padam said:

4k60p Fine is a feature an R5II should be capable of (even just for short bursts), if it already does 8k60p RAW, and it might help more cooling grip sales as well. Maybe they reserve it to the next model, hard to predict their approach.

Click to expand...

It would certainly be nice but not holding my breath.

DhlcadR6 said:

Cheaper 3rd parties with 15fps handicap. I rather adapt EF or native RF with R6iii 40fps.

Click to expand...

The well known Sony Cripple Hammer.

homebodyMacro2 said:

Oof, I certainly hope it won't be a counterpart to the 100-300L in terms of price.

For me, if I really wanted to have the range covered, I'd just put a 1.4x on my 70-200Z: a 98-280mm f/4.0 is close enough, and it would match the rumored/alleged 300-600 f/4.0-5.6 at 300mm. A stop slower than the 100-300L f/2.8 of course, but saves you about $8k by comparison.

The 70-200Z with a 1.4x loses a bit of sharpness and contrast vs. the 100-300L (also wide open), but honestly not that much (comparing 280mm and 300mm): https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0.

Click to expand...

I've not tried the new 70-200/2.8 Z, but I am very familiar with the older EF 70-200/2.8 II counterpart. It was an astonishingly sharp lens even with a 1.4x tc. It af our resolves any of the current Canon sensors. The 2x less so, still sharp but want's great with close objects and generally needed stopping down 2/3 stop to remove the slight haze around highlights. The thing is, a pair of teleconverters is a lot lighter than lugging around another sized lens. Even the 2x TC works well if that's the only thing you have on you. I appreciate that this new RF Z version is a tad sharper again, but it's still in the same ball park with teleconverters.
The RF 70-200/2.8 is a miracle in packaging and light weight construction by comparison, but we all know of the lack of TC support for this sweet lens.
The RF 100-300mm f2.8 is a very different beast. With tele converters, it's pushing into wildlife and birding reaches. Even with a 2x TC (making a 600mm f5.6) it just about keeps up with the R5's resolution of it's mighty sensor. It's a very viable and versatile lens range (100-300/f2.8 > 140-420/f4>200-600/f5.6) and it only cost you the size and weight of a pair of teleconverters. It's never going to compete directly with a 70-200mm f2.8 even though it's got a fair amount of overlap in the focal range and aperture. The Rf 100-300/2.8 is kind of a bridge lens between the 70-200/2.8 and the longer wild life lenses.
I have a few friends who regaulrly use a EF300mm f2.8 II LIS with a pair of teleconverters as their long lens of choice. It's a back friendly size and weight with a nice price point with an excellent reach / brightness. One of them is considering swapping over to the RF 100-300/2.8 so they can ditch the need fro their EF 70-200/2.8 lens and just use the one lens. If Canon made a RF 400-600 f2.8 - F4 zoom lens that's a simular weight to my EF 400mm f2.8 II L and it's as sharp, then my ears might prick up and colour me curious.

Del Paso said:

I needed hand surgery, see how horrible Sonys were to me!
PS: 20 years ago, my Sony TV set imploded, after 2 years of limited use. No warranty, of course. "It's a Sony!"
In full earnest now: What you just wrote about Sony's ergonomics is absolutely true, these cameras are only usable with baby-sized hands.
Or if you are a confirmed masochist...

Click to expand...

I find this kind of intel interesting. I've been a Canon life my entire shooting life. My first SLR was a Canon AV-1. I chose Canon because my Dad had an AE-1p and I could borrow his lenses. I've tried a few Nikons over the years, but I never liked their camera eronomics or the feel of their lenses. I've been with Canon all though the FD>EOS SLR / AF revolution > Digital SLR > Mirrorless and I've never found their cameras or lenses lacking in any way.
I've never even handled a Sony camera or lens, and only a few Nikons.
I choose my cameras out of the Canon portfolio beacuse of changes to my shooting requirements or needing to be on a new model due to my upgrade cycles. Lenses generally last a lot longer, sometimes as long as 20+ years! So I tend to focus on my lenes more than my camera bodies, although the jump to mirrorless was a one time hit that I felt was necessary to gain access to all the morern advancements since the latter DSLR days.

G650ER said:

14mm f/1.8 or 1.4 I hope. Even better would have been 12mm but I'll gladly take the 14.

Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but I think somebody here mentioned that a 14mm wouldn't be f/1.4 because it would have to be bigger than the other VCM primes. If it can be done, I'd be happy.

I wouldn't mind a 105mm.

Great photos! The light in the first one is particularly nice.
I especially like the smooth backgrounds in the photos of the Phainopepla and Western Tanager.

Great shots! Well done, ERHP.

A few shots from early October. The early morning light on the ridge provided a lot of nice shots during the end of the coffee berry season.

The early morning shadows created a nice headshot of this male Northern Flicker.


A Hermit Thrush getting an early morning drink.


A female Phainopepla between berries and insect hawking.


This juvenile Western Tanager was still carrying the skin of a coffee berry around.


American Robin in a partial stripped coffee berry bush.


A Wrentit in between drinking and bathing.


A Lark Sparrow soaking in the pool as another keeps watch.


A Western Bluebird just before the spin cycle.

DhlcadR6 said:

Cheaper 3rd parties with 15fps handicap. I rather adapt EF or native RF with R6iii 40fps.

Click to expand...

I regularly shoot at 3FPS and I'd rather have more lens choices than less

Shutter Angle would be fantastic.

I don't hop between framerates that much, but when I do, having shutter angle as I do on other cameras just makes life much easier and its one less thing to have to remember.

Id also take open gate recording if its going, features like this wouldn't hurt to have.

What I see here is that we are noble Canon users! For me with R6 Mark III, Sony is behind no matter photo or video specs! But when Canon had the cripple hammer everyone else was spitting on our grave... now we have many winners here such as r5ii, r6iii, c50, c80, c400 and the one of its kind R1. That's why we are noble ppl we Canon users! We aren't mean and bad.. we are just again the Best! Simple as that!

Nice series, Alan.

You’re right about the placement of the top buttons but canon has the same issue with the rear ones. I often confuse the Q and INFO button or MENU and RATE. These are better on the Sony.
Also I love the directional arrows and the ability to program any function on them. I don’t know why Canon doesn’t do that any more. I understand that there are only so many buttons you can remember but the arrows make it somehow easier (it’s easier to distinguish left/right/top/bottom than the three thumb buttons).

A better Precapture set up open gate. And unlocks R5ii to gets a 4k60 oversampled in XF-HEVC XF-AVC.

Richard CR said:

I'm shocked you didn't have to go to therapy.

Click to expand...

I needed hand surgery, see how horrible Sonys were to me!
PS: 20 years ago, my Sony TV set imploded, after 2 years of limited use. No warranty, of course. "It's a Sony!"
In full earnest now: What you just wrote about Sony's ergonomics is absolutely true, these cameras are only usable with baby-sized hands.
Or if you are a confirmed masochist...

It's pretty clear that Canon wanted to slightly eclipse the Sony A7V with every spec. However, I can't see anyone switching systems over such miniscule differences or slight betterment. I'm pretty sure the upcoming A7V was the only reason canon decided to bump the R6x series to 33mp from a previously stated "24mp is going to be our standard for a LONG time" to suddenly....here' s a new 33mp sensor....it's really nice.
It makes me wonder about a potential R3II....seeing what Canon have done with their feature dance with Sony, it really depends on what Sony have cooking in their 2nd tier Pro model. I guess it's a camera that sits between the Sony A1x and A9x range. maybe that's why there's no R3ii yet? There's nothing for it to compete against in the Sony catalogue?
Being an engineer or manager in Sony must be a sweet positon to have at the moment....all those bungs and bribes from Canon must be very useful this time of year! How esle would Canon have been able to upstage the Sony A7V? It also send a clear message that Canon aren't thinking about evolving their own prodct line for their existing customers, they are literally going toe to toe with what ever Sony are doing.

Unexpectedly, a Kestrel flew by when I had the RF 200-800mm at 1120mm for some far distant birds.

akc said:

a canon guy told me, we have to wait until next summer!
but the next vcm will be a 14mm

Click to expand...

14mm f/1.8 or 1.4 I hope. Even better would have been 12mm but I'll gladly take the 14.

Maximilian said:

if you compare "wide opten" f/1.2 vs. f/1.8. IMO that wouldn't be fair

Click to expand...

It’s as far as both lenses can go, I think it’s fair in the sense that none of them is having the advantage of being stopped down.

Maximilian said:

When I look at TDP, my opinion is that at f/1.8 for both they are equal in the center (+some purple fringing), RF 45 much better in the midframe

Click to expand...

I understand, but you’re probably not purchasing the 1.2 to shoot at 1.8, you’re buying the faster lens because you want a wider aperture
The 45, in my experience, always has better contrast, while the 50 has hazy corners in its widest apertures — my 50 is still a little hazy in the corners at 2.8, it’s only at f/4 that it becomes good.
On the other hand, the 45 can make some surfaces completely pink — that seems to mostly disappear in jpegs with DLO, but it’s visible in RAW files.

Walrus said:

the 45 is WAY better up to f5.6 where the 50 catches up

Click to expand...

I wanted to try the lens for my use case scenario, that’s why I decided to put it in my main camera instead of a R5 II, that I also had available. If I owned this lens, I wouldn’t stop it down beyond f/2 to f/2.8, perhaps f/4, since I have a higher grade zoom that features the same apertures. For that reason, I’m not interested in knowing how it performs, for instance, at f/5.6 or f/8.

Walrus said:

They should cost same money

Click to expand...

The 45 has a much wider aperture, is a wider angle lens, has a better motor (a newer version of gear type STM, that is smoother), and the build quality is similar to that of the 35mm f/1.8 (with poor-man’s internal focusing, which is nicer). Despite being softer, the 45 is a higher grade product from its roots. The 45 is similar to grabbing the 35 1.8 and sacrificing its IS and macro abilities, solely to have f/1.2, which is an extremely wide aperture and, as such, it’s a very expensive attribute.

Walrus said:

Probably the 45 does look much better on my R6 then the 33/45mpx sensors

Click to expand...

It’s still not great at 20MP, honestly. It’s perfectly enough to produce good images viewed at “normal viewing sizes”, which is what most users do, specially with social media, and even in fullscreen on my 27” monitor (which I did) but, if you zoom in to 100%, you’ll see its weaknesses; if you don’t, you’ll probably be fine.

Walrus said:

it's better then the 50 STM if you don't look in the corners, but not 2 to 3 times better as the price would suggest

Click to expand...

At RRP, the 45 costs about twice the price of the 50 (249€ vs 539€ here, 10€ less than the 35), and allows us to drop ISO one entire f-stop.


Guys, do not underestimate how much more expensive having f/1.2 usually is. For many focal lengths, there’s a premium of 50 to 100% over the price of a f/1.4 lens, not a f/1.8. This lens is not great, but it’s dirt cheap for what it is.

I’m inclined to purchase it next year, when the prices drop. It’s compact and extremely light, I could easily carry this in my shoulder bag, with the other lenses and both cameras.

I have been quite annoyed by precapture not being able to be bound to a button at first. But by now I have found my workaround and have adapted to it.
I use back button focus and just keep pre capture on all the time. Pressing the shutterbutton fully for a normal burst and half pressing it, when I want precapture to do its thing.

The open gate thing is nice to have I guess, but I don't really know, what all the fuzz is about. Never had the feeling that recording in 8k DCI had me longing for even more pixels to crop my image.
Shutter angle would be awesome though.

Okay! Perhaps a day later, but i see we haven't gone to flames yet.

time to change that.

Sony A7 V vs R100 - can the Sony stack up?

P-visie said:

You better be careful what you eat and be nice to her . ISO 12800: did you do noise reduction on the posted image?

Click to expand...

Not necessarily bad intent: Digoxin... It's a prescription drug for heart problems. As with all prescription drugs everything is in the doze!

Del Paso said:

I too miss the "exciting new lenses", though 2025 has been quite an expensive year for me (2X R5 II, 4 lenses). But I know my 14 TSE and 24(20)-70 f/2 will come in spring or some other season or year...

Click to expand...

I like where your head is at. Even the possibility of a 20-70mm F2 gets me extra excited.

DSB said:

I've given up the hopes of a high res Canon camera and took the plunge into GFX system. And I have to say - zero regrets. The GFX 100II with those 16 bit raw files is delicious! I kept my whole Canon set and I still do use it for anything action-wise (sports, events, animals) but I have to say, even if Canon came out with a 65 mpix camera now, I don't think I'd be interested. The 100 mpix files from Fuji are incredible and a joy to work with.

Click to expand...

I've come close to getting a GFX 100s (II) a few times. But haven't yet because of the difficulty of having two systems.

GMCPhotographics said:

The standout features are it's build, ruggedness, integrated grip / sports orientated ergonomics and buffer size. As you said it's increadible value vs the current R1. There was a time when I seriously considered an R3 to sit alongside my R6ii. I chose an R5 instead because of my my current shooting needs, I'd rather add a high megapixel option to my arsenal than a stacked sensor.
I agree with others (it's wishful thinking) that when the R3 has stopped selling well and Canon don't want to discount it any further, moving the R3 into R5 resolution territory makes sense from a line up point of view. The question is how much? It would cost a LOT more than the current R5ii, for what is essentially a R5ii in a Rx Series body shape. Would there be many photographers who would pay a 30% premium over the current R5ii? Probably not.
I suspect that if Canon is developing a R3ii, then the current R6iii would indicate sensor resolution. 33mp seems to be the new 24mp.

Click to expand...

I feel like a 33MP R3 II could make sense, but at the same time I appreciate the difficulty in fitting it price and feature wise between the R1 and R5.