Is a Canon EOS R7 Mark II coming this year? [CR2]

[Del Paso]

I'll make it clear that I didn't write that section on taking squirrels with the 5DIV! The R is notorious for its slow focus. The R5, on the other hand, is excellent and reportedly even faster at locking on to birds than the Z9. I doubt that you would be disappointed with the R5.

That's what I thought!
Since you showed us so many great pictures of tiny birds perched on trees, the R5 couldn't be bad at obtaining focus under difficult conditions.
Waiting impatiently for thr R5 II...

 

[P-visie]

That's what I thought!
Since you showed us so many great pictures of tiny birds perched on trees, the R5 couldn't be bad at obtaining focus under difficult conditions.
Waiting impatiently for thr R5 II...

And take it from someone who has always been very satisfied with the 5D Mk IV: after getting your hands on the R5 (the original or the Mk II), you will no longer use your 5D Mk IV.

 

[koenkooi]

And take it from someone who has always been very satisfied with the 5D Mk IV: after getting your hands on the R5 (the original or the Mk II), you will no longer use your 5D Mk IV.

It makes a great paperweight!

 

[AlanF]

That's what I thought!
Since you showed us so many great pictures of tiny birds perched on trees, the R5 couldn't be bad at obtaining focus under difficult conditions.
Waiting impatiently for thr R5 II...

It's the BIF where it is amazing. Set to AF on the central 9 points, I could pan with the 5DIV and get very fast and accurate AF. With the R5 set set to tracking full screen and animal AF, it latches on to them wherever they are, usually faster than I can see them. Same for dragonflies.

 

[Del Paso]

And take it from someone who has always been very satisfied with the 5D Mk IV: after getting your hands on the R5 (the original or the Mk II), you will no longer use your 5D Mk IV.

What I'll certainly no longer use is the EOS R.

 

[Del Paso]

It makes a great paperweight!

Grrr. Grrrr. Grrrrr!
()

 

[Adrianf]

I know so many people who had a 5D camera and a 7D. The feel and controls were almost the same. Like many I now have an R5 and an R7. Switching between the cameras drives me, and many others, crazy. Please Canon, adopt a common layout for the controls on the 5 and 7 series, like it used to be.

 

[becceric]

There is a lot of snobbery on the internet. The RFs 18-150, like its M counterpart is an excellent super zoom. No, it does not exhibit L level prime performance, but you can take fine images with it. I don't have the 10-18, but I do have the excellent EFM 11-22 and the tests of the 10-18 show similar sharpness. none of the these lenses is fast, but they are all relatively tiny and that is a very useful tradeoff for many applications. Just as an example, here is a shot that was taken with an M6 II with the EFM 18-150 through a darkened car window at 55 mph on dark evening. I thought it came out remarkably well.

View attachment 215079

Thomas Cole would be envious of that.

 

[Quack]

You are probably the first one I found on the internet to say 10-18 and 18-150 is excellent&sharp. There's quite a few saying the 18-150 isn't sharp enough. And 10-18 is bad because of the f-number.....

On facebook groups, there are those who immediately dismiss the 18-150 because it is a kit lens. You can be sure most have never used it. Those that have - and some have tested it like Christopher Frost - and it is essentially as sharp as the RF 24-105 L f/4.

 

[DhlcadR6]

On facebook groups, there are those who immediately dismiss the 18-150 because it is a kit lens. You can be sure most have never used it. Those that have - and some have tested it like Christopher Frost - and it is essentially as sharp as the RF 24-105 L f/4.

I didn't get the 18-150 because of the reviews keep saying it is not good enough. So I end up adapting the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 on my R50. However it does lack telephoto reach(for my needs) and keep switching between 17-70 and RF100-400 is a hassle. I'm tempted to get one in the used market, along with the 10-18.

 

[Dragon]

I didn't get the 18-150 because of the reviews keep saying it is not good enough. So I end up adapting the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 on my R50. However it does lack telephoto reach(for my needs) and keep switching between 17-70 and RF100-400 is a hassle. I'm tempted to get one in the used market, along with the 10-18.

By the time you add in the adapter for the Sigma, the 18-150 is less than half the weight and much smaller. The IQ will also be better and the IS is far better than the Sigma 2010 design (assuming you have the OS version of the Sigma). The downside is the speed as the 18-150 is not as fast as the Sigma, but for the majority of shots, is is fast enough. Get the 18-150 and keep your Sigma for times when you need the extra speed. If your subjects are not moving, the improvement in IS will likely completely offset the speed advantage of the Sigma.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I didn't get the 18-150 because of the reviews keep saying it is not good enough.

Not good enough for what? I’ve never used it, but it’s optically the same as the EF-M 18-150, and I found that to be a good lens. No, it’s not as good as my RF 24-105/2.8L or my RF 70-200/2.8L. But it’s a bit more convenient to bring along.

 

[Dragon]

Not good enough for what? I’ve never used it, but it’s optically the same as the EF-M 18-150, and I found that to be a good lens. No, it’s not as good as my RF 24-105/2.8L or my RF 70-200/2.8L. But it’s a bit more convenient to bring along.

That 24-105/2.8L would be a handful on his R50.

 

[DhlcadR6]

That 24-105/2.8L would be a handful on his R50.

I'm still adapting EF 80-200L on my R6 & R50. RF24-105 f2.8L is actually lighter, I wouldn't mind carrying it if someone financially support me.

 

[DhlcadR6]

By the time you add in the adapter for the Sigma, the 18-150 is less than half the weight and much smaller. The IQ will also be better and the IS is far better than the Sigma 2010 design (assuming you have the OS version of the Sigma). The downside is the speed as the 18-150 is not as fast as the Sigma, but for the majority of shots, is is fast enough. Get the 18-150 and keep your Sigma for times when you need the extra speed. If your subjects are not moving, the improvement in IS will likely completely offset the speed advantage of the Sigma.

OS on the 17-70 isn't working because I don't have the stupid Sigma USB dock to update the firmware....

 

[Dragon]

OS on the 17-70 isn't working because I don't have the stupid Sigma USB dock to update the firmware....

Which 17-70 do you have? The dock should work on the contemporary, but not on the earlier "macro" version. If you have the newer one, just poke around the neighborhood and find someone who has a dock you can borrow for 10 minutes. Alternatively, the docks are pretty cheap on fleabay now that everything is moving to mirrorless. https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p4432023.m570.l1313&_nkw=sigma+dock&_sacat=0

BTW, don't buy one without the supplied USB cable as it has a proprietary connector on the dock end.

If you have the older one, It would have to go back to Sigma for update and they may not even support it anymore.

 

[SnowMiku]

Does anyone know if the R10 has the same kind of focusing issues as the R7?

 

[AlanF]

Does anyone know if the R10 has the same kind of focusing issues as the R7?

What are the focussing issues of the R7?

 

[SnowMiku]

What are the focussing issues of the R7?

This Youtuber explains some focusing issues his had with his R7, and got some feedback from Canon about it. It seems to happen when used at 30FPS with low contrast scenes.

 

[AlanF]

This Youtuber explains some focusing issues his had with his R7, and got some feedback from Canon about it. It seems to happen when used at 30FPS with low contrast scenes.

I am frankly sick of seeing grinning YouTube faces and their clickbait. There job is to hook you to make money.