Mt Spokane Photography said:

I've replaced mine for $10 with a ebay screen from China. That was for a old point and shoot camera. I've also noted that prices were much higher for modern DSLR's. As long as you have proper tools, JIS screwdrivers, not phillips, its just a simple job but requires cleanliness and patience.

I see a 5D MK IV new replacement from China for $189 which indicates that parts from Canon USA are going to cost much more.

Click to expand...

Thanks - Sounds expensive. Will starting asking around.

Great to hear you are happy with the lens. I have the RF 85 f1.2 (used for wider fashion images) and then also picked up the RF 85 f2 (for close up beauty photography). Comparing the two, the f2 lens actually holds it’s own very easily! More than good enough for professional use. CA and sharpness really puts my old EF 85 f1.8 and EF 85 1.4L to shame.

One thing I love about the RF 85 f2 is the AF accuracy. Really amazed! It is a lot better than the RF 35mm 1.8 (a lens I had to sell because my copy had far too much focus shift for my liking).

enjoy it!

Just watch the videos on a big screen.
Then you'll see the difference.

Sharlin said:

As I speculated in the other thread, creative use of this combined with focus stacking could enable creating macro images with both sides of the focal plane silky-smooth (or bubble-bokey if that's what you want) while keeping the parts in focus neutrally corrected for optimal IQ.

Click to expand...

Would like to see this technique in practice.......sounds interesting..

Are you looking at the images on your PC with a Windows CODEC or with a program like LR or DPP or ACR? RAW files on my PC have weird colors and other if I just look at them without a RAW imaging engine. Your camera LCD shows you a JPEG that the camera creates and not the actual RAW image.

Dragon said:

True of the telescopes on top of Mona Kea using lasers to monitor the atmosphere, but not something you will find in a back yard telescope.

Click to expand...

Artificial stars produced by lasers are one way of controlling adaptive optics, but not the only one.

Dragon said:

Yes, I like to take pictures of birds, but I did spend a 40 year career designing and manufacturing video and audio equipment for the the film and television industries as well as overseeing much of the standardization of HDTV, so I am quite well aware of the "preferences" of cinematographers. I also choose to disagree with some of the more esoteric beliefs in that industry. I once had a customer for digital audio equipment who claimed he could "hear wire" (a reference to low oxygen speaker wire). A nice concept, but bullsh*t none the less. Similarly, many folks in cinematography community were and still are addicted to 24fps because they can "can tell a story while keeping the viewer apart from the action". Ditto the current fetish with turning off the motion compensation on TV sets (so they go back to 3-2 pulldown and the obnoxious intermittent judder that results in). Once again, this is fetish over physics and much like the more esoteric aspects of wine tasting. A good round of double blind testing always shows how much BS there is in that game, and that is not to say that there isn't a dramatic difference between wines, but rather that the tasting process often goes over the top. BTW the real reason cinematographers hang onto 24fps is because at that frame rate, their skill set is needed to manage pan and zoom rates to keep the judder from making the audience ill. At 60 fps, not so much, so in the end, it is really about job security. In my view, the subtle differences between shooting with a wider lens and letterboxing the result vs. shooting with an anamorphic when the final resolution is the same, fall in the esoteric wine tasting basket. Even in Hollywood, VistaVision pretty much won out over Cinemascope to produce essentially the same look without the anamorphics. This list, while neither entirely accurate or complete, gives you an idea of how many ways people tried to avoid using anamorphic lenses in the film era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motion_picture_film_formats .

Click to expand...

Oh don't get me wrong I know there is the fetishisation and "look cinematic" bs and like any crowd you always get those people but it isn't as black and white as it is all crap. The problem with ALL these things there is a grain of truth in it, just not always for the reason claimed more often than not. I don't think anamorphic aspects make things inherently better but they do indeed change framing and if that fits your needs better then it will make a difference. Much like square cropping photos to really suit some photos can really be the right call and not just gimmick. Even when it comes to to audio cable differences which has been proven in countless tests to be a myth but there can be something in it for poorly designed controls and people hearing a difference (objectively I mean since all cases hear a difference but in subjective cases it comes from listener not the setup), eg cables of much higher resistance isn't apples to apples, factor all that in and it's clearly impossible to tell apart but without it the slight volume bump has been shown to make some people find it sounds better, just not for the reason marketing sold them on.

I think 24p thing is good example when along with 180 rule etc it does seem to be what people find most pleasing, not too much blur but no sickness or looking janky but some folks act like it is inherent to that framerate when you can dial in shutter speeds to match that look regardless of framerate. Even dropping some mismatched stuff into timelines can still be matched without interpreting as different rate when dial in more echo in post or such things to smear it etc and folks wont tell the difference and claim it looks right. Most the "tests" of people comparing say 60p to 24p I've seen had been loaded by dialing in same settings and light level and then of course the 60p looks less like what most people find most entertainment they consume to look like and less pleasing as result.

I can safely say wine is NOT my thing and I dislike all the bs around it but imho this is somethign that doesn't apply here. I do think the different fov to dof and so on lead to very different images much the same way I reach for 85mm lens for portraits because 50mm framed the same exaggerates faces in a way I generally dislike. I do think it needs to be the lens is picked to suit the composition though and not anamorphic for sake of it regardless of what fits. Fwiw I don't believe in the "it looks cinematic" crowd especially since even in big budget cine world there is so much variance in look from way stuff is lit, the post done and so on to the point I don't think there is a simple 1 value in isolation (ie. lens choice) = overall generic look. My point is proven by the list you posted in that anamorphic is just another tool for particular framing and rendering, it isn't the only one nor always the right one but I don't claim that, quite the opposite. Same way I don't think JUST spherical lens with16:9 output is right. It depends and need factor in what you're after and some content and vision suits anamorphic lenses quirks.

I suspect we're on the same page in most regards reading the last reply just disagree on the value of how anamorphic lenses render scenes.

You either need to use an adapter with optics inside it to get to infinity focus, which compromises quality or have the mount converted to EF-mount and you will get infinity focus. https://www.instructables.com/MD-Minolta-to-EF-Canon/
Or you can try a mirrorless camera where you can have the appropriate adapter without infinity focus problems.

Very nice moon. Well done, Alan.

Hobby said:

Currently I have a 90D and a 6D. My wife uses the 90D. I have my 6D since 2012 and I am very very pleased with it. Allways nice pictures. I love the colors. I am using it for travel or family pictures. No sports, perhaps sometimes tennis or dancing, that's all. Nothing very fast. And 20 Megapixels is enough for me. Everything just fine.
I do a little bit PaintShop Pro and Canon DPP, and than mostly on JPGs. We have very nice photo albums and photo memories!

The only thing lacklustering is perhaps the 6D 11-points-autofocus-system.
Most of the time I am focusing with the center point. And I do focus and recompose (on human eye).
But 30% of the time, my focus is not completely sharp. (And no, it's not my lens, it is me probably.)
Focus is not bad either, and hey, I am no photographer. (But I really try very hard to have good focus and it frustrates me.)

I was planning to buy an EF 16-35 F4 (920 Euros 21% taxes included in Belgium. 1 Euro = 1.19 $).
I can use that lens on both cameras.
There is now a good Canon Cashback (120 Euros) when I combine it with a NEW camera. So than the lens costs only 800 Euros.
And the Eos Rp is available at 1000 Euros (21% taxes included).
That's perhaps a bargain? A cheap RP combined with the good EF 16-35 F4 and than also a nice cashback.

Total price RP+EF-cashback = 1800 Euro tax incl. (= approximately 1770 US $ tax excl to have some comparison)

And now comes my question. Would the RP be (much) better in Autofocus than the 6D? And for a little bit faster action?
- It is mirrorless: it introduces me in the new world
- I can try an RF 35 1.8 STM or the RF 85 2.0 STM
- I can learn some new things
- I can dream of expensive lenses... (And I know the R6 is better, but no way I will pay those prices.)

So in one sentence: Is the RP a good upgrade over the original 6D ? (I am thinking of autofocus. Given the fact that the image quality will be the same probably. I did already see a lot of reviews on YouTube.)

Or should I wait for a new R-entry-level-camera (higher price) and buy the lens (without cashback).

Click to expand...

Might also want to consider the $1499 5DsR backorder at B&H (they are still filling them). That's what I replaced my 6D with. Not mirrorless, but it's 51mp with the 5D3 AF. Do you really need mirrorless and the associated high costs?

Edit I just noticed the OP is like 6 months old lol

WD has released new Professional products under Sandisk including new CFexpress card and new card readers.

This sounds like a very cool lens.

Likely will be super expensive tho and may be hard to financially justify if you already have a 50 1.2 and 85 1.2.

IMO, one way CANON could add value to this lens is to lay off on the SA correction a bit so that the overall bokeh style is more in line with the old EF 50 1.2/85 1.2 than the new RF 50 1.2/85 1.2; that would give buyers of those new RF lenses a big reason to get this one. People would be buying this for the bokeh and no other reason, anyway.

justaCanonuser said:

It is old tech marketing trick for guys, see EOS 3, Elans etc. of the 1990s. Male geeks love long spec lists and absurd feature packages, the quality of photography itself is less important.

Click to expand...

I have seen some fantastic pictures taken with APS-C kit lenses

SwissFrank said:

135/2 in color, 85/1.2 in B&W

Click to expand...

The irony I am seeing online is that softening filters are now becoming popular again because the newest batch of lenses look too sharp and clinical for portraits!

Jostian said:

I had same issue, and had to eject and insert the card about 5 or 6 times before it 'connected' with the camera, not sure why but had the same issue with a different CF Express card in my D850, also needed to eject and insert a few times before it registered.

Click to expand...

Now with hindsight I may have simply not realized how to access the cards, thinking that card selection would be in the main menu. Never the less, a camera should not be set up to display the warning "no card in camera" when there is a card but it's not in the right slot according to previous usage/programming. So, I can't actually say whether my situation parallels yours. I ended up buying a new bigger card of a different brand and returned the old one before I had fully sorted things out.

Jack

I chose neither A local store had a great deal on the EF 600 f/4III so I bought that one instead. Will arrive tomorrow. Cheaper than any of the alternatives I was looking at.

Nemorino said:

Have You tried to programm custom modes? If one is mechanical and one electronic shutter You can switch quiet fast. There is also the possibility to save settings while You change the custom mode. Getting allways back to default shutter speed/Iso/aperture is probably not Your need.

Click to expand...

I use the C modes for different light, rather than different shutter. To use one for sun, one for shade, and then one for mechanical would make it a bit confusing. I use the C mode mfn button all the time though yes. Still need a separate button for mech/elec shutter...

awinphoto said:

Hey guys, just curious, as my company is trying to reinvest in ourselves, we were looking at liquidating some of our older gear and replace it with newer gear.... We were looking at picking up a 6d mark 2 or two as our backup cameras but have noticed lots of backorders with lots of different stores.... are you guys noticing this? This still related to covid closures? Just curious.

Click to expand...

Just wanted to note that I successfully received delivery of a backordered 5Ds R from B&H ($1499 closeout price). I think it took like over a month, but as long as you can place an order you should be able to get one.

Just saw some rumors about Sony making an announcement for a new APS-C camera. If it's true I am curious to see if Canon will respond with an announcement as well. It has been quiet for a while about a Canon APS-C R body. Would like to have a clear roadmap if we can expect something like that. I would still prefer a high end R7 with my current glass adapted instead of the R6.

cayenne said:

That's what focus peaking is for....

Even with my bad eyesight, I'm surprising myself on how well I'm able to use manual focus lenses these days with the focus aids.

Click to expand...

Yes, I love how useful it is at achieving critical focus. As times I feel as though I'm using a loupe adjusting the focus on the ground glass of a view camera.

Del Paso said:

I spent years convincing myself that I didn't need the EF 135L, having the EF 70-200, 100-400, EF 85 1,4, Leica R 90 + 180 Apo, Leica M 90, 135 etc...
One day, I cooked a chili (Texan recipe!), and had a few (???) tequila after-dinner shots. In a tequila induced GAS, I ordered the EF 135, with a huge discount, and, a few days and many pictures later, I knew I'd never part with this fantastic lens.
Thank you, tequila!

Click to expand...

Some of my best fun involved a little Tequila.

Coffy83 said:

Thanks for all of your thoughts on the matter. I went through a lot of lenses over the years especially the portrait ones. Owned the 135 2 and sold it even though I really liked it but it was often too tight, I then got the 85mm 1.4 is which was not as good but had the additional is feature which was great for filming on the R but it also was often too tight. About a year ago I got the 50mm rf and the 35mm rf. I found that I only use these two now. 35mm for filming and when I don’t want all the weight and the 50mm for portraits. I sold the 24-105 rf and got the 24mm 1.4 ef instead. To be honest I think I will never sell the 50mm rf, I am so in love with this lens . Last year we went to Kenya for safari and luckily I won the Tamron 100-400 in a foto competition. It served me very well for this purpose, I also appreciated the additional reach of the 4k crop on safari. However, I also sold that lens as I didn’t really need it afterwards. We recently became parents, bought a house etc. so I got the rf 70-200 for filming and future kids stuff. Without isis leaving the 35 rf and the 70 200 rf as my only stabilized lenses. I might consider the rokinon RF 14mm 2.8 af for the really wide stuff in future but I think that’s it for my lens collection. I really considered to only get the 24 70 rf and the 70 200 but I just love my 1.2 and 1.4s too much. I will definitely wait it out for at least until Christmas with the R6...or the R5. You are right, I actually do have the lenses for the R5 more than for the R6. Still really excited that I sticked with Canon all these years and invested in RF...definitely seems to be the future now. My wife has a well growing Instagram page which is our new photographic hobby one could say. It even starts too make a bit of money, not much at all but enough to maybe justify the R5 in a years time...who knows.

This is our Instagram channel if anyone is interested:
huelya_dennis

Click to expand...

You are a new parent. I am a grandfather. Believe me, you want the AF speed and tracking of the R5 or R6 vs the R. That said, I'd save for the R5. That little one will be tearing around at light speed soon. There is nothing more frustrating than missing the cuteness.

I have the same problem with this lens on a Eos-R. I think that the stabilizer makes the problem. When I use the lens on a 5D-III and on a 700-D you can only hear the stabilizer when you press the Focus Bottom.
On my R model it runs all the time.
The focusing is very fast