Wow you even declared it? Well done! I've bought my R52 in Tokyo and saved so so much.

- Interface

- Aspect ratio

- Sound

- Stabilisation

- Screen

-Overheating, camera noises, battery life


After all this testing I had a clearer picture in mind.
R52: very compact form factor and decent color quality that needs grading but cannot retain highlights.
6KG2: bulkier form factor with impressive dynamic range, ease of use, and color workflow.

So I have decided to try and sell the 6KG2. While I do not think that there is anything else that matches the value of what this camera can give, for my current usage, form factor is everything. I want to be able to go around with a camera and not care about focusing that much. I'll get by the awful aspect ratio and the clipped highlight. I hope that Canon will implement open gate on the Mark II and seriously improve the dynamic range on the Mark III. I beg people to stop writing that "current cameras are all great", because they are not! But the portability of them is irresistible. And while I am selling the 6KG2, I am still very interested in their new full frame model. Like I said previously in this review it has many significant upgrades: brighter screen (already present on 6K Pro), cfexpress, tracking autofocus, tighter l mount, open gate. For now I am satisfied with Canon hybrid. But if I'll ever shoot on less so run and gun scenarios, I'll definitely consider coming back to Blackmagic. Or maybe I'll not manage to sell the 6KG2 at a decent price, so I'll just keep it on a shelf most of the time and use it in those rare situations where I am sure I don't want autofocus and can tollerate the bigger profile.

Have a couple of them and they have preformed real well in both my R6MkIII and R5 MkII for half the price of OEM. And the USB charging has worked great when I'm out and about, plug them into the cars USB and the charge fairly quick.

zackmorrison said:

I've used a variety of Blackmagics over the years. Under controlled conditions, with good lighting, they make a very nice image. I personally find their form factor though to be less-than-desirable for most field situations, and in uncontrolled settings the image can sometimes be not great.

Click to expand...

I did some testing. I will post the review soon

AlanF said:

Neither was the weight. I tried to pick one up many years ago and had a shock. As a matter of interest, how do you handle this 3.7kg lens?

Click to expand...

Carrying it around the sidelines attached to my monopod (I had to upgrade the tilt head from a Manfrotto 234 to an Oben VH-A30 to support the lens) and a gripped 7D Mark II attached to the lens was like carrying a bowling ball on the end of a stick. I typically held the monopod with my left hand with the lens facing rearward resting over my left shoulder while moving around. I had two other bodies on a dual harness with a 70-200/2.8 on one and either a 24-70/2.8 or 24-105/4 on the other.

Heya

I'm looking for a couple of people to beta test a new site feature. A return of an old one I guess.

You can PM me on the forum.

I think 2-3 people is enough, I don't need more than that telling me everything I have done wrong.

AJ said:

You put the lens in a vise.

Just joking around....

Click to expand...

And...crank it as hard/tight as possible?!

No. The latest version is 1.9.0 from 2024. Given that the R6 is now two models out of date, I would not expect any more firmware updates (and if there is one, it will be to fix a glaring problem, not to add any features).

rip this never happened I need it so bad.

candyman said:

Well, I shoot cRAW as well.
The CRAW file is 34 mb. The DNG uncompressed is 163 mb. The compressed DNG file is 31 mb !
Albeit, with one test. Don't have the time now to do more tests.

Click to expand...

I have processed 11100 CRAW files from my EOS R7 with PureRaw 6 and DeepPRIME XD3, exporting as compressed DNG! Results:

• CRAW: 197.72GB (17.8MB/file on average)
• Compressed DNG output: 190.63GB (17.2MB/file on average)
• For comparison, out-of-camera JPEG cumulative size: 108.16GB (AdobeRGB, non-HDR; 9.7MB/file on average)

So my numbers are very similar to your findings, in that the compressed DNG output is slightly smaller than the CRAW file on average. My settings were "luminance" 40%, "force details" 5%. Just for reference, processing took around 21 hours.

Hope this helps!

My JJC lens hood arrived today

I have to say, I think JJC is building them better and better.

This is my fourth or fifth JJC lens hood and it’s the best so far. The plastic is thicker than ever, and it has the same textured finish as the petal-shaped version for the RF 35mm f/1.8 (similar to some Canon EF lenses).

It’s really good, I can see why they’ve been increasing their prices.

Friendly reminder: Canon’s RF lens hoods do not have velvet on the inside either.

Thanks for getting back to me. This is helpful!

neuroanatomist said:

Still here, lol. Both were shot with the 24 MP EOS R3. The football kickoff was shot from the stands, around 50 m / 160' away from the kicker, and the image is cropped to ~6 MP. The violinists were shot from my seat in the auditorium, probably about 18 m / 60' away from the front subject, and cropped to ~8 MP.Thanks

Click to expand...

neuroanatomist said:

Keep in mind that the 'crop factor' does not just apply to focal length. Image noise is inversely proportional to sensor size. So while the 'brighter' f/2.8 lens on the iPhone seems like it would be better than the f/4 lens on your R6, in fact your iPhone video will have about the same amount of noise as if you were shooting the scene at f/10 on your R6.

Click to expand...

Thanks!

"However, with it starting at 18mm on Canon's APS-C, it's dead to me, and it's not even out yet."

sturm3n said:

This is a big improvement. Once they added the 3:2 and 1:1 crops to EOS VR Utility, it was really annoying to be having to use the 16:9 or 8:9 guides on the camera to just guess at what your shot's framing was going to be.

Click to expand...

I really need to get my hands on these special lenses to know how they work.

Canon has released a minor firmware update for the EOS R50. Canon has released a firmware update for the EOS R7 as well. Firmware v1.5.0 for the R50 is a minor update that adds improvements when using the RF-S7.8mm F4 STM DUAL along with stability improvements. This firmware update will make it to other global […]

See full article...

Using a very complicated yet powerful algorithm called "average", I can state that an intermediate lens between the RF 85mm F/1.2 and the RF 135mm F/1.8 could be a RF 110mm F/1.6.
Or F/1.5.

This apparently weird focal length and aperture would make sense IMO, considering that
1) it could weight less than a 100mm F/1.4, and that
2) Canon RF lenses ofter offer something different from old EF lenses and from other brands' ones.

But any "RF 100-105mm F/1.something" would be interesting.

becceric said:

I enjoyed that 40mm lens. It made my Hexanon 52mm f/1.8 feel slightly claustrophobic.
While irrational, I'd like to see Canon make an RF f/1.8 40mm. I can't bring myself to get the 2.8.

Click to expand...

I'm still kicking myself for not picking up an EF 40mm f/2.8 STM pancake from the Canon USA refurb store before that lens was discontinued. It's one of those things I always meant to do but never quite got around to it. I do use the EF 35mm f/2 IS quite a bit, so I really have no need for the 40mm.

I am currently using this lens with the R10 and waiting for the R7M2. For info, photos from yesterday:


https://adobe.ly/4lE8sDG

But I waited half a year for the lens.

Curious what people think, will canon release a new cinema camera anytime soon? Something along the lines of a C300 Mk 4?

Aldherrian said:

In that case, I'm not sure you could extract this kind of information after the fact

Click to expand...

Oh well…….

mimbu said:

AFAIK there are no FF AF mirrorless lenses with mechanically linked manual focus. Everything is fly by wire.

Click to expand...

That does seem to be the trend.

mimbu said:

With many of the modern linear AF systems I don't think it's possible (or maybe it's just impractical) to have mechanically linked MF.

Click to expand...

I doubt it, or the EF lenses wouldn't work.

I think the loss of mechanical linking is more about giving the platform greater control over computer-controlled AF for very fast or erratic subjects, such as athletes and bats (as in the mammal). I strongly suspect that the people who tend to talk directly to Canon are more in these situations, and they can reasonably purchase (personally or via a company) multiple big white lenses, or beasts like the 28-70.

And the fact that EF lenses still reasonably exist. So if you're weird like me and like that kind of feel or universal MTF then that stockpile satisfies the need, in one way of thinking.

I just re-read your statement and I think I replied after misreading what you wrote. I agree, it probably is impractical. In which case if mechanical linking were reintroduced it might well need to be with older EF technology such as ring USM.

mimbu said:

This does bother me because we saw what happened with some of the older Canon lenses that were also entirely electronic for focusing. The 200/1.8L. The 50/1L. Many more. Once parts availability ends, the lens is completely useless if the AF motor dies.

Click to expand...

Bingo.

---

I think that if the following were achieved by Canon then mechanical linking could die a full death for my purpose and feel:

1. Universal FTM focus during one-short and servo, regardless of lens (including older RF lenses)
2. No need to push AF-on or shutter button
3. Tactile feedback in the focus ring with resistance and placement stickiness (use a quality, modern L EF lens to understand this)
4. No damage potential if the focus ring is spun with or without power
5. No need for menu option or camera switch to engage, or default to engaged
6. Identical approach to FTM on all Canon R cameras going forward — again, no on-body switches on some but not on others, etc.

My EF USM lenses all achieve: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6. My 40mm STM is focus by wire.

I understand that many L series RF lenses support: 4, and 1 can now be achieved for most using firmware updates for the lens and sometimes the camera. Probably all except 3 and 6 can be solved with firmware. 3 would probably require some hardware, and 6 is more of a camera design thing.

Everyone upset about interpolation is gonna flip when they found out what “debayering” is.

As we all know, lens design is about tradeoffs. If y’all want to pay for and carry around all the extra glass elements that these “optically perfect” lenses would require, be my guest. But I welcome smaller, lighter, fewer glass element lenses using digital rather than optical corrections as long as the performance is up to snuff. And I think any rigorous lens testing methodology shows that most of the L-series lenses have the performance we all expect, regardless of the correction type used.

Glenn Bartley said:

I had a busy start to the year leading tours in Colombia and the South of Ecuador. Here are a few of the gorgeous birds we saw and photographed. Pretty amazing birds eh ?

As always....lots more on my website - www.glennbartley.com

Rainbow-bearded Thornbill

Rainbow Starfrontlet

Purple-throated Sunangel

Jocotoco Antpitta

Gray Tinamou

Green and Gold Tanager

Gray-breasted Mountain Toucan

Grass Green Tanager

Golden-crowned Tanager

Chestnut-crowned Antpitta

Black-collared Jay

Black-billed Mountain Toucan

Click to expand...

I wonder how often one can see the Jocotoco Antpitta. The overall population is so small...

Get the photo - video switch on the right side, not the wrong, as on R5ii