Took theses the other Evening on a trip we took to Japantown in SF, I have to say there is a strong argument for only needing the 28-70 and 70-200 to cover a TON of ground I mean a ton. This lens really has floored me It is my go to in my studio here , it has been used heavily for music, product photography, event photography and headhot/portrait work as well. It does almost all of it flawlessly and while It isn't quite on par with my 85 1.2 for full on portrait shots it sure is a fantastic one lens wonder in my eyes.

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.

I sent Delkin the same info I posted above. They already responded and are looking into the matter. For what it’s worth, Delkin gets my compliments for responding so quickly each time. I’ll provide an update as I get them.

vlasena said:

Thank you for sharing, but that is very sad that even after 2 generations of R6, Canon still does not have a solution and we have to use 3rd party software. I am not a pro, for me even the original R6 is still good enough, pictures and colors are amazing if not better, however for video all those GOPs and other funcy stuff is not a substitution of proper IBIS. Not sure how this is not in every single review. GoPro or DJI all have some kind of digital, canon just a stabilization for photos. Who cares about your amazing video if it is wobly and ugly?

Click to expand...

I agree. If it is any consolation, there is only one interchangeable lens camera brand doing IBIS well enough to eliminate a gimbal right now, and reliably shoot smooth looking hand held (even 200mm is achievable), and that is with a Panasonic Lumix. The Canon R6 is indeed still a compelling camera in many ways, especially if you are doing a limited amount of video. Shorter clips will look as good as the R6 II, slightly better in the R6 III but again, more incremental and not needed much unless you need to shoot video over 30 minutes at a time or 4k 60 fps over 10 minutes (to avoid overheating). I agree that brands like GoPro/DJI/Insta360 are moving into video fast. The DJI Osmo Pocket 3 for only $525 USD (new on B&H right now), is the clear leader and somewhat of a game changer. Its larger 1" sensor has helped it a bit in lower light situations over previous models, the gimbal for obvious reasons (no wobble) and the ability to pull the camera out and start recording so quickly. Its sensor can always improve, especially for low light, but the biggest limiting factor is probably the 20mm full frame equivalent field of view. For most "vlog" style video its perfect to shoot yourself and the scene behind you. A firmware update gives us a 40mm equivalent crop, but that does limit the sensor. My guess is the next generation Pocket 4 was going to work on these two weaknesses (sensor capabilities and field of view). The fact that it is over 2 years old means that DJI was probably close to releasing a version 4 but then the December, 2025 ruling in the United States banned not only drones from China/DJI but also any new device with radio communications (which includes the Wi-Fi / Bluetooth connectivity to your phone or lav mics standard on the new Pockets). The good news is that the Osmo Pocket 3 is still for sale in the US. DJI was so far ahead of the competition that it probably still has a couple years before anything else comes close. It is likely DJI will continue to innovate and have new models ready to offer the US market if/when the ban is lifted. For now, if you need 4k video in a 20mm equivalent field of view in moderate to well-lit situations, there is nothing easier than the Osmo Pocket 3.

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...

Click said:

I like its inverted position.

Click to expand...

I think when they are freshly "hatched" they are always in that position: gravity is helping to pump body liquid into the wings in order to stretch and make them usable for flight. In that process the wings are very vulnerable to any branches, leafs e.t.c. that may touche and deform them.

How about corners for landscape?

Very nice series. Well done!

I like layers of different shades. Happy New Year.

EricN said:

The one with the chocolate (?) Dripping from the spoon is a great concept.
My two favorites are the second set's third photo and the third set's final photo.
Well done thanks for sharing!

Click to expand...

yep it was hot chocolate

Thank you - when I saw the view from the plane's window I knew I had to wip out the camera

I really like the dark background. Nicely done, Noreaster.

I do hope that when Canon finally releases the RF300-600mm lens it has a built-in 1.4 teleconverter. This would make it ideal for bird and wildlife photography.

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.

Stunning photos!

Well done, dcm.

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.