If you're looking for a desktop application that collects photos into a video, LRTimelapse is a popular option.

gdanmitchell said:

I hate to imagine the cost of such a special-purpose beast of a lens!

However, there are lots of interesting possibilities here, too. For example, if the operation of the tilt/shift mechanism (and, of course, focus) are electronically controlled, the camera will also be getting information about these settings and that information could be used to inform image correction. I can imagine things like graduated CA correction that recognized how CA would vary across an image from a TS'ed lens, for example.

But the cost! ;-)

Click to expand...

One advantage might be that the tilt and shift info would be included in metadata and perhaps focus data.

Andrew_kuttor said:

I need to add my voice here.

I own both the R3 and the c70, actually sold an R5 for an R3. And I DO believe canon should bump up the video features. At least on par with Nikon and Sony’s A1. Such as:

- shutter angle
- custom WB in movie mode in Live View
- RAW output to Atomos
- Atomos compatibility, like shutter button triggers REC.
- XF-AVC
- Cinema RAW, this is not the same as Canon RAW.
- Cinema RAW Lite
- oh and let me disable IBIS but retain lens IS!

Please!!!

Click to expand...

By the way, to add before someone says dont complain here tell canon…

I do, every two weeks. I email their support with the requests and supporting reasons/arguments for the request.

Adorama has the Prograde Digital 160GB CFexpress 2.0 Type-A Memory Card as their Deal of the Day for only $291 (Reg $364).
Prograde Digital 160GB CFexpress 2.0 Key Features

160GB Storage Capacity
NVMe PCIe 3.0 x4 Bus
800 MB/s Max Read Speed
700 MB/s Max Write Speed
400 MB/s (VPG 400) Min Sustained Write Speed
Records Raw 4K Video
Metal Enclosure for Temperature Control
Built-In Thermal Throttling

Prograde Digital 160GB CFexpress 2.0 Type-A Memory Card $291 (Reg $364)

Click to expand...

Continue reading...

What is strange is that Cinema EOS video cameras have always been able to display the focal length lens data like this. I just got an R5 and I'm really surprised that this feature isn't available.

Chaitanya said:

If same controller is used as R5 then results won't change much(other than better firmware implementation) but if new controller is used then results surely would change quite a bit.

Click to expand...

R3 has no recording limit, except the size of the card.

That's a logical choice, sanj.

thank you

thank you

You can try formatting the card. Also, the R5 uses CFexpress cards, not CFast, so a CFast reader wouldn’t help.

lote82 said:

It's more than 3 times the price of the Sigma and also a native (is this term right?) lens. Would be a shame if it wouldn't perform better. The question is: Does the better performance justify the huge price difference? I don't know. I tried to figure it out, but didn't find any serious information about a comparison. If you find, feel free to tell me ... Thank you!

Click to expand...

I was referring to the Canon NON-L EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 II lens that sells for $599, not the L lens. The non-L consumer level EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 II outperformed (in sharpness) the Sigma 100-400 at 300mm cropped to the same FOV as the Sigma at 400mm, at least in my experience with the 2 Sigma lenses I briefly owned.

kaihp said:

I'd get the EF-RF adapter

Click to expand...

Already have it.

R1Media said:

Can't wait to see a new L lens in the popular focal length! However, I would still probably stick to my 28-70 f2 as it's the beast.

Click to expand...

I'm sure I'll get the 35 L, despite having the 28-70. At first I sold my 50 1.2, thinking it was redundant having both, but the 50 is considerably smaller and lighter than the 28-70 (and of course is a stop and a third faster), so I bought the 50 again LOL!

Swerky said:

Ok Canon listen here. For that mid range model that sits between the R6 and the entry level model, make it an EOS R with ibis, if you wish to beef up the body a bit for that, fine, maybe even complete the body frame so that it wraps under the screen as well, like on a 6D II, and replace the Touch Bar by a thumb controller and you should have a winner. Here's for daydreaming.

Click to expand...

and put in an LPE6 battery. A mini R6 with a sprinkle of bits and pieces from the R3. And no recordig limit, or at least increase it to 60-90 minutes and no overheating, so a mini R5c and all under $1700. Lets do this!

entoman said:

Have you used current Sony, Nikon and Canon cameras, and compared the animal-eye AF directly between them, shooting the same subjects, under identical conditions, with the same equivalent focal lengths and apertures?

If not, that's a pretty wild claim to make.

Click to expand...

Well I own a Z9 and my partner has an R3. Haven't used the A1 but haven't seen anything suggesting it is miles better than the other two.

Dragon said:

True, but it sounded like he wasn't taking much advantage of the raw files in the first place.

Click to expand...

He wasn’t taking advantage of them during the trip, no. Neither do I, and I shoot only Raw with that camera. I process them in Photoshop when I get home. He doesn’t need Photoshop, but did want some way to edit the Raw files eventually. He was just concerned that however he looked at the Raw files, they looked bad, so he wanted to know whether he was doing something wrong during the trip.

Bengt: since your original post is almost a year old, I'm hoping your issue is by now resolved. I found my RF800 developed exactly the same issue, and after much consternation it returned to normal operation by turning ON the autofocus! This lens is excellent, also, in combination with the RF2x converter, it can autofocus on the moon and resolve image detail as small as 1 kilometer.

That round piece of plastic at the front of the lens that has the lens specifications and the filter threads is often glued down and has to be removed to access the screws underneath to dismantle the lens for repair. People are assuming that because the disc is loose, it must have been opened up, or it was dropped. As others have said here, buyers are being cautious. If you explained why the front ring is loose and chipped in the ads when selling it, buyers who are okay with reason will be more interested.

ethanz said:

Where is the IS? Are they not able to match Canon's lens?

Click to expand...

I don't believe anyone has made a 24-70 f/2.8 with IS for the Sony system. I assume the thinking is that the cameras have IBIS so in a 24-70 f/2.8 it is better to aim for smaller and lighter than include IS. Of the available options, the Sony 24-70 f/2.8 GM II seems to do the best job of being lighter and smaller, unless you count the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8.

Personally, if had a camera with IBIS and it could somehow natively use the Sony 24-70 f/2.8 GM II or the Canon RF 24-70 f/2.8L IS, I would prefer the Sony for the size and weight savings. (Yes, I appreciate IBIS + IS should be better than IBIS alone, but IBIS would be good enough for on a 24-70.) In fact, even with a camera which didn't have IBIS, I might well prefer the Sony. YMMV of course.

ISv said:

If your post was not so ridiculous it would be just funny - what exactly are you comparing?! "EOS 4 Life" already explained what the original post "17.000" actually (I changed it from "referring") means: RF 800 f/5.6! And you are talking "...CR should learn a little bit about the market for high end cinema zooms, Canon's history in that market, and what competitors charge for large format glass these days."
Huh?!

Click to expand...

Thanks for the kind words @ISv . By now hopefully you've realized that my comment came before the one you referenced, so...no there wasn't an "already"...and well...yes, I was mistaken as to the lens the CR writer was vaguely referring to (I thought the comment was more general), and was thankful to EOS 4 Life for the correction. I don't play in the world of ultra-zoom glass so I wasn't aware of the new "expensive" 800mm, but I was quite aware of the recently announced short cinema zooms and well jeez...I made an assumption. Now that I've been thankfully corrected though...I'm still having trouble to figuring out why y'all are so upset about the cost of a 800/5.6 zoom, as if it's a number that simply hasn't existed before. Perhaps Canon was comping their new lens to this one... https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/918849-REG/nikon_2205_af_s_nikkor_800mm_f_5_6e.html

dickgrafixstop said:

Canon states that the 70-300L in not compatible with either the 1.4 or 2.0 lens extender. I understand this is because the back portion of the internals extends too far into the body that it causes contact with the mirror. Since the R series have no internal mirror, does that mean the the 70-300L could be used with either of the extenders along with the ef-rf adapter?

Click to expand...

Your description of the problem is not correct. The mirror inside the body, or lack there of, is irrelevant in this case.

The extenders have a protruding front element, and with 70-300L, the rear element of the lens is placed far enough back that the protruding front of the extender interferes with it. At least, at the short end of the zoom range. Technically, the EF extenders can be used with the EF 70-300L at the long end of the zoom range. It’s not officially supported by Canon although the reality is the RF 100-500 functions in exactly the same way with the RF extenders, and that is officially supported by Canon.

The RF extenders have the same protruding front element, and that does not allow you to use the extenders behind the EF-RF adapter (the opening in the adapter is too narrow to permit the extender to fit inside).

If you want to use an extender with 70-300L on an R body, you have two options. 1) use an EF extender in front of the adapter, with the caveat that you can only use the long end of the zoom range. 2) physically modify an EF-RF adapter to enable using an RF extender behind the adapter with the EF lens mounted in front of the adapter. I would not do number two on the Canon adapter, instead use the Commlite Adapter which has the largest hole of any of them to start with, and is cheaper than the Canon one in case you screw up the mod.

When I did it, I used a Dremel to increase the size of the opening and it worked just fine.

LogicExtremist said:

I too was being sarcastic, if you didn't catch that! lmao

Click to expand...

Of course I didn't. So you meant I didn't prove the point Dilbert was making, and the lenses i mentioned are under-designed optically while having the worst optics in the RF range. Then again, you lower/raise? your standards to take my inferior lens off my hands for free. Too confusing

The more I use this lens, the more I like it. Blue-grey gnatcatcher, Madison, WI.

emailfortom said:

No clue and wondering why NOTHING from CR either. I think I'm regretting signing up for a $100 USD weeks before the previous own's departure.

Click to expand...

I sympathize with you. I signed up a while ago (at $50 I think) and have enjoyed the posts and also benefited from info on how to buy & sell RF equipment (enough to cover the $50 fee). But I notice a dearth of CR Forum content since after Craig left, so much so that it really feels like just a shell of what it used to be. One can only hope that it'll pick up in the future.

Compact and lightweight 500mm DO F4.5 or F5 would be great for me. I hope it could be even smaller and lighter than the EF 400mm F4 DO.