Search results

No longer bothers me, my next lens will be Nikkor Z 100-400 S to go my my Nikon body. Future lenses will be Nikkors as well. Not forsaking Canon...severed me extremely well and willl keep one body and a macro lens. For primarily landscape use, the R5 is no better, but much, much more expensive...

For those of us interested in primarily landscape, Canon bodies are overpriced. Although I think they are better overall. Sony has a 33mp sensor a7 IV for the same price as an R6 and the Nikon Z7 II Iis just $400 more. Unless something changes drastically I all but wrote off Canon...

WTF. No not everyone is shooting movies. Most people probably are, but I couod gives a rats ass about it.

A Z 6II is a better buy for some people if your not using it for birding and starting out new. The R6 is excellent in all categories, but in my opinion, overpriced. For about the same price you can get a Sony A7 IV. A Z7 II offers a 45 mp sensor for just a few hundred dollars more. Not putting...

It would not surprise me to see Canon make this form over function then expect us to fix in post processing. Not very pleased to see Canon doing this. An example is the heavy vignetting with the 16-35 f4. I have the EF version and love it.

Hoping for a sweet spot between the R5 and R6…similar to a Sony A7IV and an equivalent price tag. Not holding my breath.

I think I will order one for myself and another to stow away and sell 20 years down the the road and then buy a new house. Hell, I would be happy simply to be able to purchase something like an R5.

Do you mean the guy who loves to rip off his glass as the video starts, Walter Cronkite style? At least he (And a few others that copied him) got away from staring at the camera and moving his eyes to the sides.

My thoughts are that if they made it bad more of a high end camera...tougher, better screen, CF Express cards etc, and a few other things, the cost would approach that of an R6 and likely people may be more inclined to spend that money on a full frame sensor. It looks like a great bird camera if...

Nikon lenses don’t primarily generate revenue but Canon does? Wow. Just wow. Can’t believe I just read that.

Dustin Abbott did a review of this lens.

I saw the program. Sad.

A 32MP R6II would have me going yo mirrorless if not a price increase. Otherwise, Nikon and Sony a better value for me and landscape.

TN = entertainment, sometimes with sensationalism that I don't care for.

I would add to that Nikon Z7 II

Just give me a body geared toward the general advanced enthusiast and/or landscape photographer. It seems everything is directed toward video and sports photography, or maybe the reviewers or camera companies are conditioning people to that they need that. I don't have a problem with that, but...

So if I bought an R5 and the holly trinity of lenses it would only cost me $10,346. Incredible equipment for those fortunate enough to afford it.

My thoughts also. I really like my EF 16-35 f4, but if I went to mirrorless I would use my lens even though it would take an adapter to do so. The reviews of the RF 14-35 were disappointing because of the the vignetting and distortion. Maybe using it and with the correction software, I would...

Not faulting Canon for trying new directions with RF lenses. It is good to distinguish themselves from other manufacturers like Sony. Unfortunately that is often leaving out the excellent mid-priced lenses often with either very fast, very high quality, but overpriced lenses or cheaper, lower...

Awesome what these camera companies are developing. But, please work on something for landscape photographers. Sure an R5 is great for that as well as video. But, paying $3900 or whatever it is overkill for a 45MP camera unless video is that important. People say video does not cost extra, but I...