Thank you for this extremely interesting and, in a hopefully not so distant future, expensive (for me!) review!
Seems to be an outstanding lens!

privatebydesign said:

Demosaicing and resampling are completely different things. You don't 'resample' when demosaicing you just use the luminosity values of other pixels to determine the most likely color of each individual pixel, the resolution stays the same.

No the ideal 4k camera would have a three chip or three layer sensitive sensor/s at 4k resolution.

Click to expand...

They're different, yes, but they're not completely different. You're still using the data from more than one pixel to generate both luminosity and colour for the target pixel. If you're using 4 pixels in the source to generate a single pixel in your 4K output you get the best possible output and avoid the usual problems associated with resampled video.

Obviously the three layer/three chip 4K sensor is going to give the best results but you aren't going to see anything like that in a standard MILC setup.

Generally, for a MILC, resampled video from full sensor area is going to be the best we're going to get.

techfan said:

How should I reply? Teach me pls. I wrote that for flash I use manual ISO, manual aperture, manual shutter speed and I get a reply that Canon uses different Av and Tv with flash. I was pretty baffled.
Also I wrote that I do not get consistent results with metering on Canon, in same situation I get very consistent with Sony and Fuji. What is moving the focus point has to do with that? Of course metering is changing even on Canon when using evaluative and moving the focus point, but not enough and eratically.

Click to expand...

"Outdoors in Av priority this happens less often, but it still happens. "

CanonFanBoy said:

Wish I knew. They say Canon's R isn't very well sealed either. My wife's Olympus E-M5 Mark II got really soaked at a splash pad, and I mean drenched. No problem whatsoever. That's one thing I can say good about Olympus. I thought for sure it would be ruined as it took a direct hit from a torrent of water. Nope. It never missed a beat. I love the build quality of the Olympus Pro lenses. I just wish Olympus made FF and could sort out their nightmare menu system. I'll never worry about the Oly getting wet. Not ever.

Click to expand...

Not only that but Olympus has an M5 mark II!!!

maves said:

I use both the 24mm TS-E ii and 17mm TS-e adapted on my EOS R for commercial Architectural photography.

Image quality is fantastic, I notice no issues that people do get from adapting the Canon TS lenses to Sony, however from the accounts I've seen the latest Metabones adapter addressed this issue bu changing the flocking in the adapter. The drop in CPL adapter is brilliant with the 17mm.

I have even used a 1.4 Teleconverter with a Drop in CPL filter with the 24mm shifted at 10mm and got a usable shot!

My biggest complaint about the EOS R for architecture is the electronic level is SO intrusive in the view finder and frustrating to use accurately (and mine is out by .4 of a degree). I wish it had the graphic display of the 5D Mark IV.

Click to expand...

Yes, the R electronic level is insane... the small one at the top of the VF with the 1dx2 was brilliant .

sanj said:

Before anyone pounces on me, this is a totally honest question. I do not know so asking: All those of you who have had a chance to shoot with Leica cameras, is the IQ of Leica better than Canon? This question is purely IQ related. I strongly suspect Canon shoots more 'easy'. Thank you.

Click to expand...

Your question may be totally honest, but do you expect totally honest replies?

You don't shoot much sport or wildlife, do you?

SteveC said:

Who is the trusted source? dpreviews?

Click to expand...

You talking to me? You talking to ME?

On Thursday 11/7 Focus Camera, Sony, Sigma, and Profoto jointly sponsored an event in Brooklyn. There were multiple shooting stations with models, all lit with Profoto gear. You got five shots, manual mode, specified ISO, aperture (f/4.0) and shutter speed. Most attendees had drunk deeply of the Sony Kool Aid while I was there with my M5 and the Sigma 56mm f/1.4, and I had no interest in shooting at f/4.0. I wanted to see what this little puppy could do at 1.4.

So I put a Godox controller in the hotshoe, a Ving 860 Mk. II in a Flash Disc knock off and snuck around the edges of the shooting stations. Shooting in Program and Auto ISO the camera decided (due to the very weak ambient) on 1.4 at 1/60 (as Canons do in those situations) and that was fine with me. The ISO varied from 320 to 800. Since the lens had arrived only two days earlier this was my first chance to do some meaningful shooting with it. I had done some tests earlier in the day with a newspaper page, and the M5/Sigma combo was not markedly worse than a 5D III/EF 85/1.4 setup.

All the usual caveats, not sufficiently scientific, blah, blah, blah... I love it! I have been using an adapted EF 50/1.8 as my portrait lens for the M5, and this Sigma is sharper, faster, and smaller. What is not to like? A lot of my paid work is done with the 5DSR and the 2.8 trinity and a batch of Sigma Arts, most of them f/1.4s. For my own fun and games shooting I have used SLs, the three kit zooms, a pre Art Sigma 30/1.4, and an EF 50/1.8. If needed I could always dig into my EF arsenal. Now I use the M5, EF-M 11-18, 18-55, and 55-200, EF-M 22 and 32, and now the Sigma 56/1.4. This outfit is way smaller and lighter than the SL/EF-S combo. I lose 1mm at the short end and 50mm at the long end as well as a 1/3 of a stop here and there. Well worth it to me!

Some overall thoughts about the M system. It allows high quality in a compact package. I was very pleased when Canon introduced the 32/1.4, it is a very ambitious design (14 elements, 2 more than the Zeiss Otus 55/1.4!) and very successful. I had hoped for an EF-M 53/1.4, but I guess that might be a long wait. A small 85mm fitting the form factor would be great and I think it could be smaller than the EF 85/1.8. An 85mm has the FOV of a 136mm on FF. 84/1.4 would not quite fit the form factor, but a 1.7 seems quite doable. And remember, a lot of us (all right, some of us) started with a 135/2.8 in our early kits. At the Photo Plus Expo this year Viltrox showed a (non working) 23/1.4 for the M system. With 11 elements it looks ambitious, and it is a tad big, but if it tests out good it might replace the EF-M 22/2. The Sigma 16/1.4 is quite large and it doesn't fit with my view of the M as small and light.

Enough of the mindless chatter. You wanted photos? Here they are!

Has anyone got one yet and how does the bokeh compare to the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II? (Once it ships)

I have one, and it's a great lens.

i have been using the camera and i agree with most of your points. especially the disappointing interface. no 2 button backfocus, no using wheel to ev comp in manual, no drive, af, focus mode display in viewfinder. no stop on the mode dial.

so far i have been using it on perched birds and it is great for that.

ONCE AGAIN, this demonstrates that Customer Requests, Internet buzz (and especially bad Reviews and Complains) do reach Canon Product department.

The more popular complain, the more chance for an improvement in a feature via Firmware Update (or inclusion in this case) when there is no hardware limitation.

Not many people know or believe, but Canon has some kind of internet chatting monitoring system.

I do hope Canon also implements 24p for the GX5 II & G7X III...

not sure if anyone aware of this. There is already EF to FE converter that does the shifting in the market and the result is amazing pleasant.

However, the issue is EF lens doesn't have the manual aperture control so the usefulness for EF lens on Sony FE is limited.

If Canon is able to come out such converter with aperture control then it will become a very interesting converter and should help to drive their wide angle lens sales also.

Hey everyone,
So this is targeted at the ultra portable market. This is a great camera for folks who do not want to be bothered with a laptop and all of the other necessary steps needed to setup a camera like a ZWO or ASI.

Personally, I hike and do Milky Way landscapes. No computers or large EQ mounts or telescopes. I have gear to do astro in with an ultra portable but very capable camera, tripod, and tracker. cnv.to While I will not be buying this since I have Nikon kit, I have an astro-modded Z6 which is very similar to this. This is perfect for someone like me who needs to maintain ultra portability and enjoys the ease, functionality, etc of a DSLR/mirrorless over a dedicated astro cam.

Frodo said:

My motive for using the USB-C connection was to reduce the risk of corrupted the single SD card. However, after using the EOS R USB-C connection, I think there is a much greater risk of damaging this port and potentially the camera motherboard than corrupting and breaking an SD card. Sure, Canon provides a connector to reduce pressure on the USB-C port, but this is a hassle to use. Fine for tethering, but unrealistic each time files are to be downloaded from the camera SD card.

Click to expand...

Yes, a memory card is cheap compared to a camera repair.

Canon has released new firmware for its latest super-telephoto lenses, the EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III USM and the EF 600mm f/4L IS III USM.
Firmware Version 1.1.2 incorporates the following enhancements:

Increases the manual focus speed when the manual focus speed switch is set to 1 or 2. *The speed when the switch is set to 3 (slowest speed) will be unchanged.
Improves the image stabilization effect during handheld shooting with a slow shutter speed when used with EOS 5D Mark IV, EOS 6D, or EOS R.

*Enables a full-time manual focus function during Servo AF when used with the EOS-1D X Mark II. The lens must be sent to the Factory Service Center in order for this function to be enabled.
If the lens’ firmware is already Version 1.1.2, it is not necessary to update the firmware.
The lens firmware version can be checked from the camera’s menu.
Download the firmware updates...

Click to expand...

Continue reading...

I wonder about the choice of resolution.

The EOS 60Da has an 18MP resolution. A full frame sensor with the same pixel size would have 18 * 1.6^2 = 46MP, about 5DS resolution. The EOS R has 30MP.

So astro photographers would gain about a stop on light gathering, they would lose in reach. Don't recall who wrote it, but astro is one of those cases where you can't zoom with your legs.

privatebydesign said:

But you can see the AF assist beam pattern, which means it isn't, at least entirely, IR wavelengths.

Click to expand...

Yes and in addition the IR-Assist pattern can be photographed by DSLRs and mirrorless cameras. so the theory that sensors Do not capture the IR-assist pattern isn’t very well substantiated.

This lens may well be what pushed me from Nikon (Z6 that I love) to Canon. I tested and rejected the RP earlier this year, primarily because of the reverse zoom direction, but decided to stubbornly try again to get the better Canon lenses. Z6 has a better rear display flip up for fast low angle shots, a superior view finder with a larger apparent image, and a shutter that doesn't should like a toy (cringe). RP has the weight and size advantage, and Nikon shows no promise to catch up. Even looking to upgrade my Nikon 400mm f2.8 heavyweight, there seems little point with their heavier best option. I'm motivated to force myself to learn to love Canon to have a happier if less comfortable "marriage." I also trust that the RP can be replaced or supplemented by a next generation mirrorless body to get the most out of the pro lenses, and IBIS for my vintage oddballs like Questar 700 mirror lens and manual Nikon collection.

I had the 2.8 and sold it for the f/4 ii and can confirm, the sharpness is unreal. As I do landscapes primarily and have the 135/2 for portraits, the weight savings and improved IQ makes the f/4 a must have over the 2.8 for long hikes and landscape shots! The $ savings is nice too

Michael Clark said:

How many salaried staff photographers do you know? I realize there are a lot fewer of them than just 5-10 years ago. Not many of them are making more than mid-five figures, and many do well to make the lower threshold of a mid-five figure salary. Of course, lots of them also do freelancing on the side...

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average annual salary of a photographer working in the United States was $36,580 as of May 2011. This is based on income actually reported to the IRS by people filing their tax return listing "photographer" as their primary occupation...

Yes, 2011 was eight years ago. While the cost of living has increased since then, the law of supply and demand has held full time photographer's compensation stagnant for the most part. The number of career staff photographers at media companies large and small has plummeted to near nothing.

Edit: OK, I found the most recent BLS numbers: In May, 2018 the average annual salary had increased to $42,770, but the median salary (the point at which half of the people make more and the other half make less) is only $34,000.

Here's zip recruiter's info as of 10/24/2019:

View attachment 187307

A good number of folks in the U.S. in 2019 who describe themselves as a "photographer" for their primary occupation work for places that do school photos, guest photos at tourist attractions, etc. Those folks rarely make more than 10-15 bucks an hour. Many of them are seasonal workers who work full time for 3-4 months in the fall and another 2-3 months in the spring (school photography companies) or only work full time during peak tourist season for their locale.

Then there is the whole issue of self-employed photographers reporting their gross income rather than their net income when discussing it with others or self-reporting to sites like GlassDoor. As this slrlounge article illustrates, net income for independent wedding photographers is usually somewhere around half of gross after business expenses and taxes are subtracted.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the thorough research. Interesting to know. But, I've forgotten what the debate was about. I think it had something to do with batteries.

Aregal said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Blackmagic Design used Peltier coolers but the caveat was that battery power was drained faster. I'm pretty sure Canon has discussed and tested this. I'm just not sure if anyone has further insight into this.

Click to expand...

Peltier cooling would make so much more sense. Fan based cooling implies openings for ventilation with all the resultant implications for dust/dirt/moisture ingress. Even if it were implemented as sealed ducts, there's obvious potential for the ducts to be clogged by dust, and the bulk of the camera would necessarily be increased. Add to this the potential for vibrations from the fan reducing image resolution, plus the fact that in high ambient temperatures it would be considerably less effective.

I have dug out some examples taken earlier this year with the 5DSR + 400mm DO II + 1.4xTC of a female kingfisher. Top is processed with DxO PL with PRIME noise reduction and lens sharpening on. Middle is PhotoNinja with standard conservative demosaicing, Bottom with Moderate demosaicing (all 100% crops). There is Moire in the wing feathers above the tail, which is least in the Moderate demosaicing. PN also automatically corrects highlights, which are noticeable in the DxO one.