Canon officially announces the Canon EOS R6 Mark II, Canon RF 135mm f/1.8L IS USM and Canon Speedlite EL-5

[mihazero]

Wait, so... third party lenses are great, but EF lenses are terrible? Really? You're entitled to dislike the current offerings but it doesn't sound like you have a realistic understanding of what's available, nor what is likely to be. And ultimately, why not just go with another brand if it's so much better on the other side of the fence?

Question ... why are you so invested in what i think? Changes nothing in your life. You have opinion, i have one too. I want open system, you have opinion. So lets agree that we dont agree and leave it at that.

 

[Kit.]

Technically you could also jump off into the woods and stop ...

...start. Taking pictures using Canon (or non-Canon) lenses.

and yes ... here we loose you since you dont read past this point.

Have you wondered yourself what you are trying to achieve?

 

[mihazero]

...start. Taking pictures using Canon (or non-Canon) lenses.


Have you wondered yourself what you are trying to achieve?

Nah, just stop.

Make you stop sending me messages and nag me? (whew that was hopefully short enough)

 

[entoman]

For me the show AF is more problematic than if it were 1,2 1,4 1,8 or 2.

No matter how dark, I want an instant autofocus

So you don't want to buy an RF body because a 50mm F1.8 won't focus fast enough for you in low light, is that right?

What body do you use currently?

Did you know that R5, R6 and R3 all focus extremely quickly in very low light? The R5 e.g. can AF down to a claimed EV-6 at F1.2 (equivalent to EV-5 at F1.8), and I think the R6 and R3 may AF in even lower light conditions. Current RF bodies can AF very accurately and extremely quickly with RF glass, noticeably faster than EF lenses.

 

[tomislavmoze]

I am intrigued by you saying that the R6 was more fun than the R5. Could you please elaborate on what constitutes 'fun' ? Handling? Dare to use in challenging conditions because it is cheaper and hence wouldn't feel too much pain if it drops etc? Easier to do post because of smaller file size?

I can't explain, I often decide to take it rather than the R5, maybe it is the less mpx and the fact that I have to frame perfect cause there is not much room for mistakes and also I do really like the image out of it, It reminds me of original 5d. I hope R6mk2 will follow with colour science...

 

[Kit.]

Nah, just stop.

Make you stop sending me messages and nag me?

That could be easy to achieve...

(whew that was hopefully short enough)

...but you are obviously in want of something different.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I find that adapted lenses argument is being brought so much that its being carbon copy without any second thought. I know its not you personaly, but its ultimate "but" excuse for not letting 3rd party lenses into RF market.

An ‘excuse’ is neither warranted nor needed. Canon has apparently made a business decision to block 3rd party lens makers (at least some) from selling RF-mount lenses. Given their dominance of the ILC market, it seems to be a sound business decision. If you don’t like it, that’s a you problem.

 

[entoman]

An ‘excuse’ is neither warranted nor needed. Canon has apparently made a business decision to block 3rd party lens makers (at least some) from selling RF-mount lenses. Given their dominance of the ILC market, it seems to be a sound business decision. If you don’t like it, that’s a you problem.

I can sympathise with people who want Tamron and Sigma glass in RF mount, simply because they are generally excellent lenses, and significantly cheaper than nearest equivalent RF glass. There are a few low-demand lenses "missing" from the Canon RF range that Tamron and Sigma historically have covered (e.g. 180mm macro with AF and IS), and which Canon are so far showing no signs of introducing, so Tamron and/or Sigma options would be nice. But we all knew what the position was before we opted into the RF system, and we all knew that a greater range of native lenses were available for Sony. Yet we all chose Canon, and some of us are still whingeing.

 

[Skux]

It happens in every comment section about the R6.

"I boycott Canon, they blocked third party glass! The native lenses are overpriced!"

"You can adapt native and third party EF glass, it works just as well if not better, and you can get great deals on used..."

"No I don't want to."

Like what?

 

[Jonathan Thill]

Question ... why are you so invested in what i think? Changes nothing in your life. You have opinion, i have one too. I want open system, you have opinion. So lets agree that we dont agree and leave it at that.

Posting on a forum opens your opinion to criticism, if you did not want to have your opinion questioned why bother posting it. The simply matter is Canon does not appear to be open to sharing profits in a contracting market with anyone so they are offering customers all the choice they need.

Choices:

1. Pay less for 100% compatible RF STM glass
2. Pay More for 100% compatible RF L glass (which is mostly the same USD price as other 1st party glass)
3. Pay even less for Adapted EF glass either from Canon (with known compatibility) or from 3rd party's

That is a lot of choice.

Oh and I think you also spoke of the echo chamber of people saying "adapted glass" and you are tired of it.

Well, I know I am tired of the BS about Canon blocking All 3rd party AF glass being repeated over and over. Unless I missed it there has been 1... yep just 1 documented case of Canon telling a manufacture to stop and that is verifiable Viltrox. It has also been reported that the Viltrox RF 85mm was showing up as an EF 85mm in the Canon R bodies so it appears there was some funny business going on Viltrox's part.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it" - The person that said that is a clown so I am not going to give him credit but sadly the echo chamber of the inter proves it out all the time.

I get it you read on the internet that Canon was blocking all 3rd party AF glass but the there is simply nothing to back that up and the absent of proof is proof of nothing.

If Sigma can find a way to reverse engineer the RF protocols that does not violate Canon's patents Canon has no choice but to let them play ball. That is up to Sigma and the rest of the reputable 3rd party glass makers to sort out.

I am really really sick of having to point this out in thread after thread only for it to fall on deaf ears.

Jonathan

 

[entoman]

R5 and R6 were both announced on the same day - 09 July 2020.

Wouldn't it be nice if the R5 Mkii was announced before the end of the year?

Canon might make a 90-ish MP "R5S" sometime in 2023 or 2024, but I'd much rather have an upgraded "R5 Mkii"...

 

[Del Paso]

Posting on a forum opens your opinion to criticism, if you did not want to have your opinion questioned why bother posting it. The simply matter is Canon does not appear to be open to sharing profits in a contracting market with anyone so they are offering customers all the choice they need.

Choices:

1. Pay less for 100% compatible RF STM glass
2. Pay More for 100% compatible RF L glass (which is mostly the same USD price as other 1st party glass)
3. Pay even less for Adapted EF glass either from Canon (with known compatibility) or from 3rd party's

That is a lot of choice.

Oh and I think you also spoke of the echo chamber of people saying "adapted glass" and you are tired of it.

Well, I know I am tired of the BS about Canon blocking All 3rd party AF glass being repeated over and over. Unless I missed it there has been 1... yep just 1 documented case of Canon telling a manufacture to stop and that is verifiable Viltrox. It has also been reported that the Viltrox RF 85mm was showing up as an EF 85mm in the Canon R bodies so it appears there was some funny business going on Viltrox's part.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it" - The person that said that is a clown so I am not going to give him credit but sadly the echo chamber of the inter proves it out all the time.

I get it you read on the internet that Canon was blocking all 3rd party AF glass but the there is simply nothing to back that up and the absent of proof is proof of nothing.

If Sigma can find a way to reverse engineer the RF protocols that does not violate Canon's patents Canon has no choice but to let them play ball. That is up to Sigma and the rest of the reputable 3rd party glass makers to sort out.

I am really really sick of having to point this out in thread after thread only for it to fall on deaf ears.

Jonathan

Thanks for your post!

 

[Del Paso]

R5 and R6 were both announced on the same day - 09 July 2020.

Wouldn't it be nice if the R5 Mkii was announced before the end of the year?

Canon might make a 90-ish MP "R5S" sometime in 2023 or 2024, but I'd much rather have an upgraded "R5 Mkii"...

An R5 Mk.II with improved eye-control AF? As soon as it gets announced, I'll order one. The various AF control buttons are no use for me, my right thumb having grown insensitive.

 

[scyrene]

Question ... why are you so invested in what i think? Changes nothing in your life. You have opinion, i have one too. I want open system, you have opinion. So lets agree that we dont agree and leave it at that.

I have no problem with disagreeing, and you're right, it makes no difference to my life whatsoever. However, posting a single reply is not being "so invested". This is a forum, people respond to what others post. Is this your first time?

 

[scyrene]

R5 and R6 were both announced on the same day - 09 July 2020.

Wouldn't it be nice if the R5 Mkii was announced before the end of the year?

Canon might make a 90-ish MP "R5S" sometime in 2023 or 2024, but I'd much rather have an upgraded "R5 Mkii"...

Given how quickly we went from the first rumour of the R6 to its announcement, anything is possible, but my gut feeling is given the R5 contained more novel tech (primarily its sensor), they'll want to milk it a bit more first.

 

[Johnw]

Choices:

1. Pay less for 100% compatible RF STM glass
2. Pay More for 100% compatible RF L glass (which is mostly the same USD price as other 1st party glass)
3. Pay even less for Adapted EF glass either from Canon (with known compatibility) or from 3rd party's

That is a lot of choice.

Also:
4. 3rd party RF manual focus lenses

 

[mihazero]

An ‘excuse’ is neither warranted nor needed. Canon has apparently made a business decision to block 3rd party lens makers (at least some) from selling RF-mount lenses. Given their dominance of the ILC market, it seems to be a sound business decision. If you don’t like it, that’s a you problem.

Ok ...

 

[mihazero]

I have no problem with disagreeing, and you're right, it makes no difference to my life whatsoever. However, posting a single reply is not being "so invested". This is a forum, people respond to what others post. Is this your first time?

No, but I have no interest in being convinced or debating other points of view on this matter. It was a statement, not a question or invitation to debate. I respect Your and other opinion as yours, but not really into being bullied by more then one person or being ridiculed because i dont find popular opinion "CANON RF IS THE BEST ... bla bla bla" to be my cup of tea. Please ... just scroll past. Do not hit reply.

 

[mihazero]

Posting on a forum opens your opinion to criticism, if you did not want to have your opinion questioned why bother posting it. The simply matter is Canon does not appear to be open to sharing profits in a contracting market with anyone so they are offering customers all the choice they need.

Choices:

1. Pay less for 100% compatible RF STM glass
2. Pay More for 100% compatible RF L glass (which is mostly the same USD price as other 1st party glass)
3. Pay even less for Adapted EF glass either from Canon (with known compatibility) or from 3rd party's

That is a lot of choice.

Oh and I think you also spoke of the echo chamber of people saying "adapted glass" and you are tired of it.

Well, I know I am tired of the BS about Canon blocking All 3rd party AF glass being repeated over and over. Unless I missed it there has been 1... yep just 1 documented case of Canon telling a manufacture to stop and that is verifiable Viltrox. It has also been reported that the Viltrox RF 85mm was showing up as an EF 85mm in the Canon R bodies so it appears there was some funny business going on Viltrox's part.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it" - The person that said that is a clown so I am not going to give him credit but sadly the echo chamber of the inter proves it out all the time.

I get it you read on the internet that Canon was blocking all 3rd party AF glass but the there is simply nothing to back that up and the absent of proof is proof of nothing.

If Sigma can find a way to reverse engineer the RF protocols that does not violate Canon's patents Canon has no choice but to let them play ball. That is up to Sigma and the rest of the reputable 3rd party glass makers to sort out.

I am really really sick of having to point this out in thread after thread only for it to fall on deaf ears.

Jonathan

I am going to respond to this purely because of so much effort on your part. Thank you for long answer. No i do not agree, but also dont want to debate or talk about it. Please as i said to someone else. Just let it go.

 

[mihazero]

That could be easy to achieve...


...but you are obviously in want of something different.

I could go for some kung pao chicken right now.