any inside update on RP2?

Just received your book, I am left ___________*
* = speechless

Sounds or better smells like internal components (AF, OIS, wiring, ???) overheating.
Canon Service...don't wait any longer!

Cool. Got any numbers for RAW? I should probably test myself.

With the EF 100mm macro, using 1/1000s f/2.8 ISO100 I precisely 200 RAW images before it stuttered briefly and then truckered on. Bryan reports 150 RAWs in his review of the R3.

CFexpress Car: Sony Tough 128GB (1700/1480MB/s R/W), which was freshly reformatted.

I think for long hikes where weight is everything, this could be an interesting option.
For everything else though - no thanks :-D

AlanF said:

Iceland is a long way from Sydney! Could you post some shots as I am a sucker for Puffins and am suffering from Puffin-deprivation because of covid followed by avian flu restrictions.

Click to expand...

Took 33 hours to get to Reykjavik door to door and they lost my luggage for 11 days! I didn't have my tripod or filters or power point convertor but had the rest of my gear thankfully so had a great time

I am sharing my puffin shots to the fb "I Love Puffins!" group if you are interested and tagging the photoworkshop owner "ÖRÆFAFERÐIR - From Coast To Mountains". Einar shoots with an Oly for distance but loves his Fuji medium format @~100mm full frame.
The google maps location is "Ingólfshöfði Puffin Tour" near Skaftafell and his website is puffintour.is and http://www.FromCoastToMountains.is/

Seems a bit expensive to me, when there's others out there at a 10th of the price.
https://us.eufylife.com/products/t8410121

PostmanPat said:

If I upgrade from a 7DMkII to a R7 and use my EF Extender & 100-400 IS II am I still restricted in the number of usable AF points.? I am assuming using eye focus is not possible?
I do not see any detail on this in the R7 user guide unlike the 7DMkII or 5DMkIV manuals which cover this topic in detail.

Click to expand...

If you mean eyeAF, then it is fully operational as are all the AF points.

Skyscraperfan said:

Even for DSLRs corrections were possible in post processing, but there are many good reason to buy a lens that gets rid of all those optical problem with physics instead of processing.

Click to expand...

There are also good reasons not to – more correction generally requires more complex designs with more elements, meaning greater weight and higher cost.

Skyscraperfan said:

While photographers often used Photoshop to "lie" to the viewers, now the cameras use algorithms to lie to the photographer. If you can't even turn off those lens corrections in the viewfinder, that is a major problem.

Click to expand...

There are also advantages to seeing the corrected version in the viewfinder. Even lenses 'corrected with physics' aren't perfect. Notably, expensive L-series EF UWA zooms have plenty of barrel distortion and vignetting. Say you frame an image with the EF 11-24/4L at 11mm carefully in a DSLR viewfinder, or in a MILC EVF with the corrections disabled. When you later correct the ~7% barrel distortion in post-processing, you find that the edges of your carefully framed shot have been eliminated, and elements that were visible in the VF are not present in the corrected image. Seeing the corrected version when composing the image can be advantageous.

Skyscraperfan said:

It shocks me that Canon even seems to be proud that their future lenses let their flaws get corrected by the camera. ... Those new lenses are not even cheaper than the old ones.

Click to expand...

If they can offer a lens that costs less to produce but otherwise delivers similar final images, that means more profit for them – I'm sure they are proud of that, although it doesn't benefit the consumer. However, if you factor in inflation between the release of the EF version and the RF replacement, there's not much difference and some RF lenses are actually cheaper. The additional cost is generally getting you more features – wider ultra wide lenses, longer telephoto zooms, smaller/lighter lenses, greater maximum magnification, etc. The one obvious case where the lenses are basically identical is the 24-105/4L, and for that lens the EF MkII and RF versions launched at the same price (and the RF is cheaper with inflation factored in).

In other cases, some lenses are released at prices that are really a bargain. There's no way a 'corrected with physics' 16mm f/2.8 lens would be sold for $300.

Skyscraperfan said:

The heavy distorted 14-35 is really expensive, but for that price Canon does not even deliver a lens that produces photos with low distortion without the help of software.

Click to expand...

I highly doubt a 14-35mm f/4 zoom having low distortion could be designed that would weigh 540 g (the EF 16-35/4 is ~14% heavier than the RF despite being 2mm narrower), and using a 77mm front filter. It's also with noting that by 16mm, the RF 14-35 has ~5% distortion, and at the wide end the EF 16-35/4 has ~4% distortion. So you can sort of view the RF lens as giving you similar performance across the overlapping zoom range, but also giving you an extra 2mm of focal length at the wide end that needs additional corrections, but doesn't cost you anything in terms of weight or size (but does cost you more money).

Skyscraperfan said:

If Canon continues that route, I might buy a mirrorless camera one day, but only with old EF lenses.

Click to expand...

That's your prerogative. IMO, some of the RF lenses have significant advantages over their EF counterparts. Others, like the RF 28-70/2, have no equivalent.

Just picked up a Canon EF 20mm f2.8 second hand nearly mint condition in box for my R6 and loving it so far but it clicks when I adjust the aperture. I’ve had a fair few EFS, EF RF lenses and never noticed any do that before.

It seems to work and It is a 30yr old lens design. Just wondered if anyone else has experience with a copy and if it was normal? Thanks in advance.

candyman said:

3. Enhances the performance of "Movie Digital IS". It stabilizes the image when taking selfies or walking shots using a wide-angle lens.

This is interesting for the user of the RF 16mm f/2.8 STM. The RF16mm has been criticized for undesirable wobbles on the edges during vlogging when walking. I'm curious how well the firmware solved this.

Click to expand...

I thought the same thing. I have the RF 16mm, and am looking forward to seeing how well it works.

My 100-400 just arrived too, so I can do detailed comparisons. Though I think here more people are interested in the prime as Canon already has a fantastic zoom with the 100-500.

tron said:

The problem stopped because it served its purpose: You bought an RF lens

Click to expand...

Yeah, except that buying RF lenses doesn't fix the issues. I still get occasional lockups and IBIS jitters with RF lenses, and they still occur even if I reset the camera to default settings. Firmware updates seem to reduce the frequency of some issues, but sometimes make things worse for some users. What's really weird is that some people apparently never have any issues, even if they heavily customise their cameras, but other folk have lots of problems. It's not just Canon either - I know Sony and Nikon users who have encountered similar issues. It's the price we pay for having sophisticated gear.

Besisika said:

Don 't you love it when people stick to what they know and treat it as a bible?
You won't be able to shoot a bathroom scene with a 200mm lens.
I do realize that perfect photographers want top notch quality at all times. It took me 33 years to get rid of that imperfection and to realize that storytelling is about more than beautiful pixels. If technology cannot keep up with the need of curious mind, then it is nothing more than an obsolution.
I do have both the Laowa 16mm and the canon RF 16mm, but ever since I acquired the canon, the Laowa sits in the box: doesn't have autofocus.
I have been intrigued by Laowa for their ability to get out of that bubble of experienced photographers, and to get many to the land of curiosity and new ideas, yet, unable to get themselves out of that manual world. You give people abilities they have never experienced before, yet you drag them back to the age of my forefathers.
What good is rectilinearity for, if you miss the shot?
I know, we do not shoot the same thing. This gives me the right to have an opinion that manual lenses are useless. It is not a complaint, it is a statement of need.

On a side note, why would I use a smartphone to take a picture, if I have an R5? I don't understand the suggestion.
UW lenses are not just for static subjects. I use it to shoot volleyball and basketball games, I use mine to shoot tight space scenes such as in a metro and in a fridge. I use it on gimbal, I shoot manual macro with it, I shoot band rehearsal, and for all these examples, I need autofocus, and never missed rectilinearity. It would be great to have it, but not a must as much as autofocus is.

Click to expand...

What you meant to say is "This gives me the right to have an opinion that manual lenses are useless FOR ME AND MY NEEDS". That's better now, nobody will argue against that!

You can shoot action with a manual lens as long as you are the correct distance away, so that the subject falls into the very deep depth of field that UW lenses have. This way, AF speed and accuracy won't really matter.

Why use a smartphone to take a picture if you have an R5? If you want to use lenses incorrectly, and take UW portraits really close up to produce badly distorted images of people's faces, so they look like every other smartphone face snapshot/selfie, you don't need a premium full-frame camera worth several thousands of dollars badly paired in a very mismatched way with a low image quality, entry-level cheap plastic 16mm lens. You can do it much more cheaply, easily and conveniently with any smartphone, and post it on social media instantly.

kaihp said:

I used ezgif and it's "optimized" option to get down to 8923KB (58 images), but that's too much apparently. I did not find the limit written anywhere. (by trial it's 4MB obviously)

Even at the max compression level ("200") the file is too large (5.5MB); so I had to cut it up into two parts.

Part 1: (compression level 35)
View attachment 204772

Part 2: (compression level 150)
View attachment 204773

Click to expand...

EZGif is very good. Decreasing the number of pixels in the frame is good for getting lower file sizes. I use that more than compression.

if the EVF in the R was actually a completely fluid motion, then you'd have completely no idea which expression was actually caught and which was missed until you looked at the photos afterward.
vidmate.app saveinsta

TexPhoto said:

I have a 200-400 and it is a fantastic sports lens. But it performs poorly with add-on teleconverters in my experience. It seems to do well with the internal teleconverter, but I found it got really soft with the 1.4 or 2X external. You were better off cropping especially if you had a high MP FF or crop body camera.

I'm trying to come up with a something like a Doctor's Eye chart to photograph in testing the teleconverters.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree it's a fantastic sports and wildlife lens. I hadn't paid enough attention to it not liking external extenders. However, I had poor results in the R3 tracking motorcycles going through the Geert TImmer chikane three weeks ago, with the 200-400 and the internal extender. I 'only' have FF cameras (1DX and now and R3). My most recent APS-C is the 50D which is absolutely crap when it comes to image quality (far too much color noise).

I have the measurement targets from FoCal, so I could take pictures of that with the various combos and get it to estimate an image quality number. Not sure if they will be comparable across the lens/extender combos though.

What I found amazing is that it took a year and 10 days since announcement to be that popular




The story how smartphones brought back sales of dedicated still cameras to pre-2007 numbers




It explains why Nikon & Canon are not spending any more R&D resources to further develop future dSLR bodies, lenses & accessories while still manufacturing existing SKUs based on demand.

I was just looking at the specs of the R10 and it occurred to me that it very well may be the intended replacement to the RP. If Canon truly isn't going to directly replace the RP with another full frame low cost body (I hope that they do, the 5DIV sensor and updated electronics would be great), the R10 very well may be it. I see the RP as the upgrade path for digital rebel and M series users because it uses the same battery, the LP-E17 and sensor aside, shares many of the same electronics. The R10 also uses that same battery and has similar resolution as other rebel and m series bodies, so very well could be the new intended gateway body to migrate users to RF mount over time.

Curious why Canon isn’t going mirrorless with the latest round of updates. Not practical? Issues with battery power? Size and weight not an issue with cinema cameras?

neuroanatomist said:

What about at infinity?

Click to expand...

At infinity, the space-time continuum wraps around itself. Maybe there is a relativistic effect on focal length. Paging theoretical physicists....

neuroanatomist said:

View attachment 204589

Click to expand...

Both the Canon EOS R3 and Canon EOS R5 will receive new firmware next week. No word yet on the R6, but i geek out at new firmware!

peters said:

Maybe the R5 with an Atomos Ninja would be an option for you?
It also offers 4k120 which is awesome to have in my experience

Click to expand...

Can't work with prores raw :/ - I'm a Davinci user. Plus the R5 would be a waste of money for me because I have no use for the 8K footage, it's just too much for me, because not only would I have to shell out a money for the camera, I'd have to beef up my computer even more than I already have to make it process those files, and then work with managing the sheer size of those files, it's just too much. There has to be a balance. I'm looking into the R3 more and more because it can shoot 6K Raw which is more reasonable to me, but at a huge cost, so not for a few years most likely. I use my R6 with a Blackmagic View Assist 12G HDR 5" to record prores externally and it is awesome, I wish Canon could add the ability to do blackmagic raw externally like what Panasonic is doing...

abraxas said:

I wonder how would Laowa RF 12-24mm/F 5.6 compare to the Canon RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM...

Click to expand...

The Canon wins when it comes to AF, iris control and reporting the focal length to the body and IS.

bergstrom said:

cancel and wait for RP2

Click to expand...

You are as cheerful as a Bergman movie! It's a great little camera and I am keeping mine to pair with the R5. To answer some of the points above, the rolling shutter is bad, but the Pre-shooting mode is good. The files are downloaded by DPP4 as a giant CR3 file but you can quickly select the individual frames as 32.5 Mpx individual CR3 files.