How many entry-level cameras does Canon need ?

Right now, there's the R100, R50, R10, and maybe the R50 V.

David - Sydney said:

.....
A low profile index rotator can also make it easy to have defined overlap for stitching images, but using the rear screen with a 3x3 grid and match stars work as well.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the info with the Sunway head. I will look into it.
I build my own 'indexed' head for tracked panoramas. My goal was a robust, simple and light solution as I'm also trekking to my locations and I usually have to work with gloves in the cold.

David - Sydney said:

Gaffer tape is my goto solution for my Samyang. Can't move the aperture ring or the focus ring with it in place. No MF/AF switch of course. Gaffer is also good for other stuff on site eg power banks to tripod legs etc. No residue as long as you take it off after use.

Click to expand...

I also use BLACK Gaffer tape to dim the bright LED's from the Canon cameras and my other equipment (e.g. external batteries).
ANY focus ring is taped and I also have spare tape on my camera and on the tripods. You simply can't have enough of it!

Richard CR said:

what do you use for tracking?

Click to expand...

I use several trackers, depending on the payload:
1) For the Canon RF 85/1.2 with a R8 or R6 II camera I use the Vixen Polarie U
2) For the lighter 'old' Canon EF 35/1.4 II (very good lens for astro-photography) I use the MSM/Nomad tracker
3) For heavier lenses (e.g. Sigma A 105/1.4 or the Apo-Telyt-R 280/4) I use the Fornax LT

With 240 days of rain per year I have to be a little bit flexible once we get a clear sky.

neuroanatomist said:

When trust is damaged, rebuilding it is hard. If they believed that it was appropriate to use the RF 16/2.8 profile to correct the RF 14/1.4 RAW images and draw conclusions about lens performance based on those images, they're either trying to intentionally make the lens look bad or they're incompetent at testing lenses. Why the heck not just use DPP to convert the image? I get that DPP is kludgy, but with a new camera or lens it's often the only viable option. I downloaded a RAW image from the RF 14/1.4 from DPR's sample gallery and opened it in DPP:

View attachment 228010

The 14/1.4 has a lens profile available. But PetaPixel used something else.

CameraLabs stated, "I also retested the lens focused in the corner and the result for this subject and distance looked no different from my first samples. So it’s looking like a nice flat field." Bryan/TDP is silent on the subject, but he reliably discusses field curvature for lenses that exhibit it.

You say they see smoke where there's smoke. I wonder if they'd smell smoke if their own pants were on fire.

Click to expand...

Speaking of profiles, DxO will support both the 14mm and the fisheye from April on.

mimbu said:

The Sigma lens is still a current product for both E and L mounts, not discontinued. However as with most niche lenses they are produced in batches rather than a few at a time. If demand outstrips supply then it's possible for Sigma to run out and for people to have to wait until the next batch is produced.

Sigma also renamed all their lenses to drop the "DN" from the model name, so what was originally the "Sigma 14mm f/1.4 DG DN Art" is now the "Sigma 14mm f/1.4 DG Art". They did the same thing with their "DC" APS-C lenses, what used to be "DC DN" is now just "DC". The "DN" meant "digital native" and is redundant in a world of new mirrorless mounts where every Sigma lens is "digital native". The result is that there are sometimes apparent duplicate or orphaned listings on some websites, like this:

View attachment 228011

Click to expand...

Ah I see. I haven't kept up because they weren't for the RF mount, thus dead to me. I was referring to Sigma's own website, which states the DG DN is discontinued. They re-released it as a DG Art, which I saw as a "special request item."

Sigma could have done that a lot better. Thanks for the clarification.

Richard CR said:

There was a Sigma 14mm f/1.4 DG for L-mount and Sony E mount, but that was also discontinued in 2025, and now you can still get it, but it’s a “special order”. Whatever that means. In other words, in the realm of lenses that you can purchase today, you can adapt or choose a lesser lens.

See full article...

Click to expand...

The Sigma lens is still a current product for both E and L mounts, not discontinued. However as with most niche lenses they are produced in batches rather than a few at a time. If demand outstrips supply then it's possible for Sigma to run out and for people to have to wait until the next batch is produced.

Sigma also renamed all their lenses to drop the "DN" from the model name, so what was originally the "Sigma 14mm f/1.4 DG DN Art" is now the "Sigma 14mm f/1.4 DG Art". They did the same thing with their "DC" APS-C lenses, what used to be "DC DN" is now just "DC". The "DN" meant "digital native" and is redundant in a world of new mirrorless mounts where every Sigma lens is "digital native". The result is that there are sometimes apparent duplicate or orphaned listings on some websites, like this:

Michael T said:

Please make it styled after the F-1 and not the AE-1. The AE-1 was plastic looking thing. The F-1 had much more classic styling, maybe call it the RF-1.

Click to expand...

The ‘RE-1’ will be a plastic looking thing

Richard CR said:

sweet. i had the original model of that - I see it's really gotten more advanced since then.

Click to expand...

As a dual ball head is needed, I found that the SUNWAYFOTO DT-03R 2 way tilt was much easier to use as normal ball heads are restricted by the size of the "notch" and easier to level.
It is also a lower profile than normal ballheads as the combined ballhead/camera etc can be large. I don't need to use a counter weight.

A low profile index rotator can also make it easy to have defined overlap for stitching images, but using the rear screen with a 3x3 grid and match stars work as well.

David - Sydney said:

I use the Sky-Watcher Star Adventurer Pro 2i as my tracker. Heavy but has some advantages over others and not too expensive.
Dan does a good overview at https://capturetheatlas.com/best-star-trackers/

Benro is good for automation but their SW and updates has not been good. Dan sells a course specifically for the Benro based on his experience in the field and helping workshop participants with different systems. There is 3rd party SW now for it but it seems to be mostly for control at a distance.

Click to expand...

sweet. i had the original model of that - I see it's really gotten more advanced since then.

Sorry to be that guy, but the Sony 14 1.8 gm is half the price,

Alastair Norcross said:

False, and it's 2/3 stop slower.

Click to expand...

Definitely slower but he is actually under-estimating at being half the price.

In Australia, the Sony at AUD1590 is less than half the Canon cost at AUD3700 (inc tax).

By comparison the RF14 is USD2350 at apples-to-apples comparison with USD2600 ex tax at B&H.... go tariffs! (and don't forget the 5yr warranty)

The Sony 20mm/1.8 is AUD1300 locally and hence ~40% cheaper than the RF20 at AUD2300 (USD1460 equivalent).

There is no doubt about initial pricing being high but the RF20 has not dropped in price since release locally.

AJ said:

Thanks for the Cameralabs link. That sounds reassuring.

Click to expand...

Indeed, and Richard is likely correct. If they got a bad copy, I do hope they had a pre-production copy. But it seems odd that Canon would put a problematic lens into the hands of reviewers (Bryan has gotten bad copies, but bought retail).

There is one aspect of f1.4 that you can't get elsewhere is that you can use a shorter exposure time irrespective of vignetting or coma or noise.

When it is really windy and can't get long tracked exposures without being affected by wind, being able to get a 10-20s exposure can only be done reasonably with a f1.4. It would make the difference between getting any shot and none.

I check for any trailing/bump/wind after every image. Taking 2 x 2 minute exposures with a 20mm means about half an hour for a single row full panorama. Re-shooting takes that much longer and you could have a time limit with the setting sky.

Trying to take a double arch is even more challenging with limited time to get each arch at the same height in the sky. Something I might try this year but there is one (2?) time in the year for each location to do it.

Nothing worse than getting home and having images you can't use.

kirbic said:

I've not used tape, I would worry that I would fat-finger it and move my focus, LOL. Usually, I have no issues with focus shifting. As you stated, the UWAs are pretty stable and don't change detectably during cool-down. I normally mount my camera and lens during polar alignment so they are cooling down for a good bit before I am setting up my imaging run.

Click to expand...

Gaffer tape is my goto solution for my Samyang. Can't move the aperture ring or the focus ring with it in place. No MF/AF switch of course. Gaffer is also good for other stuff on site eg power banks to tripod legs etc. No residue as long as you take it off after use.

Richard CR said:

what do you use for tracking?

Click to expand...

I use the Sky-Watcher Star Adventurer Pro 2i as my tracker. Heavy but has some advantages over others and not too expensive.
Dan does a good overview at https://capturetheatlas.com/best-star-trackers/

Benro is good for automation but their SW and updates has not been good. Dan sells a course specifically for the Benro based on his experience in the field and helping workshop participants with different systems. There is 3rd party SW now for it but it seems to be mostly for control at a distance.

neuroanatomist said:

CameraLabs stated, "I also retested the lens focused in the corner and the result for this subject and distance looked no different from my first samples. So it’s looking like a nice flat field." Bryan/TDP is silent on the subject, but he reliably discusses field curvature for lenses that exhibit it.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the Cameralabs link. That sounds reassuring.

Nothing yet...

I currently have R3, and I feel upgrades for R1 don't justify the upgrade price. The biggest feature for me would be the pre-capture, but that alone doesn't justify the upgrade. I have big event in May 2027 and I'm quite sure I'll upgrade before that. There's another big-ish in July 2026 so upgrade before that would be nice but before May 2027 for sure. If R3-2 delivers good performance and pre-capture, I think more likely I'd get that one than R1. If there's R1-2 coming within next 12 months, that'd be interesting but I'm very doubtful we'll see R1-2 before 2028

AJ said:

I think Chris Niccolls and Jordan Drake did their testing with a production sample.
Their astro image at the Okotoks Big Rock clearly shows a blurred corner,
I'm not saying I fully trust their review - they spotted smoke and where there is smoke there may be fire.
Maybe their out-of-focus corner is due to decentering rather than field curvature? Either way it's cause for concern. I'm sure a more systematic review will come along that shed some light on this.
In any case, a 16/2.8 lens profile would result in hefty distortion and vignetting corrections but it would not affect focus.

Click to expand...

I think there was something wrong with that lens, and then they doubled down with some dubious workflow decisions.

Malm said:

Concerning the focusing: I use the RF 85/1.2 for astrophotography and this 'focus by wire' is a little bit tricky. I only use the manual focus for night photography and fix the focus ring afterwards with a tape (and don't switch off the electricity any more).

Click to expand...

what do you use for tracking?

Please make it styled after the F-1 and not the AE-1. The AE-1 was plastic looking thing. The F-1 had much more classic styling, maybe call it the RF-1.

AJ said:

I'm not saying I fully trust their review - they spotted smoke and where there is smoke there may be fire.

Click to expand...

When trust is damaged, rebuilding it is hard. If they believed that it was appropriate to use the RF 16/2.8 profile to correct the RF 14/1.4 RAW images and draw conclusions about lens performance based on those images, they're either trying to intentionally make the lens look bad or they're incompetent at testing lenses. Why the heck not just use DPP to convert the image? I get that DPP is kludgy, but with a new camera or lens it's often the only viable option. I downloaded a RAW image from the RF 14/1.4 from DPR's sample gallery and opened it in DPP:



The 14/1.4 has a lens profile available. But PetaPixel used something else.

CameraLabs stated, "I also retested the lens focused in the corner and the result for this subject and distance looked no different from my first samples. So it’s looking like a nice flat field." Bryan/TDP is silent on the subject, but he reliably discusses field curvature for lenses that exhibit it.

You say they see smoke where there's smoke. I wonder if they'd smell smoke if their own pants were on fire.

justaCanonuser said:

I don't understand that Canon, being the pioneer of DO supertele tech doesn't come up with an equivalent and even lighter competition.

Click to expand...

Canon did in fact create supertele DO lenses for RF - the 600 and 800 f/11.

We can only speculate why they have thus far ignored the "mid-range" long lenses, and/or why Nikon created them. It could be that they will eventually. Or perhaps they see the market differently, especially being so much bigger than Nikon now, and will never make eg a 600 f/6.3. I wouldn't expect to find out any time soon, either way.

mccasi said:

Half a year ago I moved on and bought the A7CR and the 14mm from Sony for this purpose … wide open it’s a dream.

Click to expand...

Does the lobotomy come free when you buy a S*ny body or is it extra?