Search results

In my case it's the 15-35...the EF 16-35 2.8 has worked great and continues to do so, works with the 5DS and I was just going to make do with it whenever I needed WA - but the price has really come down on the RF version and I've never seen it this low. I'm definitely still keeping the EF...

With Canon not shying away from making lenses slower than f5.6 in the MILC era, IMHO that emphasizes two areas of sensor performance: high ISO performance and high ISO detail retention. Interestingly enough, when using the DPR comparison tool to compare the R5 45MP vs the 5DSR 50MP, at lower...

What case mode are you using? FWIW, I found the 5D4's AF tracking and accel/decel tracking to be a bit on the sensitive side at the default "0" setting - when I set both to "-1", my hit rate did increase slightly. Especially with a scenario like this where the subject would be moving at a...

As has already been pointed out, I think some of that improvement comes down to the upgrade from an APS-C/crop sensor to a FF sensor. I noticed a similar improvement in IQ about 10 years ago when going from a 60D to a 5D3 (especially in lower light). MILC also tends to have better AF consistency...

I've actually thought about it...but then, I've gotten quite used to the 30MP of the 5D4/R and I do crop regularly...I'm not sure if I'd want to step (back) down to 24 at this point. Besides, if I went that route I likely would need a new computer first anyway, these new CR3 files seem to really...

I'm very curious as well. Although I don't expect the sharpness to be on the level of the 100 Macro (none of the zoom lenses are, including the 70-200), if it's able to at least match the 24-70 through that range and match the 70-200 up to 105mm at 2.8, I'd consider that a win, honestly. That...

Don't do much portraiture but when I do, I agree, I'm not crazy about the 70mm 2.8 perspective. While it's fine for environmental/body shots, it's not really long enough for tight headshots, and not always possible to get the full face in focus at close-up (headshot) distances using 2.8. At...

To me, the f4 version is just ok. From my recent experience with it, I don’t love it optically but the flexibility of that range cannot be denied. The 24-70 2.8 offers much better sharpness and clarity, but then of course you lose the reach. In fact, it’s been my experience that 24-105mm lenses...

I see, similar to the EF 100-400 II then. I agree, I’d rather have the option to completely remove it if I’m handholding. That said, based on my experience with the 100-400 it is still manageable…

As much as I have critiqued Canon in the past for their fixation with “ultra-slow” lenses, I’m going to make an exception with this 200-800: I have to say it’s honestly a very practical solution for a lot of shooters who need reach but can’t afford/don’t want to carry the weight of a Big...

If you have the disposable income, the 32mm is an excellent APS-C lens. Saw a used one in pristine condition at near half price a couple years back, couldn’t pass it up. That and the 11-22 are the sharpest EF-M lenses in my experience. The 22mm is a step below, but cannot be beat size-wise. At...

I first decided to dip a toe in a few years back (think it was '19) when RP promos hit the sub-$1000 mark...got that with the 35 1.8 and ran that as a small alternative to the DSLR setup which was to continue to be my main. Then the pandemic hit...I wasn't shooting for a while...when I finally...

I don't blame you. I agree in a way...I think the 5D3 and 5DS/R cameras were the last of the "classic colors" era at Canon. From the 5D4 onward, the images do have a somewhat more "digital" look as you put it (I'd say neutral/clinical)...which, for certain genres, is fine and not a problem...

Instead of getting rid of my M equipment, I'm actually doubling down and picking up more M stuff. As other posters already said, the RF-S system isn't anywhere near as compact and therefore for my needs, it's not an adequate substitute. As long as the equipment works, I'll continue to use it.

Neither do I, at least in the foreseeable future.

That in part is slowing down my willingness to fully "migrate". I don't like that the 100-500 is slower beyond 250mm (and more expensive) than the excellent EF 100-400 II. Plus some reliability/usability quirks I have with the mirrorless bodies vs. the older DSLRs. A couple RF lenses are great...

Strangely enough there was a time I wished for a lens like this. Something like this would be perfect for ice shows... ...at least on paper. But...for the way I shoot personally - I like to handhold and need the camera to fit in a regular-size backpack... Besides the super high price, there...

I guess it depends on your use case. For me, the R works fine for casual shooting but I'd still pick up the 5D4 for anything serious (or fast). In the meantime, the M200 fills the "small size" niche. I have no issues switching between the two formats (outside of ergonomics), they each have their...

3-4 years ago, I would have completely agreed and would have been on board with a new DSLR, but now it is clear where the direction of tech is headed. The way I see it, though...IQ difference between the last generation of DSLRs and today's MILCs is really not big anyway...progress here has...

Precisely...still too high for me, going to continue to hold off. I will say though that there were some solid deals last year during BF weekend...that 50 was too good to pass up...(plus, I had already let go of the EF version)