Search results

Silly to assume “Canon knows best!” when lens of the year from DPReview was a relatively affordable, relatively fast super tele from Nikon—the likes of which Canon doesn’t offer.

Maybe I am being too generous toward Canon, but I have to believe that some part of this is not just a money grab but a quality control thing—they don't want bad lenses making their cameras look bad. However, this is a solved problem: 3rd party lens makers ought to be able to have Canon...

I have long advocated for APS-C "L" glass. I hope they do it. With a few good RF-S L-class primes, and some small APS-C bodies, Canon could compete with Fuji head-on, but with an upgrade path to full frame, which Fuji does not have. I would even be interested in such a camera as a...

Why not just use the RF 24-105 f/4 L? I own the RF 24-70 2.8 and didn't see much of a drop in quality each time I've used the RF 24-105, and the extra reach is really nice...

I wonder what the stat is on that. As much of a "beta" camera the R is compared to the R6, I went for the R5 (from the R) because I didn't want to take a resolution hit... I find too much value in cropping and enjoy the look of the higher res sensor.

Exactly. People say they don't need it but I'd bet those same people would not be willing to go down in resolution from what they currently use.

Fingers crossed that the other two lenses are the much rumored 14mm and 24mm tilt-shifts! I would LOVE a new 24mm...

Realistically, 14mm would be too wide for most of my needs but I’m defintely looking forward to an updated 24mm. The 24mm TS-E II does not match the standards set by the newer 50mm, 90mm and 135mm TS-E lenses, so hopefully a new one will have substantially better resolution. Combined with AF, it...

Yeah but… when? I have been waiting for a high res camera and TS lenses ever since the announcement of the R. Maybe I need Mr. Miyagi to teach me some patience…

I think the extra pins have more to do with video AF than stills, but I can't say that for sure.

Please work with TS-E lenses! Please work with TS-E lenses! Please work with TS-E lenses! Please work with TS-E lenses!

I too was hoping they could get down to 14mm for the f/4 version... Alas. Side note, does anyone know why the 15-35 2.8 is backordered everywhere, and maybe when they might be back in stock?

This might sound nuts, but I really wonder if they could put a larger sensor in the high-res body, not unlike APS-H was to APS-C. It would put Canon a lot closer to Fujifilm's GFX line than they ever could with "regular" full frame... On a body in-between the entry-level RP replacement and R6...

I have the EF 70-200 f/4L IS II and it's a fantastic performing and handling lens, but every time I forget the adapter, I want a native option more... So, as much as I want the 2.8 version, I would be mighty tempted to trade mine in for this.

I bought a 7D over a 6D many moons ago... Always sort of regretted it, although the 7D did handle better. Anyways, speaking of sensor size, given the size of the RF mount and lenses, I wonder if Canon could cram a larger sensor in there and still make it work—I mean, Sony basically crammed a...

APS-C sensors are only giving you a "crop" of you FF lens' image circle, hence the "reach". Also, APS-C sensors are more pixel-dense than FF sensors, giving them more noise, all else equal... Meaning, you might be better off cropping from a FF sensor anyway.

Cinema cameras aside, why? Who want's this over full-frame? With today's processors, FF has proven to be just as performant as something like the 7D line. If you give me the "reach" argument, then I would give you the FF crop argument. If you give me the cost argument, then I point to the RP...

Oh boy... I have so many... Tilt shifts (start with 17, 24, but I would really love to see a 35mm) Are smaller (than the 28–70) ultra fast aperture zooms even possible, like a 24–50mm, 50–85mm @f/2? 1.4 primes 35mm 1.2L 15–35 f/4L IS TOTAL FANTASY LENS: 17–40mm f/4 TS-E ZOOM (I can dream ok?)

That actually helps. Thanks Keith.

Because the ink is way for affordable for the Pro 300 than the 1000, it appeals to me as someone who would be just getting into printing. That said, I still don't have a good idea on how many prints I could realistically expect to get out of a set of ink cartridges for the 300 vs. the 1000... Keith?