Search results

In fact, you're getting a better deal for your money since the worldwide inflation between 2016-2020 was higher than the price increase of the 5D4 -> R5

It's a pretty nice and decent lens. I've actually used it on a professional assignment last week where I had to be a bit mobile; taking the adapted 16-35 III would be too much but it's easy to pop this in the bag. Client's very happy with the shots :)

ditto here; already have two R5's and considered this camera, but will wait and see what the R1 will bring to the table.

I think the idea of these lenses is they're aimed at people that only shoot mirrorless from now on. And with bodies like the R3 in mind (and the alledged 'R7' crop camera that's supposedly in the pipe line). You can bet that an R3 will have a much improved reaction time as well. But of course...

to be honest, I don't really see a price drop of RF lenses after a few months, at least not here in Europe. Both the 15-35 and 24-70 have been more or less stable in the past two years

Well, the R6 shoots with the same fps rates so I don't get the shutter discipline bit. Also, the c-raw option makes handling R5 files very easy; they are about the same size as 5D mk IV files. My 4 year old iMac can handle these files without any problem, and hard drive space is cheap as heck...

FWIW, the EF 1.4 is not that much sharper than the F/2. If sharper at all.. Used to have the EF 1.4, and when I got the RF f/2 I did a comparison: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4527565 In terms of bokeh the EF is more pleasing. I did eventually sold off the EF 1.4 (in particular...

I had to put in a bit of effort to reproduce it, but both my R5's have it. With my typical way of shooting I would hardly notice it. Shutter speeds have to be slow enough in order to see it (I shoot events a lot, and since you don't want movement blur I shoot at least 1/100th of a second...

Yep, can confirm both my R5 bodies show the issues under the conditions you mention. Will report to my local CPS department.

I doubt it too. Could very well be 45mpix as well, or around that. That would put it directly against the A1 and Z9 in terms of resolution. They say it meets the R5 and 1DX. A truly high mpix body will still be in the air. Much less speed, but much more catered towards landscape/studio/macro, etc.

Looks like a cool lens, also for portraits and video

Can’t argue with that!

About quad pixel AF, here's a copy from an answer of this, that explains why it could be beneficial: "Right now with dual pixel AF (DPAF) sensors, you can focus reliably while the camera is in the horizontal position and your edge of contrast that you are locking on are vertical. If the edge...

I certainly think they can at least match Sony and Nikon's offering

update went well.... I have no image on raw light 8k video files in Final Cut (normal raw works fine), with the latest 2.1 plugin. Any clues how this may be happening?

I want my RF 400! :D

Would be a great opportunity (although expensive) to move forward to a 400 2.8. The current EF III is amazingly light. Currently shooting a 500 f/4 so I’d have to sell that to make it financially bearable, but 400 2.8 would fit my needs better

Longest take in that film is about 15 mins, most were 10. Anyway, seems like a great true flagship camera. Impressive package and happy that the bar is raised. I’m quite sure the R1 will be a good rival when that comes out. Could have less mpix, which should not be that big of an issue for the...

70-200? What about a great option for the new RF big whites? I'd glue this thing on a 400 2.8 in a heartbeat!

I might pick up a fast 35mm!