Opinion: Canon’s mounting woes

[koenkooi]

I consider the RP's 4K non-existent. It has no useable AF and is heavily cropped.

I agree that that is the most realistic way of looking at it.

 

[snappy604]

Well, the R wasn't inexpensive when it came out, Euro 3000+, at least in Europe. The most disturbing feature, at least for me as a frequent TSE user, was that ugly intrusive e-level. I'm convinced it could have been designed in a much more discrete way, without any cost incidence. Yet, I still like the R, it never let me down. This is for me THE important feature, with picture quality, of course.

if you are considering that price point, why not the R6 II? its quite an improvement. I think it has same or better EVF than the R5 now .. and that alone was a worthwhile upgrade over the R... to me the Electronic View Finder (turn eco mode off) is near a pure optical view finder (quality wise) with additional features/capabilities. There are so many other worthwhile improvements as well (the autofocus is a massive improvement) etc etc. If you have funds likely the upcoming R5 MkII.. .but the R6 MkII again quite a big improvement over the R.

Anyway I'm on a tangent Here about 3rd party lenses. And yes EF mount works, my Sigma EFs work just fine and I get quite good results, doesn't mean I don't want native RF mount.

 

[EricN]

Sigma EFs work just fine and I get quite good results, doesn't mean I don't want native RF mount.

I think they'll come down the road.

 

[koenkooi]

if you are considering that price point, why not the R6 II? its quite an improvement. I think it has same or better EVF than the R5 now .. and that alone was a worthwhile upgrade over the R... to me the Electronic View Finder (turn eco mode off) is near a pure optical view finder (quality wise) with additional features/capabilities. There are so many other worthwhile improvements as well (the autofocus is a massive improvement) etc etc. If you have funds likely the upcoming R5 MkII.. .but the R6 MkII again quite a big improvement over the R.

Anyway I'm on a tangent Here about 3rd party lenses. And yes EF mount works, my Sigma EFs work just fine and I get quite good results, doesn't mean I don't want native RF mount.

My Sigma 150mm macro handles the 45MP with ease, sadly it’s OS doesn’t work well with IBIS.

 

[snappy604]

My Sigma 150mm macro handles the 45MP with ease, sadly it’s OS doesn’t work well with IBIS.

yeah its the IBIS and image stabilization combo sometimes seems to mess up, which is an irk. I use my 150-600 and sometimes find that too or it hunts a bit more than it used to. I wish I could turn IBIS off when IS is enabled on the lens (that didn't sneak in did it?).. there are cases where it is better.

 

[Del Paso]

if you are considering that price point, why not the R6 II? its quite an improvement. I think it has same or better EVF than the R5 now .. and that alone was a worthwhile upgrade over the R... to me the Electronic View Finder (turn eco mode off) is near a pure optical view finder (quality wise) with additional features/capabilities. There are so many other worthwhile improvements as well (the autofocus is a massive improvement) etc etc. If you have funds likely the upcoming R5 MkII.. .but the R6 MkII again quite a big improvement over the R.

Anyway I'm on a tangent Here about 3rd party lenses. And yes EF mount works, my Sigma EFs work just fine and I get quite good results, doesn't mean I don't want native RF mount.

Sure, but the R6 II came much later, and now costs twice as much as the R. But where I do not agree: the R5's EVF is MUCH better than the R6 II's, it has almost twice its definition...and yet, cannot compete with an OVF. The R3 has the best EVF of all Canon cameras, according to my partial opinion. And wonderful ergonomics!
And I'm still not really interested in 3rd party lenses, except Zeiss. Sigmas are optically very good, but for my uses, landscapes, cathedrals and macros, neither adequate (TS...) nor lightweight. I no longer need luminous lenses, since I own many Leica f1,4 Summiluxes- which are lightweight and optically
My next lenses will be exclusively RFs, on an R5 II or R3.
Doesn't mean I don't understand wishes for 3rd party lenses, I was just expressing my very own opinion.

 

[koenkooi]

yeah its the IBIS and image stabilization combo sometimes seems to mess up, which is an irk. I use my 150-600 and sometimes find that too or it hunts a bit more than it used to. I wish I could turn IBIS off when IS is enabled on the lens (that didn't sneak in did it?).. there are cases where it is better.

I’ve started using the 150mm again, but on my R8, which lacks IBIS

For the best stabe experience you need RF lenses, or lenses without IS. I exchanged my EF100L for the RF version because IS and IBIS didn’t work together for my style of shooting.

 

[Del Paso]

I’ve started using the 150mm again, but on my R8, which lacks IBIS

For the best stabe experience you need RF lenses, or lenses without IS. I exchanged my EF100L for the RF version because IS and IBIS didn’t work together for my style of shooting.

Hi!
Is your RF 100 macro tack sharp even in the corners at INFINITY? Because my EF 100 L isn't...and I'd like to use the RF for landscapes too.

 

[David - Sydney]

The RP is around $600/£600 used, a real bargain if you don't care about 4K video.

I thought about second hand but it wasn't that far from new as there was a retailer discount, a Canon rebate and refund of 10% GST as I was going overseas so about USD700. A real bargain with 5 year Canon warranty

 

[Walrus]

if you are considering that price point, why not the R6 II? its quite an improvement. I think it has same or better EVF than the R5 now

Going to bed and no time to check, but going by memory, I reckon R6II has 3 point something mpx EVF vs 5 point something mpx for R5, I'm pretty sure the one from R5 is at least 50% more pixel dense, so it's certainly much better.

That said, I had R10 and I now have the RP, both have inferior EVF's, like 2 point something mpx, but I still find them as good as an OVF and indistinguishable from the one in my R6, so yeah more mpx is better, but the lower tier cameras are still perfectly usable, so the EVF resolution is not something I really value in camera choice, at least in Canon world, dunno how Nikon and Sony feels.

 

[EricN]

My Sigma 150mm macro handles the 45MP with ease, sadly it’s OS doesn’t work well with IBIS.

Could this be an example of a problem which Canon wants to avoid by limiting the third party lenses?

 

[snappy604]

Could this be an example of a problem which Canon wants to avoid by limiting the third party lenses?

I wouldn't say so, but this is opinion on my part, but I do not think anyone here would know for sure either.

Since Canon designed and built the original EF image Stabilization and IBIS, they could map and figure out how to get IBIS to work in tandem with their lenses.

Canon IBIS is bleeding edge tech for Canon and the R5 was first with it. I find even native RF glass (RF 24-70 2.8L) has some minor issues with IBIS. It isn't immediately obvious but if you take a burst (even mechanical) at 24mm with same non-moving subject and you flip between images you see some minor changes in perspective/warping (sometimes its minor movement on my part, but even braced). Its more noticeable if you record movies with wider angle lenses (you see it in corners). It isn't something that produces bad images, but it does show it's tricky to implement. It think IBIS is an improvement overall and I like it.. so don't take that as a complaint/negative.

3rd party lenses developed their own image stabilization as at time (EF) they only had to worry about it on the lens, not the body. It'd be silly to expect Canon to map out the behaviour from older 3rd party lenses to work in tandem. Even so, it does seem to work most of the time for my Sigma 150-600 (kind of surprised).. so really, from my end, it's a very minor beef and not an expectation it'd work, more of an observation.

What does annoy me (minor) is that you can't seem to turn it off if it detects image stabilization on the lens. If it detects the lense has I.S. It stays on.. if it doesn't detect I.S.. it turns off.. Clearly this is software, so how about letting folks just toggle it off/on as needed?

 

[Macoose]

Snappy,
Have you tried disabling IBIS when there is no lens attached? I don't know if it would make a difference, but it is possible.

 

[EricN]

I wouldn't say so, but this is opinion on my part, but I do not think anyone here would know for sure either.

Since Canon designed and built the original EF image Stabilization and IBIS, they could map and figure out how to get IBIS to work in tandem with their lenses.

Canon IBIS is bleeding edge tech for Canon and the R5 was first with it. I find even native RF glass (RF 24-70 2.8L) has some minor issues with IBIS. It isn't immediately obvious but if you take a burst (even mechanical) at 24mm with same non-moving subject and you flip between images you see some minor changes in perspective/warping (sometimes its minor movement on my part, but even braced). Its more noticeable if you record movies with wider angle lenses (you see it in corners). It isn't something that produces bad images, but it does show it's tricky to implement. It think IBIS is an improvement overall and I like it.. so don't take that as a complaint/negative.

3rd party lenses developed their own image stabilization as at time (EF) they only had to worry about it on the lens, not the body. It'd be silly to expect Canon to map out the behaviour from older 3rd party lenses to work in tandem. Even so, it does seem to work most of the time for my Sigma 150-600 (kind of surprised).. so really, from my end, it's a very minor beef and not an expectation it'd work, more of an observation.

What does annoy me (minor) is that you can't seem to turn it off if it detects image stabilization on the lens. If it detects the lense has I.S. It stays on.. if it doesn't detect I.S.. it turns off.. Clearly this is software, so how about letting folks just toggle it off/on as needed?

Oh yeah, I remember reading comments describing that behavior with the IBIS with bursts or videos. Hopefully this will be improved (For some people, I imagine it's more important than increasing how many stops it can stabilize) I hadn't noticed it myself because I'm almost always using single shots and rarely making videos.

I'm surprised it's working with your 150-600.


Almost everyone has something they'd like changed or improved with the software. I think it will never happen, but something like Magic Lantern would be nice.

 

[snappy604]

Snappy,
Have you tried disabling IBIS when there is no lens attached? I don't know if it would make a difference, but it is possible.

Thanks for suggestion, but yes tried. The issue is if the R5 detects an IS capable lens.. it hides the IBIS option so you can't even tell if that does or doesn't work. This is even the case when I turn off I.S. on the Sigma but attach it, it still hides the setting. Again these are minor nuisances, but would be nice to have a bit of control over it and I don't think it'd be hard.

 

[snappy604]

Oh yeah, I remember reading comments describing that behavior with the IBIS with bursts or videos. Hopefully this will be improved (For some people, I imagine it's more important than increasing how many stops it can stabilize) I hadn't noticed it myself because I'm almost always using single shots and rarely making videos.

I'm surprised it's working with your 150-600.


Almost everyone has something they'd like changed or improved with the software. I think it will never happen, but something like Magic Lantern would be nice.

can't praise enough the work of the guy that created magic lantern.. crazy smart and useful. Showed a bunch of features were possible, just not programmed or were artificial market segmentation. A good chunk of what he did is now programmed/built into the R5 so mostly a moot point now I guess.. still like I mentioned earlier, it was a big reason I went canon, they seemed to be ok with letting others work with their kit.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Thanks for suggestion, but yes tried. The issue is if the R5 detects an IS capable lens.. it hides the IBIS option so you can't even tell if that does or doesn't work. This is even the case when I turn off I.S. on the Sigma but attach it, it still hides the setting. Again these are minor nuisances, but would be nice to have a bit of control over it and I don't think it'd be hard.

I believe that with Canon lenses that have IS, the switch on the lens barrel controls the whole ‘cooperative IS’ system – lens switch on means both OIS and IBIS are active, lens switch off means neither OIS nor IBIS are active. There is no way to decouple them.

No idea if turning off the lens IS switch on a 3rd party lens also shuts off the whoke system. I would think it should.

 

[snappy604]

I believe that with Canon lenses that have IS, the switch on the lens barrel controls the whole ‘cooperative IS’ system – lens switch on means both OIS and IBIS are active, lens switch off means neither OIS nor IBIS are active. There is no way to decouple them.

No idea if turning off the lens IS switch on a 3rd party lens also shuts off the whoke system. I would think it should.

can't tell.. it clearly can sense it even if off.. because it hides it from the menu.

 

[neuroanatomist]

can't tell.. it clearly can sense it even if off.. because it hides it from the menu.

That suggests it’s off when the switch is off. As you say, it knows the lens has IS, that’s why the camera disables the control.

 

[snappy604]

That suggests it’s off when the switch is off. As you say, it knows the lens has IS, that’s why the camera disables the control.

yeah but it'd be handy to have the IS on the lens and not IBIS on .. so maybe IBIS is off when IS is off, or maybe not.. again all hidden.