SteveC said:

So imagine this (while cringing). Put the RF 2.0 onto your camera. Then an EF-RF converter, then the EF 1.4 and whatever EF lens on.

Somehow, I doubt that would work.

Click to expand...

Your doubts are justified. For a start, the RF-EF converter (which I assume is what you really mean) doesn't fit on to the RF extenders because of their protuberances. You can hack the RF-EF extender by drilling or filing away part of it, virtually down to the bare wiring. Even then, this would increase the distance from the rear of the lens to the extender. For the fun of it, I used the RF-EF extender plus Kenco 3xTC + Canon 2xTC + 400mm f/4 DO II to give a DO 2400mm f/24! Can't say it was worth the effort.

I use an Anker PowerCore Fusion 10,000 with a thick USBC to USBC to charge a Canon R with a grip. The Anker has pass through power so it will charge when its plugged into a wall outlet, if the power cuts or its unplugged it uses its 10,000 battery. Usually I pull the R battery tray in and out slightly and switch power on/off and it starts charging via the grip. It charges quickly.

There is another newer Anker that's similar, it's a 60w with 2x USBC, white, similar shape, which incidentally will handle a Surface Pro 7 supposedly, but I havent tried it yet, I'd like to though. Either way, the PowerCore Fusion 10,000 works. It's more pleasing than the bulky external power cord, or using the small square battery chargers, thus requiring the batteries to be removed from the grip. (Of course, I have to pull the grip batterys out anyway to prevent exceptional phantom drain when not in use.)

It may not have that much purpose in the field, but it could. I don't know if it will "power the camera", perhaps. It only seems to work with exceptionally thick USBC to USBC cables and I opt for very short ones I had already. For me it is better than the bulky charger with the cords and is not much larger than the small wall chargers but has a lot more utility. Hope that makes life easier. That's a TSE-45 on the Canon R with the adapter if anyone was curious. Great walkaround lense

DXO has announced Nik Collection 4, the next version of the extremely popular photo editing company software suite.
The fourth version of the Nik Collection software suite now boasts powerful new tools and an even more user-friendly experience


A new, user-friendly design for an even more thrilling experience
Next-level U Point™ technology
Improved workflow with Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom
Even more striking black-and-white photos
Ever more creative

You can save up to 30% off new purchases and upgrades until June 30, 2021. So now is the time to check out the new Nik Collection 4
Learn more about Nik Collection 4

Click to expand...

Continue reading...

expatinasia said:

Took longer than expected to update and it always makes me nervous updating the firmware.

Click to expand...

Same here!

preppyak said:

Sounds like a problem with your work; I've had amazing results, significantly better than anything I was getting out of a Canon camera at that price point (the XXD series or even like a 7D).



Yeah, sounds like they managed to squeeze a little more dynamic range with some coatings, but, this is clearly merging available parts and supply lines to keep customers happy til a GH6 hits.

Im personally very excited for when the GH6 releases and the GH5II prices hit $1000 on the used market so I can grab a second body

Click to expand...

The video was blurry, as I relied on autofocus. My Panasonic would constantly lose focus on people's faces. Canon's DPAF fixed that for me. I have no interest in trying to focus manually. The actual quality of the footage from the Panasonic was great though.

Mt Spokane Photography said:

I've replaced mine for $10 with a ebay screen from China. That was for a old point and shoot camera. I've also noted that prices were much higher for modern DSLR's. As long as you have proper tools, JIS screwdrivers, not phillips, its just a simple job but requires cleanliness and patience.

I see a 5D MK IV new replacement from China for $189 which indicates that parts from Canon USA are going to cost much more.

Click to expand...

Thanks - Sounds expensive. Will starting asking around.

Great to hear you are happy with the lens. I have the RF 85 f1.2 (used for wider fashion images) and then also picked up the RF 85 f2 (for close up beauty photography). Comparing the two, the f2 lens actually holds it’s own very easily! More than good enough for professional use. CA and sharpness really puts my old EF 85 f1.8 and EF 85 1.4L to shame.

One thing I love about the RF 85 f2 is the AF accuracy. Really amazed! It is a lot better than the RF 35mm 1.8 (a lens I had to sell because my copy had far too much focus shift for my liking).

enjoy it!

Just watch the videos on a big screen.
Then you'll see the difference.

Sharlin said:

As I speculated in the other thread, creative use of this combined with focus stacking could enable creating macro images with both sides of the focal plane silky-smooth (or bubble-bokey if that's what you want) while keeping the parts in focus neutrally corrected for optimal IQ.

Click to expand...

Would like to see this technique in practice.......sounds interesting..

Are you looking at the images on your PC with a Windows CODEC or with a program like LR or DPP or ACR? RAW files on my PC have weird colors and other if I just look at them without a RAW imaging engine. Your camera LCD shows you a JPEG that the camera creates and not the actual RAW image.

Dragon said:

True of the telescopes on top of Mona Kea using lasers to monitor the atmosphere, but not something you will find in a back yard telescope.

Click to expand...

Artificial stars produced by lasers are one way of controlling adaptive optics, but not the only one.

Dragon said:

Yes, I like to take pictures of birds, but I did spend a 40 year career designing and manufacturing video and audio equipment for the the film and television industries as well as overseeing much of the standardization of HDTV, so I am quite well aware of the "preferences" of cinematographers. I also choose to disagree with some of the more esoteric beliefs in that industry. I once had a customer for digital audio equipment who claimed he could "hear wire" (a reference to low oxygen speaker wire). A nice concept, but bullsh*t none the less. Similarly, many folks in cinematography community were and still are addicted to 24fps because they can "can tell a story while keeping the viewer apart from the action". Ditto the current fetish with turning off the motion compensation on TV sets (so they go back to 3-2 pulldown and the obnoxious intermittent judder that results in). Once again, this is fetish over physics and much like the more esoteric aspects of wine tasting. A good round of double blind testing always shows how much BS there is in that game, and that is not to say that there isn't a dramatic difference between wines, but rather that the tasting process often goes over the top. BTW the real reason cinematographers hang onto 24fps is because at that frame rate, their skill set is needed to manage pan and zoom rates to keep the judder from making the audience ill. At 60 fps, not so much, so in the end, it is really about job security. In my view, the subtle differences between shooting with a wider lens and letterboxing the result vs. shooting with an anamorphic when the final resolution is the same, fall in the esoteric wine tasting basket. Even in Hollywood, VistaVision pretty much won out over Cinemascope to produce essentially the same look without the anamorphics. This list, while neither entirely accurate or complete, gives you an idea of how many ways people tried to avoid using anamorphic lenses in the film era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motion_picture_film_formats .

Click to expand...

Oh don't get me wrong I know there is the fetishisation and "look cinematic" bs and like any crowd you always get those people but it isn't as black and white as it is all crap. The problem with ALL these things there is a grain of truth in it, just not always for the reason claimed more often than not. I don't think anamorphic aspects make things inherently better but they do indeed change framing and if that fits your needs better then it will make a difference. Much like square cropping photos to really suit some photos can really be the right call and not just gimmick. Even when it comes to to audio cable differences which has been proven in countless tests to be a myth but there can be something in it for poorly designed controls and people hearing a difference (objectively I mean since all cases hear a difference but in subjective cases it comes from listener not the setup), eg cables of much higher resistance isn't apples to apples, factor all that in and it's clearly impossible to tell apart but without it the slight volume bump has been shown to make some people find it sounds better, just not for the reason marketing sold them on.

I think 24p thing is good example when along with 180 rule etc it does seem to be what people find most pleasing, not too much blur but no sickness or looking janky but some folks act like it is inherent to that framerate when you can dial in shutter speeds to match that look regardless of framerate. Even dropping some mismatched stuff into timelines can still be matched without interpreting as different rate when dial in more echo in post or such things to smear it etc and folks wont tell the difference and claim it looks right. Most the "tests" of people comparing say 60p to 24p I've seen had been loaded by dialing in same settings and light level and then of course the 60p looks less like what most people find most entertainment they consume to look like and less pleasing as result.

I can safely say wine is NOT my thing and I dislike all the bs around it but imho this is somethign that doesn't apply here. I do think the different fov to dof and so on lead to very different images much the same way I reach for 85mm lens for portraits because 50mm framed the same exaggerates faces in a way I generally dislike. I do think it needs to be the lens is picked to suit the composition though and not anamorphic for sake of it regardless of what fits. Fwiw I don't believe in the "it looks cinematic" crowd especially since even in big budget cine world there is so much variance in look from way stuff is lit, the post done and so on to the point I don't think there is a simple 1 value in isolation (ie. lens choice) = overall generic look. My point is proven by the list you posted in that anamorphic is just another tool for particular framing and rendering, it isn't the only one nor always the right one but I don't claim that, quite the opposite. Same way I don't think JUST spherical lens with16:9 output is right. It depends and need factor in what you're after and some content and vision suits anamorphic lenses quirks.

I suspect we're on the same page in most regards reading the last reply just disagree on the value of how anamorphic lenses render scenes.

You either need to use an adapter with optics inside it to get to infinity focus, which compromises quality or have the mount converted to EF-mount and you will get infinity focus. https://www.instructables.com/MD-Minolta-to-EF-Canon/
Or you can try a mirrorless camera where you can have the appropriate adapter without infinity focus problems.

It has been in the 90s here this week. The ads I see on Facebook now mostly relate to travel in Norway. That is well targeted for me these days.

Very nice moon. Well done, Alan.

Hobby said:

Currently I have a 90D and a 6D. My wife uses the 90D. I have my 6D since 2012 and I am very very pleased with it. Allways nice pictures. I love the colors. I am using it for travel or family pictures. No sports, perhaps sometimes tennis or dancing, that's all. Nothing very fast. And 20 Megapixels is enough for me. Everything just fine.
I do a little bit PaintShop Pro and Canon DPP, and than mostly on JPGs. We have very nice photo albums and photo memories!

The only thing lacklustering is perhaps the 6D 11-points-autofocus-system.
Most of the time I am focusing with the center point. And I do focus and recompose (on human eye).
But 30% of the time, my focus is not completely sharp. (And no, it's not my lens, it is me probably.)
Focus is not bad either, and hey, I am no photographer. (But I really try very hard to have good focus and it frustrates me.)

I was planning to buy an EF 16-35 F4 (920 Euros 21% taxes included in Belgium. 1 Euro = 1.19 $).
I can use that lens on both cameras.
There is now a good Canon Cashback (120 Euros) when I combine it with a NEW camera. So than the lens costs only 800 Euros.
And the Eos Rp is available at 1000 Euros (21% taxes included).
That's perhaps a bargain? A cheap RP combined with the good EF 16-35 F4 and than also a nice cashback.

Total price RP+EF-cashback = 1800 Euro tax incl. (= approximately 1770 US $ tax excl to have some comparison)

And now comes my question. Would the RP be (much) better in Autofocus than the 6D? And for a little bit faster action?
- It is mirrorless: it introduces me in the new world
- I can try an RF 35 1.8 STM or the RF 85 2.0 STM
- I can learn some new things
- I can dream of expensive lenses... (And I know the R6 is better, but no way I will pay those prices.)

So in one sentence: Is the RP a good upgrade over the original 6D ? (I am thinking of autofocus. Given the fact that the image quality will be the same probably. I did already see a lot of reviews on YouTube.)

Or should I wait for a new R-entry-level-camera (higher price) and buy the lens (without cashback).

Click to expand...

Might also want to consider the $1499 5DsR backorder at B&H (they are still filling them). That's what I replaced my 6D with. Not mirrorless, but it's 51mp with the 5D3 AF. Do you really need mirrorless and the associated high costs?

Edit I just noticed the OP is like 6 months old lol

WD has released new Professional products under Sandisk including new CFexpress card and new card readers.

This sounds like a very cool lens.

Likely will be super expensive tho and may be hard to financially justify if you already have a 50 1.2 and 85 1.2.

IMO, one way CANON could add value to this lens is to lay off on the SA correction a bit so that the overall bokeh style is more in line with the old EF 50 1.2/85 1.2 than the new RF 50 1.2/85 1.2; that would give buyers of those new RF lenses a big reason to get this one. People would be buying this for the bokeh and no other reason, anyway.

justaCanonuser said:

It is old tech marketing trick for guys, see EOS 3, Elans etc. of the 1990s. Male geeks love long spec lists and absurd feature packages, the quality of photography itself is less important.

Click to expand...

I have seen some fantastic pictures taken with APS-C kit lenses

SwissFrank said:

135/2 in color, 85/1.2 in B&W

Click to expand...

The irony I am seeing online is that softening filters are now becoming popular again because the newest batch of lenses look too sharp and clinical for portraits!

Jostian said:

I had same issue, and had to eject and insert the card about 5 or 6 times before it 'connected' with the camera, not sure why but had the same issue with a different CF Express card in my D850, also needed to eject and insert a few times before it registered.

Click to expand...

Now with hindsight I may have simply not realized how to access the cards, thinking that card selection would be in the main menu. Never the less, a camera should not be set up to display the warning "no card in camera" when there is a card but it's not in the right slot according to previous usage/programming. So, I can't actually say whether my situation parallels yours. I ended up buying a new bigger card of a different brand and returned the old one before I had fully sorted things out.

Jack

I chose neither A local store had a great deal on the EF 600 f/4III so I bought that one instead. Will arrive tomorrow. Cheaper than any of the alternatives I was looking at.

Nemorino said:

Have You tried to programm custom modes? If one is mechanical and one electronic shutter You can switch quiet fast. There is also the possibility to save settings while You change the custom mode. Getting allways back to default shutter speed/Iso/aperture is probably not Your need.

Click to expand...

I use the C modes for different light, rather than different shutter. To use one for sun, one for shade, and then one for mechanical would make it a bit confusing. I use the C mode mfn button all the time though yes. Still need a separate button for mech/elec shutter...