The need for supplemental video lighting continues to grow, even with today’s compact, low-light cameras. Control over light, shadow, and color accuracy is essential for professional results. In response to demands for a compact, lightweight, flexible lighting system, SmallRig has introduced the “New Realm in Portable Lighting” – the RC 60B COB LED Video Light

See full article...

Some interesting things can happen on Black Friday ...

Click said:

Beautiful series. Well done, Eric.

Click to expand...

Thanks click, I'm getting more comfortable using DXO's denoising which is helpful for long exposures. So, thanks for the people who've recommended it.

Athomp2002 said:

That's what I am hoping for. and no focus breathing creating issues will be huge for this (if true). I have missed shots because of focus breathing. Even other brands that have "focus breathing corrections" still have that issue. So I'm hoping this solves focus breathing issues, so I am missing less shots.

Click to expand...

When you say 'focus breathing', do you mean 'focus shift' or 'non-parfocal' instead? Focus breathing affects framing, not focus.

EricN said:

It's worth taking a look at not sp much for sharpness, but more for seeing what's getting cropped off - It's more than I guessed

Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing me in that direction. I guess I should take a look. I can't imagine why anything would be cropped off but I suppose it'd be obvious enough it I took a look...

Would anyone have the part number for the EF 200-400 standard (long) tripod foot? The threads to attach my monopod have become so worn that I can no longer screw the monopod onto the lens. I've seen some third-party options but I want the OEM part.

Thanks!

Funny, I've wondered about the 15-35mm myself, though on mine there has never been even a tiny amount of "zoom creep." It's always been very tight. Still, it would certainly be a good option as time goes by, because I'll admit I have not used that lens as much as others over the several years I've had it.

Maybe version II will have it? If there is a version II.

Canon Rumors Guy said:

My pleasure.

It's nice to see Canon is all-in on after purchase updates. They even put a hood in the box for an RF-S lens and weather sealed a non-L lens.... feels like a different world.

Click to expand...

Wait...RF-S 10-18 has hood in box???

vikingar said:

I do like my constant aperture lenses a lot for the convenience. But with Canon tickling extra millimeters out of every existing lens design and not being afraid of heavy corrections I was wondering if there's anything preventing them from opening the aperture a bit.

Click to expand...

It would be great if the 200-800 f/9 zoomed out to 400 f/4.5 and 200 f/2.25, which they could in theory do.

i-G12 said:

Reminds me of something out of the Wizard of Oz. Where was this?

Click to expand...

Thurston near Bury St Edmonds UK. Visiting a winemaker there - nice English wines.

i-G12 said:

Place Vendôme - Paris​

View attachment 212644

Click to expand...

This is a really great pic, Phil.

SwissFrank said:

Fair enough, I'd like to see an example of this. I think you have the 24-105/2.8 on order? You shoot indoor nighttime high school sports or similar?

Click to expand...

I did preorder the 24-105/2.8. Concerts/events/sports, both indoors and out (typically at night with high school lighting). The 24-105/2.8 will pair perfectly with the 100-300/2.8 for me.

SwissFrank said:

Once it shows up, perhaps you'd have time to shoot some shots with 50k at f/2.8, and 100k at f/4, and perhaps additionally 50k at f/4 but double shutter duration. That'd be I think a huge lesson to all of us of the utility of 24-105. That would really be exactly what Canon needs to sell this lens: new lens gets the shot, but the old one is either too noisy or too blurry. (Or simply not enough bokeh to make subject pop at modern typical presentation on big LCD monitors.)

And it would also wipe out my objection that "if f/4 doesn't do it for you, it's unlikely f/2.8 will suddenly be enough." If you can show that f/2.8 really looks so good that f/2 (f/1.4, f/1.2) simply isn't worth considering, and yet f/4 just has too much noise, motion blur, or DOF, you'll have totally disproved my theory.

Click to expand...

I doubt your hypothesis can be disproven, because it's all a matter of judgement and personal taste. Does f/2.8 blur the background more than f/4? Objectively, yes. Is the background at f/4 not blurry enough? Depends on the shot and who's viewing it. Will f/2 or f/1.2 have a creamier background than f/2.8? Yes, but the tradeoff is the flexibility in framing you get with a zoom.

You can categorically state that FOR YOU, f/4 is just fine and there's no need for an f/2.8 trinity. But only for you.

SwissFrank said:

Also to be clear I admit I was over-speaking when I said "the ONLY reason" and "NO-ONE needs" this. I'm sorry about that. I still stand behind my general argument that f/2.8 trinity is INCORRECTLY treated as the go-to no-brainer automatic decision any pro would make. You (or at least, indoor nighttime sports shooters) may be a special case. And yet this lens isn't being described as a narrow tool for indoor nighttime sports shooters but rather something a huge number of pros might consider.

Click to expand...

There are lots of situations when one stop matters. Think basketball with a 15(16)-35/2.8 under the net. Light is not great, and the 1/500 s will be have motion blur but 1/1000 s will not. I don't shoot in those types of settings (not that close to the action), which is why I swapped my EF 16-35/2.8 II (<1% of my shots were wider than f/4) for the EF 16-35/4, then that for the RF 14-35/4. But for normal and longer focal lengths, I find f/2.8 better in many cases.

Specifically regarding the 24-105/2.8, the 70-200/2.8 is a great lens for portraits and I often use it in the 70-100mm range for that. I think the 24-105/2.8 will become an automatic no-brainer for pros because it enables wide shots, portraits, and low-light use without a lens change.

And...Shipped!

EOS 4 Life said:

Cameras do better than most electronics but they still depreciate pretty quickly.
The price of the R5 just recently started to drop but it normally would have dropped a lot sooner.
All of Canon's DSLRs have finally dropped to be about on par with their mirrorless equivalents.
This does not usually apply to lenses but all of the Canon EF lenses that I own have significantly dropped in price just to piss me off.

Click to expand...

I am not sure if deprecation is the right word though. Product lifecycle normally has a premium for initial buyers, then a normal production run, moving to cashcow when production is optimised followed by end-of-sale. The cost is up at the beginning, flat when R&D is being amortised, optimal when R&D costs are fully amortised then higher with final runs.
The price to customer is a marketing decision. I mentioned exchange rates as the USD has appreciated significantly against a basket of currencies including the Yen. I am seeing R5 specials locally under AUD5k but still a lot of volatility.
The 5Div was still commanding a premium vs the R last I saw. I didn't quite understand the price difference but I guess some pros want to replace their 5D until the R1 (maybe) comes out.

I'll be using the C70 for this particular project as we have a rarely used "C CAM" on standby that I can bring along on off days. It's not oversampled 4K, but the base ISO is 800. The image really is fantastic, as is the dynamic range, but it does still need to be exposed correctly to get the most out of the sensor, so I'd say f/11 is gonna leave me unable to shoot in anything but the brightest days. I have to say that I'm quite taken with the idea of using the 300f/2.8 with a TC so I get to keep the DOF. The Sigma version is also really not that expensive, comparatively.

tron said:

The EF-S 10-22 is an excellent UWA lens for a crop camera. I used to have it. Unfortunately it was in a bag that was stolen back in 2009 one year after I had bought it!

Click to expand...

They are on sale for less than the 10-18 at Canon Refurb. https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/lenses/refurbished-lenses?p=9

My 24-70mm Canon lens hood repeatedly falls off. It is driving me nuts. I'm going to try the gaffer tape solution

David_B said:

CR2 is not RAW if camera does correction.

Click to expand...

you don't see the correction with raw images. the in-body correction applies to in-body JPEGs.

haha, we made an October birthday with the V10

I am satisfied with the RF100-400 too (in addition to RF100-500) so there is hope

It’s not compatible with the Canon TCs. I’m not aware of any 3rd party TCs for the RF mount.

In this patent application, Canon discusses improving the ability to improve the consistency of the sensor’s black level. For a little background information, Canon RAW has a floating black level governed by masked pixels that surround the sensor. The number of masked rows and columns that surround the image sensor portion that takes the image

See full article...

Maximilian said:

Not 100% sure if it fits that way.

Especially "Acceptance" is not seen very often.
Or let's redefine it in "Acceptance that one is the only one who recognizes the "truth""

Click to expand...

I don't think it fits as more than a little levity, I would be surprised very surprised if someone with a formal education in the subject gave this any merit. I'm not even sure if the Kübler-Ross model itself is considered useful anymore

Two: R6m2, 200D
Six, with all sold and broken: 5Dm2, 5Dm3, 5Dm4, 100D (broken)

koenkooi said:

I would love to have an option to enable contrast based AF (so purely image controlled) when the lens reports to be focussed correctly. That would make servo AF more precise and it eliminates the "focussed on greenery behind the birds head" type of issues.

Click to expand...

Interesting idea. Mechanical systems can have a type of error where it just fights, alternating between under- and over-compensating, so robots have to take stuff like that into consideration. Maybe it tells the lens to focus just a bit nearer... and it's too near... so then tells the lens to focus just a bit farther... and now its too far...? You need some heuristic to detect that, or some sort of fuzzy logic, or some hysteresis (an acceptable band of error where you just shrug and go with it) or something...

Kind of way-off-subject but here's an idea: the viewfinder could REALLLY blur the things not in focus so you have no doubt what it's focused on. Wouldn't work in all cases but might help in quite a few.