Navism said:

View attachment 199271View attachment 199271

Click to expand...

Asked why... He said the R5'S resolution is better than the 1DXMKIII

A link below another message led me back to this old thread. It has been interesting to see my posts in which I was waffling over whether to buy the 6D2. I bought the camera a few weeks after my last post in the thread, and have been quite pleased over these nearly four years. In recent posts I have concluded that for my purposes it could take medium format to be enough of an upgrade to bother with. I could take the money I haven’t spent over the last 1 1/2 years going places and doing things. The question becomes do I want to, and whether I really would start taking that many more landscapes than I do now. I would still use the 6D2 for most other things.

2021 is supposed to be a particularly good year for seeing and shooting the
Perseids, mainly because of the cooperation of the crescent moon which sets in plenty of time.

I’m going to try shooting with my 16-35mm lens even though it opens just to f/4. It is my fastest wide angle. Perhaps I should try test shots over the next few nights not just for exposure, but also for the time lapse settings. I forget between times how to set that up.

Btw, the C300 mkIII doesn't shoot 5.9K RAW, and it certainly can't output such signal. Probably a lazy copy & paste in the post

As promised, Canon has released firmware v1.0.1.1 for the Canon Cinema EOS C300 Mark II. This is a major firmware update that adds a lot of new features and functionality.
Canon Cinema EOS C300 Mark III $10,999 at Adorama
Firmware Version 1.0.1.1 incorporates the following fix and enhancements:

Adds [XC Protocol].
Adds [1.8x] to the Anamorphic De-squeeze setting.
Add 2048×1080/1920×1080 option to the 12G-SDI output when recording resolution is 4K or 5.9K RAW
Adds MON.OUT and HDMI Simultaneous output option. (1920×1080p/i)
Adds Look File function(3D LUT file .cube)
Adds ITU-R.BT.709 standard-compliant Gamma [BT.709 Standard / BT.709] the to the Custom Picture.
Adds Power Saving Mode. (by restricting some functions)
Adds [2x] option to the Magnification.
Adds [Mask 100%] to the [Aspect Marker]
Adds the ability to update the MON.OUT/HDMI output from 59.94P to 29.97P (or 23.98P) has been added.
Adds the option for ‘same file name’ simultaneous...

Click to expand...

Continue reading...

CanonFanBoy said:

So much for the, "Canon is really screwing everything up with the EF to RF move" crowd.

Click to expand...

Sorry to burst your bubble but see my comment below (or above) Waiting for WSJ to quote me.

dilbert said:

Guess he's not tempted to try use adapters to get his lenses to work on the R3 then. Wonder what this type of commentary will do to the mindset of those looking to buy old DSLR gear. Damn. And to all of those people who say that buying lenses is an investment, just saw your investment value drop. Obviously also not convinced that Nikon mirrorless was worth the jump. Canon RF, and in particular R3, is where it's at. EF, thank you for the good times, but you're history baby. p.s. EF-S and EF-M, sorry, you're EF too.

Click to expand...

I have an R5 and R. Using all EF lenses and it works even better and is more accurate now than those lenses were on any of my dslr bodies. What exactly is your point again?

neuroanatomist said:

LoCA is the bane of the 85/1.2L wide open (although the 85/1.8 is even worse), I'd say what you're seeing is normal.

Click to expand...

Just as long term update, the lens continues to perform well other than *really* thick purple fringing wide open in specific high contrast scenarios (like wine glass picture halfway down this thread: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2718977 ), but this seems normal from all accounts. AF is a bit sketchy at times in low light but again I think is normal.

I have adopted keeping the hood on all times even when in storage, this allows me to store the lens in any focal position and is less wear and tear on the AF/MF switch.

Overall happy due to the unique look and experience this lens provides, for when I want that

slclick said:

Hmmm, not a bit of talk about Canon's longest non L or DO lens in it's history. (RF 100-400) I can't help but think this will be a sleeper like the 40 pancake or 70-300L.

Click to expand...

Strictly speaking, the RF 800 mm f/11 lens does not have DO branding, so that is the longest one. It has DO elements in it though.

SpaceGhost said:

The ads are getting crazy again. Popups, static footers, and still the basic ads... Now when I click on a link, like to go to the forums, I get a full page pop up that I need to click "X" to get pass it to get to the forums. I understand ads, but literally getting in my way of using the site seems overkill.

Click to expand...

Ads always "evolve" in the direction of forcing you to pay attention to them, everything from boosting the volume on your TV for the ads, to popups like this, to popunders, to autoplay videos...you name it. Once people figure out how to ignore ads, they simply get more obtrusive.

FrenchFry said:

Wow, how frustrating!

Click to expand...

Yeah, a bit disappointing. Will have to wait to see the build quality of the R3, but it will be quite annoying if there isnt a 5Div level build at that same price point. I mean I dropped my 5Dii on a concrete floor and it was unscathed!

Next week I am going to take EF 400mm f2.8 III for a test drive via the CPS Canada program. We have our local (kinda) Abbotsford International Airshow next weekend so I am hoping to get a chance to really put it through the paces on my R5 and R6.

Will hit up the local wetland as well and see what it can do.

I normally check out Flickr for image examples but something seems busted over there for the last week. Would love to see some examples from the R5\R6 400mm combo

I have a cheap plastic $13 8-12x zoom that I used to use before the iPhone 5/4 & first 5se died that was more useful than any product I’ve seen like this. They’re trying too hard. All you need is a good case and threaded filter to attach it instead of the plastic clothes hanger type that most companies have and it’s golden.
Moment has the closest thing to this but not enough zoom. The companies that do the plastic ones of course aren’t too heavy but glass would of course. If they could make one that is 3-8/4-10, or 5-12x there about and put just a little effort towards it being compact it would be a successful product.
I haven’t found a cheap one yet for a multi lensed iPhone yet, but if amazon.com can have double digit priced lenses that people are amazed that just my photos are from an iPhone then I’d be willing to bet canon can make one and not have reviews leading to buyers passing right by like hopefully most do for their previous products like the PS Zoom.

unfocused said:

So Canon makes a 600mm f6.3 zoom that essentially mirrors three already available third party lenses. The most expensive of the third party lenses sells for under $2,000. Canon's 100-500 sells for $2,700 ("sells" might be a misnomer, since you can't buy it anywhere.) If it's an "L" lens, Canon would offer the faster, longer zoom at a higher price than the 100-500 ($3,200??) Might be a tough sell.

Click to expand...

Yes, valid points! Like I wrote I would estimate the price to be in $4,5k-5k range. So it wouldn't really be for masses / people who are considering those 3rd party options.

It would be a high quality "flexible" lens option for photographers who might also have the big whites. Compared to those primes and EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM 1.4x that under $5k price would be very affordable.

slclick said:

Most first time camera users have loaded film. Remember, people are living longer than ever

Click to expand...

An interesting question! If all the people taking photos now were the same number (or %) when film was used then I would agree with you but...

FILM
From box brownie in 1900 that sold millions to 35mm in ~1910 to now (Canon started in 1936) to Polaroid in 1948. Even if 10s (100s?) of millions of cameras were sold it still pales compared the world population numbers:
1900 1.7b
2000 6.1b
2020 7.7b (adding almost all population in 1900 since 2000)

DIGITAL
First camera phone in 2000 in Japan. First one in US in 2002. By end of 2003 there were 80m camera phones so lets say we have had 15 years of camera phone experience. Digital cameras followed the same timeline as phones. Mirrorless ILCs started in 2008. P&S compacts declined from 2010 and Kodak filed for chapter 11 in 2012.
Phone sales (almost 100% with a camera). A lot of the sales will be repeat customers but older and second hand phones moving into developing countries.
2018 1.5b
2019 1.5b
2020 1.3b
2021Q1 355m

Estimated that 85% of all photos taken in 2017 were on camera phones. It would be fair to claim that the % is even higher now. I would suggest that the majority of these users (of all age groups from age 3-95) used camera phones before film. This is especially in developing countries where film processing is relatively expensive. So everyone with a phone is a photographer now but only a limited number before year 2000.

Dockland said:

I don't know if iv'e set it to PAL or NTSC, the one that has 23.98 at least. 4K HQ mode and full manual. Shooting in Sweden.

So is the solution to keep a shutter speed around 50 on ISO 100 (that will be way to under exposed on an evening shot)?
But perhaps an ISO on 800 would have cut it there.

Click to expand...

They both have 23.98, but the options for PAL are divisible by 25 (25, 50, 100) while for NTSC they are divisible by 30 (30, 60, 120). Since Sweden has a 50 Hz power grid frequency, lights that flicker should flicker at some multiple of that. And so you could get lucky and eliminate flicker in you video by synchronizing your frames with the flicker, which would happen at 50 oder 100 FPS.

However, I don't think there's really a place for the PAL settings anymore, as most digital displays are 60 Hz and neither 25 nor 50 divide into that evenly. Which results in playback artifacts. Variable refresh rate displays are on the rise, but not mainstream yet. Perhaps you view your footage on a TV anyway, which is different. I'm just talking about YouTube content here.

So if you're shooting 24-ish FPS to get 'that look', yes, the shutter speed should be the best thing you can adjust. Ideally, you want to keep that fairly constant across all your shots, as it has a major impact on how the motion in your footage comes across. The 180° shutter speed rule is take 1/(2*FPS) as your shutter speed, so 1/(2*24) = 1/48 ~ 1/50 for your example. That would give motion the 'traditional' look.

There's plenty of YouTube Content on both flicker and 180° shutter out there if you want. I'm not much of a video guy and have no idea which channels are worth anything.

Not really a video aimed at shooting but super interesting and informative anyway:

jprusa said:

When I was reading your post I was thinking that sounds kind of like what I go through but there were no Ticks ,Mosquitos and Red bugs . Love all the wildlife in NC Great video.

Click to expand...

Thanks, yellow flies have been killing me this year.

AlanF said:

I stretches the imagination someone owning both. Jeff Bezos?

Click to expand...

Maybe an agency or a newspaper with a lot of lenses.

usern4cr said:

Yes, and as I posted above it also says that the Fuji digital camera division is making money right now and that they are happy to continue it since it is making money. I'm rather amused that so many can continue such a "going out of business?" thread when the digital division is making money and they state that they're happy to continue it, and that the other parts of the company are making even more money (that's a good think, I'd think!).

Click to expand...

They aren't really making enough money to justify to their investors staying in the digital camera business which is what prompted the CEO to make the statement that they are staying in the camera business out of tradition and to contribute to society.

Of course, I’m a southern boy so there has been plenty of humor generated surrounding the prevalent accent in my part of the country

Mikehit said:

I am not sure it is posterisation - from my experience with the Pure Raw it seems to be the software recognising small areas of what it thinks is detail, 'clarifying' that and ignoring everything around it.

Click to expand...

I don't think the software intentionally quantized the colors, but suspect its a bordering on the color space having too few greens to create a graduated change without "noisy" dithering. Personally, I like the after bird (a lot better) and noisy background (slightly better).

So the UCN3 arrived and charged a battery, that had previously reached 100% before being discharged, back to 100%.

It remains to be seen if the sub maximum charge limit comes back in the future. If so a run on the stock LC-E6E charger should reset them.

if it never comes back I will have finally have a good USB charger. Hopefully with many thanks to you guys.

Adorama has the Zhiyun Crane-2S 3-Axis Handheld Gimbal Stabilizer as their Deal of the Day for only $319 (Reg $599).
Zhiyun Crane-2S Key Features

Works with large cameras such as the BMPCC 6K, Panasonic S1H, Canon EOS 1DX Mark II with total ease
Features the brand new FlexMount System
Comes standard with a vertical quick-release mount and a safety knob
Six gimbal modes, from basic to advanced

Zhiyun Crane-2S 3-Axis Handheld Gimbal Stabilizer $319 (Reg $599)

Click to expand...

Continue reading...

AlanF said:

The Sigma C Contemporay telephoto lenses are lightweight with less sealing and less robust build than the Sports series and possibly fewer elements, and so the S weigh more. Sigma has continued the C and S distinction into mirrorless. The lightweight Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG DN for mirrorless is classified as C. It will be interesting to see what their S for mirrorless will weigh.

Click to expand...

Weight: 2.1 kg (including the tripod collar), so not much difference once the adapter is added to the C version.

AdmiralFwiffo said:

Most macro photographers consider a macro lens to 1x magnification or higher. I'd really prefer if they marketed 0.5x as "close focus" and not macro. They'll slap "macro" on anything, including crappy cheap kit zooms.

The 35mm is cool, I really like the lens, the close-focus feature is cool, but it's not really macro.

Click to expand...

You are correct, as is @schaudi after you. But you’re quibbling over a technical definition, talking about a distinction without a difference.