AlanF said:

Unless you know more than me, I think it’s the other way round - lubricating oils and greases should be kept dry.

Click to expand...

You are right. I was wrong and confused "water separation" with "oil separation".
But that's not relevant with silica gel, AFAIK.
So I corrected my post.

I think @Czardoom and @neuroanatomist have summed it up quite well! Fullstop.

Rawzza said:

They always do this kind of crap. It means most likely they will bring out a c300mk4 in r Mount and give it all the new features. Ie if you want them you have to buy the new camera. A very unfortunate tendency, I keep wondering when it will be the nail in the coffin for them.

Click to expand...

I feel your pain, but Canon is not going anywhere.

Thanks for any help anyone can provide on what I know is a fairly obscure question. Canon USA support has been unable to provide guidance.

The Canon EF 500mm IS L II appears to have a feature in its image stabilization algorithm that detects when the lens is mounted to a tripod or otherwise very stable and thus turns itself off to prevent the subtle movements that result from IS. From what I understand this behavior is also present on other Gen II supertelephotos, and I've also seen a post describing this in the newer RF 100-500. This behavior is independent of the IS "mode switch" setting.

unfortunately the IS can be slow to kick back in when it is needed (start panning, wind gust etc), and this results in shaky footage when using the lens in video applications. The correct approach for filming with this lens (and other long lenses for wildlife) would be to turn IS off entirely, secure the lens to a robust rail system, and then put that on a 40-50 lb fluid head + tripod. That's a lot of camera support to hike into remote places with however, and right now I use a Sachtler Ace XL w/ CF legs and mid-level spreader (~8 lbs).

I'm almost certain this behavior is a feature and not a bug, I have seen it in a couple different copies of the 500 II. There are some mentions around the web of this as well, but unfortunately nothing in Canon's official documentation and so canon support refuses to acknowledge it.

Can anyone provide guidance on how they have used the canon supertelephotos to produce stabilized footage? Thanks!

AlanF said:

I use the cable to the camera, it's slow but I prefer it to taking the cards out. I do sometimes use the included Lexar reader.

Click to expand...

I always use card readers. Reduces the (small) risk of damaging the USB port, especially if its hard connected to the camera motherboard.
As Roger Cicala and Aaron Closz found in their tear-down of the R5, the USB and other ports on that side are attached directly to the main PCB.

No offense taken and thanks for the friendly reply. English is not my mother tongue and I might sound more insisting than I want to be.

Now how I reproduced the errors:

Well I say errors but I talk about failures. And of course I talk not about byzantine errors but about intermittent failures.
Just for the example:
EF 300 4.0 L used for about 200 pictures during a basketball match, occasionaly swapped with other lenses.
Three or four failures in 200 shots, AF starts to stutter, lens get substituted by Sigma 120-300 4,0
Two days later about 400 pictures during an Ice hokey game, again 3-4 times the lens AF starts to stutter
Emergency substitute: Yongnuo 100mm F2. After 50 pictures with the Yongnuo the camera comes up with "An error has occured, try to switch your camera of and on" However camera simply reboots afterwards and comes up working again.

Troubleshooting session at home: connecting about 25 lenses over a boring work from home conference and taking roughly 2000 shots of the birds in the garden. 5 lenses produced occasional AF stutter. 2 of these lenses managed to lock the camera, Adapters were randomly changed (Viltrox/Canon).

Cleaning session: airstream, alcohol cloth, brush

After cleaning session:
Christmass show of local marching band, putting all all suspicious lenses into action. Alltogether more than 2000 shots, with no more incidents, Neither the 300 F4.0L nor the 200 1.8 L nor the Yongnuo lens etc... No more issues at all.

xps said:

I hope, they do not do the same with the 300mm like with the 600mm III version. This is definitively not as sharp as the Mk II.
I pray they keep optical quality like the 300mm, as IMO it is their sharpest prime lens.
And the do not go higher than 10000 Euros. (Ok, this is wishful thinking. Realistically 12000 € as Canon knows how to milk us fanboys)

Click to expand...

I’ve used the 300 2.8ii, yes its sharp but the 500 4ii is had a tad more contrast, it’s one of the sharpest canon offers I believe. I’m using now for 2 years. It still blows me away.

Ι am not sure they can do that on non-RF lenses. But they cannot doit on EF lenses set on manual for sure so at least astrophotography is easier with EF lenses (at least for me).

neuroanatomist said:

… but eliminating the case/slot/door/release/etc. saves significant space.

This thing had a removable battery.
...
This thing does not.
...

Click to expand...

Sorry for the lack of beautiful photo models but IMO the example below shows that the size difference could be more by the decades between those two cellphones and the development of battery cell tech and radio receiver and antenna within that time.

Maximilian said:

This reads to me like another attempt to maneuver out of a false argument.
An APS-C vs FF discussion is either about using the same focal length and to get more "reach" or achieving the same angle of view or depth of field.

Click to expand...

Perhaps what he really meant was if you're using an R7 and RF 800/11, instead of that you can use your FF R5 and just crop it to 32 MP...you just have to buy the $20K RF 1200mm f/8. Yes, that must be it. Such a logical argument it was!

yankiefrankie said:

I'd would like an r7 if I could get this 20-40 Tamron for it!

Thanks everyone for replying. I did get the A7c and the Tamron 20-40. I think it is the way to go for me. It is really small and has very similar image quality as my R3. The ergonomics are terrible compared to the R3, but I knew that coming into it. But because I have the R3 and it's fabulous ergonomics, I actually don't mind the Sony. It's good for what I got it for: something small to take when I don't want to take the R3, but still want great image quality. I don't think I would want to use it with a lens any bigger than the 20-40. Actually, this lens is great. Really small and it covers a very useful range at f/2.8. I do prefer the range of my RF 15-35 f/2.8 but it's 2.5x the weight.

Click to expand...

Thanks for letting us know your decision and your first impressions.
I hope you'll get used to its ergonomics. Otherwise you can consider what has been discussed here afterwards.

trinibajan34 said:

Tried it , the two led lights on flash just flash but it's absolutely useless

Click to expand...

Are you using a 3rd party speedlite or a Canon speedlite. I find that 3rd party speedlites will often emit the IR beam. When the camera decides that the body lamp is not working. But the IR beam isn't supposed to fire. The speedlite should switch to Intermittent Flashes for AF Assist. But 3rd party speedlites can't do this like a Canon speedlite.

bergstrom said:

yongnuo 600 ex ii

works great

Click to expand...

Not compact, though, as OP was looking for. A 600EX is almost bigger than the RP.

apmadoc said:

The Great Lakes are known for major storms in November, these create amazing opportunities for photographers. The photos below were taken on two different days. Shot with a Canon R5 w/RF 100-500 lens

View attachment 206704View attachment 206705View attachment 206706View attachment 206707View attachment 206708

Click to expand...

Great shots!

Given the specs of the R6 Mark II I think a better idea would be to put the R6 capabilities into a C70 body -- full frame 6K resolution for internal 4K recording and 6K RAW output to external recorders.

stevelee said:

For comparison the black-and-white TS-E version. The lower water level makes a lot of the difference in the effect, since the fountain shows up better.

View attachment 206687

Click to expand...

For some reason what immediately grabbed my attention was the foreground with what looks like a skinny rock neatly wedged in between two larger ones (though as I look closer, it's two rocks, one behind the other). I found myself trying to figure out if it had broken off one of the other rocks.

Beautiful bird. Great shot!

apmadoc said:

These were taken at the Canadian Raptor Conservancy.

Click to expand...

Great shots. Well done, apmadoc.

definedphotography said:

I just grabbed mac & windows versions from the Canon USA site. Maybe a brief glitch?

Click to expand...

I get the impression that every regional website needs to add the firmwares to their website manually, some regions are faster than others. Canon Japan and Hong Kong tend to be the first place I look, my local Canon.nl is usually days behind those. And the reminder emails tend to be weeks late.

Good news. I am happy for you.

What happened? was the release postponed?

Maximilian said:

You surely know what „dark side“ I‘ve been before

Only S products I won‘t buy anymore. Too much many bad experiences with Walkmen and TVs and their support

Click to expand...

Yep. Whoever it was who was in charge of the user experience back when I got tired of their crap, needed horsewhipping, too. A walkman-type CD player that resets itself to MAXIMUM VOLUME (and blows your ears out if you're using headphones) ever time it shuts off...bad decision. Units that when you power them on go to standby are also infuriating (If I am powering a unit on, I probably want to use it right now, idiots!) And now I hear nothing but gripes about their camera ergonomics and menu system, so it sounds like the horsewhip might still be needed.

Mt Spokane Photography said:

I've had the 35-350L and 28-300L. They are certainly excellent for 10:1 zooms. My issue was the size, they are huge.

Canons said some time ago that their orginal target market for these were PJ's where the ability to have a super zoom along with sharp images was needed.

Obviously, they don't match a high end prime or a shorter high end zoom, but there was a market, it might still exist. I bought both of them in mint condition for way under market value, and after using them for a few months, sold them and bought another lens.

Click to expand...

I am a photojournalist. When I am covering events, I need to be prepared to shoot subjects near and far, and sometimes they move within that range. There is no time to change lenses or even to change bodies. For me the 28-300mm lens (Nikon) was my workhourse. I switched over from Nikon F-mount professional DSLR bodies to the Canon R3 (RF-mount). I need an RF L-Series superzoom. In the meantime I am making do with the consumer grade RF 24-240mm, but I really need a weather-sealed lens with robust construction and a manual focus switch.
While i used to shoot still almost exclusively with my Nikon F-mount professional DSLRs, since I switched to the Canon R3 RF-mount, I have started to shoot more and more video, so the ability to zoom in and out between wide and telephoto shots is very useful — more so if the zoom ring offers little resistance. My 24-240mm consumer grade lens has butter-smooth zooming, but my L-Series 24-70mm lens is so stiff qhen zooming that it is almost impossible to do smooth zooms while shooting video. The R3 makes it incredibly easy to shoot in-focus video of cars racing. I do not even have to switch over the stills/video switch. I just press the red record button. The default video setting are fine for my needs.
Jan

Rental bikes in hotel lobby

In the stadium where I shoot, there are only 2 photo pits (for pro men's games). One behind each goal line. So if you are shooting into the goal, it's from the opposite side of the field. Here is a shot with a Canon R3 and 200-400 lens, shot at 560mm with the internal 1.4X converter.