Posts

padam · Jan 18, 2019

It's kind of funny that the same author also has an article (clickbait) about the 6D Mark II
https://fstoppers.com/critiques/canon-6d-mark-ii-worst-camera-2017-209420

BurningPlatform · Jan 18, 2019

As the back focus of both these designs is around 10 cm, there is no technical reason for these lenses to be built for RF mount only. They could as well be built for EF mount. They probably will not, however, but the reasons are purely commercial.

digigal · Jan 17, 2019

Thanks. I'll probably use it for EC. Sounds like the best place to put that for me.

Maximilian · Jan 17, 2019

Don Haines said:
Ah-Keong said:

I like the 7D2 silent shutter ....
quite soft. Wonder if the 1Dx2 has silent shutter?

Click to expand...

I believe it does.

It does!
But it is much louder than the one of the 5DIII, 5DIV or 7DII.

ethanz · Jan 17, 2019

Don Haines said:
Sounds like click bait, and about as likely as one of Harry’s many predictions

Come on DON. THIS IS it. It will blow everyone AWAY. 20bit files and all.

Don Haines · Jan 17, 2019

[email protected] said:
As ever, great points, Don. But regarding the quote above, I agree that the R was positioned roughly on the 6D2 level, but that to me is a hint of the tech problem: the 6D2 can AF with 6.5 frames per second. I worry that the R has 3 fps in servo because of throughput/processor limits. I strongly suspect Canon wanted to give the R 5 or so FPS, and this is where the limitations show.

Of course, I could be wrong, and they just "product placed" it where they wanted.

My suspicion is that you are right. To me, somewhere between 6 and 8 FPS seems right for that level of camera. Of course, in the mirrored cameras the AF sensor and the image sensor are two completely separate units and with multiple digics you can have one concentrating just on AF and not have it interfere with sensor issues. Now you have two processes sharing the same sensor and I can see how conflict would arise.

Click · Jan 17, 2019

Thanks for sharing, Nelu.

Jack Douglas · Jan 16, 2019

There are also some BIG differences, so don't be so sure!

Jack

ajfotofilmagem · Jan 16, 2019

The LED's reflection in the eye is quite ugly.
It would be good for the manufacturer to add a diffuser on the LEDs, such as the Canon EF-S 35mm Macro.

Mt Spokane Photography · Jan 16, 2019

hmatthes said:
I shoot my R in APSc format often with long glass. Even with 1.6x there are far more than enough pixels in RAW files!

I'd prefer to crop them later in post processing, that way, its possible to position the image to look its best. With only 12 mp left, further cropping is not going to be desirable.

Larsskv · Jan 16, 2019

Having seen the full size images, and the “harbor “ examples, it is not hard to tell that the Milvus lens has more hard edges around branches in the background. Other parts of the image might look better on the Milvus... Personally I find all of these lenses so good that separating them in terms of image quality is hard, and apart from the 35LII bokeh (which is even softer at f1.4) there are no significant advantages to any of them. The size, weight and IS are really good reasons for chosing the RF35.

Chaitanya · Jan 16, 2019

https://www.dpreview.com/news/63045...-notice-for-canon-eos-r-after-further-testing

Del Paso · Jan 16, 2019

Don Haines said:
Have you looked at rock climbing gear?

https://www.mec.ca/en/product/5055-849/Technician-Harness

Sounds like a good idea!

digigal · Jan 15, 2019

Thanks, Mt S. That's what I've found too, that there will be some unexpected difficulty with focusing on objects that I would think it should not have any difficulty with. I I finally decided that part of that was due to the fact i was using the single point focus and when it got off my subject it was just so "lost in the woods" I would have to manually focus to get it back on track to the subject I was focusing on. I couldn't use the focus limiter because the subject was fairly close.
Catherine

Kit Lens Jockey · Jan 15, 2019

Oh, I had not seen the patents.

Also, the fact that the control ring adapter exists makes me think that adding a control ring onto a lens is probably a pretty trivial thing. If it is truly just a straight through adapter, I would not be surprised to see third party RF lenses come out that essentially still communicate like an EF lens, but also have a control ring added in whatever manner the adapter does it, just built into the lens.

Mt Spokane Photography · Jan 15, 2019

lots of people wonder why paper this size is not common. You can get 8 in wide roll paper or 12 in wide and cut it yourself, or just use it continuously and cut it later, that depends on the printer. I have a home made roll holder for my Epson 3880.

Talys · Jan 15, 2019

That is pretty impressive.

Random Orbits · Jan 15, 2019

degos said:
Yeah, if they'd actually done something useful like push the long-end to 85mm I might have been interested. But instead it's just the n-th concurrent 24-70 in their Big Camera range. I'm not even sure how many they have because 24-70 just isn't useful to me.

Why are they so obsessed with cutting the standard zoom at 70mm? They used to go to 80 or 90mm which made them much more flexible. And in the day when Sigma can make an excellent 10x zoom, saying "zooms are hard" doesn't cut it.

Or let's see some real innovation like a 35-105. All the portrait lengths in one zoom.

Yup, because it is hard. There are many 24-105 f/4s out there but no one has made a 24-105 f/2.8. Longer zoom ratios require greater compromises in IQ.

Jan 14, 2019

aceflibble said:
People who don't acknowledge that Canon's bodies have nearly always been a weak point for the company, but that it's irrelevant because the market is decided on lenses and customer support rather than body specs, are willfully ignoring history.

The main reason Canon has been the ILC market leader for 15+ years is their consumer level Rebel/xxxD line. So what you’re saying is that all those entry-level consumers are like, “Well, this Rebel camera kinda sucks, but man oh man that EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens is just frickin’ awesome, and what the hell, I’ll get the kit with the bonus EF 75-300mm lens ‘cuz that’s only an extra 60 bucks and that lens is even double-frickin’ awesomer!!!”

I’m not sure why it’s so hard for some people to grasp the basic fact that the features/specs that matter to them personally aren’t necessarily the ones that matter most to the majority of buyers. But at least the ridiculous conclusions they draw from their poor grasp of reality are amusing, and if nothing else that keeps Jack around.

BeenThere · Jan 14, 2019

YuengLinger said:
I've come to believe that many of us who hang out in CR forums are gearheads. So, I have no idea how many photographers think like we do. For me, the idea of buying a new EF lens is not as attractive as it was before RF was released. For example, for lower-light events, I'd like a wide angle lens faster than my 16-35mm f/4L IS. The current options aren't all that exciting, but even if they were, I'd hold off and wait for an RF version, even though I don't own an RF body yet. I can do fine with my 24-70mm 2.8 in most situations, and use flash pretty often when I need to go wider with the 16-35mm f/4.

I don't own an RF, but I'm going to someday, so I don't think even a great version II of the ef 50mm f/1.2L would tempt me much. But I'd plan to buy the RF version pretty quick when a 5DIV type of RF body comes out.

And so on. Any lens buying right now is complicated by what might be available in RF soon. But I doubt many other photographers think like this. Probably more of them just get the lens they need or want when they need it.

So, if all photographers were like CR members, I'd agree with your numbers. Seeing as how CR regulars are (relatively) obsessed with tech and specs, I don't think we represent the market. Therefore, I would flip your numbers over two years, or maybe say at most 35% buying RF versus 65% still buying EF.

At some point, though, maybe three or four years from now, RF ownership and interest will hit a critical mass, and then we'll see EF fading away as the legacy technology it has become.

We don't seem too far apart here.

It’s much less clear how fast third party lens manufactures will bring on RF mount lenses. I have a feeling they are going to wait awhile.

3kramd5 · Jan 14, 2019

LDS said:
This is a flash head issue, not a stand one, as you say too. As these stands should have standard studs (5/8") you can easily mount anything using that standard

You are of course correct. Disregard my post. My elinchroms (d-lite) droop with big mods; my profotos (d2) do not. I use light duty stands with the former and heavy duty stands with the latter, and it got muddled in my brain. Thanks for noting that.

MrFotoFool · Jan 13, 2019

I didn't make it in my February 2017 trip to Austria, but I am going this coming February (2019). I am spending two nights in the neighboring town of Fussen and hoping for good pics with snow.

johnhenry · Jan 13, 2019

BenKing said:
I'm thinking about taking a film photo course at the local JC, and I thought that I should try to get a Canon film camera body that would work with my existing Canon lenses. Having no previous experience with film, I thought that I should ask here before spending cash on a random camera body and hope it works.

I have: 85mm 1.2, 24-104 4.0, 100 2.8 macro

So what do you think? Which bodies should I look for, or avoid?

Also, do you think that my Flashpoint R2 Pro would work correctly, if I decide to trigger my flashes with it?

FD lenes ONLY work on older cameras, EOS lenses work on most AF film or digital cameras

Michael Clark · Jan 12, 2019

padam said:
They have continued with EF telephoto development, so new bodies will follow as well, I think it will come after the 1DX III, but the 90D will probably come earier.

The last time around, the 7D Mark II came out (end of 2014) a little over a year before the 1D X Mark II (early 2016) and then the 80D (2016 Q2).