Thanks for sharing. Anxious to hear from the regular reviewers, but this good news.

slclick said:

Rubbish, just be patient...

Click to expand...

Interesting, are you keen to elaborate?

Thanks for posting these.

I wonder if the face detect will work with birds. I've heard that some face detect systems are actually pretty good at picking out animals and wildlife. That would be nice.

So Canon finally listened to my moaning. I've called twice to mention that this feature is 'broken' in the image transfer utility.

But, with 'Image Transfer Utility 2', you can now wirelessly backup your RAW files, while writing to the internal card.

There is only one caveat. Canon seems to insist on saving batteries, so the image transfer is only initiated after you turn your camera on, or after it comes back from being asleep. Not a big problem, but when I have time, I'll probably call and make a 'feature request' to allow continuous backup.

I've tested this thoroughly on my Mac and it's pretty fantastic. Here's how it works; First, you link your camera to the computer and tell it to take your RAW files as backups and to always look for new files on your SD. Then you shoot. After you turn your camera off and back on, or after it goes asleep and you wake it up, your camera and Mac will start to sync any new RAW files to the folder you specified on your computer. You can shoot away during this process. I haven't noticed any slowdown at all in frame rate, or buffer clearing. Any files you capture while the sync is in process will be transferred to your computer. After the sync stops, any new RAW files will not transfer until you turn on/off, or sleep/wake your camera. But, other than worrying that I'm going to wear out my on/off dial, this has not been a problem.

For wedding shooters, having a computer may not be convenient, so I suggest you call Canon and impress upon them the importance of allowing this to work on your IOS/Android. But, for studio shooters like me, this is pretty fantastic.

You can also setup Lightroom and Capture One to read the backup folder as a hot folder and use this for wireless 'tethering'.

RAW transfer is not as fast as I'd like. With the wifi utility, it takes about 4 seconds a RAW file. With this utility, it takes about double, maybe a bit longer, but it's been completely stable for me, even over multiple days, without ever needing to reconnect.

It's a major step in the right direction and gives me huge hope. If they could do this to an iPad Pro, or a other smaller device, it would be perfect.

I image some others will like this as much as I do. For those of you who would benefit from improved functionality, please call canon and ask to make a feature request. I do it through my CPS phone contacts, but I would imagine any Canon customer service representative could do this for you as well.

Canon may be getting a lot of flack, but, behind the scenes, they're really stepping up their game. If they get this working on small devices, without major battery draw, and without needed an on/off, or sleep/wake cycle, The argument for the 2nd card slot - on most cameras - is gone...

gbc said:

Ah HA! checked the custom functions and for some reason I had the M-Fn bar accidentally set to protect images when hitting the right side. Another reason to hate that damn bar...
Thanks! That was driving me CRAZY.

Click to expand...

I switched mine off...

Mikehit said:

You are getting confused between field of view and image size.
You put a 400mm lens on micro fourthirds, on APS-C and on FF and take a picture of a bird. The image projected on the sensor will be the same size on every sensor - high school physics will tell you this.The only difference between each format is how much stuff round the bird you will see in the viewfinder.
'Reach' comes from the number of pixels that cover the bird.

Click to expand...

Exactly!

Take a 7D2 (crop) camera and a 5DS (FF) camera and put a 400mm lens on each. Go take a picture of a Chickadee that is 50 feet away. If the bird is 3000 pixels wide on the crop camera, it will be 3000 pixels wide on the FF camera because both cameras sample the image at the same density. The 5DS just samples more from the sides of the image.

Take a 90D and a 1DX2 and try the same. The framing will be the same as the above cameras, but the number of pixels on target will be different. With it's lower sampling density, the 1DX2 will have an 1875 pixel wide bird, while the higher sampling density 90D will have a 3815 pixel wide bird.

In general, crop gives you more pixels on target, but FF gives you better quality pixels on target. Your lighting conditions and lens quality will dictate which is better.

Where is the M5 II?
Anyone?

Del Paso said:

Hi fellow EOS R users!
Before I order the quite expensive RF to EF filter-adapter, I'd need to know whether it does actually protect the sensor from dust.
I'm only episodically interested in the use of filters, rather looking for a way to "seal" the body during lens changes in dusty environments (EF lenses, of course).
I would most of the time use this adapter with the neutral filter.
Thanks for your answers!

Click to expand...

From my use of it the past months: there's a lot less dust on my sensor, but still a few new spots have appeared. It's hard to do an objective comparison, but I would say it's 90% less dust, if not better. This is on an RP, so I don't get that fancy shutter closing the R has.

Apart from the dust, having a polarizer that won't reflect like crazy with macro flashes is so nice that I'm hesitant to replace EF lenses with the RF counterpart when they appear.

My preorder has been updated to a September 3 delivery.

He was dropped by the Canon program. That's the explanation on the Canon bashing. And Sony is trying to buy every youtuber they can buy. Everything seems pretty normal in the gear/photography world.

I hope the 150mm f/2,8 OS comes with refreshed design and a Art badge....

Understood. I missed the point yes. If the shot was taken from a far and then cropped to 85mm angle of view then you are correct.

neuroanatomist said:

Sorry, you totally miss the point. The idea is to take the headshot with the 50mm lens from the same distance one would normally shoot a headshot with an 85mm lens, then crop to the FoV of an 85mm lens. Same distance = same perspective = same distortion (or lack thereof, in this case). Perspective (and any distortion associated with it) is determined only by distance to subject. If you don’t understand that, please (re)read my reply to @Dantana above (expand my self-quoted section), the proof is in the beer (bottles).

Click to expand...

Click said:

Beautiful pictures. Well done.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the compliment.

unfocused said:

Complaints are not facts. Forum and Internet experts will complain about anything.

Click to expand...

I don't complain much about Canon, but the 7d2 was not my favorite. I found the autofocus to be iffy and the sensor to be noisy. I sent it to Canon twice and sold it with no regrets. I actually regretted getting rid of my 50d. I am odd because it seems no one liked it.

BurningPlatform said:

Actually the reco mended ISO 8601 date format is yyyy-MM-dd.

Click to expand...

It doesn’t recommend it, it mandates it (where full representation is necessary). Note the hyphens are optional. YYYYMMDD is sufficient to satisfy the SHALL statement.

BillB said:

Another piece of the puzzle may be that it is getting harder and harder to convince people to upgrade because what they already have is so good.

Click to expand...

Try telling that to anyone on these forums

Tugela said:

No they will not. Because it is new, Canon will have IP protection on the communication protocols used in mount for many years to come. People can use the EF mount now because it is an old mount dating back to 1987 and any patents protecting it have long since expired.

It is possible that Canon might allow some third party lens manufacturers to produce lenses for the RF cameras in order to create an ecosystem quickly for the cameras, but IMO it is highly unlikely that they will do the reverse. That is the great thing about a new mount system - you get to decide who uses it, how and when. It belongs to you and no one else.

The only RF mounts you are likely to see are dumb mounts (the bayonet but no electronic signals) or something produced in backroom factories without consent in places with weak IP protection, such as China.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why Canon would not license the new RF mount to other camera body manufacturers.......it would help Canon sell MORE lenses, and help spread RF mount as a standard, much like EF is sort of a standard today.

Seems to make business sense to allow others to use the mount, so that Canon can sell more lenses than just what their camera users need.

It's way too skinny, like the freebie straps tossed in with a new camera. I prefer a really wide one to distribute weight over the shoulder. Notice in the demo video no one has a large lens.

cayenne said:

I was just thinking, if this hit you, sure you're gonna likely lose your images....reformat that card.

And as far as the camera, I would think refreshing the firmware would get it working again....?

Click to expand...

yeah, good luck with that. Toss the card. Do not take any chances. As far as your camera goes, I'd think anyone going to the trouble of hijacking your camera's operating system probably has disable all the menus, except theirs demanding the ransom and the ability to enter a code to free your system (then good idea to reload the firmware).

Did anyone else notice that recently the Windows 10 login screen photos are now showing credit to the photographers? There was some grumbling that Microsoft was paying for stock images unbeknownst to the photographers but also that the images were completely uncredited. Now it shows the photographer's name and the agency from which the image was licensed. So that's cool now they can get recognized personally.

BurningPlatform said:

I do not remember seeing patents about RF protocol.

Click to expand...

There was one about boosting communication speed based on the lens attached.

Emulating an EF lens should be still fine, though.

Kit. said:

I don't care what they were. There was a time when a consumer 28-80 lens was a "premium upgrade" to a kit 35-80. But the times have changed, and today a "standard" zoom without a 24mm equivalent in its zoom range cannot be called "an ideal lens".

Click to expand...

I totally agree with that!
I got used to having a 24 equivalent on my hs10 9 years ago and when I bought my Apsc camera 18mm wasn't wide enough sometimes.

Now I use a 17-50 2.8 which is ok on the wide end when you get used to it.

The EFs 15-85 is a great lens, but a new version is long overdue.

Or at least the same lens at a better price.

cayenne said:

Will do!!
Oh good idea on the books. Do you have any in particular you could recommend?

C

Click to expand...

The Negative and The Print are the two most relevant volumes to this discussion. Other people have done updates on his Zone System for the digital age, with varying results.

I like the one on the right more, as I favor punchy blacks.