koenkooi said:

In the past the opinion was that the metal shell didn't have large enough openings for antennas to work. Recently I've seen articles suggesting that it lacks wifi to bypass certification agencies where most leaks occur.

Click to expand...

Makes sense.

CanonFanBoy said:

Sony's. That's what I thought before reading.

Click to expand...

I have friends who shoot Sony. Their FPS and their focus lock (at least before this latest firmware upgrade) are amazing. But, I still am partial to the look of the images from my Canon cameras and I am invested in a lot of Canon glass. I'mm thinking that my experience with the RP will lead me to a future variation of the R.

The turning table here is not a jump to another manufacturer, but my slow move from a mirror-slapper to the mirrorless world.

How can this be considered news? Sony makes Sensors, Olympus buys sensors....

Valvebounce said:

Hi CanonFanBoy.
A very striking image, nicely done. I’m not sure about the flag, quite distracting being the only colour in the frame.

Cheers, Graham.

Click to expand...

Yes it is distracting. My single object color phase. Haha

CarlMillerPhoto said:

Agreed. The S1H is nearly perfect if you don't need AF (though DR/Highlight control seems lacking from what I've seen) and I'm excited to see what the A7s III offers. Especially if it has the S Cinetone profile the new FX9 has. To my eye that's fixed all the color issues Sony has had.

I'm just a person on the internet, but if Canon wanted to get people into their mirrorless mount and sell people RF glass, a C100 III in RF mount would certainly help do it. Take the C100 II body, put in an RF mount, make the LCD touchscreen, and give it 4k up to 60fps in the pedestrian 4:2:0 8 bit. Charge $3,999. I'd wish for a lot more feature-wise but it's the kind of standard, unexciting Canon fare we'd get. Regardless they'd stop ignoring the sub $5k video market and sell a ton. I can already see young youtubers marveling at built-in ND's, a handle with XLR inputs, and a removable grip for gimbal use because they were only 13 when the original C100 released. Not leveraging video to get people into their new system shows how much Canon has underestimated the importance of video IMO.

Click to expand...

If they put it in an RF mount, it wouldn't be a C100 Mark III. It would be a CR 100 or something.

MrFotoFool said:

Have only used it a little, but still loving the 500 PF lens. I tested it with 1.4iii teleconverter and still extremely sharp. When I look at this lens and pick up this lens it just feels so good. I can't imagine trying to manhandle one of those monstrous 500 f4 lenses. If you shoot wildlife honestly I think this lens is reason enough to go with Nikon.

Click to expand...

It’s a fine lens but it’s not good enough reason to change to Nikon. Firstly, for me a good light zoom for birding is essential, and Niko doesn’t have one that fits the bill for me. Secondly, there is now a game changer - the introduction of high resolution sensors that need f/4 or wider to be less than the diffraction limited aperture to get the most out of them. The new 90D, for example, has a DLA of f/5.2. Whereas on my previous bodies my 100-400mm II at f/5.6 was as sharp as my 400mm DO II at f/4, the prime has pulled ahead on the 90D. All things being equal, a 400mm f/4 with a 32 Mpx APS-C sensor should out resolve a 500mm f/5.6 with a 20 Mpx sensor (eg a D500). Similarly, on FF, an 80 Mpx sensor vs a D850.

AlanF said:

OK, you hadn't written it before my original query but you had implied it.

Click to expand...

Pardon me for thinking it would fairly self evident that "Research scientists working in grant-financed environments..." weren't chemical engineers in the product development department at Exxon/Mobil (or Greenpeace - who doesn't even have a product development department, do they?).

After a lot of testing and bargaining.. I present you my new FF combo. A7 III with Tamron 28-75. I'm not planning to sell any of my EF lenses though. I'll make good use of them with the MC-11 converter.


My only concern now is the ergonomics. Sony feels like holding a small brick, whereas canon 700d and 6d mkII felt like they were carved for my hand.

I'm done for now.. At least until Canon announces a prosumer mirrorless FF that can do action photography decently

YuengLinger said:

Good catch. I see this issue was mentioned but not much discussed when the R came out.

I just checked both the 5DIV and the R. In AV Mode, on the 5DIV, my VF shows +/-3, but allows me to keep compensating beyond those numbers another full stop, for +/-4. The R just stops compensating when the little gauge's needle hits 3.

But in Exposure Bracketing, my 5DIV shows +/-8 stops, while the R shows +/-6 stops.

As to "why," my only guess would be Canon decides what specs to put in various cameras.

On a personal use note, Saturday I took the R out for dawn landscape photos, and I really enjoyed using it; however, I also brought my 5DIV, using its Live View. I don't see any edge going to the R for landscape, but I like the perception of better weather sealing on the 5DIV, and the chance to use it for quick moving wild life if the opportunity arises. Still, I do think the R is just about the best PORTAIT camera I've used, as long as the subject is not moving too erratically...

Click to expand...

Thank you very much! It appears to be not much of an issue, then. I would like to hang my 400 DO on my 5DIV and have a R for my other lenses. The polarizer/adaptor is an especially attractive accessory.

Sharlin said:

I believe it refers to the fact that the menus are fully modal now, with video-specific items only available in movie mode and Live View options in Live View mode. But it has already been the case with some menu items; if anything, the new layout is more consistent. DPR also has a strange aversion to the Custom Functions menu—while I wouldn't mind if the AF settings were under a top-level menu like on the higher-end bodies, it really doesn't matter much given that My Menu is a thing.




I really don't get this. No x0D body has ever had dual card slots, and indeed no Canon non-pro body besides the sole exception of the 7D2 has had them. No other camera manufacturers offer dual slots on enthusiast-level bodies, with the exception of the Nikon D7000 series before the D7500. They are clearly a pro feature needed by those whose livelihood depends on getting images delivered. To basically anyone else they're just an extra cost with very little justification. It's not like real estate inside a camera is infinite.

Click to expand...

I am not a pro but still having card failure the cause of lost images(especially of rare flora and fauna) is really annoying and having a redundancy at storage level is added peace of mind. I still dont understand why so many people hate redundant storage and then whine like babies when data is lost. As far as real estate for adding 2nd SD slot is concerned just look at Sony FF milc bodies they are significantly smaller than Eos x0D while having space for multiple card slots. Even Fuji is offering dual SD slots on enthusiast level cameras for quite sometime now.

As I previously stated, I am posting what was originally a RAW 24mm pic. It's not the best, but it will have to do. It is a pic completed inside the La Brea Tarpits museum at ISO 3200 24mm F/4.5 1/100 sec without in frame noise correction or any post production adjustments. With the IS I could have adjusted the shutter speed down to grab more light and lower the ISO or shot at F/8 or F11, but it was a quick shot in-between shooting a running moving object. (my kid) The first shot is without the lens correction. The second is with the default profile corrections in Lightroom:


As you can see in the first photo the corners are black and the center is curved due to distortion.


The second photo is a pretty massive difference. If you look closely the scene is slightly cropped on all sides. This is moving the shot from what I estimate is 22mm to 24mm. The bubble in the center of the shot is corrected and as you should notice the walls are no longer curved. With the profile corrections it's not terrible. Additional adjustments can be made for further correction if you don't like the level of distortion or vignetting correction. Overall I would say it does an acceptable job at 24-30 with the profile corrections. I had another lens with me, but it never left my bag because the size of the displays inside this particular museum were massive and I found myself constantly bouncing between closeup and wide shots in a period of seconds. I really am enjoying this lens.

Thanks everyone, I will send it to Canon as you suggested.

Upgraded yesterday - Haven't tested the eye and AF changes, but boy is the touch/drag so much smoother and nicer to use now! Just this alone makes the firmware upgrade worth it.

I switched the tracking area from from right half of the screen to full screen, and it seems to be really good at not detecting my nose as a focus change point. Anyone else notice this? I think I may have just switched it to half screen previously without even checking, based on experience with previous cameras such as the m5 and fuji. Was it always this good, or did I just assume previously that it was bad?

Viggo said:

That’s the same with the R. If you have highspeed display activated it’s not all that easy to see it gets disabled when activating AntiFlickering, but it does

Click to expand...

Ahhh.... so even though it is turned on in the menu it gets disabled when you shoot? Trying to understand. Both mine are on in the menu. It does turn off when not in Continuous Hi.

Edit: You guys are right. Weird.

Hi dcm.
Thanks for the effort to find him, this is the only social media I do so I never even thought about looking elsewhere.
So pleased to hear he is still going strong!

Cheers, Graham.

unfocused said:

True, but I seriously cringe at the direction things seem to be headed in terms of aesthetics. There is a rush to the bottom, where we are conditioning people to think of good pictures as overly romantic, highly processed, unnatural images. "Fake Pictures" is an apt term. As we fast approach the perfection of digital imaging to the point where it is impossible to tell the real from the manufactured, we all may be doomed to endure a world where no one is satisfied with authentic images when they can saturate their digital life with visual porn.

Click to expand...

I understand your sentiment but that's just the way things have always been. Many people thought color film was aesthetically inferior to Black and White when it first appeared and in many instances it was. But that sorted itself out and I think the new tech, despite it's current aesthetic challenges, will sort itself out as well. As far as real vs fake goes I'm not sure what that even means. As an examle: Focal planes and depth of field are artificial artifacts of contemporary lens designs. You could make the argument that depth of field is fake and that cameras of the future should have infinite fields of focus. Aesthetics are defined by human choices not tools. Superior tools improve aesthetic opportunities they don't diminish them. Of course the world is full of people with terrible taste that abuse every advancement in human culture but that's just the way things work. We shouldn't use that as an excuse not to advance. At least that is the way I see it.

Don Haines said:

have you seen any third party filters yet? I remember reading something about an astronomy filter for light pollution to be introduced, but have no idea if it is out yet.

Click to expand...

That one is an insert for the 'regular' EF-RF adapter, not of the filter adapter: kickstarter page.

I shoot only Raw almost all of the time. Usually I just use AWB, knowing that I will adjust in ACR. A surprising amount of the time, "As Shot" is amazingly good, better than ACR's "Auto."

The exception is that sometimes when I'm shooting near sunset and it is the look of the light itself that I want to preserve, even when not shooting the sunset itself. Then I will often set the WB for "Daylight" so that it opens with the right look in ACR. And if I don't think to do that when shooting, I will use ACR's "Daylight" setting as the starting point. I don't want the picture to try to look like it was made at noon.

juststeve said:

snip/

The caveat here is that I am neither an engineer or a patent lawyer, so I could be full of poo.

Click to expand...

That's the only qualification you need to post here!

neuroanatomist said:

Canon sold over 5,000,000 ILCs last year. If they’d saved 10¢ per camera, that would mean half a million dollars extra profit.

It’s sort of like, “If I had a nickel for every stupid post on CR...”

Click to expand...

Didn't an earlier post in this now VERY long thread...find that using 24p is not licensing related?

wockawocka said:

So hear me out. I'm only talking from my own perspective right now but I'm not a fan of focus by wire, feel the lenses are way heavier than their EF counterparts even with the adapter and when comparing L lenses they're just as sharp on an R body other than the 50 1.2

On the subject of the RF50 it's staggeringly sharp, but massive at the same time and doesn't have the softer more organic look of the EF50 which doesn't have the back focusing issues once on the R.

The 85 1.2 is frikking massive again and we have a great EF 1.4

The 28-70 is awesome but HUGE and heavy.

The RF35 while having a nice macro feature can't seem to acquire focus at distance in low contrast and the STM hunts lots in servo when the EF 35 F2 IS nails it always.

It's almost as if in the pursuit of being different Canon went too far and stepped backwards...other than in the IQ department which is def improved but only for pixel peeping?

Click to expand...

I understand where you are coming from. For me, if I bought into the R system at the moment, the only RF lens I might actually buy is the RF 24-105. Taking into account price, weight, size, and what you can get for your money with an EF lens, I wouldn't buy any of the others. I have to admit the RF 28-70 does catch my eye, but I am not interested in paying the current asking price for it. Of course, I'm not saying the RF lenses aren't good - clearly they are, and the RF 85 has substantially better CA control than any other fast 85mm lens I've seen (interested to know if anyone else has seen another 85mm which is comparable). All I'm saying is that, for me, when I look at what I can get with Canon EF lenses and third party EF lenses, I don't see enough in the RF lenses, from the the sample shots I've seen around the place and my very limited time trying out a couple, to make me keen to spend the money. (And of course, RF lenses mean an R system body, which means things like an EFV and poorer battery life, which I'm not keen on either - although I do like the sound of what I read about the AF accuracy.)

That said, from what I've read, one of the big benefits of the RF lenses seems to be AF speed. (Accuracy seems to be down to the R bodies rather than the lens, so applies to EF and RF lenses, I gather.) I have handled the RF lenses only briefly so maybe if I spent more time with them, the AF benefit would make me change my mind.

Also, I wonder if I would feel differently if I shot professionally. The costs would be business costs then, so might feel a little easier to swallow. On the other hand, if my old lenses were still working fine, you'd have to question whether changing to RF lenses was really going to increase income.

Anyway, I'm really pleased for the people who've bought into the R system and are enjoying it. For my own part, though, I'm not in any hurry given the current RF lens prices. And if I buy an R system body, I expect I'd mainly be using with EF lenses for the time being.

Regarding the lens hood's lack of flocking (i.e. fuzz), thank you Canon, for getting rid of a lining that loves lint and dislikes liquid. The textured matte surface works just great!

ebergram said:

Will this High Mega EOS R have.
1. Same or better ISO performance?
2. Same or better dynamic range?
3. Same or faster high speed frame rate in servo?

Click to expand...

This is actually macro lens convo .
Sounds like you dont want high resolution camera if want all 3 thing too .
General purpose sony A7r iv or canon 5div would suit better ,those cameras wont do compromises to get as high mpixel count as possible.

unfocused said:

LOL! The only thing "telling" about that statement is that you shouldn't rely on a machine translation as interpreted by a website that appears to be based in Colombia (.co).

My machine translation (Google) of the original interview reads: “The EOS R system equipped with a 35mm full-size image sensor still has a limited number of people to enjoy. Expansion of the system is the most important issue. (Expanding performance, price, etc.) Expand to areas above and below the current model."

Which is more like: "We haven't yet realized the full potential of the market" not "it is not popular."

Click to expand...

Thanks for clarification.
The actual Japanese sentence "まだ楽しめる層が限られている" should be translated to "it is enjoyed by a limited category of users" not "a limited number of people". Which is true and reflects that there are still EOS-R models to come to be enjoyed/used by pros, enthusiasts, etc., and as you mentioned it indicates that the full potential of the market is yet to be realized.

NadaMal said:

I should add its the 70-200 II that I have. I was using the EOS R with my 50 f/1.2 at the weekend and I have to say I am more than impressed!

The issue I've had with the 70-200 II on the EOS R was tracking moving subjects, I had several sequences of shots of erratic moving subjects where most of the shots missed focus. The new firmware is tomorrow though and I'm off to the Highland Safari Park in Scotland on Saturday so I'll try out the new firmware properly on Saturday. I'm taking my toddler son with me so I'll get him to run around a bit and see how the 70-200 handles his wild and wobbly antics.

Click to expand...

I think active portraits with longer focal-lengths might be problematic with this EVF. Please let us know how it goes!