GoldWing said:

The new R5C is endorsed by "George Forman" You can grill on one side and sear on the other.

Click to expand...

George Foreman might like it as well.

It's been reported before. However with more recent firmware the gains are only marginally better.

I agree. There was no new info in this video. Wait another few days and I am sure there will be many videos about the R3....

Czardoom said:

Doesn't anyone read the news? Prices for electronics especially are going up.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/worlds...-threatening-costlier-electronics-11629978308

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...s-set-rise-global-semiconductor-shortage.html

Click to expand...

News? We are too busy reading and replying to Canon Rumors! And sometimes we take photos!

Can't wait for the r5c.

twmooney said:

I'm trying to have it with me for a week in Glacier later this month. Looks like I will most likely have to rent it.

Click to expand...

Yes, I would reserve one with Lens Rentals and then if the Canon store or someone else gets stock, you can always cancel the rental.

Shazza77 said:

I’m just concerned as mine seems to moves more and make a slightly louder noise than the one I tried in the shop?

Click to expand...

Things wear over time. My RF24-105/4 makes more noise than the RF24-105/4 we have at work that sits on a shelf that everyone refuses to use.
Just keep an eye on it but if it really concerns you, take it to CPS.

No surprise considering the news lately.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/worlds...-threatening-costlier-electronics-11629978308

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...s-set-rise-global-semiconductor-shortage.html

Reviewed by ePhotozine https://www.ephotozine.com/article/sigma-150-600mm-f-5-6-3-dg-dn-os-sport-lens-review-35605

Central sharpness described as "very good", but falls off at 400-600mm.

Chris.Chapterten said:

Thanks for the feedback. So just confirming you are also on firmware 1.4.0?

If so I might bite the bullet and make the switch to the latest firmware myself.

Click to expand...

Yes. Firmware 1.4.0

Aussie shooter said:

This is with an R6 and EF 70-200 2.8. Dont think I was tracking them though. Too quick for AF. relied on pre focus and 20 fps.

Click to expand...

Superb, thanks for sharing

I use 1/400s or faster and Iso 400 or 800. Aperture is set to f/2.8 or f/4.
If the light is good I first lower the Iso, second increase shutter speed.

An example I posted in the butterfly thread:


https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/butterflies-moths-and-assorted-insects.31073/post-904361

Thanks for your responses jd7 and RBSphoto. Rokinon is not available here in New Zealand and I don't want to buy offshore. My Samyang 14/2.8 was very sharp but the focus locked after a couple of months and was replaced quickly under the warranty. I don't want to have to deal with someone offshore.
I've come to the conclusion that, while this is an excellent, cost-effective lens, how long will it remain functional in the face of future camera firmware updates. A good friend had issues with a Sigma Art lens (35/1.4, I think) and with a Tamron 70-200/2.8 when she bought an R6. These problems were resolved with lens firmware updates. But how long will Samyang / Rokinon continue to support this lens????
Might have to stick with the EF 85/1.8 for a while as the RF 85/2 doesn't appear to offer that much more than the EF, the 85/1.2 are too expensive and bulky. Not sure I want to invest in a new EF 85/1.4.

On top of what is happening in factories...

It's natural to be impatient with manufacturers and retailers, but we are in some truly interesting times.

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....