kaihp said:

The R3 provides the number of shutter releases somewhere in the menu system. But that's the mechanical shutter, so mine keeps saying "<1000" as I only use the electronic shutter.

Click to expand...

The R1 does so as well, and like you mine reports (and will likely always report) ≤1000.

In my case, my images are sequentially numbered so I can determine the total shutter count just by the filename (with the subtraction of about 30 shots from my one and only use of in-camera RAW conversion, which I was unaware would create 'new' filenames rather than the same file name with a .jog extension).

When I read the article's title, I was hoping to see a 15-whatevermm zoom. Not that the Sigma 18-50mm is a bad lens, but on Canon that's a not-very-wide 29mm effective, and the difference between 24mm and 29mm is pretty significant.

David - Sydney said:

Help me out here…. If there is no bayer/AA filter layer then isn’t it full spectrum by definition?
Clearly the red filter makes it specifically IR

Click to expand...

The sensor has an internal IR cut filter. That needs to be removed to make a full spectrum camera.

See: https://kolarivision.com/full_spectrum_conversion/

I geo-tag all my photos. The GPS has performed well until yesterday.
I took about 1000 photos across a 100 mile birding trip. Roughly 900 photos were locked to one single geo location, even though the photos were many miles apart.
I am always Mode 2 for GPS.
The camera was powered on all day.
I was outdoors all day, but some shots were from my car window.
I took about 600 photos in one area over a range of 1/4 mile. I then want to another location about 60 miles away, and took another 400 shots over a range of 1 mile. All 1000 photos were assigned the same geo-tag at a spot in the first location.
I contacted Canon CPS. All they said was that GPS signals may be interrupted or not available in some locations. No help.
I understand that there will be times that the satellite signal will be lost. But the camera should not record a geo-tag from data that is an hour old, as it did to me.
There should be at least a 5-minute time-out so that unrefreshed data is not used.
That would be called a firmware bug.
Anybody else out there have this experience???

EricN said:

What are you using for your night photography?

Click to expand...

The best you can get for Canon (RF): Sigma A 14/1.8, Samyang XP 14/2.4. Sigma A 28/1.4, Canon EF 35/1.4 II, Sigma A 40/1.4 plus some longer lenses. Laowa has too much chromatic aberration for me (e.g. 15/2.0) and I'm recently looking into the Pergear/7Artisan 14/2.8 which has little 'coma' but a strong vignette. So it might be a useful lens when the weight is critical.
I'm often using stacking and that will result in ugly - moiree - patterns when I apply the distortion correction first. So VCM lenses are simply not suitable for me.

...and focussing only down to -5.5EV.
Same as R7 (APS-C).

Gimme 1/500s flash sync w/ EFCS and I will be super happy. It does 1/320s now so not a massive leap. AFAIK, the only thing that will beat that spec is the A9III w/ global shutter.

APS-C, Living the Dream!

Etnaphele said:

Ordered a 45mm 1.2 in Europe at the beginning of December, out of stock everywhere and the shop where i ordered said two weeks ago, that Canon delayed shipments and they have no idea when the lenses will arrive. Does anyone know what's the matter? No ETA in sight, I had hoped to receive it for Christmas (perfect family gathering lens), but now I'm worrying I have to wait further months for a this plastic fantastic (outside AND inside )

Click to expand...

Perhaps they misjudged, but demand is outpacing supply. Because Canon has a locked mount, we are beholden to the mother ship for supplying fast, affordable lenses. They finally make one and turns out people want it. Should have been predicable considering how successful 3rd party lenses are on E, Z, X & L mount but some lessons take a while to learn apparently.

The Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark III has seen a massive resurgence in sales and interest over the last year. Canon restarted production a few months ago and has yet to reach consumer demand. The camera is consistently out of stock at major retailers in the US and abroad. The G7X III is still a […]

See full article...

Sporgon said:

I checked it out; some terribly nervous bokeh at f/1.2, the boy on the green slide for instance, looks like the RF 50/1.8 !
The planar optical formula does tend to do this; adding an aspherical element makes it even worse. Even the EF 50/1.2 could get nasty. Kind of makes me confirm that if you want shallow dof and tasty bokeh with a ‘normal’ lens use an 85 or 100.

Click to expand...

As I said, it's not at RF-L level. Only EF 50mm 1.2 L level. If you know the EF 50 L and like the look you will like the the RF 45. If not then RF 50 1.4 L VCM or RF 50 1.2 L will satisfy your needs.

"This is one of the most interesting things I’ve seen on a speedlight, and I hope other manufacturers adopt it; it’s a fantastic idea."

Elinchrom added it on the ELC models years ago - and it's available on the ONE, THREE and FIVE models too - the group color is shown by the color of the logo and a bar on the rear display, matching the colors in the Elinchrom Studio software.

Richard CR said:

it's L quality performance though. the MTF's are very good. limited zoom range helps with that.

Click to expand...

I was a fan of the Sigma 24-35 f/2. Maybe this would be up my alley to complement a 24-105L

jimim said:

Anyone get it yet that pre ordered. I was in a shop yesterday that has them in. I’m pre ordered from adorama so I didn’t want to mess things up.

Jim

Click to expand...

Jim,
Have you (or any others) been shooting much with you 6.3? Are you getting this thermometer while shooting stills?
I changed the settings in video to high to hopefully remove this from popping up at times, but rather odd since there is no temp issue to display.

I assume the 2 holes on the bottom and the 2 matching sized holes on the top are cooling for video, and with the battery grip, they are blocked, but no warning to display and shooting stills at the time, and not in huge volume either.

neuroanatomist said:

Alan's point notwithstanding, there is a difference between quality and quantity. Sounds intensity is measured in decibels (dB), but consider the difference between 40 dB of a stream babbling past you as you sit in quiet contemplation for a couple of hours, versus 40 dB of an infant whimpering for a couple of hours as you sit next to the crib. Same quantity of sound, very different quality. In the latter case, I might be inclined to take a break, perhaps letting Samuel L Jackson read the bedtime story).

P2P is quantifying the total read noise, regardless of whether it shows up in the image as luminance noise or chroma noise. The latter is much more visually distracting, and in your example the Sony clearly has a larger, coarser component of it in the image.

Image Noise: Examples and Characteristics

www.cambridgeincolour.com

Click to expand...

Cambridge in colour is simply the best. The author has some superb local photos on the web too: https://pbase.com/compuminus/cambridge

On 7th January 2026, FUJIFILM Corporation announced the forthcoming launch of the “instax mini Evo Cinema™,” an entirely new device and a part of its “Evo” series of hybrid instant cameras. Scheduled to be launched in Japan on 30th January 2026, this device will bring video recording functionality to the already highly popular “Instax” series. […]

See full article...

eero said:

EF500 4.0L IS II USM lens hood has been unavailable for several years now, and apparently no longer produced (according to Canon UK and US). That is quite sad, as it is the most easily breaking part of the product (even if it is not part of the actual lens). I wish the support promise would also cover spare parts like that.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you can 3D print one of your own? I find that works well, when needed. If you don't have access to such you might consider a service with options such as this:

Note: I have not used them, but I with some homework / calls you might be able to assure yourself of the product. After all, it's a static piece.

neuroanatomist said:

I'm curious, how do you compare your copy of a lens to online tests of other copies or different lenses? People use different cameras, and take pictures of different things. Some of them do it better than others.

The only time I was confidently able to say that my copy of a lens was sharper than an online test was with my EF-M 18-150, where Bryan/TDP posted the usual shots of his 'enhanced ISO-12233' charts and I tested my copy of that lens on an equivalent camera (M2 vs M, essentially the same sensor), and I have the same charts that he uses. In that case, he bought another copy and tested that and it gave results similar to mine (i.e. better than his first copy). Even though I have the same charts, he uses a 45-50 MP 5-series camera for his testing, and I don't. Comparing the sharpness of even the same test chart shot with an R1 vs. an R5 won't enable me to determine the relative sharpness of my copy of an RF or EF lens vs. his.

It's not too difficult to spot results from a poor copy of a lens, but IMO confidently distinguishing between 'good' copies of a lens or comparing one lens to another requires testing both lenses under the same conditions. I don't see how one can take pictures with their lens and declare that their lens is sharper than other copies based on pictures posted by someone else online (the pictures may be sharper, but there is more that goes into a picture posted online than just the lens...subject, focus, processing, downsampling, etc.).


If you put your copy of the 70-200/2.8 II on an optical bench and quantified parameters like MTF, field curvature, etc., and compared those to data published by LensRentals for multiple copies of the same lens, that would be a valid comparison demonstrating that your lens is sharper.

Click to expand...

I agree, I have a few lenses that are outrageously sharp. They far out resolve the sensors on my R6ii and R5, even with teleconverters. This aligns with their respective theoretical MFT curves. However, I would never say that any of my lenses are sharper than their theoretical MFT chart scores. How would I validate it without lab testing my lenses and a large range of other lenses also? However, it is reasonable for me to estimate, seeing my results in Lightroom, I can say that they are probably close or similar to that value.

I also have a copy of the ef 70-200/2.8 LIS II, I bought it new back when it was a "just released" new model and it cost me a fair penny. It's a specific lens that I am very familiar with. On my 5DII/III it was an amazingly sharp lens. I also loved it's contrast, colour rendition, it's superlative AF and excellent IS. Great with a 1.4x TC III but not so great with a 2x TC III. It always needed a whole extra stop of aperture to sharpen up that lens to acceptable levels. It's image quality seemed to deteriorate close to it's Min focus distance than at infinity focus. Which is something that's rarely noted in lens reviews. I used it a lot with my old 5DIII's with their softer and less resolved sensor. I still have this lens and I use it far less than I used to. It's still nice to use on My R6ii and R5. It's big and heavy, I'm not using that aperture / focal length much these days. I really should get around to side grading it to a RF lens, maybe I'd use it more. However, It's no where near as sharp as my ef 100-400mm II LIS at 400mm. With a 1.4x TC it's nearly as sharp at 300mm and natively it's as sharp at 200mm. But I'd never say that it was "wozers" sharp! So for my copy, I can hand on heart say that it out resolved the 5DIII sensor. But the R6ii substantially out resolves the 5DIII and my R5 comfortably out resolves every sensor except the 5DSR. I can honestly say that the ef 70-200/2.8 LIS II is a sharp lens, probably as sharp as it's RF counterpart. However, there are a lot of copy variations and most of these have substantially lower MFT curves than their theoretical plots might suggest. The new RF 70-200mm f2.8 Z lens looks very impressive, I'm sure this is a lens that also follows closely to it's theoretical chart scores.
I have lenses like my EF 400mm f2.8 LIS II and EF 100-400mm f5.6 LIS II which seem seems to align with their theoretical MFT plots and lead me to belive these lenses are built very close to their theoretical values. However, one major caveat..... my sensors are not yet matching or exceeding the resolution of these lenses. Where as the 5DIII (and I suggest the R3) are hardly taxing their lenses much at all compared to what a R5/R5ii will.

It reminds me of recent conversation i had with a "professional" events photographer that was hired by a family and came to my local Church (even though I run the photography for this particular parish). He reliably informed me that his ef 70-200mm f2.8 LIS was one of the sharpest lenses Canon had ever made and his particaulr one was cherry picked and was one of the sharpest. He was also running 5DIII's and I didn't dare show him my kit bag or lens inventory. However, he ended up using a lot of my images in his portfolio he sent to his client (I made them available for him for free).
I never got to see his magic unicorn sharp lens....I suspect that I never will. I'll take measured MFT's as a guide over hyperboles every time. However, what he did do for me is to remind me that I needed to "up the quality" of my business cards....lol!

Canon Rumors said:

Canon had a interesting 2025 when it came to cameras and lenses. We got some new non-L lenses that have been requested by a lot of shooters for the RF mount along with a lot of cool and relatively affordable cameras for videographers and social media contact creators. How did the 2025 Predictions Go? Our […]

See full article...

Click to expand...

No sign of a new macro lens ? Something that could replace the MPE-65 or a new 200mm macro lens ? Desperately waiting for an evolution of macro lenses...

neuroanatomist said:

Not the first post on the subject (though a link to a LensRentals blog post that was provided by @AlanF going on 9 years ago is still relevant), but just a reminder of why I use protective filters on almost all of my lenses.



Incidentally, a couple of years ago I wrote a long post about B+W's 'new' filter mounts (Basic, Master and T-Pro) and packaging (leather pouches announced for their 75th anniversary). That post seems to have disappeared. I'm sticking with the Master line. It has the same spec as the prior XS-Pro while the T-Pro mount is very slightly thinner, but I find the XS-Pro to be more than thin enough, and I'll pass on the titanium-colored coating instead of the black coating on the same brass; I also prefer the knurling on the Master over the smooth T-Pro edges.

Despite their announcement in 2022 that, "From now on, all B+W filters will be delivered in high-quality cases made of genuine leather," they've changed the packaging inside the box yet again. For those keeping track, it was a plastic box with a foam insert for many years, then a brief flirtation with a fabric bag before the switch to a leather pouch in 2022, and now they are using a lightweight metal alloy box (aluminum-looking but a magnet sticks) with a foam insert.

Click to expand...

FWIW, I purchased T-Pro UV-Haze / protection filters last June and all (77mm/82mm) were packaged in leather pouches.

luka3rd said:

Obvious design flaw... Canon loves thin plastic lately.
Non L is not excuse, they charge pretty pennies for it.

Click to expand...

What news do you have on this topic 9 month later? Apparently there was no.

OK, great. Authentic answer counter just stepped from 0 to 1.

koenkooi said:

Speaking of regional differences, that was an excellent opportunity to use “bless your heart.” It’s in my top 3 of English colloquialisms

Click to expand...

Yes! "Worthless as tits on a boar hog."

GMCPhotographics said:

AlanF, yes i'm very aware of those figures. However, we all make a choice of where on that scale we choose to buy into the MP density scale. For me, I prefer the lower noise in my final images and post production file handling of the R6ii and I'm not seeing a massive amount over extra fine detail in my images from my R5. It's there but nit as much as I was expecting.

If we are talking about printing to the same size equivelence, then why isn't the R7 more popular?

Click to expand...

The R7 is very popular with me and with other birders here like @Dragon as we do squeeze out extra detail compared with cropping FF to the same image sensor size with the same lens on both. Equivalence is for when you blow up the whole of the sensor to the same output size, using a shorter focal length lens for the smaller sensor.

According to the optyczne site you referred to, the R5 resolves up to 28% more detail in good light with a wide lens. Whether or not you see or need this extra resolution depends on what you are photographing. If it's a jumbo jet you don't have the fine detail to resolve. If it's a bird too far away that the feather detail is not resolved by both the R5 and R6ii then you won't see much difference in resolution. If the bird is so close that both can fully resolve the details on the feathers, then it doesn't make much difference. If you have a coke bottle for a lens and it is in deep shade, then you won't see much difference. But, if there is a bird that is in the range of distances where it is just beyond the resolution of the R6ii but enters the resolution of the R5 that can see its feathers, then it does make a difference. It's roughly equivalent to having a 640mm lens vs a 500mm lens. And, if the image is such that I have to crop the FF image, which is usuaI for me, and I want to squeeze out another 20% or so, I grab the R7.

el peso said:

What exactly is unclear? That f/2.8 on a crop body gives you crappy bokeh similar to roughly f/4.5 on full frame?

Click to expand...

I know you’re being facetious, but the pedantic part of me can’t help but point out that bokeh is about the quality of the blur, not the quantity.

I shoot both, but rarely did I find the need to use tilt for controlling DOF. I just stop down and am happy with the results. Since I use a tripod anyways and actually prefer long exposures, this has worked out for me.

I use shift function way, way, way more often, mainly because I stitch a lot.

The only time I really do use tilt is for product shots in studio, but that's usually with 90TS and 135TS. As far as I'm concerned, I'd be perfectly fine not having tilt functionality on 17, 24 and 50 TS lenses.