Hey, mine finally shipped from B&H yesterday, so that's exciting!

Was waiting for someone to comment on the lens hood. Very ugly way to mount it. I usualy transport the lens with reversed hood, That means to rip the thing off, punch it in place and than repeat. All my other lenses mount the hood through a quarter twist and might even have a small button to lock them in place, but the Sigma is just horrible.

I was looking for a comparison of the sharpness of the RF 200-800mm vs Sony 400-800mm at 800mm and came across this in a short youtube by Tony N. He describes it as being a close tie, but considering that the Sony is on an A1 that has more Mpx than the R5 and doesn't have an AA-filter, the 200-800mm is probably sharper. Here the screenshot from:


with the Canon on the left and Sony on the right.

Nice panning!

emmmile said:

Did anybody compare the FOV of this lens at 15mm vs the 14-35 at 14mm?

Click to expand...

Haven't looked at this lens, but the RF 14-35/4 after correction gives an FoV of around 13.5mm (based on comparison to the EF 11-24mm).

Frodo said:

I generally agree, which is this thread about one man's opinion (Klaus). One person's opinion that I do value is Roger Cicala's, especially when he tests multiple copies, such as this ten-year-old review of 24-70 mm lenses. https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/07/24-70-f2-8-zoom-mtf-and-variation . Interestingly he noted "there’s more variation at 70mm for all three lenses" (Nikkor, Tamron, Canon EF).

Click to expand...

TDP also noticed serious variations when he re-tested an RF 14-35...
That's why we all miss Roger's MTF testing several lenses.

Canon recently announced that its products won at the annual iF awards for the year 2025. Canon won both design awards and a gold award. This is the 31st consecutive year that Canon has won these awards. While the camera gear that won was interesting, it was not that surprising; what I found interesting was the semiconductor equipment winning the gold award.

Hickup said:

Comparison was done with printouts on A4 paper, looked like inkjet. Certainly not fine art print, it was not even special printer paper or very high DPI. One page showed full picture, one page cropped in to better illustrate contrast and sharpness which was considered the differentiator for the Zeiss.

Difference in sharpness and contrast was clearly visible with both prints, the Otus was clearly superior by some good margin. I was actually quite surprised by how much.

Not what I consider pixel peeping.

Click to expand...

But does it matter to anyone who is not a photo nerd? Would anybody in the real world see it, or care?
Just because there is some discernible difference when scrutinized at close proximity by someone who was looking for differences does not answer the question…
Would someone in a gallery, for example, *who is looking at the subject, not some out of focus corner thing*, like one over the other, and why?

Diko said:

As given in this topic many answers could be found here. A few months after my question in Canon Auto-Focus explained 2025

Where the following video has been mentioned:

- YouTube

Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.

www.youtube.com

Click to expand...

Thanks for the link

Article needs to be rewritten...
"using regular lenses like the Canon RF 5.2mm f/2.8 L Dual Fisheye 3D VR."

"When viewed on a screen, the image could be rotated, revealing its three-dimensional nature. This capability rivals the 180-degree 3D modeling of Canon’s costly Dual Fisheye lens, but at a fraction of the cost"
Currently, to achieve any sort of 3D output from an EOS R camera, you need a lens such as the Canon RF 5.2mm f/2.8 L Dual Fisheye 3D VR. and that generally runs between $1500-$2000."

If the software only uses DPRAW and not the dual fisheye lens then it would be the only useful application of DPRAW in post that I am aware of.

Quack said:

You must be looking at the optimistic OM forums! Most comments I see are much more dire. They are now (since the selling off by Olympus) a tiny company with limited resources, which is unfortunate. I have owned both Olympus (now OM) and Canon systems since 2014. With every new Canon camera that gets released in the $2500 and lower segment, I wish it were anywhere as good as the Olympus (now OM) camera that I also have. Not that the various 6 or 7 series cameras from Canon have been bad - they are very good and have served me well, but they are never as good as my Olympus (now OM) camera that I always end up using far more than the Canon. For BIF, my Om-1 mark II does the job better than the R7, the R6 II and the R5, all of which I have used. When I'm out with a group, the 2X crop factor gets me shots the other birders just don't get. The AF and subject detection is certainly on par, and better than better, than the Canon cameras mentioned. Hopefully, someday (I have been waiting for about 8 years) for Canon to implement in-camera focus limiters, which is a great feature for BIF.

Click to expand...

You’re right, make it 2 years (not me, but the message boards). I got an EM-1 mark ii for bracketing/stacking insects, composite night shots, and then when the R7 came out that was a decision point, vs the OM-1, and I moved to OM and sold the 90D and didn't get the R7 for a few reasons, rolling shutter and loud shutter on the R7, which will probably be fixed in the next iteration, but also because I kind of maxed out financially and weight-wise for birds with a used 500 f4, which was great, but very heavy, there are more lighter options in m43, compromising slower aperture speed but also less expensive, or lighter, or sharper, or both, than used 500 f4, or rf 100-300 +TC, or 200-400tc or even 100-500 or 200-800. I still use the M cameras and several Canon (and Sigma) lenses for the bulk of family and travel shots, and an R8 for the best night-shooting, subject separation, and it's AF is clearly better than the OM-1, or the M6ii, when I'm not trying to follow birds in flight. What I love about Canon is the interface/feel, and that every once in a while they make a great modest-priced lens; lenses that are just a delight and wonder, and affordable; The 35 F2IS, the EF-S 10-18 and 55-250 STM, the EF-M 22, 11-22, and especially the 32 f1.4, for what they are the R100-400 and m18-150 are nice as well, I actually don't love the R85 f2IS, I miss the perhaps fuzzier EF 85 1.8, but the Sigma EF-M 56 1.4 is the only other lens that fits with that family. So, 3 mounts at once, honestly I'm very happy to have everything covered, if nothing breaks I could keep them forever, but, you know, new things.

Berowne said:

The Foto-Companies clearely go in the direction of slower lens-designs, but have the f11/600 and -800 lenses for instance indeed been a market success? Do people buy it?

Click to expand...

I love my 800f11.

Resetting to factory settings was a good step. You might be able to record the issue using screen capture or an external camera and then submit it to Canon support. They usually appreciate detailed reports, which can help them improve future updates. Hope you find a solution soon! Finding a reliable paper writing service is challenging, but this oxessays.com website exceeded my expectations. OxEssays writers delivered a well-researched, plagiarism-free paper that was formatted perfectly. I submitted it with confidence and received a high grade. The service was professional, fast, and hassle-free. If you're a student looking for top-quality academic help, this is a great option!

Sporgon said:

The Canon G1Xiii is closer, but a camera unloved by many due to its ‘slow’ lens.
Do Fuji make a 24-70/ 2.8 equivalent lens ? Even if the only ‘equivalent’ part is the 24-70 it would be pretty big on an Xm5 I’d have thought.

Click to expand...

They have a new smaller 16-55 f2.8 WR2 which is great but for APS-C this is not pocketable combo so I'm hoping this smaller sensor can allow reduced size for premium compact.

In worst case 2.8-4, as long as portable enough to make sense not going with APS-C cameras and lenses.

Frend got XM5, fantastic little camera in imaging dept but with that screen and without EVF very limiting for practical photography.

PhotonShark said:

To be fair, my Camera Connect experience was with a 70D ... and that experience was awful. First prize for me would still be a built in ***, but it's also sad that Canon doesn't allow a connection from the myriad of bluetooth *** receivers out there.

Click to expand...

The biggest improvement for me was someone pointing out that your phone OS needs to allow Camera Connect always access to location information.
My use of ‘surprisingly’ was meant to convey that I can’t really believe that it is now ‘good enough’, Camera Connect has been very unreliable in the past.

neuroanatomist said:

Imagine the reaction if Canon launched an RP Mark II that had USB charging, a newer Bluetooth standard and weighed 5 grams less.

Click to expand...

My RP's battery can be charged by USB to the body but I discovered that it cannot run the camera via USB power which was a major oversight in my opinion... it died shooting star trails after only 3 hours even though I had a power bank attached.

...are now hitting the market from suppliers that I have purchased from in previous years (the following screen grab is from Amazon USA):


By my own lazy count I have purchased at least a couple of backup batteries (from all three of the above suppliers) for at least ten different cameras (including two point-and-shoot, three DSLR and five mirrorless Canons)...with, I guess, mostly positive results for most use cases.

Currently, the fan-less and ethernet-less grip for the R5MkII is more-or-less permanently attached to its body, mostly because of its ability to house an additional battery--if anyone has figured out why my R5MkII seems to consume power at quite rapid rates...let me know.

Weather is warming up, and in some situations I can imagine needing backup batteries for the two Canon-branded batteries that now reside inside the grip.

I found this...


...on CR but haven't seen much on the Neewer, Wasabi or Kastar versions of the LP-E6P batteries--but I'm still looking.

Of course there are worries about third-party battery usage and damage to the camera itself...so I'm a bit conservative jumping in until more reviews are available.

EDIT:

...missed this one (for the Neewer R5 batteries):

David the street guy said:

I'm ready for an announcement !

I'm happy with my little RP, but it really shows its limits in low light situations, and I'm ready to upgrade.

I've read that the R6 mark ii is already better in low light than the R5 mark ii, so I'm guessing my camera of choice should logically be the next R6… What do you think?

Click to expand...

R6-series has always been a good low light camera, better than R5-series is a must

AlanF said:

...

I've dug through my other tests and here are two charts, from slightly further away (19m vs 16.7m). The wider aperture and very sharp RF 100-500mm + 1.4xTC on the R5 at 700mm outresolves the bare lens on the R7. Your results may differ, and wider apertures and light intensity will have effects. But, I do not find the R7 outresolves the R5 with the same lens plus 1.4xTC.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your info. Perhaps the difference in our results is merely that you are shooting a subject that is 19m away, whereas I was shooting subjects anywhere from 50 to 200m away. In every case - not one exception - did the RF 100-500 + 1.4x TC outresolve the R7 with the RF 100-500, comparing dozens of shots. But, as we know, there are many factors.

neuroanatomist said:

The EL-100 has the old shoe and is similar in power to the 270EX II, but it was discontinued last year. You can still find them new.

Click to expand...

Late response. I couldn't find one new, but got a gently used on from Japan on EBay. Smaller than the 430EX. Haven't tried using them all together in a multi-flash config.

David the street guy said:

What would be the advantage of the R5 over the R6, in that case?

Click to expand...

Better EVF, top display, it being a 5 series. If you mean sensor alone, faster readout / rolling shutter. Of course R6 Mk II has again faster readout speeds.

docsmith said:

Agreed. Most people post in the themed threads such as Bird Portraits, Birds in Flight, Landscapes, Animal Kingdom, etc. But yes, it is nice to be able to see what modern cameras can do, especially when paired with modern post-processing.

Click to expand...

Yes, sir, I agree! Especially for people on the fence about a camera.

I personally think just about all modern cameras can create amazing photos in the right hands but some cameras just make it easier (and more likely to get "the" shot).

I'm going to "watch" this thread and the R5ii, in hopes to see more nice photos.

I feel like engaging in this forum is bringing back my desire to shoot more. Well, the desire is always there but I've been using being tired from work as an excuse not to shoot as much as I should be. TMI

I've been struggling getting the R5ii down. My 5Diii is still a piece of cake and super easy for me to use but for some reason, the new camera I find challenging. Not use to all of the different settings, the EVF, etc. I guess just going from dslr to mirrorless. I know if I just used it more, I'd get the hang of it. Anyways, sorry, I'm just rambling now.

Thanks again for sharing and I look forward to seeing more! I hope this year I capture images worth sharing.

Canon AE1P
Tokina 17mm

August 1987

neuroanatomist said:

Love the 24-105/2.8 + 100-300/2.8 combo for indoor events, and I bring the 1.4x TC for outdoor events.

The 100-300 is the first real RF-designed great white. The 400/600/800/1200 are basically the EF 400/600 MkIII with an adapter bolted on and an integrated 2x TC for the longer two lenses. I think it’s a given that and newer RF great whites will have the control ring. I wonder if they’ll lack the drop-in filter like the 100-300 (though that does take a front filter).

Click to expand...

I don't see how it would be accepted to not have a drop in for lenses that have a large front end like the 400/2.8 and 600 f4. Both the Nikkor have the drop in. Luckily I have at least 2 lenses that use 112mm thread so I get a little more value out of having a B+W CPL and UV in that size.

neuroanatomist said:

I wouldn’t characterize a camera line that was the best-selling globally as a failure by any definition. At one point, 17% of all interchangeable-lens cameras sold in the world were EOS M-series. After launching APS-C R-series bodies, Canon made the strategic decision to phase out the M-series while it was still a best-selling line. Given the success of the R50 and other crop R bodies, they seem to have managed the transition effectively.

Click to expand...

I stand by every word of my post here.

Every word.