Czardoom said:

Are you illiterate or just stupid? Ever used an MFT camera? Apparently not.

Click to expand...

Yep, someone definitely has an inferiority complex. Ad hominem arguments almost always the result of feelings of inferiority.

Today I wanted to take pictures of ladybugs..but not like this
R7+ Canon RF 100 mm f/2,8 L

I just joined the R3 club. It's more camera than most people will ever need, and remains in production today. Looking forward to years of great use, just as my other amazing DSLRs and MILCs before it!

I found this part which I suspect is a part of an FD 500mm f4.5L lens.
Anyone recognise it ?

PinholeR5 said:

I've been wondering about that as well. I do have the RF 16-28mm & 28-70mm f/2.8 that I use with the R8 in a small/light kit (I have an even smaller/lighter R50 based one). I've used the 70-200mm F4 with it and it is fine. Actually, the 70-200mm F/2.8 is compact enough that it can fit in my small kit bag. It is heavier, but compact enough to fit so I often use the 2.8 version.

I do agree with @Exploreshootshare that it would have to be really compact and light, i.e., less than 500g like the 16-28mm and the 28-70mm. The 70-200mm F4 is only 695g, so even then the difference in weight (and probably size) wouldn't be that large, but for that focal length F2.8 vs F4 would make a difference. Also, the RF 70-200mm F2.8 is 1Kg, so the weight difference is considerable and I'd assume an RF 70-180mm F2.8 would be less than 50% the cost of the RF 70-200mm F2.8.

I did look into the RF 14-35mm F4, and perhaps that would have been the better option. The 14mm vs 16mm is a significant advantage and the 35mm vs 28mm is as well. The F2.8 vs F4 tends to be not that great of an advantage for me.

Click to expand...

I have heard the 70-200 f/4 is a great lens. It seems like a low price right now for $1,500 USD. With such great ISO / low light performance from newer camera bodies these days, perhaps an f/2.8 isn't really necessary? A 180mm reach and weight under 500g does seem like a tall order but would be a fantastic set of specs. About the only thing I can think of to do it better would be to keep the 67mm filter size. Then you could have the holy trinity with one set of filters. Combined with a R6 II right now and you have a fantastic kit, affordable (as "affordable" as full frame Canons can get at "only" $6,000 USD), but quite capable!

Macro R7
Police horse

R7 + Canon 2.8 macro

Shot with my 100-400mm lens. Face Rock, Bandon, Oregon.

Like the others, I have not noticed any overexposing tendency on the R5 or R1.

ISv said:

Posting these for @zajicekpavel (old photos: 2023 from Bulgaria)!

View attachment 229988View attachment 229989

​

Mar 16,

Click to expand...

Well, thank you ... my colleague

Sporgon said:

With the R6 series now being 30mp I’m not sure I want the 5.

Click to expand...

I ended up flipping my R5 last month and I swapped it out for a new R6iii, to compliment my R6ii. I’m super happy with both cameras and a lot happier with them than I was with R5. I got slightly more for the R5 than I paid for it, so I can’t complain.

Interesting list and good to know. Thx. Especially that the 100mm F2.8 L Macro IS USM will be serviced until 2032. I´m currently looking for a used copy (or that Sigma 105mm macro...don´t know yet) to take with me to the North Sea.

I didn´t know Canon released several TS lenses. I thought there were only two TS lenses. But hell, a TS 135mm? That kind sounds crazy to me. What use cases are there for this lens? In my (obviously narrow) mind, I always thought TS lenses are specially for architecture or waterfalls and such things. But nobody would pick a 135mm lens for that. Also, has anybody in this forum ever used or own a TS-E50mm F2.8L Macro? I´d really love to find out about these lenses, just because I´m curious.

Really good quality images and tiny - I don't think you'll be disappointed.

Photos:

Philnick said:

You do know that you can set any of the controls on an EOS camera to do whatever you want (or nothing) - right?

Click to expand...

That's not entirely true, though. For some controls you are only allow a very limited number of things to be mapped to that control.

danfaz said:

Here are some shots of Burney Falls (the reason I was driving down HWY 89).

View attachment 229927View attachment 229928View attachment 229929

Click to expand...

There was still water in the creek. So cool when the creek is dry and the waterfall just happens right off the cliff. If you go upstream a bit, the creek just happens out of nowhere, too. Lava flows are cool.

I haven't changed my previous practice. I use back button focus with AF-ON for full screen with full tracking, and * for centre point focus, with metering. A half press of the shutter is set to pre-continuous shooting and a full press for actuation of shutter. That way, I don't need an extra button and there no shifting of my finger from one button to another to switch between pre- and normal shooting. BBF used to be "mandatory" for DSLRs but is going out of fashion with mirrorless with its AI AF. However, when there are tricky focus problems like a dragonfly in flight against a background, you have more control using two button back focusing.

For those with DSLR lenses used on R-series, this review may be of interest: https://www.ephotozine.com/article/meike-drop-in-filter-mount-adapter-mk-eftr-c-review-37535

I’ve been holding out. I still have my 5D4 and 7Dii. Not sure why I have this hang up about upgrading, but it just hasn’t felt like the right time. I’m a hobbiest and now that my kids are out of 4H, I don’t shoot as much. The kit works for me, but compared to today’s choices, there is no comparison against today’s camera options.

Mekos said:

After having changed to mirrorless (owning now the Canon R6 Mark II and Canon R7), last week I decided and bought the fullframe Canon 5D Mark IV (I own the APS-C Canon 7D). Out of the box, battery and memory card ready, I turned upset/nervous with something: Only in Av (or also in Tv mode), choosing an aperture (i.e. f/8), no matter the different brightness I pointed the camera to, the shutter speed (or the aperture in Tv) remained always the same, turning the file underexposed or overexposed! never that had happened before with any Canon camera I had owned. So, or there's a real problem with the upper left dial only in Av or Tv modes (not in P or M), or... for the first time I feel dumb with the menu of a Canon camera! (No, no exposure limits reached, nor ISO problem: tried setting to 100 and also in auto). Something else to try? Please help! Thanks, guys!

Click to expand...

check the shutter speed settings in custom functions 2 to see if it is set to a particular speed.

justaCanonuser said:

Depends on what you want to mainly shoot with that lens: the f/4.0 is a very good landscape and short sports tele zoom; the f/2.8 shines when you shoot people, including portrait (that's why reporters love this lens), and it is of course the better choice if you want to use it with extenders. But I do not want to teach you, you surely know exactly for which purposes you want such a lens.

Btw the f/4.0 L IS USM is not only quite compact & light (like the non-IS version), feels very nice in the hands, in particular turning the zoom ring feels so light and smooth, it is a real fun to use that lens. The f/2.8 L IS USM II that I have feels extremely solid, too, but it is much more massive.

Click to expand...

Yeah — for me it was my kid for a long time (now in university), and during that time we bought a farm and live in a rural community. (I know, weird for a tech guy.) As such, I've gravitated towards domesticated animals (e.g., ducks, horses, hounds); wild animals (e.g., eagles, deer, elk); and people or my own experience in that context (my avatar pic is from a rodeo), such as portraits around barns, warehouses, shops, etc.

For me the 70-200 f/4 original on an R6 with DLO is very satisfactory in terms of quality, especially for animals that aren't shy or things like cowboys riding a bucking bull. IS doesn't help much beyond what the R6 is providing for these contexts. That stated, I am on the Pacific Northwest, so things like humidity and rain are an issue. The lens has some internal sealing, so it's always fine (no fogging, etc.) but I don't bring it out much in the winter or spring. The IS versions are sealed better, so they remain attractive in that regard. I also powerlift, so the larger lenses are more a packing inconvenience than anything else.

But, I also have followed the guiding principle of expanding capability before replacing capability. It's tough for me to upgrade from 70-200 to 70-200 unless the advantage is overwhelming. I still have my ultra-telephoto capability to establish, for example, and since I won't justify $10k+ on a lens (I'm not making money in most cases) and I like primes (for the zen, not pragmatics) I'm waiting for that mythical 500 f/5.6 unicorn to show up. It's why my sig has all of those lenses: each provides a capability or interesting feature that I actually use in a situation that I'd otherwise miss emotionally for my day-to-day or month-to-month prosumer amusement. It's also why I'm not an RF person yet — the gains are there, but for the cash most of the time those gains (to me) are not overwhelming vs. my late-EF editions combined with DLO.

But I really appreciate everyone's input and experience, because my friends and local stores don't carry everything so I can't always test things out before buying. And renting is a real inconvenience for where I am.

EOS 4 Life said:

Also, the R5 C.

Click to expand...

Love the R5C. When you think of a hybrid camera, do you consider hybrid as being one body that does good video and photos seamlessly in one operating system? R5C feels like two completely different cameras sharing one body hardware, with that short reboot cycle between operating systems. So, I’m not sure how hybrid is defined in that case comparing the R5II and the R5C. Both are technically hybrid (R5 line, R6 line).

TexPhoto said:

I'll add that we RF 7-14mm shooters, (or EF 8-15mm) never called our lenses "dual fisheye lens shooters". It's a zoom lens, with lots of great options.

Click to expand...

Exactly! Besides the two obvious focal length choices at the wide and the long end, 8mm (APS-C) would be used by professional 360° producers to maximise final resolution. Furthermore, about 9mm could come handy when recording video in 16:9.

briangus said:

I bought it last year, was a good idea at the time.
View attachment 229743View attachment 229744View attachment 229745View attachment 229746

Click to expand...

Nice! I had fun with a fisheye on my M series, long sold. I might be tempted to get the Laowa RF-S 4.5-10mm for the R7 as it is cheaper. I guess the RF-S might work in crop mode on the R5 etc as only exposure is monitored in manual Av mode for these no-reporting lenses?