Do you think there will be new firmware with this feature for the RF prime lenses?

Ozarker said:

I can hardly wait to see some photos from those of you buying this lens.

I am surprised this lens doesn't get the BR for CA. Maybe it doesn't need it? I hope not. The IS is a great upgrade. The control ring too.

Click to expand...

Because they require more refractive power, wider angle lenses tend to suffer much more from CA than narrower angle lenses, all else being equal. The higher the refractive power, the more severe is the separation of the various wavelengths of visible light. Thus BR is more useful for wider angle lenses, like a 35mm f/1.4 prime, than longer lenses like a 135mm f/1.8.

Great pictures, Glenn!

Thanks for the link.

koenkooi said:

How about powered tilt&shift? The body could have something similar to the focus bracketing feature, but instead of moving the focus, it shifts the lens. And when its done, give you a JPEG composite of the result.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what I've been thinking of, but imagine how expensive such a lens would be.
Nikon's TS 19mm costs about Euro 3800, without any motorization or AF...

SmallRig has announced new camera plates and other accessories with AirTag cavities. While mainstream camera makers are dragging their feet with security features 3rd part manufacturers are adding new accessories make tracking stolen/lost cameras easier.

Just spotted this now "-Spotmetering linked to focus point". Was asking a question about this earlier and Evaluative Metering was suggested.
Spotmetering linked / not linked to focus point would be a good option. With Eye tracking exposure can go all wrong on spot metering when the eye moves out of the centre of the image.

neuroanatomist said:

You may want to try evaluative metering, since that is weighted to the selected AF point. Spot metering on the R5 will always be the center of the field, as stated in the full specifications:



Note that the same is true for the R3 (although the center spot is a little tighter). For Canon DSLRs, AF point-linked spot metering was solely found in 1-series bodies (and was a feature I frequently used on mine). So far, none of the Canon MILCs have spot metering linked to the AF point. Maybe on the R1, time will tell.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that. I will try that next time out. I've probably tried everything in the past but got stuck on spot metering (before I had eye focus). I didn't know evaluative was weighted on the selected AF point (which previously has been the centre point).

I've now had to work up these plant+snow/ice crystal photos.
So now winter 2021-22 has finally come to an end for me
First pic is for the friends of shallow DOF, second more classical, and for the third I had wished for a different angle of light

Nemorino said:

I posted this one in the flower thread as an example.
Handheld focus bracketing using the R5 and the Sigma 105 2.8 macro @ f/3.5

Yes, I know, some ugly artefacts.

Click to expand...

Very nice picture!
I‘ve never tried focus stacking. I think I should.

Hi! My first sport short form during skituring on Sölden glacier. It wasn't easy to record and keep the pace of the guys.


Canon M6 mkII + EF-M 22mm/f2.0 + Rode VideoMicro.
Footage in Davinci Resolve 17

My workflow is the use DXO Photolabs for all RAW conversions and image manipulations. I then use Topaz AI if I want to sharpen or resize the image. Honestly, I tend not to do a lot of manipulation to my files and therefore do not use Photoshop.

I clicked because I thought "ass" was a poorly written acronym for a special lens coating.

Of the choices I would pick the Canon 24-105 mm f4 L lens. I own both the 24-105 mm L f4 and the 24-70 mm f2.8. I use the 24-70 mm indoors for sports and would use the 24-105 mm for outdoors. The two lenses do have different uses. The 24-105 mm is smaller and weighs less which can also be a factor when traveling.

Michael Clark said:

The fins on that flounder look almost like feathers on a wing!

Click to expand...

Merry Christmas Michael! The 7DII + 100-400mm II was, and still is, a wickedly good set up for the opportunistic nature photographer.

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.

5 years later...

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.