Posts

homebodyMacro2 · May 17, 2026

GoMustang said:
Am I the first to report firmware 1.30 issue? After 1.30 upgrade, my Delkin 2TB CF-B card can't be read, and can't be formatted either. Tried low-level format, but it wouldn't work either.

I'm pretty sure I recall people having issues with ultra-capacity cards in a previous update? I don't remember exactly what the solution was, but I want to say Canon issued some comments on it?

Also, I have a Delkin 1TB card and had no issues; I'm not sure what card capacity may start to cause issues.

tomcat · May 17, 2026

Delete this post please! I wrote it in the thread of the Upgrades.

Michael Clark · May 17, 2026

1ll said:
I'm a photographer who is not interested in using a mirrorless, full-frame camera for video. I'd like to purchase a photographers only camera. Canon could make the R3M2 for that purpose. Without video capabilities the camera might cost less and not succumb to overheating issues.

What does the EVF in any mirrorless depend upon? (Hint: it's a video feed...)

dgbarar · May 16, 2026

I recognize how the camera works. My question was more philosophical as to why Canon does not allow cacheing of video with a half press of some button--could even be the shutter button. Currently as configured, once you turn on caching the camera continues to cache video even if there is nothing to shoot. If you want to turn the camera into a space heater that is terrific way to do it. But with a half press of some button to start caching video seems to me to be a terrific way to reduce the likelihood the camera will over heat and consume battery.

neuroanatomist · May 15, 2026

mb66energy said:
Thanks for the "data" - in Germany it was 980 € so I remembered as a more or less cheap lens and it was sold often below 800 €. (with taxes)
The RF 20-50 is 1500€ in Germany.

In the EU, the EF 24-70/4L launched at €1459 (and as I mentioned, $1499 in the US). See this DPR post about the announcement. The price dropped here, too, after a couple of years.

But...while you may remember it as a more or less cheap lens because that's where demand drove the price, when comparing to a new lens the launch price of a similar lens is the relevant comparator. In this case, the RF 20-50/4 at €1500 is very comparable to the EF 24-70/4 at €1459.

Exploreshootshare · May 15, 2026

Chig said:
According to B&H it's compabile: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1970925-REG/canon_br_e2_bluetooth_remote.html/compatibility

Thank you

I couldn’t find any information on German photo websites

m4ndr4ke · May 14, 2026

Del Paso said:
Will we need the latest R1/R5 II firmware for this new lens?

No, I tried it yesterday with my original R6 without issues or warnings.
EOS RV cameras should allow further adjustments to zoom speeds though.

neuroanatomist · May 13, 2026

AlanF said:
How about reposting that photo of you hanging under your tripod!

That photo wasn’t me, it was the owner of RRS.

neuroanatomist · May 13, 2026

Mt Spokane Photography said:
Hi Alan. I've been inactive for quite a while. I saw the same thing when I got my 5D MK II. I had a V60 SD card to go with the Fast Main card. I just used one card most of the time.

Great to hear from you, Ed!

koenkooi · May 13, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
If the R6 V has the same readout speed as the R6III (13-13.5 ms), that would support X-sync of around 1/60 s - 1/80 s. I guess Canon decided that was too slow.

The R5II showed me how much I desire ES+flash, so any new bodies I want to purchase need to support that. This likely means that my R8 won't get upgraded by the rumoured R8II, but I don't mind that

neuroanatomist · May 11, 2026

Arturo+Lauren said:
As an owner of all their tilt shift lenses, I gotta say that Canon NEEDS a 35mm tilt shift lens so badly.

You can put an EF 1.4x TC behind the TS-E 24mm, and you'll have a 34mm f/5 tilt-shift lens. The IQ remains excellent. Note that the presence of the TC will not be recorded in the EXIF data.

Michael Clark · May 8, 2026

Rceres said:
It’s always a bit surprising to me how much criticism the Canon EOS R5 Mark II receives. These cameras are remarkable feats of engineering, and every design is a compromise. There’s only so much capability you can fit into an R5-sized body before something has to give. As a general-purpose, “one camera does everything well” tool, the R5 II is outstanding. Having recently upgraded from the Canon EOS 5D (purchased when it first came out), I’ve been very pleased with mine.

That said, I’m not the target customer for an R5 III.

If Canon follows the same path as before, the R5 III will likely be a Pareto refinement, slightly better in every spec, but fundamentally the same kind of camera. And for many users, that’s exactly right. But for some of us, the R5 II is already overbuilt in areas we don’t need (30 fps, advanced video), while still not fully optimized for what we care about most.

Personally, I’d trade some of that versatility for a more specialized tool.

The camera I would buy tomorrow (and which Canon might be able to introduce soon) would look similar to the R5, but with a different set of priorities. In particular:

a meaningful jump in resolution (80+ MP)

a higher-end EVF closer to the Canon EOS R1

To make that work within a similar form factor, I would happily trade:

reduced burst rate (10–12 fps is more than enough)

most or all video features

In other words, a stills-first camera designed for maximum detail, tonality, and rendering. Something aimed at landscape, fine art, studio, real estate, and large-format print work. Photography where ultimate image quality matters more than speed or hybrid capability.

Canon currently has speed-first bodies (R1/R3) and highly capable generalists (R5 II), but no dedicated image-quality-first camera. This would fill that gap.

Call it an R5S, an R4, or something else entirely. I suspect there’s a meaningful audience for a body that prioritizes image quality over versatility.

The R5 II is an outstanding generalist, and I’m sure the R5 III will be even better. I just think there’s room alongside it for a true image quality specialist.

A higher end EVF depends upon higher video performance capability of both the sensor and the processor.

P-visie · May 7, 2026

DPReview has an article about camera testing by NASA (from 2022) It includes the R5.

See: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/8...e-moon-but-nasas-tests-show-your-camera-could

Rceres · May 7, 2026

The venerated RF 50 and 85 1.2L’s feel a little long in the tooth. Both are amazing optically but are too fat, an artifact of the very large and powerful ring USM focus motors needed to move their massive focal groups. The more modern RF 135 1.8L shows how far Canon engineers have come. It is almost impossible to take a bad portrait with that lens.

Today’s Canon engineers could probably retain the 50 and 85’s optical properties and deliver mk ii versions with internal focus groups driven by nano USM. Such a design could be slimmer, handle better, and autofocus more quickly, quietly, and with more confidence. In other words, they could feel more like the 135 1.8L.

My opinion is that a redesigned 50 and 85 1.2L would both inspire and sell. Heck, I’d unload my current 50 1.2L and buy both. Throw in a similar 100 F1.4L and I’d buy that as well!

Mxw.be · May 7, 2026

So sad, I was hoping Viltrox would licence some rfs lenses like Tamron and sigma. Especially their pro lenses for apsc

Michael Clark · May 6, 2026

Sporgon said:
Are you sure about this ? It’s the first time I’ve heard it stated as a matter of fact.
I’ve only ever read rather woolly statements regarding how it must be to protect highlights, though when you think how much brighter the highlights can be over the rest of the image one third stop seems like naff all.
Have you a reliable source you can share regarding this ?

DxOMark ISO Sensitivities

DxOMark Derived Measured ISO

Michael Clark · May 6, 2026

justaCanonuser said:
I think we are not talking about the same issue, and I should have been more precise. I should have written that I always compared the 7D cameras with the D5X cameras, beginning with the 5D3 (I had the 5D3 and 4, and the 7D1 and 2). Only this makes sense, and of course the AF sensor of the FF DSLRs were bigger and could collect more photons (I am a physicist, I know what you mean). Comparing the AF systems of DSLRs (shooting with OVF) and ML cameras is like comparing apples with peas. Sorry, Michael, I should have been a bit more precise here. Have always good light

The PDAF Array was the same size, but the microlenses covering the PDAF Array which focused light onto them were placed closer together to gather light the light coming through the narrower semi-silvered portion of the reflex mirror.

snappy604 · May 6, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
Landscapes are often stopped down, in which case there will be little if any IQ difference. Mostly it will come down to focal range (more is usually better), weight (the 16-28 is a lot lighter) and cost (the 16-28 is about half the cost.

If the 15-35/2.8 is in your budget, have you considered the 10-20/4?

while I am looking at landscape.. I also do a fair bit of low light band shots and looking to do more inside.. so wanting the 2.8.. even that can be a challenge, hence the 20mm 1.4... but yep that weight

also I don't tend to use the Adobe ecosystem... my software (On1) tends to be less capable with lens profiles, which I should've mentioned in hindsight. The 10-20/4 is neat but if I recall still needs a fair bit of post correction and also again the brightness.. I prefer fast lenses so its not been on my radar.

AlanF · May 6, 2026

GMCPhotographics said:
Sorry Alan....I was messaging another chap, over on Whatsapp called Frank at the same time as i was writing my forum reply here and for some reason my brain got the two names mixed, I am so sorry.
Canon's lens MFT charts are measuring lens optical resolution at 30 lpm and contrast at 10 lpm. Optyczne's sensor tests are measuring 50 lpm, which is similar to what some other lens brands have used in the past to determin their Lens optical MFT charts. However, the two approaches do align to some degree and hold merit, but there needs to be adjustments between the two scales. As they currently stand, they are a reasonable approximation between sensor and lens sharpness testing.

What I was getting at is that a lens of MTF 0.75 will give a sharp image under certain conditions, but a lens of MTF 1.0 will give you a sharp image under more extreme conditions. If it's a telephoto lens, it will resolve as well 30% further away.

The overall MTF of the sensor/lens system, MTF(L/S) = MTF(L)xMTF(S), that is the product of the MTF of the Lens times that of Sensor. A lens of MTF 0.75 will lower the overall MTF(L/S) by 25%, irrespective of the resolution of the sensor.

GMCPhotographics · May 6, 2026

tleasa said:
A feature that I would love to see but I've never even seen it brought up before would be: Focus stacking where you could focus close, mark it, (push a button?) focus far, mark it and then have the camera calculate the required focus points between and shoot them.

Currently is guesswork. the space between focus points and the number of images...it would be nice for the camera to do the math for us.
It would also be nice of the camera generated a stacked Raw file too, the Jpeg is nice....but....

HenryL · May 5, 2026

Yes that video from Fro was an April Fools joke.

neuroanatomist · May 4, 2026

OldrockyGN said:
I suspect that many of the posts have not been made with full understanding of my preference for
HandHeld.

Not sure why you would think so, but I really doubt that’s the case. The concepts of signal to noise and lens design don’t depend on whether you are handholding or using a tripod. One of the points about shooting with a long lens in “low light“ is that often happens at light levels that would not normally be considered limiting, but when one needs a 1/2000 s shutter speed for a bird in flight, the amount of light reaching the sensor is low, even though to your eyes there is plenty of light.

Personally, I shoot a variety of subjects, some of which require tripod shooting (e.g., blue hour and astro, because handholding for a 30 s exposure is not really feasible). But most of my bird shooting is handheld, including most of my shooting with the EF 600/4L II (which I typically use with a 1.4x extender, currently the RF 1.4x). The exception to that is winter raptors, where I will sometimes set up in a spot for an hour or two waiting for a snowy owl to take off, and in that case I use a tripod and side-mount gimbal for the 600/4.

AlanF · May 3, 2026

P-visie said:
With some content creators it will be hard to tell if the hallucinating is from the original video or from the AI model creating the transcript.

Garbage in, garbage out.

AlanF · May 2, 2026

spartan said:
Hi dear,

I like it (f4) but accept F5.6 but no fressnel or DO.. I need best L optic with perfect bokeh.. Otherwise it is useless to have prime,

All the reviews on the Nikon Z 600mm f/6.3 PF (DO) lens say how good its bokeh is. Here are the first 4 I checked.

https://www.lenstip.com/672.7-Lens_...m_f_6.3_VR_S_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html

https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-600mm-f6-3-vr-s-review/2/

https://photographylife.com/nikon-z-600mm-f-6-3-s-long-term

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/reviews/nikon-z-600mm-f63-vr-s-review

So, I wouldn’t worry too much if it is DO or PF as the technology has improved.

David - Sydney · Apr 30, 2026

after >5 years since they promised one for the R5!

Posts

Posts

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics