Posts

BeenThere · Aug 6, 2020

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-70-200mm-F2.8-L-IS-USM-Lens.aspx

At the bottom of this review is a comparison with the EF III version. That‘s probably as good as you will find.

Mt Spokane Photography · Aug 6, 2020

There was a lot of discussion about it when the R came out. The answer is that no one knows why the specific number was chosen. We can speculate forever, but unless Canon supplies the answer, we won't know.
Using a 25mm tube with a 20mm flange distance would require optics, as well as a way to adapt the different mounts. A adapter is cheap and easy, you can get 3rd party ones for a few dollars.

Whowe · Aug 6, 2020

Also fixed the table of button customization. (there were error with exp compensation and Flash exp comp icons)

koenkooi · Aug 6, 2020

vjlex said:
They're more than just rumors. They are directly stated by Canon that they are considering implementing them. Because it's straight from Canon, and not the rumor mill, I think it can be inferred that it's definitely coming, barring some extenuating circumstances.

I don't know where it is on the English page, but on the Japanese page it is as follows:

ファームアップでの対応を検討中の内容に関して

フルHD／120Pの記録サイズ対応

すべての解像度およびフレームレートのRAWとIPBに低ビットレートモードを追加

Canon Log 3

The link to the page is here (Japanese; Canon USA seems to be down at the moment due to the ransomware attacks I imagine). It was also discussed in this thread.

'Considering' is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence

I suspect the first firmware update will be the usual "Fix menu entry description in Bokmål", the next firmware update will add support for a new RF lens that needs even stranger corrections, the 3rd update will fix "AWB-W in challenging situations" and after that they might put in one of the 3 items above, likely the 1080p/120.

Michael Clark · Aug 6, 2020

richperson said:
Maybe, but Canon USA has been up and running for years, and mislabeling the product in the catalog from the checkout seems like it is more likely a bate and switch. In coding there should be only one field for "in stock" it either is or isn't. Can't imagine why anyone would code so you have to change that information in two locations.

Anyone who has used Canon USA's website for any amount of time knows it is constantly filled with glitches that have nothing to do with "bait and switch".

I can't imagine why Canon can't find someone who knows how to code a website that "works" as well as their cameras do, but apparently they don't think it is very important.

Chris.Chapterten · Aug 6, 2020

There are a couple of threads on this already.

spyder93090 · Aug 6, 2020

Would Adobe's DNG Converter be an option?

Shellbo6901 · Aug 5, 2020

Canon really missed the mark bc the new breakthrough drop-in filters are dope. it'd kind of be cool to see a camera/lens combo made from scratch that was specifically made for an adapter with all those drop ins. i kid of wish the rf lenses weren't so enticing now that the filters are out.

rdickert · Aug 5, 2020

H. Jones said:
The R5 video button uses the C3 custom video mode still, you just need to switch to video mode using mode->info, and set up the C3 video mode, and then it'll use those settings whenever the video button is hit during stills. It's a little confusing because all of the modes are separate for video and photo, so photo custom 1 is different than video custom 1.

Thank you for this! I came here looking for this answer. There's a hint when you are shooting (it shows c3 in the viewfinder/liveview while shooting), but I didn't get it. What a very obtuse setting. For that matter switching stills/video modes is pretty unintuitive as well, though muscle memory kicks in pretty fast. This is a useful thing - I'm surprised it won't let you do the opposite: to shoot stills while in video mode.

SteveC · Aug 5, 2020

Well, that's just weird then.

Perhaps their custom is different for Sony, or perhaps they use III for mirrorless, and I was wrong to figure III would be for EF-M only. (The one Canon-compatible lens numbered III is for the EF-M [the 18-200mm].) If that's the case, and they ever start producing RF lenses, I wonder what they'll do to distinguish them from EF-M lenses.

SteveC · Aug 5, 2020

Nathan Phillips said:
might have to break that brick of a manual out and read it. Lol

I wouldn't expect the brick of a dead tree manual to be of any use. Mine is still in the wrapper. Two thirds of it is languages you likely don't read (and even if you did, they'd be redundant), the other third is greatly cut down and is missing a lot of stuff. I'd download and read the PDF. (I would like to see Canon print the whole manual in ONE language; it probably wouldn't be much bulkier.)

Whoever made the dead tree manual for one of my cameras (I don't recall which one) chopped out half of the instructions for setting up a custom white balance, and that wasn't obvious. I only found out about the missing steps when I read the PDF version.

Jack Jian · Aug 5, 2020

Joules said:
I'm not sure if I understand your reply. It seems you are offended? If that is the case, sorry. That was not my intent.

I simply saw a statement that seemed wrong to me (7D beating the 24 MP sensor) and supplied some evidence for why I believe so. And sure, I accompanied that with a pretty short comment that left a lot up for interpretation. But we've had a good share of people equating lower resolutions to better low light performance (a phenomenon only observed when making a flawed comparison of different magnifications) and I projected that to you. So sorry.

Dynamic range in modern cameras is almost exclusively limited by noise. DR depends on Well capacity of the individual pixels and the noise floor (basically, how far you can raise shadows before noise drowns out details to an unacceptable degree). The amount of noise added to an image by the electronics is both responsible for a loss in DR and the difference in noise we see in those high ISO shots I linked to.

No, I wasn't offended, sorry if it sounded like one as I am not strong in English.

I agree with you, and thanks for being considerate with your response.

Mt Spokane Photography · Aug 5, 2020

Bert63 said:
Thanks very much!

Best program for shutter count? Never used one of those before.

Don't have the box but the camera is super clean.

Trying to get that 800mm f/11 without coming out of pocket for it... Maybe I'll throw in my first generation 100-400L..

I your first gen 100-400 is in good shape, its worth $700 - $800.

Getting a shutter count depends on Mac or PC. I have a PC and used EOSMSG for my EOS R and my 5D MK IV. there is a small fee, the program will only let you get the count from one specific camera, I had to pay $5.18 for each camera. I can repeat the test again, but only on the specific camera I registered. I think there is a free program for a Mac.

SteveC · Aug 4, 2020

David - Sydney said:
Sandisk's 64GB version does specify V30 on it but their 128GB version only has U3. Great testing that he does but weird about 128GB version.

U3 and V30 both mean the same thing, 30MB/s. For some reason they felt the need to switch from "U with a number inside" to "V with a number ten times bigger next to it" to express exactly the same thing. Meanwhile, card manufacturers now have to put THREE distinct speed ratings on their cards now, all to say the same thing, because there are three overlapping scales C10 = U1 = V10. So basically any modern card will be C10 ( because the C numbers go no higher), U something bigger than 1, and V something bigger than 10.

NONE of which tells you the minimum sustained speed of a card, which is critical for large files (like video).

However...as far as I know these ratings are only used for SD cards?

photonius · Aug 4, 2020

blackcoffee17 said:
Yes, that was my suggestion, that instead of EOS-M, canon could make an RF-S system. Take the current EF-M lenses, make them RF-M, make a few small APS-C R bodies. You wouldn't t need the EOS M line anymore, and you can put all RF lenses on it for the full line-up, no more two systems. If it will happen or not, Canon will decide.
As far as I can see, there will always be a big difference in price between APS-C and FF, because of the waver size issue (info on this can be found elsewhere). As to the weight, the difference accumulates when one takes the whole range from 10mm to 250mm along. (10-18, 18-55, 55-250). That will be bigger and heavier on FF, and equivalent don't even exist yet on RF

Comparing M6 Mark 2 and 15-45 to the RP with the 24-105, the M is significantly smaller.
Same with the M6+22mm compared to RP with 35mm 1.8. The M is a dwarf compared to the RF.
The 22mm F2 is 101g vs 305g for the 35mm 1.8. Instant 200g saving.

That's the main advantage in my opinion. Canon just needs a better kit lens, something like a 15-60 F2.8-5.6 maybe with better built and sharpness.
[/QUOTE]
The m6 lacks a viewfinder! Take away the viewfinder bump on the top of the RP, reduce the big grip to m6 size, and you are very close. And with an APS-C sensor in such a body, and an RF mount on the 15-45 and 22 f2 lenses, they will work just as on the m6. The lenses will be a little bigger at the back due to the larger mount diameter.

Chaitanya · Aug 4, 2020

Aussie shooter said:
Finally. pure stills review. Focusing looks phenomonal. It will transform wildlife photography.

I was watching some other videos of R5 where it was picking up eyes of insects and butterflies in motion. Both those cameras will make AF on macro lenses quite more usable than before.

tolusina · Aug 4, 2020

Valvebounce said:
...dipstick...

"Dipstick"!
Priceless!

Mt Spokane Photography · Aug 4, 2020

You can set the display to sleep after 10 seconds and wake it up to use it. You can turn the review function off, so it does not review the image after taking it.

Kit Lens Jockey · Aug 4, 2020

Chris.Chapterten said:
thanks for doing this. That has been my conclusion too. The R5 still retains more detail and colour information in the shadows despite any supposed noise reduction. It's honestly hard to see any ill affects of the noise reduction even if it is being applied. R5 images look very crisp/sharp to my eyes

I agree. I mean maybe the R5 raws at low ISO do have noise reduction baked in. But even if they do, I can't seem to replicate their clarity or color consistency in post with EOS R raw files.

David - Sydney · Aug 4, 2020

Hi. Thought I would open up a thread for Q&A/FAQ for the R5 where you can ask questions and hopefully get some answers along the way that aren't embedded in the overheating debates.

Q1 for me is that I didn't seem to get close enough ie minimum focus distance with me R5/RF adaptor/EF100mm L macro for 1:1 yesterday. Can anyone else check/confirm this or have I done something wrong?

PCM-madison · Aug 3, 2020

This version was converted in Adobe Photoshop CC and also is 6240 X 4160 (downsized for post). Clearly, the Canon RAW conversion crops and stretch-resizes compared to Adobe to eliminate the vignetting

.

Chris.Chapterten · Aug 3, 2020

Frodo said:
Yes, very good review. I'd love an R5, but the price kills any chance of purchase in the foreseeable future.
I don't agree that the R6 image quality is similar to that of the R. Comparing the downloaded R6 and R RAW files from DPReview's studio shots, converting to dng and importing into Lightroom, I found the R files to be noticeably sharper at all but the highest ISO values.

For sure. Personally I would take the R over the R6 for stills. So long as you don't need the fast burst rate.

mppix · Aug 3, 2020

Skyscraperfan said:
APS-C seems unlikely for the EOS R system, as it seems to be the full frame version of EOS M. What sense would it make to build an APS-C EOS R camera?

Maybe they can bring a RF to EF-M speedbooster.

Chris.Chapterten · Aug 3, 2020

mkamelg said:
Free hints caught in the comments posted below the video.

Interesting, thank you! I won't be buying any apple products, but this does help some..

Bert63 · Aug 3, 2020

subtraho said:
This isn't an R5 thing specifically, that same warning appears in the manuals for the 5DIV (Page 331) , 5DSR (Page 277), 7DII (Page 310), and probably others I haven't yet checked.

Unless you've managed to trigger it on another camera in the same conditions, I don't think it's worth worrying about with the R5 specifically.

Ditto. After reading what some folks have put this camera through I’m 100% satisfied that my normal usage won’t be a problem.

One guy here (name escapes me) rattled off 1,500 shots in less than 5 minutes after several other similar buffer bottoming ‘torture tests’ in 85 degree weather. No problems.

Posts

Posts

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics