Canon EOS R6 Mark III & RF 45 F1.2 STM November 6

[BFG9000]

The RF 45mm f/1.2 STM may actually launch at €499. At least the contradiction is in the right direction.

If the rumor is correct and Canon ends up selling the rumored 45mm f/1.2 lens for 499€ might mean the lens is horribly flawed.
Something like a shamelessly optically uncorrected lens with >3,5EV vignetting open wi—OH, WAIT! That's the VCM L line!

 

[ctk]

I usually rest my cameras on the heavier element. My most used lenses weight two to three times the weight of the cameras.

This is the best way to put them down, big lenses have diameters wide enough for the cameras not to stay still if you rest them in different positions.

In the case of chintzy RF STM glass the lens usually isn't the heaviest element. Plus if you know the lens doesn't have internal focus...... just have to be careful

I agree that external focus is needless cynical cost cutting......... but that kind of seems to be part of the design brief for the cheapest RF STM lenses.

 

[ZiemJank]

Stills mode:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-r6-mark-ii-in-depth-review

"We checked both the rolling shutter rate and the impact on dynamic range of engaging the camera's high speed e-shutter modes. In terms of rolling shutter, we measured it as 18ms (1/56 sec). "

I'm only concerned with photo mode.

I now measured this myself in R62 and got the same number - 1/56s. I would appreciate improvement, but if R63 is not worse, that's good enough for me.

Thanks.

Still, I see no reason to spend money on this body. Certainly not for 16% bump in resolution.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

If the rumor is correct and Canon ends up selling the rumored 45mm f/1.2 lens for 499€ might mean the lens is horribly flawed.
Something like a shamelessly optically uncorrected lens with >3,5EV vignetting open wi—OH, WAIT! That's the VCM L line!

Don’t underestimate the other STM lenses
If you’re looking for vignetting, they all definitely deliver, and some even get you fish-eye abilities…for free!

#jet2holiday

This will be just one more

In the case of chintzy RF STM glass the lens usually isn't the heaviest element. Plus if you know the lens doesn't have internal focus...... just have to be careful

I agree that external focus is needless cynical cost cutting......... but that kind of seems to be part of the design brief for the cheapest RF STM lenses.

Old habits die hard...I probably shoot over a hundred times more with internal focusing lenses, per year.

 

[GrunRad]

According to patent 2024-050580 (upon which the RF 45mm/1.2 is presumably based upon, as implied by the post "Possible Canon RF 45mm f/1.2 STM Patent"), focusing from infinity to MFD is performed by moving the second lens group Lb (the one between the aperture blades and the image plane) away from the image plane. To my (layman's!) eyes this indicates a design where the front lens remains stationary in regard to the lens barrel.

 

[Michael Clark]

Semi-macro is worth it, and if I need really fast autofocus, I go for VCM. Fast lens switching is also more convenient when the lenses don’t have weather sealing.

Calling the STM lineup 'crude', 'worst' or 'cheap' is a narrow-minded view.

How does a thin rubber O-ring embedded in the lens' flange surface necessitate a longer elapsed time to switch lenses?

 

[snapshot]

I'm only concerned with photo mode.

I now measured this myself in R62 and got the same number - 1/56s. I would appreciate improvement, but if R63 is not worse, that's good enough for me.

Thanks.

Still, I see no reason to I spend money on this body. Certainly not for 16% bump in resolution.

at 1/300 my evaluation of this camera would be quite different.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

According to patent 2024-050580 (upon which the RF 45mm/1.2 is presumably based upon, as implied by the post "Possible Canon RF 45mm f/1.2 STM Patent"), focusing from infinity to MFD is performed by moving the second lens group Lb (the one between the aperture blades and the image plane) away from the image plane. To my (layman's!) eyes this indicates a design where the front lens remains stationary in regard to the lens barrel.

That's very interesting to hear. Thanks. I don't know yet how to read these documents, to be honest

 

[Ozarker]

I am interested to know where the rolling shutter information come from. Can you enlighten? Also, wouldn't faster readout means less rolling shutter?

I thought th a specs said dual SD cards?

 

[P-visie]

I thought th a specs said dual SD cards?

The updated specs are: “Dual Slot (CFe Type B & SD UHS-II)”.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

i wonder is an upgrade from R worth it for landscape / portraits?

I upgraded from the R last year to R5 mainly due to better fps, continuous AF and a joystick and I´m still very happy about it. But I also shoot sports and some wildlife (when I get the chance).

Concerning portraits and landscapes, I must say I kind of miss my R. I don´t know what it is or if there is an according spec on any sheet: to me personally, the sensor of the R was absolutely brilliant. I prefer its colors and they seem a bit warmer than R5/ R6. Plus, 30 mp really is a sweet spot. Kinda had a magical touch. Plus, all lenses resolved great! With the R5, you really see some weaknesses in the budget lens department.

3 fps -> 40fps
30 Mpix -> 32 Mpix
no ibis -> 6.5 stops ibis
already paid for -> $2800

Concerning landscapes: this list is clearly pro EOS R imo. For portraits, I´d decide on how fast your models and you move. But also, I don´t shoot a lot of portraits, so I am not the one to make the call.

R takes good pictures, the speed improvement is nice. ibis could help some handheld shots.

I don´t really notice a difference with the R5 compared to the R using the RF 14-35mm F4 and 35mm F1.8 in low light. For telephoto low light I´d use a tripod.

 

[ctk]

Concerning portraits and landscapes, I must say I kind of miss my R. I don´t know what it is or if there is an according spec on any sheet: to me personally, the sensor of the R was absolutely brilliant. I prefer its colors and they seem a bit warmer than R5/ R6. Plus, 30 mp really is a sweet spot. Kinda had a magical touch. Plus, all lenses resolved great! With the R5, you really see some weaknesses in the budget lens department.

Yea the R was really special. The EVF was incredible too. Wonderful colors, and they found a way to render shadows and highlights in an accurate and beautiful way. When I shot in low light around my house, it was like having night vision. The ergonomics were really nice too. It just had too many foibles. Slow burst shooting, weak customization, weak AF-C, no IBIS made handheld video an adventure even with stabilized glass. But man when it worked it was incredible. The photos I got with it are some of my favorites.

 

[pablofu]

I need a second camera (I won a R6 Mark II) and I have been waiting for the Mark III (and even considered to go for the R5 Mark II). I shoot rockets, mainly at night. The R6 Mark II is great with low light, but I am missing resolution. How good do you expect the Mark III to be when it comes to low light? Thanks guys!!

 

[scyrene]

Plus, 30 mp really is a sweet spot. Kinda had a magical touch. Plus, all lenses resolved great! With the R5, you really see some weaknesses in the budget lens department.

Genuine question, couldn't you just rescale your R5 photos to 30MP and get the same result?

 

[BFG9000]

I need a second camera (I won a R6 Mark II) and I have been waiting for the Mark III (and even considered to go for the R5 Mark II). I shoot rockets, mainly at night. The R6 Mark II is great with low light, but I am missing resolution. How good do you expect the Mark III to be when it comes to low light? Thanks guys!!

It's hard to say, but if Canon did their homework I guess it will perform similarly to the 33MPX SONY A7IV: 1/3 of a stop worse than the R6 mk II.

 

[wbrock001]

Yeah surprising too that a 45mm f/1.2 wouldn't be red ring vs the grey ring we see in the image. Though I'm not in a rush to spend $3K, I wouldn't mind if they came out with an rf 85mm f/1.2 II with better AF motors...I know there is the f/1.4, but I love my defocus smoothing and would like to be able to use it for active video a bit easier. Was hunt city at a wedding reception and I know...photo lens not optimized for video type continuous focus...but just looks so damn good. The photographer who was there had the nikon 85mm f/1.2...that thing is a beast!

 

[riker]

Holy shit... if pricing for the RF45mm F1.2 stands, I´m might (just might) sell the recently purchased RF 50mm F1.4 VCM... it'll probably depend on how fast it focusses... I bet IQ is more than acceptable. Built quality wouldn't be a big issue for me because I'd rarely (never) use it in demanding conditions.

Nice to see/ hear the RRP of the R6mkiii hasn't changed compared to the mkii.

Why would you, sell your Audi R8 just because there's a new A3 on the block? The 50/1.4 VCM is superior in IQ, AF, build quality, weather sealing, VCM feautre, etc. Just tell me why!? Is it too heavy for you? Do you need the 1.2 so bad?

 

[SvO2]

Why would you, sell your Audi R8 just because there's a new A3 on the block? The 50/1.4 VCM is superior in IQ, AF, build quality, weather sealing, VCM feautre, etc. Just tell me why!? Is it too heavy for you? Do you need the 1.2 so bad?

We don't actually know if the VCM is better in IQ or if there's a big difference between the AF. This might end up being weather sealed too if the recent mid-range lenses are anything to go by.

It's more like comparing a 911 to a Cayman. While I prefer the former, I can't fault the people who prefer the latter.

 

[Uneternal]

to me personally, the sensor of the R was absolutely brilliant. I prefer its colors and they seem a bit warmer than R5/ R6.

Not at all, the colors of the R have a Sony-style green hue. Great for nature, but as a portrait photographer, I hated it. It was a pain in the A to get decent skin tones out of this camera, even with fiddling in Lightroom. I loved everything else about the EOS R but that's the main reason I switched to the R5. Which is much closer to the absolutely perfect tones of a Hassy X1D / GFX 50S (notice how with these cameras the skintones look warm, but the hair/beard does not). With the R5 Canon went back to the same recipe that already worked for the older 5D series DSLRs - slightly warm Kodak colors. And I hope the R6 Mark III will also keep these colors.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Not at all, the colors of the R have a Sony-style green hue. Great for nature, but as a portrait photographer, I hated it. It was a pain in the A to get decent skin tones out of this camera, even with fiddling in Lightroom. I loved everything else about the EOS R but that's the main reason I switched to the R5. Which is much closer to the absolutely perfect tones of a Hassy X1D / GFX 50S (notice how with these cameras the skintones look warm, but the hair/beard does not). With the R5 Canon went back to the same recipe that already worked for the older 5D series DSLRs - slightly warm Kodak colors. And I hope the R6 Mark III will also keep these colors.

View attachment 226576

Interesting, I never got a result that would resemble the difference you just posted with your comparison. I only had trouble with tones in artificial light, but I also have that with the R5. As for landscapes, I still prefer the Rs color. It´s a personal choice.