roby17269 said:

who, me?

Click to expand...

No, you are the last one I'd ever suspect of being interested in such a lens.

Ok. Trying another method to sell the R50. At least they're trying.

SonicStudios said:

I was looking at these thinking that the writers had done their research and knew what they were talking about.

Click to expand...

Is this your first day on the internet?

chik0240 said:

is that canon factory basic adapter? or some third party ones?

Also if it's me I will try to just put the adapter alone onto the camera and try to turn it, it should show whether it's with the heavy sigma lens or the adapter itself is the issue and with adapter only you can observe more on how much play the adapter itself have

Click to expand...

The adapter is a Canon one. Good idea trying it alone, I will give it a shot. Thank you for your feedback!

A last one of last autumn

VegasCameraGuy said:

Is anyone experiencing a focus problem after updating to 2.0? I did a shoot last night and discovered that auto focus sometimes didn't show the area that the camera focused on. I haven't had a chance to look at the RAWs but they seem to be in focus. It was weird but the focus square would not jump to the obvious focus point and would stay in one spot. It seemed as if my R5 was focusing properly but not displaying the selected focus point. Eye auto focus seemed to work properly but it was the normal auto focus seemed flaky.

This is my initial impressions and I haven't had a chance to do testing and fully understand what's going on.

Click to expand...

Are you still having focus issues or is it resolved now?

If anybody is asking, the crop-factor for 2/3'' is ca. x4 (exact 3.93) wich makes the lens a ca. 29-800mm Zoom for FF (plus 2x extender). Nice.

dcm said:

Thanks! I knew DxO had minimal support for JPG and HEIF which aren't RAW formats. They also don't have great support for scanner images in RAW formats either. No real surprise they haven't done RAW formats for phones.

Click to expand...

No HEIF support either in DxO

photophil said:

How did your eclipse photos turn out? Have you posted them anywhere on here yet?

Click to expand...

Thanks. It turned out good. Stressful. I had a house with several family members outside Austin (under totality). The forecast has been calling for clouds. We saw a small window (using an astrophotography app ) that ended up being right. We had a very brief window, mostly before totality and then right at totality. So, many machinations, trying to decide if we abandon our position and drive or if we sit tight. We sat tight and I am good with our choice.

I will go through all my pics by the weekend, but I posted a few I liked on my initial glance at my pictures:

koenkooi said:

Which ISO ranges are you planning to use? The R5 is ISO invariant in most of its ISO range, so changing exposure in post has the same effect as changing ISO during capture.

Click to expand...

Very good point! It is isoinvariant from 800-51200 so if you set it to underexpose at iso 800 you have six stops to 51200 from just one exposure without any need for bracketing. And, it wouldn't be too bad even starting at iso 50.

It certainly looks interesting. The price tag is a little hefty, though. I think it'd be a no-brainer at the $700-$750 price point body only considering it's purported capabilities, and $999 with a decent mft lens. Initial reviews from when Mevo launched weren't too positive. The more recent ones are better and they've really got me wanting to give it a go, but I'm still hesitant. I have several applications where the ability to run it from an iPad would be very convenient.

DJI, the global leader in civilian drones and creative camera technology, today introduces three groundbreaking products that revolutionize the filmmaking and content creation landscape. The DJI RS 4, a lightweight commercial stabilizer, redefines vertical shooting with enhanced efficiency and stabilization performance, empowering solo cinematographers to capture grand scenes effortlessly. The DJI RS 4 Pro flagship

See full article...

john1970 said:

If Canon is going to be distributing the camera to professional prior to the Olympics does it have to be registered before hand?

Click to expand...

I doubt it.
Registration is mainly for sales and rental but the Olympics may have their own requirements.
They would only need to register in France if anything.

EricN said:

More and more I wondered, what about trying a Nikon? It doesn't end there. Now, I am starting to ask myself will I really go to bad ergonomic hand-cramp city if I used a Sony body?

Does anyone know an exorcist?

Click to expand...

That is what you get when you ignore my advice. Don’t say I didn’t warn you .

Gleverla said:

I bought it new. But before I bought it I rented another R5 to shoot a musical. It was the same at that time, so it,s not a device issue, it,s more a type issue which doesn`t seem to happen when in medium or good light. It,s pure darkness with some highlights on persons when this happens.

I,ll try to make an example with my phone this weekend.

Click to expand...

I did not install firmware 2.0.0, for what it's worth.

scyrene said:

I usually connect to my R6 to transfer images when it's switched off. The app says some functions (like changing the camera clock time) are unavailable but accessing and downloading images is fine.

Click to expand...

that's just wild. I've never thought of connecting to my r5 when it was off. I'll have to give it a try

JTP said:

This was posted on Canons repair forum. Not mine, but just reposting.

Click to expand...

It's interesting but without analyzing the actual radio situation in that moment it's one empirical evidence. I routinely use Canon wireless in my home studio, where there is also a WiFi AP, without any issue. But I'm in a detached house and beyond my own WiFi other signals are quite weak. My APs are set to regulate the transmission power as needed, also, and that might help to avoid hampering the Canon signal. Also, wireless flash should not disrupt WiFi transmissions.

A building with a lot of APs filling each and every channel, blasting at full power, the interference can be far worse. Still, being the 2.4GHz band an unlicensed one, interference must be expected, and any design should account for them. Wireless flash has the issue it has to be a real-time signal, with strict tolerances, unlike WiFi which can stand far higher latency. Maybe today using a different band is not a bad idea, since most devices moved to WiFi, although many now uses the 5 GHz band.

Anyway, we don't know if it is a problem at the hardware level - the hardware enter a state when it loses the link and can't re-establish it until power cycled, or it's a software problem, the hardware still works correctly but the software is in a state when it cannot resume operations. The latter might be far simpler to fix than the former, although without software update capabilities Canon units can't be fixed that way.

I hope Canon is working on new, more powerful units and they might need to exchange more data - requiring a protocol overhaul.

Please forget what I said because someone posted elsewhere saying the radios in the v1, 2 and 3 transmitters are the same.

Frequency: 2405 - 2475 MHz
Modulation System: Primary modulation: OQPSK; Secondary modulation: DS-SS
Channel: Auto, 1 - 15
Wireless Radio ID: 0000 - 9999

So if the issues are related to wi-fi and interference, the v3 is likely going to act the same.

Thanks for sharing, Eric.
Bad and sad topic, but important to stand up against violence like that.

Thanks for sharing, kaihp

justaCanonuser said:

Such "rubber" zoom lenses never come w/o strong distortion, either on short or long focal lengths (most probably at the wide angle end). I think all manufacturers of such extreme wide angle to tele zooms rely on a heavy-sided in-camera correction of all sorts of distortion, vignetting, and aberrations to keep weight, size, and price within tolerable limits. Personally, I therefore prefer dedicated tele or wide angle zooms (if not primes anyway) with much more properly designed optics.

Click to expand...

I keep asking people to show me an example of how in-camera correction of distortion hurts a photo or is even detectable. No-one EVER supplies an example. If you have an example I'd be very thankful.

"Properly designed optics" are ones that make enough customers happy that the firm benefits. My 16/2.8 and 14-35/4 both have, I'm told a lot of distortion correction but I have never seen anything specific that is a problem.

Basically, optics design is a N-way tradeoff between size, weight, price, reliability, focus speed, center sharpness, corner sharpness, contrast, distortion, vignetting, bokeh quality, and aberrations that cannot be corrected in software. A traditional lens design that tries to improve distortion, will have to get worse on at least one or two of the other factors. But if we let the software fix what the software can fix--distortion and in most cases vignetting--then we can actually improve EVERYTHING else: make it a bit smaller and let distortion suffer. Improve sharpness and let distortion suffer more. Improve contrast and let vignetting increase. We can make ALL other factors better, and just let these two go to he11. Then... we can fix those two in software so well that... I think, though I'm happy to find out otherwise... the fix is literally invisible and undetectable. And yet you're saying such an optic would be improperly designed??

Note that for some astrophotography, I HAVE seen some cases where vignetting slightly hurts image quality. Since the corners are darker, they need a bit more boost in brightness... and since the sky's supposed to be near black, most of the signal there is noise... so it ends up being noise that's boosted. And yet even then, it's not complicated to minimize, and I haven't seen any other subject matter where it's detectable.

So, thanks to some members of this forum, I learned that in some very special cases, software correction of vignetting can be detected. But I still haven't seen evidence of detectable issues with distortion correction. Again, I would love to find out I'm wrong. Please share any relevant images you have and I'm actually quite ready to admit I'm wrong and you're right. But please share the images. (And if you don't have such images, maybe you might want to rethink your basic assumption here.)

Cool shot. Well done, dpc.

DhlcadR6 said:

Let me guess, Zfc?

Click to expand...

No, it was a Fuji X-T4

I hope Canon will get in their senses and bring along more fast good primes like 50mm F1.4, 85mm F1.4, 35mm F1.4 that don't weight a tone, and is not very expensive.