Posts

mbike999 · May 4, 2022

entoman said:
Have you used current Sony, Nikon and Canon cameras, and compared the animal-eye AF directly between them, shooting the same subjects, under identical conditions, with the same equivalent focal lengths and apertures?

If not, that's a pretty wild claim to make.

Well I own a Z9 and my partner has an R3. Haven't used the A1 but haven't seen anything suggesting it is miles better than the other two.

stevelee · May 3, 2022

Dragon said:
True, but it sounded like he wasn't taking much advantage of the raw files in the first place.

He wasn’t taking advantage of them during the trip, no. Neither do I, and I shoot only Raw with that camera. I process them in Photoshop when I get home. He doesn’t need Photoshop, but did want some way to edit the Raw files eventually. He was just concerned that however he looked at the Raw files, they looked bad, so he wanted to know whether he was doing something wrong during the trip.

Tony_B · May 2, 2022

Bengt: since your original post is almost a year old, I'm hoping your issue is by now resolved. I found my RF800 developed exactly the same issue, and after much consternation it returned to normal operation by turning ON the autofocus! This lens is excellent, also, in combination with the RF2x converter, it can autofocus on the moon and resolve image detail as small as 1 kilometer.

Click · May 2, 2022

Beautiful bird. Great shot, Glenn.

LogicExtremist · May 2, 2022

That round piece of plastic at the front of the lens that has the lens specifications and the filter threads is often glued down and has to be removed to access the screws underneath to dismantle the lens for repair. People are assuming that because the disc is loose, it must have been opened up, or it was dropped. As others have said here, buyers are being cautious. If you explained why the front ring is loose and chipped in the ads when selling it, buyers who are okay with reason will be more interested.

jd7 · May 1, 2022

ethanz said:
Where is the IS? Are they not able to match Canon's lens?

I don't believe anyone has made a 24-70 f/2.8 with IS for the Sony system. I assume the thinking is that the cameras have IBIS so in a 24-70 f/2.8 it is better to aim for smaller and lighter than include IS. Of the available options, the Sony 24-70 f/2.8 GM II seems to do the best job of being lighter and smaller, unless you count the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8.

Personally, if had a camera with IBIS and it could somehow natively use the Sony 24-70 f/2.8 GM II or the Canon RF 24-70 f/2.8L IS, I would prefer the Sony for the size and weight savings. (Yes, I appreciate IBIS + IS should be better than IBIS alone, but IBIS would be good enough for on a 24-70.) In fact, even with a camera which didn't have IBIS, I might well prefer the Sony. YMMV of course.

bgoyette · Apr 29, 2022

ISv said:
If your post was not so ridiculous it would be just funny - what exactly are you comparing?! "EOS 4 Life" already explained what the original post "17.000" actually (I changed it from "referring") means: RF 800 f/5.6! And you are talking "...CR should learn a little bit about the market for high end cinema zooms, Canon's history in that market, and what competitors charge for large format glass these days."
Huh?!

Thanks for the kind words @ISv

. By now hopefully you've realized that my comment came before the one you referenced, so...no there wasn't an "already"...and well...yes, I was mistaken as to the lens the CR writer was vaguely referring to (I thought the comment was more general), and was thankful to EOS 4 Life for the correction. I don't play in the world of ultra-zoom glass so I wasn't aware of the new "expensive" 800mm, but I was quite aware of the recently announced short cinema zooms and well jeez...I made an assumption. Now that I've been thankfully corrected though...I'm still having trouble to figuring out why y'all are so upset about the cost of a 800/5.6 zoom, as if it's a number that simply hasn't existed before. Perhaps Canon was comping their new lens to this one... https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/918849-REG/nikon_2205_af_s_nikkor_800mm_f_5_6e.html

Apr 29, 2022

dickgrafixstop said:
Canon states that the 70-300L in not compatible with either the 1.4 or 2.0 lens extender. I understand this is because the back portion of the internals extends too far into the body that it causes contact with the mirror. Since the R series have no internal mirror, does that mean the the 70-300L could be used with either of the extenders along with the ef-rf adapter?

Your description of the problem is not correct. The mirror inside the body, or lack there of, is irrelevant in this case.

The extenders have a protruding front element, and with 70-300L, the rear element of the lens is placed far enough back that the protruding front of the extender interferes with it. At least, at the short end of the zoom range. Technically, the EF extenders can be used with the EF 70-300L at the long end of the zoom range. It’s not officially supported by Canon although the reality is the RF 100-500 functions in exactly the same way with the RF extenders, and that is officially supported by Canon.

The RF extenders have the same protruding front element, and that does not allow you to use the extenders behind the EF-RF adapter (the opening in the adapter is too narrow to permit the extender to fit inside).

If you want to use an extender with 70-300L on an R body, you have two options. 1) use an EF extender in front of the adapter, with the caveat that you can only use the long end of the zoom range. 2) physically modify an EF-RF adapter to enable using an RF extender behind the adapter with the EF lens mounted in front of the adapter. I would not do number two on the Canon adapter, instead use the Commlite Adapter which has the largest hole of any of them to start with, and is cheaper than the Canon one in case you screw up the mod.

When I did it, I used a Dremel to increase the size of the opening and it worked just fine.

RF and EF extenders on the EF 600/4L IS II

After getting both the RF extenders to use with my RF 100-500L, I became curious about whether they would perform better than my EF MkIII extenders when used with my EF 600/4L IS II on my EOS R3. As most will know, the protruding elements of the RF extenders do not fit into the Canon EF-RF mount...

www.canonrumors.com

foreverland · Apr 29, 2022

I filmed a little video with this camera, applying a cinematic effect with clog. I used the ef 50mm f/1.8 lens and mount adapter.
All clips are stabilized in IS mode and 50fps.

What do you think about it? Hope you like it!

R1Media · Apr 29, 2022

LogicExtremist said:
I too was being sarcastic, if you didn't catch that! lmao

Of course I didn't. So you meant I didn't prove the point Dilbert was making, and the lenses i mentioned are under-designed optically while having the worst optics in the RF range. Then again, you lower/raise? your standards to take my inferior lens off my hands for free. Too confusing

PCM-madison · Apr 27, 2022

The more I use this lens, the more I like it. Blue-grey gnatcatcher, Madison, WI.

usern4cr · Apr 27, 2022

emailfortom said:
No clue and wondering why NOTHING from CR either. I think I'm regretting signing up for a $100 USD weeks before the previous own's departure.

I sympathize with you. I signed up a while ago (at $50 I think) and have enjoyed the posts and also benefited from info on how to buy & sell RF equipment (enough to cover the $50 fee). But I notice a dearth of CR Forum content since after Craig left, so much so that it really feels like just a shell of what it used to be. One can only hope that it'll pick up in the future.

harrycch · Apr 26, 2022

Compact and lightweight 500mm DO F4.5 or F5 would be great for me. I hope it could be even smaller and lighter than the EF 400mm F4 DO.

DeanWilsonCanby · Apr 26, 2022

Upgraded from R to R5.

The other day I took 51 photographs (no videos) and the file name sequence skipped a beat.
xxxx0576
xxxx0577

xxxx0612
xxxx0613

Nothing for 0578 through 0611

I have never had that issue with any Canon cameras before. Reaffirm: NO VIDEO were taken.

FRFilms · Apr 26, 2022

Any updates on this at all?

AlanF · Apr 26, 2022

mandog said:
Alan, thanks for pointing me to optyczne.pl--interesting stuff there. I'd be careful comparing the two graphs you posted though, because they used different lenses.

If you look at Bryan Carnathan's cross-test, he used the same lens: Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS USM Lens Image Quality

Another possibility would be to get a 90D instead of the RF800 (a refurb is cheaper now). Then I could shoot with just the 1.4x, which would give 2x shutter speed at ISO100 with about the same MP. But from their test, it looks like the AA filter would eat up most of the extra resolution, even though it only works in one direction.

The data at f/8 and greater should be independent of lens as most good lenses have negligible aberration there and it's diffraction that is limiting. The R5 is still outresolving the 5DSR at these narrower apertures. I don't put much store by the TDP's charts, they are the weakest point of one of the best websites, if not the very best.

The 90D does not realise the full potential of its 32 Mpx sensor. And, you would have to use low isos. I found at the high isos I shoot at, usually 640 to much more, I wasn't getting better resolution than a 20 Mpx crop without an AA-filter (D500). I just checked on https://www.optyczne.pl/433.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_90D_Rozdzielczość.html and indeed they find the D7500, another 20 Mpx sensor without the AA-filter, is just as sharp! optyczne.pl is a hidden gem of a website. I read it using chrome browser to translate automatically.

sanj · Apr 24, 2022

Canon India launched an 'edit van' yesterday in India. It is quite a cool van. And let this be a wake-up call to people who think that India is not important to Canon. Canon guy said this is the first of it's kind and they chose to launch it in India for the volume of work India does. Here are some links I made for you all to see. It was fun. I was the first one in..

I have added my photo, just for fun... LOL

Busted Knuckles · Apr 24, 2022

Birdshooter said:
I'm, over 60 and hand hold the 600 f/4... lol

I find my CF varizoom crows foot mono pod to be a net strength/maneuverability advantage. Either shooting from simgle or slow walk locations taking all the load off is darn handy. The friction settings on all the moving parts keep the swings under control when this birds come blasting past.

Took awhile to learn how to dance with it, I am no Fred Astair (sp?)

I dont use it as a still tripod or leave it un handed for more than a few seconds, once balanced the effort to keep it aligned/standing is minimal

Del Paso · Apr 24, 2022

Nice to hear from you!
And a nice portrait too!

mxwphoto · Apr 24, 2022

BakaBokeh said:
Fast, Wide AND small & light? Yes please.

I would contend that 3 of the 4 is good enough for me (remove the fast). If you want fast as well the only possible way would be with heavy software correction or a curved sensor so optics become easier to design.

It would be great if Canon is able to put out some lenses like Laowa, but with AF as those lenses check every box except the AF.

scottkinfw · Apr 23, 2022

PCM-madison said:
What is your question? Gear recommendations for backpacking or international travel? Strategies to get top level , heavy, bulky gear to remote places, or something else?

My Question is how are they as a company for photographers? Do they give a great tour? Do they take care of the clients, etc.?

Thx.

sek

Johnw · Apr 23, 2022

I would absolutely own the 1200, if I could afford it. Shooting at 3840 in crop mode would be spectacular for astro.

neurorx · Apr 22, 2022

Exploreshootshare said:
Here's a repost of post I did about a year ago, but it makes sense once again:

I just don’t get why people still compare the RF 100-500mm to Sonys 200-600mm lense. Those lenses feature completely different designs for different purposes.

RF 100-500mm - 200-600mm
77mm Filter - 96mm filter thread
20 cm - 32 cm
1.45 kg - 2.1 kg
0,5 m - 2,4 m Minimum focus

If you look at the purposes intended, it is even clearer:

RF: possible walk-around lense

Sony: most „sit and wait“ lense… (birders e.g.)

RF: landscapes, sports, wildlife (77mm thread allows regular filters…)

Sony: almost exclusively wild-life

The narrower end and the exceptional minimum focus makes the RF 100-500mm a great sport lense for example for soccer, handball (huge in Germany) while the 200-600mm isn’t suitable here.

In addition, the RF 100-500mm is an L lense, the 200-600mm is not a G Master lense, a fact which a lot of users complained on the sonyalpharumors site when the lense was released. Since the 200-600mm features weather sealing and still is not a GMaster lense, it likely says that the image quality is not the best possible. (while it is still good IQ)

The Sony 200-600mm is a great option for wildlife photography. And yes, it is an offering Canon does not have. But Canon has a different, much more versatile and way more handy option. Comparing those lense just doesn’t make sense.

I don´t wanna trash the Sony 200-600mm lense here, because it great lense for what it is. But I’m sick and tired of people bitching and moaning about the fact, that the 200-600mm is one third of stop faster between 472-500mm and people literally comparing apples and melons. Furthermore, they only compare a single tiny fact…

Wow, what a response. I just don't think the 100-500 was a big improvement of a lens over my 100-400 II. 200-600 at least gives me some additional reach at a reasonable price point, which was my point.....but wow, what a reply.

sammelbourne · Apr 22, 2022

Me too

Johnw · Apr 20, 2022

neuroanatomist said:
That's not what happened. The Ra and the R6 both came out after the RP. It's common for Canon to add functionality to newer cameras that they don't go back and add to older cameras. For example, your EOS RP has focus bracketing. The EOS R does not, even though it is a more expensive camera it came out before the feature was introduced. The Ra (as stated, a newer camera than the RP) has focus bracketing, too, as do the even more recent R5, R6 and R3.

This is not correct. While that point may be valid in general, that's not the case with this feature. As gruhl28 noted, the feature is present on the R which was the first camera released. This is a screengrab of the R's menu for the quick dial showing the ISO option, this is the option that is missing on the RP. The reality is that the RP, as the lowest end camera is simply forced to accept the blows of the Canon cripple hammer even when they fall in arbitrary and strange ways. Still, can't really fault Canon with this strategy if it works for them I guess. Multiple people in this thread have stated their intention to upgrade to an R6 knowing how unnecessarily crippled the RP is. When I got the RP, I wasn't expecting top of the line AF, or IBIS, or any of the other headline features Canon has now, but I didn't expect it to be so limited that I would be unable even to take a manual exposure in the same way that the R/Ra allows.

Posts

Posts

Attachments

Attachments

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics