Canon EOS R5, Canon EOS R6 and new lens SKU and kit information

#121
koenkooi said:
It’s on the official product page on the Canon website. Click on ‘specifications’ and scroll down to ‘Extender compatibility’.
Click to expand...
As long as the RF extenders are not officially on the web page they will not be put into the compatibility category of any lens.
Today yes, an EF converters is not compatible with RF 70-200
The RF will be compatible, the 70-200 has dedicated space left to fit.
This will give nice setups, especially 100-280 F4 with the 1,4x should perform great.
 
Upvote 0
#122
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#125
unfocused said:
In my experience in recent years the "discount" for a kit has been fairly minimal. $200 might be the maximum, but I would not be surprised to see it much less. In my opinion, Canon quit giving big discounts on kits because so many dealers will splitting them up and selling the components separately on eBay.
Click to expand...
I imagine that sometimes a lot discount is to blow out unwanted stock without as overtly irritating recent buyers. Like the current $999 RP kit. That’s worth splitting up and selling. Almost.
 
Upvote 0
#126
Regarding the cards for the R5, I understand it will accept a dual card types: SD UHS-II and CFexpress. I am wondering, as I will not shoot much video, if I can put on both slots the SD UHS-II, or each bay will accept only a dedicated card?
 
Upvote 0
#127
jolyonralph said:
It's also obvious if you compare the lens with the photos of the extender, there's absolutely no way it could physically fit with the RF 70-200.
Click to expand...

Wow...just wow.

Why would Canon do this? Just to shrink the new RF 70-200?

Would it have fit if the did the focusing internal like they do with the EF version?

Geez, for the EF version those TC's are VERY nice to have......

C
 
Upvote 0
#128
puffo25 said:
Regarding the cards for the R5, I understand it will accept a dual card types: SD UHS-II and CFexpress. I am wondering, as I will not shoot much video, if I can put on both slots the SD UHS-II, or each bay will accept only a dedicated card?
Click to expand...

Each slot will only use their respective dedicated cards. In other words, the SD slot will ONLY accept SD cards (such as USH-II SD's), and the CFExpress slot will ONLY accept CFExpress cards.

If you don't shoot much video, your best bet is to purchase USH-II SD cards as they'll be cheaper than CFExpress.

I suspect CFExpress will only be beneficial if you need to utilize a large buffer when shooting at the camera's maximum burst rate, or when shooting 4K-8K video at certain frame rates.
 
Upvote 0
#130
R1-7D said:
If you don't shoot much video, your best bet is to purchase USH-II SD cards as they'll be cheaper than CFExpress.
Click to expand...

USH-II SD cards are rather expensive and come in about the same price per GB as CF Express cards. CF Express cards are much better value considering how much faster they are and they are potentially more durable.

Sandisk CF Express Extreme Pro 64GB 1500MB/s Read Speed, 800MB/s Write Speed @ £159
Sandisk 64GB Extreme Pro SDHC 300MB/s UHS-II @ £136
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#131
Codebunny said:
USH-II SD cards are rather expensive and come in about the same price per GB as CF Express cards. CF Express cards are much better value considering how much faster they are and they are potentially more durable.

Sandisk CF Express Extreme Pro 64GB 1500MB/s Read Speed, 800MB/s Write Speed @ £159
Sandisk 64GB Extreme Pro SDHC 300MB/s UHS-II @ £136
Click to expand...

Fair enough. But you'll likely be able to use USH-I cards in the R5 too, and those are dirt cheap. If burst and video don't matter, then why not be economical?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#132
dflt said:
And? What about Lightroom's logo? Is that better?
Click to expand...
That is a pathetic answer. What all in one photo management and editing program outperforms Lightroom and in what areas? I haven't found anything that competes with the capabilities of Lightroom and when you add in the unrivaled capabilities of Photoshop I haven't found anything to touch Adobe.

Do other RAW processors make 'better' one click renders? Maybe, but play with the controls and you can make pretty much any processor mimic any other processor if you know what you are doing and it is child's play to make that an import preset so you never have to do it again. Do other processors have slight differences in noise characteristics or color renditions, sure, but nothing is head and shoulders 'better' than anything else and again, skilled users of any program can mimic their preferred looks from other programs.

But tell me a RAW processing program that comes anywhere near the abilities and ease of use of the Library module in Lightroom, I haven't found one.

But be specific, in what areas does "LR = lagging way behind"? Because I listed one very important one where it is a standout leader.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#133
cayenne said:
Wow...just wow.

Why would Canon do this? Just to shrink the new RF 70-200?

Would it have fit if the did the focusing internal like they do with the EF version?

Geez, for the EF version those TC's are VERY nice to have......

C
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. They did it because they figured more people would want a more compact lens than would want to use it wil teleconverters. The EF 70-200 lenses are of course still available and still excellent (i've no intention of replacing my EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II with the RF version) when adapted to work with the EOS R, and of course support EF teleconverters.
 
Upvote 0
#134
Codebunny said:
USH-II SD cards are rather expensive and come in about the same price per GB as CF Express cards. CF Express cards are much better value considering how much faster they are and they are potentially more durable.

Sandisk CF Express Extreme Pro 64GB 1500MB/s Read Speed, 800MB/s Write Speed @ £159
Sandisk 64GB Extreme Pro SDHC 300MB/s UHS-II @ £136
Click to expand...

I can get a Lexar 128GB SDHX card UHS-II 250MB/s for £41GBP - yes slower than the Extreme Pro, but vastly more affordable than the CF Express card.
 
Upvote 0
#136
degos said:
Well they're both likely to use CR3 format so they'll already be usable in most commercial and much open source software. In general RAW converters don't need to be updated for specific bodies.

The real issue is lens correction profiles for all these new ones particularly if the non-L lenses exhibit Canon's recent trend towards dodgy optics corrected heavily by software.
Click to expand...

All .cr3 files (or .cr2, for that matter) are not equal. Each sensor has a different set of instructions for things such as number of pixels wide, exact color filter array colors, etc. Just because a raw conversion application can handle .cr3 files from an older camera does not mean it can handle .cr3 files from a new camera.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#137
degos said:
Well they're both likely to use CR3 format so they'll already be usable in most commercial and much open source software. In general RAW converters don't need to be updated for specific bodies.

The real issue is lens correction profiles for all these new ones particularly if the non-L lenses exhibit Canon's recent trend towards dodgy optics corrected heavily by software.
Click to expand...

Everyone: Why can't Canon make small, light, high quality lenses like everyone else? (i.e. Sony, µ4/3, etc.)

Canon: Here, try this new 24-240mm lens.

Everyone: Canon is doomed! That lens is dodgy and one must use in-camera correction to make up for its shortcomings, just like Sony and µ4/3 have been doing for years.
 
Upvote 0
#138
Joules said:
The RF 24-240mm does not cover the FF image circle at 24mm. To compensate, the lens correction profile applies a slight crop to the image. It is a completely new approach to ILC lens design for Canon, but I would agree that calling it "dodgy" is a bit over the top.
Click to expand...

It's the same type of thing the Micro Four-Thirds cameras and many of Sony's cameras have been doing for years, particularly for geometric distortion.
 
Upvote 0
#139
Michael Clark said:
It's the same type of thing the Micro Four-Thirds cameras and many of Sony's cameras have been doing for years, particularly for geometric distortion.
Click to expand...
In Point and Shoot cameras it should also be possible to find plenty examples of correction profiles hiding flaws of the lens.

It's just the first time we saw that from Canon. Although, I wonder if all EF-M lenses have actually been tested for it. Maybe it isn't necessary to correct those in this way since the smaller image circle is less demanding. Then again, they are so tiny. I would not be surprised if some form of the same concept was applied in existing or will be in future releases.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu