon seems to prefer heavy digital corrections to make it's lenses more video-friendly (were I'm not interested in). So I'm thinking about my way ahead, with or without Canon.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics