Search results

The RF 50 F1.2 isn't even that long. If the use of the composite is supposed to, among other things, reduce lens size (as claimed), why would a 50 F1.4 be longer than the 50 F1.2? The 1.2 is an amazing lens, but also really big. I have two 50s (the 1.8 and the 1.2), so I wouldn't be interested...

I love my R7. I had the 7D for four years, and the 7DII for five years. Both excellent crop cameras for their day. The R7 far surpasses the 7DII in every sense that matters to me. The AF is amazingly good, just a bit behind my R6II, which is even better (maybe the best AF available currently)...

Actually, the R shoots at 5fps with full AF adjustment. They misleadingly call the 3fps speed "AF priority" and the 5fps speed "shooting priority" (or something like that), but in fact, there's no difference in servo AF accuracy between the 3fps and the 5fps rate. This is from extensive...

It doesn’t. I was talking about equivalence. There’s lots of discussion of that topic on dpr and elsewhere. I was talking about what lens on a crop body would have the same DOF and noise performance (given same sensor generation) as this lens will on full frame. And I’ve done the math correctly.

This is just Canon's version of the Nikon 24-50 F4-6.3, that was released with the Z5, and similar to the Sony 28-60 F4-5.6, that was released with the A7C. Those lenses are $400 and $500 respectively, which seems pretty steep for short range slow zooms. They are both tiny, though. Presumably...

R7 has pre-buffer. M6II had it (in a cropped mode) 3 years ago.

Yes, it must have lost them tons of sales. I mean they're barely selling any, they've already had to reduce the price a couple of times just to shift the massive inventory they have cluttering up the warehouses, no-one is at all interested in buying this dog of a camera. What? Oh wait, never...

I have had an M6 with EVF-DC2 since 2017, and the M6II since 2019. I've never even come close to losing the EVF, which I rarely use, but always have with me, just in case. I agree that $250 (or pounds) is a lot to pay for it. I got mine bundled in a deal when I bought my M6, and it cost me $49...

The R3 is 24MP, the 5D3 is 22MP. The difference in image size is 5760 X 3840 compared with 6000 X 4000. That's a 4% difference in linear resolution.

More like what's happening to Sony? The Sony 70-200 is a whopping 25gm lighter than the Canon and considerably larger when not zoomed, and just as prohibitively expensive. High quality (increasingly) expensive 70-200 F2.8 zooms have been available for a long time. Small, light, and cheap long...

You do realize that the purpose of a viewfinder, whether OVF, EVF, LCD screen, or whatever, is to enable you to frame a shot, in order to produce a photo, which is, by definition (at least for digital cameras, whether DSLR or not) a digital copy of reality? Anyone who obsesses over the...

Yes, it's probably made for the part of the world that likes the two most popular sports in the world: football (the real kind, played with the feet and a roundball), and cricket. That would be pretty much the whole world, except the US. I used to think you had to grow up with it to like cricket...

I also have the PRO-100, and love both the color and B&W prints it makes on Canon paper, and on art rag paper. I buy ink in bulk and refill the cartridges myself. It's messy (it takes a couple of days for the ink to fade from my fingers!), but very affordable. The quality of the ink is every bit...

The 300D was also my first DSLR (first SLR was a Russian Zenith, followed by Mamiya, before finally moving to Canon with the incredible A-1). They were running a generous rebate program at the time, so I got the 300D with 17-40L and 70-200 F4L. I didn't get an EF-S lens until the 10-22 a couple...

I owned the 35 F1.4L before getting the 35 F2 IS. I sold the L after realizing that I was always using the F2 IS lens when I wanted 35.

You clearly haven't handled any of the Sigma primes. The 56 is by no stretch of the imagination big or heavy. It's designed specifically for APS-C mirrorless. It's barely any bigger or heavier than the EF-M 32. Considering it's nearly twice the focal length of that lens, and has the same F1.4...

It depends on just how low the light is. The M6II with 32 F1.4 or Sigma 56 F1.4 can give great results in very low light. The RP with an F1.4 lens would be even better, but only by about one stop. Use an F1.8 lens on the RP and you've already given up most of the advantage. I would say that...

This sounds right. But what you have to remember is that at the distances where it defaults to face-detect, DOF is more than large enough that the eyes are perfectly in focus anyway, even at F1.4.

Yes, it's just you.

That's the trick. If there's an EF lens you use a lot on an M, just leave an adapter on it permanently. I was lucky to get an adapter bundled in with my original M purchase, and another with my M6 purchase, so I have two of them. The only EF lens I use a lot on my M6 is the 50 STM, so I keep one...