Last fall, many Camera blogs reported that Sigma is working on RF lenses, and that they might be announced this year.

Sigma RF lens Rumor

I guess that begs the question then, what is the camera actually using to focus? The raw data from the sensor itself, or the flat, un-contrasty image that results from the C-log being applied?

I wonder if a combination adapter might allow users to mount some of the existing EF lenses that don’t take an extender onto an R body. For example the 100 mm macro and the 70-300 L.

Random Orbits said:

No, Nikon is not Canon, but they did more of what you wanted Canon to do. Nikon led with better mirrorless bodies and f/1.8 zooms, which is what you wanted, and the results so far is that Nikon did not turn its fortunes around (even if you restrict to FF mirrorless), which is what your logic would have predicted. The bulk of your consumers don't buy f/1.8 lenses either; they buy zooms. which is why most of the EF-M and EF-s lenses are zooms and not primes. They are looking to pair the RP with the RF 24-240 or a 24-105, not f/1.8 primes. The market is contracting, and some think that the volume will go back to the pre-digital days. Back that, zooms were not nearly as good as they are now and they were a lot more expensive compared to primes, which is why primes made more sense then. They don't now. What "average consumer" is going to carry a 24, 35, 50 and a 85mm prime when most already prefer their cell phone to a ILC with just a single general purpose zoom?

Click to expand...

Some good points but the fact remains that the EF 50 f/1.8 is Canons best selling lens of all time. The fact that they did not have an RF version ready to go on day 1 remains a huge oversight, especially with the sub par bodies released.

ahsanford said:

Spotted this on Twitter

View attachment 188558

- A

Click to expand...

Here's the model:

Maximilian: Both copies of the 24 pancake back focus at MFD and out to about 5 feet. Testing beyond that distance is not practical with my method. I'm waiting for some sunny weather to do some outdoor testing.

Kit Lens Jockey said:

What would happen if one were to put an RF teleconverter on an RF camera, put an RF to EF adapter on that, and then put an EF lens on that? Could I finally turn my EF 85mm f1.2 into the 119mm f1.7 lens I have always dreamed of? Or maybe a 170 f2.4?

Click to expand...

The adapter is an extension tube compensating for the flange distance difference. You'll be able to focus closer, but lose the ability to focus to infinity.

The RF 70-200 is viable if paired with the 35mm f1.8.

FamilyGuy said:

Thanks! Really wanting to shoot RAW. Working on some storage capacity and editing software options without breaking the bank first. Need to move our library off the Mac and onto something external to speed up our computer, but aren’t fans of using cloud based options.

Is Canon DPP4 a good free option if one doesn’t want to pay monthly for Lightroom, given the limited processing we do?

Click to expand...

DPP gives excellent results (adjusting exposure, lifting shadows, sharpening, limited NR, etc.) for wildlife and is often all I feel I need and it's easy to get up to speed with it. It's just not adequate if you love to really modify landscapes etc.

Jack

I am starting to dabble in video with my 5D4. The focus is wildlife. I use a Zacuto finder, therefore I cannot use the touchscreen to focus. I have the shutter button set up to focus and start recording. I have servo enabled. I am trying to decide which mode is best. I am using Flexizone single. Any tips or tricks you can suggest?

Thanks in advance

koketso said:

RP at $650 would kill the 6DMkII, 90D, M6MkII, and upcoming 850D. Therefore... its not happening. I don't see the EOS RP ever going below $899 in its lifetime (unless on sale of course).

Click to expand...

The RP and the 90D/M6 Mark II are entirely different tools intended for entirely different purposes.

As far as the 6D Mark II goes, I doubt it is selling in very high numbers now. It's already been on the market for three years. There's not much left to kill from Canon's perspective. That ship sailed the moment the RP was introduced.

It does sound like DSLRs are suffering this slump far worse than mirrorless, and that lower-end cameras are suffering worse than the high end.

Or am I missing something?

DSLRs aren't dead...but they're showing the first signs of dying.

And of course they'll never be completely dead (even film isn't completely dead), especially not so long as there's some particular job they can do better than mirrorless of the same price--and I believe that's true today.

I was surprised that Adorama would be reducing the price of a returned $12,000 lens by only $500. But, indeed they have done. UK sellers would have had a much larger reduction for an "open box" return.

A quick look indicates you would need to connect to a computer. It's very old so drivers may be an issue.

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...-printer/bjc-series/bjc-85/bjc-85?tab=manuals

I would try it before I buy it...

Smart move selling the 5D Mark IV now. I expect there will be quite a few on the market in a few months when the R5 gets closer to launch. I think I'll probably be giving mine up sometime in the next few months. I'd sell it now if I had a suitable back-up. I still have my original 5D which takes very nice images considering it's age but it's impossible to keep the sensor clean for very long. The Mark II and Mark III are long gone but I kept the classic for some reason.

My plan is to swap the 5D4 for a R5 but hang onto the 1DX Mark II for a while. It has plenty of life left in it and I'm very happy with the way it performs with my 600F4. That will probably be my last DSLR for everyday use.

CDD28 said:

This may be a stupid question but I'm always paranoid about damaging my equipment so this has me worrying...

So yesterday on an assignment for work, I was photographing people cooking chicken wings. My cameras now have a slight oily feel and the rubber reeks of cooking grease. This is all just from being in the room where the food was being cooked.

My question -- is it likely the cooking grease from the air got inside the body and lenses? I'm now worrying that there is an oil buildup inside the lenses from being in this environment yesterday. I was using 1DX II + 70-200 2.8 III and 1DX + 16-35 2.8 III, both lenses with filters, if that even makes a difference.

Click to expand...

Its not likely to get inside, just clean the outside as normal.

Sporgon said:

I am no technical wizard and my answers are only what I have found from my own experiences, but the answer to your question is yes and no, which is why there is so much debate and confusion over the internet. Smaller pixels gather less light, so higher mp cameras are worse at this point. However lower mp cameras have a smaller output size, higher mp a larger output size. Interpolate down those higher numbers of less efficient pixels to the same number of pixels as the lower mp camera and you finish with the same performance in output quality terms.

Putting it another way, if you print out a very high iso image from at 5DIV at native resolution, so 28" across at 240 dpi, and also print the same image from the 5DS at native resolution and at the same high iso, so this picture will be 36" across, the 5DIV will show better ISO performance. However reduce the 5DS image down to the same size as the 5DIV, down from 36" to 28", and the quality of the picture will be the same.

Or to sum it up: in theory yes, in practice no.

Click to expand...

FWIW, my simplistic understanding is it works this way.

Smaller pixels gather less light, but the important thing is the total light gathered by the sensor. So, the amount of light per pixel isn't necessarily the key.

Larger pixels have a greater full well capacity. When shooting in good light (so generally low ISO), the greater full well capacity can help because it allows a greater range of results (subtley of tones) than a small pixel which should become full/saturated sooner. On the other hand, a smaller pixel is going to gather less light in a given amount of time, so in the end again, it's not as simple as saying a larger pixel is necessarily better. It depends on how big the difference is between the small and large pixels.

Where a difference comes is that larger pixels potentially mean a greater light-gathering area on the sensor. Each pixel has a "wall", and small pixels mean more pixels for a given size sensor, which means more "walls". Assuming the walls are the same width, more of the sensor is lost to non-light-gathering walls. So, if the pixels have the same QE, the overall sensor QE for the sensor with small pixels is lower than the overall sensor QE for the sensor with large pixels. When there is plenty of light (so assume low ISO), the slightly lower QE doesn't matter. As light level drops though (think higher ISO), the difference in QE starts to become more significant.

Incidentally, I understand this is essentially why BSI sensor designs are regarded as better than the older designs, ie BSI moves some components off the sensor surface which is used for light gathering, so allows the light gathering areas to be larger while the physical size of the sensor stays the same.

However, as Sporgon has said, you have to take into account output size too. As you reduce output size, differences becomes harder to pick. As you increase output size, differences get easier to see. But as you increase output size, the lower resolution sensor starts to hit its limit before the higher resolution sensor, so even if it started with any advantage, it ends up having to fight a slightly different issue once output size gets large enough.

If anyone has a better understanding than me, I'm all ears!

Michael Clark said:

As far as stills via the OVF goes, thinks about this. The new OVF based AF sensor for the 1D X Mark III is essentially another CMOS sensor, rather than a PDAF line sensor as every DSLR in existence from any company thus far has used. That has to have a higher processing overhead than the older line type sensors. The 1D X Mark III is processing the information from the (dual pixel monochrome?) CMOS AF sensor, the CMOS RGB+IR metering sensor, and then integrating all of that data together, and comparing the results with what is likely the most extensive library of different scenarios ever included in a camera's internal database - in addition to processing the images coming off the 20MP imaging sensor.

Click to expand...

The AE sensor data usable for subject recognition is only about 800x500 pixels, or according to Canon "approximately 400'000 pixels". The new AF sensor has 100x more pixels than the 61-point sensors previously used (which have ~70 line sensors). So... another 1Mpx. In total, the amount of data processed is roughly the same as a 1080p video stream. Smartphones have been able to run that kind of data through deep learning neural networks in realtime on general-purpose CPUs for years. But in the last few years we've also seen the appearance of TPUs. I believe there is a TPU core stuck in the DIGIC X chip, because of some mentions of handover to that chip for "AF Priority (people)" in cases where face detection fails.

Deep learning is computationally expensive only in the learning phase. The use of the trained network for classification is definitely something that can be done in embedded systems like a DSLR. There is no database needed in the camera. It has already been reduced to weights:

YuengLinger said:

So, if there is a new flash coming, I hope it has some truly better and additional features.

Click to expand...

Functionality wise, stronger would be better. Stronger is always better with flashes.

Feature wise, besides stronger batteries that eliminate the use of external power packs and AI (perhaps), I don't miss too much today, but you can always improve on features in an unlimited way. Full rotation would be nice, i.e. rotation without a stop somewhere. AC power adapter would also be nice. Improved cooling. Lighter would be nicer, too. More coloured gels.
But I doubt that better features would make me buy some, the 600s that I have are already near perfect. The 600 mark 1 can even be easier custom colour-geled than the mark 2 one.

The EOS R already uses the LP-E6N, which is same same battery found in any current EOS camera from the X0D and up, with the exception of the 1D X series cameras.

There is very little to nothing you can say about the camera ergonomics based on that, other than that it will be thicker than the M or RP type cameras.

StoicalEtcher said:

... you may be interested in the CPS (UK at least) story about Felicia Cisco's try out of this lens. It's obviously Canon's take, but ...

Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing.
But I like to see reviews and samples from others than the OEM (if good). I've never seen samples from the lens builder that didn't make them shine.

telemaque said:

annulé

Click to expand...

Qu'est-ce que ça veut dire?

Is it worth it? I don't seem to ever having a need to bookmark the site.However the other day I clicked on a Google link for birding/monopod info and found it has gone to a subscription model. Initial reaction? WTF. Now if it were CR or TDP, I'd buy in but....I truly wonder if it is maintaining enough subs to keep afloat. OR just aliening people like myself.