If you're shooting 4K HQ you're downsampling from an 8K resolution down to 4K. The minor crop from digital IS may bring that down to 7.9K or so. You're still downsampling from a MUCH higher resolution.

The thread is a good warning to check before posting!

SereneSpeed said:

I have to ask... Is Auto Focus not up to the job? It takes a split second in the R3/5/6.

Maybe keep the EF 16-35 and change to an R6 instead?

I guess I just don't see the reason to lock AF. I shot a couple weddings with my EOS R and using OCF and AF never let me down, from 24mm f2.8 and even up to 85mm f1.4 (and deeper DOF as well).

Click to expand...

It isn't really. I mean, perfectly ok during the day but if someone is pouring tequila down the throat of another on the dancefloor I don't want to rely on the AF. Electric slides, The Worm, chair lifts.... it's not something I can risk missing as often these things are one chance deals.

ncvarsity3 said:

The cinema stuff is cool, but I really want to hear if there's anything coming down the pipe for the RF 500mm f4 or the possible RF 200-500mm f4.

Click to expand...

Same same I would love the ef 500mm f4 for my R3 but I saw a video of a guy shooting dragonfly's in flight (albeit hovering and you have to manual focus to get it close first) on the 100-500mm. He said some things were just not possible with af on the ef adapted glass no matter how expensive. If I'm only going to buy one 12,000 aud lens in my life I would love it to perform the best is possibly can as I actually have tried to film dragonfly's and bees in flight. However I'm sure the ef version is 12k AUD the rf version will be 17k AUD so would hope and pray for some comparison test.

I would not seeing a winner coming from Canon Rumors.

Since the Image Height is specified as 14mm, that would indicate a Super 35mm lens (as would also be expected for the other reasons mentioned above). (For reference: C300 III's sensor has a height of 13.8mm.)

Hoping this one has minimal focus breathing like the 18-80.

Patiently waiting for the 1200mm f/18.

But seriously, I'd love to have one of those 800mm. Lots of songbirds here. I have an old and cheap 400mm with an 18' minimum focus distance. Yuck.

Thana, keep us all infomed....

dcm said:

I have both lenses. Only use the 32 on my M6II.

Click to expand...

The next definite advise.
Thank you very much!

Mt Spokane Photography said:

I am confused, are you asking about the display or the viewfinder? My viewfinder turns off when I take my eye away from it, I guess I've never timed it while looking thru it, it has never shut off while I was using it. Its set to 3 minutes and I never use it for that long. It lights up before I can get my eye in place, its almost instant, probably 1/60 of a second. I've never set it to viewfinder only so I don't know what effect that would have. I have firmware 1.4 I can set both display and viewfinder to various times or disable shutoff.

I did hold my viewfinder to my eye for about 30 seconds, no sign of it shutting off.

Click to expand...

Hello, I wrote through the viewfinder. the settings do have an impact. if you set the timeout to 3 minutes and then look through the viewfinder for 3 minutes without pressing any other button. then the viewfinder turns off after 3 minutes. but that was not the case before the 1.4 update. back then, the viewfinder remained active even if you had not occupied the sensor in front of the viewfinder. so you had no delay at all when you turn it on. since the viewfinder remained active. the current delay when switching on costs me a lot of time in some situations.

privatebydesign said:

I agree to an extent, amnd maybe with electronic shutters people looking at used gear need to reset any expectation of what a ‘low mileage’ camera is. But I never took shutter count to be an isolated number on wear and tear on a complete body anyway. Then again my personal vehicle is a near 400,000 mile Toyota so mileage obviously doesn’t scare me.

But surely we must agree that a camera with a lower actuation count must, in general, be ‘better’ condition than one with a higher count? Sure some users bash their gear about unmercifully, but if we agree wear and tear is more generally linear then actuation count (though it should be expected to be higher than shutter count) is an indicator of use. And if people want to buy a low use camera (for whatever reason) actuation count can help them decide.

Click to expand...

I think it is hard to say at this ppint. A lot if the actual wear in ILC is not tied to actuations anymore. But the Canon RF system in particular is too new to have much experience of failures.

I personally don't think 'overheating' in video will degrade the life time of the actual camera meaningfully. Mainly because for one, a lot of the heat is generated in the CF cards and also because the forced record limits exist so that damage to the camera (And the users hands) is prevented.

There are other factors in ILC that degrade with time even if no actuations occur at all. Battery is the obvious one, especially as this is drained just for operating the camera and not actually by taking the shots anymore (Making shot count per charge a wildly varying number depending on use case).

But there is also the IBIS, which we don't know anything about yet in terms of expected life time I believe. I doubt it is much of a concern given how long Canon have developed it in order for it to meet their needs. But it is a factor.

And then there is the OLED screen in the EVF, and for the R3 now there are also the infrared LEDs that illuminate the users eye. All of which has a lifetime totally independent of actuations, and in the case of the OLED screen, burn in is another concern.

So total time operated would be a good indicator for these, and as you say, it should be possible to roughly estimate that from the shot count if you know the shooting style of the previous owner.

Big_Ant_TV_Media said:

cause of folks in these FORUMS always wanting too add/fix new or current features EVERYTIME they think of something or see another camera or brand with the features they want

Click to expand...

Welp, that’s pure speculation at best..

Jack Douglas said:

Where I live on the prairies, the earth IS flat. Not sure what that has to do with an R7 though.

Jack

Click to expand...

Here in the Midwest it's flat too. In fact, it's a proven scientific fact.

Ruined said:

Knowing Canon this will be ridiculously crippled in some way, like being 10MP or the shutter button being the only physical button on the camera

Click to expand...

Were you naive enough to expect EOS R1 features in a $800 camera?
Knowing Canon, it will be a very usable camera, even if lacking luxury characteristics, fine for drones, as a backup in risky situations, and, of course, for beginners who want a simple, yet reliable tool.
Or do you expect a Michelin 3 star dinner in an inexpensive diner?

Click said:

Cool video. Thank for sharing.

Click to expand...

Puts into perspective what Canon is up against in the sub-$1,600 market.

Doormat said:

Thanks everyone for all your replies.

Yes, the M5 does indeed offer the remote port. I did consider buying but after reading many online reviews It transpired the M50 was more advanced and cheaper.

The move to the R line would seem logical progression given my current full frame set up. However as I mentioned in a previous post, it’s not the body - I imagine the R is lighter ? It’s the bigger heavier lenses I’m trying to move away from.
I suppose I’m set in my ways and miss simplicity. The cable release is as simple as it gets. I have the canon app on my phone and did play with it using 6d, but I find the need to use a second screened device a distraction and reverted back to the simple cable release.

I really like the smaller M system and love the 32mm 1.4 lens. I’m just miffed that canon removed the cable release port. Regardless of it being “ entry level”.
I will look to buying a used M5
Originally I was set on going the R route, but I want a smaller lighter system.
I did a few comparison shots using the m50 with 32mm and the 6d with 50mm
The M50 looked as good - certainly sharper. Yes, the R would be better still I’m sure, but I’m done with the heavy gear.
I use the 5diii with 100-400Lii for sons sports and love it. But it’s easy, I drive there, walk a few hundred yards and plonk myself down…easy. I wouldn’t dream of hauling that combo on a hike, hence where the M system scores.

Thanks everyone
BTW great forum

Click to expand...

Agreed. The M series is great on the trail. The M6II is now my hiking camera (M5, M3, and M preceeded it). Light, takes up little space, and I clip it to my pack strap with a peak design capture clip. Really love the 11-22 in this setup. Can easily throw another lens or two in the pack without really noticing it.

Alternatively, CineD got a change to interview Canon about the R5C:

AlanF said:

Maybe that's why Canon outsells Nikon big time. Nikon has some of the best camera and lens designers let down by the worst corporate side.

Click to expand...

After switching I can definitely say Nikon lenses and bodies feel and produce images that seem like a step up from Canon. But I could have likely said they same thing if I had taken the RF 100-500 and R5. Though then I wouldn't have a 70-200 f/2.8 that can also be a 98-280 f/4.0 with no image quality and AF speed penalty. Still I keep a toe in the door with Canon, that ImageGraph Pro 300 I got is absolutely cracking.

This camera is underrated. I think it is the best camera canon made in a long time. All Canon has to do is make some s35 zooms for it. (lack of sdi and mini xlr are the only flaws to me)

CanonFanBoy said:

I think some people will be very happy with the price. I see $13k for a slr based video centric camera must not have flown too well a few years back.

Edit: Hmmmm... no IBIS. That's strange, too me. I guess the video people use a gimble most of the time. Still, weird that IBIS was left out.

Does anyone else find that to be strange?

Click to expand...

I think it was probably an engineering necessity of some kind.

cayenne said:

Just to balance things out...
I'm still nosing around eBay to at some point by a Fed 3 or a Zorki 4....to play around with.

Often you can just buy these cheap more for the lens than anything else.

That's one thing I love about mirrorless and my M10M was my first mirrorless.....and that is, adapting lenses. I've had a ton of fun playing with old Russian glass, I love the swirls.

And as far as film I like mostly different aspect ratios you can't get with digital (without cropping)....I got a good copy of the HorizonT swing lens camera from Russia. It's the older all metal one, again, built like a tank.

Lots of fun to just carry around. I find that like with the M10M being only B&W...with film cameras with different aspect ratio sizing...I start to think about compositions differently too.

Doing these kinda makes me "see" my world a bit differently, which can't do anything but help a little.


cayenne

Click to expand...

I once had a Zorki 4.
The best about the camera, apart from the lens, was the owner's manual in French.
Quote: "The camera you dare not put in the side of great sun, shutter could get burning" (sic).
Nasdrowje!

unfocused said:

I don't agree. The main takeaway is that they are shuttering the plant. That means that they are permanently reducing manufacturing capacity for whatever category of products they were producing there.

Click to expand...

Which might be meaningless, e.g. if that category is lenses like the EF 75-300mm.

unfocused said:

They would not shut down the plant simply because they are no longer producing a specific model of lens, unless they do not anticipate producing products that are similar in manufacturing design or they expect the demand to drop so much that they can absorb future manufacturing at existing plants.

Click to expand...

Sure, this is a complicated question. Possibly the Chinese factory makes EF 75-300mm, and Canon can make EF-S 55-250mm in leu of it in another company. Maybe the factory makes a lens Canon makes no similar models elsewhere. Who knows?

My point is, with a shrinking market, switch to RF, existing stock, etc, the market might not miss those lower end lenses.

I assume you didn't adjust the diopter.
I've very bad for doing any Firmware updates - if its not broke etc.
It would seem strange the software would have any impact on manual focus.
Have you tried autofocus manual adjustment?

Not a professional, so you can totally ignore my comment, but I don't see anything in your photo or video needs that would require either the R5 or R5C, so I would recommend saving a few dollars and take a look at the R6. Unless you're doing wildlife, or other types of shots that need a lot of cropping, I think the R6 will be absolutely fine.

Two cameras in one!