Canon EOS R5 Mark II to arrive before EOS R1? [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
I didn't think it was possible to use an 'old' (ie 27") iMac as a slave monitor? Without physical hardware hacks anyway? I'd love to be wrong.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
Target Display Mode was supported on 2011-2014 iMacs.
Use your iMac as a display with target display mode
Target display mode is a feature available with certain older Mac models.
Upvote
0
I think you are correct.
I shoot landscapes almost exclusively.
My R5 is my main body, but still kept my R as a backup. Tempted to get an R62 to replace it, since the 24MP on that camera supposedly looks a little sharper than the 30MP R. But that's an expensive option for probably not too much benefit.
I'll probably keep my R as a backup/sketchy location (ie dusty etc) body until the R52 comes out.
For the first time I am not chomping at the bit for a new body; I really, really am happy with the R5. I hope they don't change any of the ergonomics or functionality, but a better sensor is always good.
Upvote
0
I love my RF 800 f/11.
I have no desire for a more expensive 800 f/6.3.
BTW I could get a used EF 800 f/5.6 cheaper than I could get an 800 f/6.3 for if I ever wanted one.
Upvote
0
50 mm gets 7 stops of shake reduction with IBIS alone and 85 mm gets 8 stops.
The RF 35 f/1.8 IS gets 5.5 stops correction with In-lens Optical Image Stabilization (6.5 stops correction with EOS R3/R5 in-body coordinated Image stabilization).
I could see a 35 f/1.2 getting IS due do that.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
I suspect that’s due to limitations on the size of the image circle in the 35/1.8. The 28-70/2 is rated for 8 stops with IBIS alone.
Upvote
0
I have no experience with the RF 800mm f/11 but coming from an EF 800mm I'd know that I'd struggle with its f/11.
I love the $1k price tag and its <1.3kg weight but its f/11 would limit my shooting time by 1-2 hours at morning or at afternoon. If you traveled by plane and only have that weekend to shoot then you'd want to maximize it as possible.
At 1/3rd stop slower but at near 1/2 the price and weight of a brand new EF 800mm makes the Z 800mm attractive to me.
Let us assume we go with used EF 800mm at below the price of Z 800mm. You have the weight to contend with. It's 4.5kg vs <2.4kg. A nearly 2kg difference.
More weight + more bulk = odds of more time in the electronic dry cabinet.
To clarify... when I meant by switching system is under the assumption that I only have a 2007 EOS 40D and three f/2.8 L zooms.
Upvote
0
There is so much crap written about the RF 800 f/11. It's a fine lens if you know when and where to use it. The first thing is the myth about f/11 being too narrow. The number of photons per duck, which determines the noise in the image of the duck, depends on the diameter of the lens not the f-number. So, a 400/5.6. 500/7.1 and 800/11 all have the same diameter front lens and all have the same S/N in the duck at the same shutter speed and their maximum aperture. You just have to increase the iso 1.5 and 2x as you go from f/5.6 to f/7.1 to f/11. It's the same myth about f/7.1 being narrow; 500/7.1 lets in as many photons per duck as 400/5.6 and 200/2.8. It's not the iso that makes the noise, it's the number of photons, and this is what confuses people. As it gets dark, you often go to high iso to keep up the shutter speed and so you think it's the high iso that gives the noisier image. But, it's not the iso, it's the low light.
An EF 800 /5.6 will let in 4x more light than the f/11. Even if I wanted to shell out the cash for one, it would be pretty useless for me because I couldn't take out out on a hike slung over my shoulder and hand hold it. The 800/11 is not my favourite lens as I need a close focussing zoom for insects as well as birds and be able to zoom out to 500mm or less for BIF for my general use, but I do use it when I know I'll be using it just for distant perched birds as it is light and does produce sharp images - as good as my former 400mm DO II at 800mm with a 2xTC. When I travel with restricted kit, the R5 + RF 100-500mm + RF 2xTC is the best combo for me, though I can manage for much of the time with the R7 and RF 100-400mm. But, I am pleased to have the 800/11 (£500 used - what a bargain).
Upvote
0
I agree with you.
The lens we bring is reliant on the environment, situation, weather, where the bird/insects are standing/perching on.
Where I live >80% of the birds I photograph are under the shade of trees and plants. So at f/5.6 I'd be shooting them at 1/30s or other slow shutter speed. I even recall shooting at a 1s exposure. The 4-stops of IS very helpful with that situation.
If you are faced with a bird that primarily eats flower nectar and maybe other fruits and berries then you need to increase your shutter speed a bit or even bring artificial lighting like as they're a tad bit more energetic than a kingfisher than tends to eat other small vertibrates.
If I were to use a RF 800mm f/11 then the total stops of IS needs to compensate for the 4 f-number difference.
Now with the Z 800mm f/6.3 I can confidently say I can make it work considering the total number of IS and better image sensor tech.
When I got the EF 800mm I was in my 20s but had a sedentary lifestyle. Because of bird photography it forced me to carry a 10kg backpack on a few km hikes every weekend and holdiays for at least 5 years.
Forced me to sleep by 8pm and wake up by 4am to drive 2-3hrs to the birding site by dawn.
To me birding is great exercise that forces you to get fit.
Upvote
0
Even though I have no interest in the 800 f/6.3 I do think Canon should follow Nikon and come out with a 400 f/2.8 x 1.4 and a 600 f/4 x 1.4.
Upvote
0
It has been discontinued.
I would have a difficult time finding a new one if I wanted to.
There still might be new ones available in your market.
A used one would cost me less than the 800 f/6.3.
The Nikon lens still has its merits by being significantly smaller and lighter.
Upvote
0
To reduce SKUs to increase economies of scale I'd have wanted Canon to do
- 400/2.8 with built-in 1.4x & 2.0x
- 600/4.0 with built-in 1.4x & 2.0x
So no more
- 500/4.0
- 800/5.6
- 1200/8.0
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The point I am making is that in spite of all the points you or I have made I'd go with a ligher Z 800mm as odds are I'd use it more as it is not a burden to carry. Not that slow to have a material loss of shooting time.
That is what Canon & Nikon's user case group determined when they made those three 800mm SKUs.
We now have mirrroless 800mm that are
- 5.6 at <3.2kg $17k
- 6.3 at <2.4kg $6.5k
- 11 at <1.3kg $900
There would not be that many 800mm SKUs if it wasnt that popular a focal length.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I had the same transition - 2013 MBP which was well outfitted at the time, transitioned to a M1 16". The 2013 had no hope of editing even 1080p video, but could mostly manage editing in photoshop (as long as you were patient). The the new MBP has been lights out fast with video and photo. With that said, I've found that photoshop is a bit more unstable than I'd like when it comes to big files (3gb+). I have a few files that even my M1 doesn't like working on, and I need to be mindful to restart before trying to dig into them in a meaningful way. I'm hopeful hat the M1 will be as long-lasting as the 2013 MBP, but I feel like 8 years is asking a lot.
Upvote
0
Your 2021 MBP 16" M1 Pro has problems with the current version of Photoshop that came out within the last 2 years when it comes to 3GB+ files?
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
Evidently, Canon chose different options. Thus we have
- 400/2.8 with no built-in TC
- 600/4 with no built-in TC
And
- 600/11
- 800/5.6
- 800/11
- 1200/8
Upvote
0
I'd say my frequency of crashes is higher than I remember it being on my old 2013 MBP, but again, this is anecdotal so take it with a grain of salt. I find that if I've been editing a lot and then come to a pretty big file, the odds of a crash go up a fair bit. I'm pretty sure it's just running out of memory and needs a restart. I've had notices that I'm out of memory and need to close things several times, and other times I get no notice and it just freezes up. I've had this happen at least 5 times in a two week period where I was editing a lot. Again, for all I know, I may have a setting switched over in PS 2023 which is letting it run of runway or building up the cache way too much.
Another common problem has been sometimes photoshop doesn't like the dedicated graphics processor settings - I open an image and there's nothing in there - like photoshop thinks its open, but there is no image, no nothing. I end up having to turn off the "use dedicated graphics processor" setting under performance, closing the file, reopening (which seems to bring back the image but hamper performance by a fair bit), and then changing the setting to turn the graphics processor back on, and then reopening again. After that, it almost always works like new again.
Both are nuances which are annoying, but not deal breakers. The performance of the machine when it's working well far outweigh these issues.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
