Hello,

I found this thread because I´m also affected with my EOS R to this issue. It is totaly the behaviour you are describing.

Apart from this thread I already contacted the German Canon support and got the answer that this cannot be disabled by the user. It is an internal algorithm and content of the firmware without having influence by the user on it. The official statement I got from Canon is that there is an additional calculation to noise reduction on the raw data even if the user has switched off explicitly the long exposure noise reduction.

From my point of view I´m also very disappointed about this bahavior because it is blocking the user to start the next exposure in time critical situations. This might cause some issues in the field in a couple of specific scenarios.

I am not averse to noise reduction on the raw data, but this might happen in the background to not prevent the user from starting the next expusure. I´m convinced that other manufacturers also using their own internal secret algorithims for improvements. But I did not heared about any other camera make of blocking the user to start with the next exposure until the calculation has finished.
Therefore I kindly asked Canon to create a feature request to the software developers to relocate the calculation into the background task without blocking the user and avoid the user to start with the next exposure. In my opinion there should be enough system resources available to perform the calculation on noise reduction in parrallel while the next exposure has started.

I´m honestly not sure, if this feature request will be approved by Canon and whether they want to implement it.

As Canon confirmed the complete EOS "R" family (R, Rp, R6, R5) is affected from this issue and additionally from my personal experience as well the DSLR "EOS 5D Mark IV".

In my opinion it would be helpful if other users would also create an additional request on their own at Canon's customer service support to highlight the importance of the annoying behavior they have implemented in the firmware.

Kind regards,
luddi

maulanawale said:

Ever since I came across his (their?) stock photo portfolio , I can't take this guy seriously (won't post the link but Google Tony Northrup Shutterstock for a guaranteed laugh)

Click to expand...

You made my monday.

A older 70-200 f/2.8 can likely be found in that range. They are excellent lenses. For use in low light, f/2.8 makes a huge difference. F/4 is marginal but sometimes works depending on shutter speed and lighting..

unfocused said:

That's very strange. Just last week I used PayPal for a refurbished 70-200 RF with no problem.

BTW, for anyone following this thread, after I called Canon the lens did indeed ship and arrived today, in the usual pristine condition that I'm used to with refurbs. I will always suspect that a substantial portion of their refurbs are actually new items where the packaging was damaged during shipment. Of course I have no evidence of that.

Click to expand...

Update:
After my wife noticed my Canon Store shopping cart was empty, she added one of the items I intended to purchase. When I've placed items in the cart, I have always started with the 600mm lens. She started with a different item, and the PayPal option was there!
After she informed me, I added the backordered 600mm lens. The PayPal option disappeared.
I removed it and the PayPal option reappeared.
So it turns out the issue all along was that adding a backordered item retracts a "pay immediately" option. When this all started, the 600mm was listed in stock, and the PayPal option was available, therefore it did not occur to me there were stock limitations for this option.
It apparently did not occur to the various Canon representatives I spoke with either.
Now I've ordered and received the two other items, and have the 600mm in my cart. I'll check daily (with fingers crossed) to see when one arrives.

Thank for sharing this link!
I wonder why this benefit has not been mentioned on the homepage. I just had a short look on the specs of the 1d X III, nothing.


Back to the lens: I wonder how the AF performance of the two 400 could be measured by serious reviewers. Difficult.

I’m also wondering this as the price is different and both V90 and not V90 is still available to buy. I’ve tried finding some bench tests, but haven’t found any. Who can know this for certain?

Really late to the party, however I had the same issue, with the 100-400, II with the R5 vs my 5D IV , with Tc 1.4 III. Lots of forums with lots of the same issues. Honestly bought the RF 100-500 and it magically disappeared. I don’t care what anyone says the adaptor, from EOS to RF just does not seem to communicate with the 100-400 II

entoman said:

Very useful, thanks.

"Each cycle wears the battery down by a small amount and a partial discharge is better than a full discharge."

Click to expand...

On top of that, high (dis)charge currents will cause internal heating and reduce lifespan as well. So the 'slow' recharge through the USB port is likely better for longevity than an external fast charger.

So had a chance to play with the lens a bit.

IMO if you are going for that out-of-the-camera dreamy look, then go ahead and use at a wide aperture. For general use I wouldn't do it.

However as Jared pointed out... it's worth checking at narrow apertures. The blur effect (on your main subject) greatly reduced as you stop down. And then your just effecting the bokeh (which because your stopped down is not that intense to begin with).

The only odd thing is that shooting the macro at say F11+full SA is not a what you see is what you get. The image in the viewfinder is greatly softened, when compared to the final image.

If someone (with more time than I have) does a side-by-side showing how SA effects different apertures it would be telling.

Be cool if Canon make a proper super zoom RF 200-600 DO f/4-5.6 with their freznell DO elements and internal zooming and weather sealing.
This would be fairly short and light for hand holding but still pretty bright aperture.
Perhaps with a builtin switchable 1.4x T.C ?

cayenne said:

The lady's team?

Click to expand...

Ohhhh yeahhhhh....

Lastolite products have been sold for a while as "Lastolite by Manfrotto", but now Vitec Grpup has decided to drop the Lastolite brand fully and sell those products under the Manfrotto brand.


As far as I know they will be the same products made in UK - just now named Manfrotto.

neuroanatomist said:

Fortunately, the supply issues seem to be ending. For quite some time, none of the adapters were available.

Click to expand...

For some reason, all the adapters appear to be in stock here in Denmark, and has been so for some time now. The supply issues reported did give me some concern until I checked the stock at the pro dealers here.

August 25, 2021, Commack, NY – Tamron USA, Inc. announces the launch date of the previously announced 18-300mm F/3.5-6.3 Di III-] VC VXD. The Sony E-Mount model B061S will be on sale on September 24, 2021, at $699 USD. Due to the current global health crisis, the release date or product supply schedule could change. The launch of the previously announced Fujifilm mount under development is expected this Fall.
The 18-300mm F3.5-6.3 VC VXD covers a wide zoom range from approximately 27mm to 450mm in full-frame equivalent focal length. The first APS-C mirrorless camera zoom lens in the world with a 16.6x zoom ratio, the lens delivers the benefits of a versatile all-in-one zoom lens ideal for an extensive array of photographic scenarios. Its AF drive system uses Tamron’s VXD (Voice-coil eXtreme-torque Drive) linear motor focus mechanism for superior quietness and agile performance. The lens includes special lens elements arranged...

Click to expand...

Continue reading...

neuroanatomist said:

Ergonomics is a personal thing. When I use a non-gripped camera, my hand is sore by the end of the day. I think mainly my 5th digit being curled under and even more the lack of weight to counterbalance a heavier lens – even the 24-105/4L feels unbalanced on my R, and the other day I was shooting with the (adapted) 11-24/4L and that was a whole other level of front-heavy.

I used a gripped 7D and 5DII, which were ok but the integrated grip has a different shape that I find much more comfortable (the add-on grips bulge on both sides to accommodate transverse batteries, the 1-series only bulges in front). I also found the flex between grip and body to be problematic on a tripod, but removing and replacing the grip is a PITA.

Not at all sure how I’d feel about something like this patent design. Bulk isn’t a big deal (my camera bags are sized for pro bodies), but not sure about all-day comfort, and too much weight savings would be bad for me (as above, it’s more about balance than total mass).

Click to expand...

I agree that ergonomics is a personal thing, although there are a few basic rules such as leaving a sensible gap between the grip and the lens - a problem with early Sony cameras. I've owned, hired or borrowed virtually every camera that Canon has made, at some stage. I found the 5D and 7D series handled extremely well. The gripped 1Dxii handled even better, but was just too heavy to carry, and I often shoot in very tight situations, sometimes with the camera on the ground, and need to have the lens as low as possible, so most of the time I prefer ungripped bodies. I can't get on with the RP, which I find much too small and fiddly, especially if using anything longer than a 100mm lens. The R5 balances well in my (largish but skinny) hands, with all the lenses I own (listed below).

UPDATE on RF14-35 availability......just rec'd notification from B&H that my June 29th pre-order has shipped, with ETA of Fri Aug 27th. So, after having rec'd my Jun 1 pre-ordered RF100mm F2.8L is macro lens last week and soon to be rec'd RF14-35 pre-order in just two days, is this a sign of Canon's supply chain finally catching up?? Let's hope so, as R3 announcement lingers soon, we hope, even as we wonder if there will be some new lens announcements that day as well........It's worth noting, whether you are interested in the 14-35 or not, that while I pre-ordered the RF14-35 a month after the RF100, it will arrive just one week later. That sounds encouraging.

Makes me wonder if more has gone into the IBIS part of the FW for the R5 than for the R6. In other words, was more IBIS enhancement achieved in this FW update than when the R6 was last updated?

carpenter said:

When you say "root" does that mean I have to keep the DCIM and then 100 Canon where I put the firmware? I can't get the camera to change the firmware yet. I've got the latest firmware for the lens from Canon, opened it on my Mac, copied the .afu file to the SD card. Nothing. Tried to load it into the DCIM folder, nothing again. Tried copying it onto the card with both DCIM and the other folder--nothing. I've tried every combination, including deleting both DCIM and the other folder. Nothing works.

Click to expand...

Hopefully, you've solved this problem by now, after receiving all the advice from fellow members. Don't feel too bad, I've been guilty of this same snafoo on occasion. In my case, the problem was always my incorrectly copying and pasting the new firmware into the folder(s), instead of the root directory. I learned the hard way to never put the firmware into a folder. The camera will not recognize it.

Jemlnlx said:

Best of luck to you....

I was very disheartened when the claims department denied me twice (once on the lower level and then again when I appealed it) despite having clear evidence that my package mysteriously "lost weight"...

It wasn't until I emailed all of the corporate contacts I could find that they contacted me the next day, reviewed my case and granted to honor the claim...

Click to expand...

Thanks! I think the corporate contacts are an excellent suggestion!

unfocused said:

Welcome back Harry. We were down about a quart of crazy, but now I see we are all full up and even spilling over.

Click to expand...

Like I said! It's nice to be back up to ONLY ONE BRICK SHORT of a full load !!!!

I should note that all the inventions described are fully real and in actual real-world working products. The main sensor we use in our 70mm Medium Format Plus camera is a 1.89:1 aspect ratio 16384 by 8640 pixel as-per-documented notch-filtered multi-sized photosite pixel array.

The substrates are all new so the photosensitive area of the image sensor is basically full-colour nightvision with only the barest starlight and moonlight needed for full colour scene illumination. It goes waaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond what a Sony A7s3 can do in terms of low-light-levels for still photo and moving video image quality!

YES! I am soooooooooo BACK !!!

V

definedphotography said:

If you're testing a product, why would you test with a different firmware to the one that would be released to the public? Surely you'd be wanting to test the product to its limits? The Olympics is perfect for this given the need to capture images at a high speed and also deliver them to various news agencies at high-speed.

Click to expand...

I was very unclear in what I wrote.

I was thinking that maybe they have this new feature where a higher resolution sensor can output full frame images at lower apparent resolution.

How does the image look on an R5 without cropping?

If I understand correctly (and please correct me if I don't), on the FF sensor it's a equivalent to a ~13.5mm lens.

How do the edges look?

I tried all apertures with my 24-70 2.8 Tamron and saw that it occurred in every aperture except 2.8. Also, I have faced a problem similar to the aperture issue. While VS is on, during the record an instant frame dislocation is occurring and I found out this happens because of the VS and turn it off. But in this aperture problem, it seems like it stops only 2.8 or when the AF is off and it is really annoying. I have never faced such a problem with my old mark4. Do you have any suggestions to fix this issue or is my lens garbage for r5?

Interesting, but I have 2 questions:

a-.do you know if this accessory provides the 24V Phantom power supply for the microphones requiring this ?

b-.are you aware of a similar accessory for the EOS 5D Mark III ? ok it is an "old" model, but I love it, and I miss this kind of accessory ! this is the reason for which I continue to use a professional camcorder....

Thank you

Kit Lens Jockey said:

I recently got a dreaded print head error on my PRO-4000 printer. It looks like there is no option but to replace the print head, which I have now ordered.

However, I'm suspicious because my house experienced a "brown-out" due to storms while I was out of town (and shortly after I got back.) For a period of time my wall outlets had about 80 volts coming out of them instead of the proper 110V. I leave the printer on all the time because it seems to be happier that way compared to constantly turning it off and on. So the printer was on when this occurred. But, it's worth noting that I had the printer plugged into a Furman PST-8 surge protector, which it pretty much the best surge protector you can buy. While I'm not 100% sure, I seem to remember that the surge protector wouldn't even turn on when the voltage in the house was low, so it might even have logic to just shut off the power going through it if it senses low voltage.

Series Multi-Stage Protection | Ultimate Power Surge Protection

Discover Series Multi-Stage Protection for advanced power surge protection, ensuring safety and performance for your electronics.

www.furmanpower.com

The print head error happened the very next time I used the printer after the power issues though. Now I'm trying to figure out if the print head damage might have been related to the power issues, or if it just coincidentally happened right at the same time.

What do you guys think? I have heard some people say the print heads only last about two years anyway, and if that's the case, then I guess mine was about due to go out. My main concern is that I usually only print one small thing about every week just to keep the head from clogging up. Maybe I need to print more often to avoid printer head issues in the future?

Ultimately I'm just not sure if I should consider the head failure a result of the power issues, even though I had it plugged into a very good surge protector, or if I should change my printing habits to prolong the life of the new head. Thanks.

Click to expand...

Two years seems about average pretty much regardless of the actual printing the head has done. I have replaced the head on my three year old Pro-2000 once.

One nice thing is the heads are easy to change and readily available, unlike Epson who will not sell their large format print heads.

An unnerving aspect of changing the head is that you can’t initiate a head change from the menu all the time it is telling you to replace the head! You have to switch the printer off, then manually move the head carriage then take the old head out, it takes just a few seconds. Then power the printer up and it will reset the carriage and give you an install head option. I found this very strange but Canon support talked me through it very efficiently.