Worst of Canon 2023: It’s Unanimous

[Del Paso]

There are very few ‘fully decoded’ 3rd party LP-E19 batteries, the ones that are will be very close in price to the 1st party ones. Batteries that aren’t fully decoded will not charge in camera and likely need a custom 3rd party charger for regular charging.

Having said that, the LP-E19 is infuriatingly dumb, so the charger has to do the heavy lifting for charging safety. The LP-E6 ones have more built in safety features.

I pretty much exclusively charge batteries in camera nowadays, it’s just too convenient! Another bonus is that I can use a power bank to charge it when away from
home as well. When the weather clears up here I want to spend a day in an observation hut, being able to work of a power bank should greatly improve the experience with my R8 and its puny LP-E19

The power-bank argument is convincing!

 

[scyrene]

Another bonus is that I can use a power bank to charge it when away from
home as well. When the weather clears up here I want to spend a day in an observation hut, being able to work of a power bank should greatly improve the experience with my R8 and its puny LP-E19

I wanted to be able to do this with the R6 but couldn't get it to work. Am I missing something?

 

[koenkooi]

I wanted to be able to do this with the R6 but couldn't get it to work. Am I missing something?

If it’s similar to my R5: You need an USB-PD power bank capable of 9V/1A, the battery icon will turn light grey when it works.



Charging needs only 5V/1.5A, which virtually all USB-PD chargers can provide.

The R5 and R6 are less capable than the R6II/R7/R8, the newer models will charge even with the power switch the to ‘on’, the R5 and R6 will only charge with it set to off.

 

[Bahrd]

youpube is an interesting typo. Freudian?

In a view of the discussion above (genuinely judicious and rational, in my opinion), it can also be "Einsteinian": a random error projected on a reader's "prison of his own ideas;"...

For a non-native English speaker this typo is quite innocuous and innocent.

PS
I also am disappointed by the initial results of the 200-800's image quality tests but will wait with a final verdict.
Many years ago, amid the 1D Mk III AF's affair, when the (larger) half of the Internet advised against "blind purchasing" of the Canon's equipment, I bought on-line 85L II and 70-200L II assuming that the 1D's problems would improve the QC of all other products. I don't know I was right or not, but they still are my favorite lenses.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

While I’d advise a used R10 instead, for new, the R100 seems to be better reviewed than the competing products at the price point. However, dare I say, this camera is missing the R’s Touch Bar.

A new R100 should still be cheaper.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Also, how strange am I for almost never using in-camera charging?

I have multiple batteries (two for my R3, four for my R8/M6II/M6), so at home I charge a spare to full in the wall charger then swap it in. I only use in-camera charging when traveling, to avoid carrying more chargers than I need.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Even if that's true, like most existing R-series users I'm not in the market for a Sony lens so I'm not sure it's particularly relevant.

It is still a fair criticism even though it is only at one focal length and ignores the flaws of the 200-600 and strengths of the 200-800.
One would think a teleconverter would make a mid-price lens less sharp.
Although, teleconverters actually give some advantages at test chart distances.
Close focusing is one of the advantages of the RF 200-800.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I say sometime because other times it is very sharp

Does that depend on distance?

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Of course the R100 seems like a total disaster from the perspective of more or less everyone on this forum, but I'm sure no one here is the target clientele for the R100.

That is to be expected.
What I find interesting is how wrong people often are about what they would not buy themselves but think other people will buy.

 

[Del Paso]

It is still a fair criticism even though it is only at one focal length and ignores the flaws of the 200-600 and strengths of the 200-800.
One would think a teleconverter would make a mid-price lens less sharp.
Although, teleconverters actually give some advantages at test chart distances.
Close focusing is one of the advantages of the RF 200-800.

Sharpness of a lens depends on distance, best examples are macro lenses. All lenses are optimised for the "usual" shooting distance. Therefore, assessing the sharpness of a telezoom by means of a test chart can lead to unrealistic results, if the chart isn't set up at "usual" shooting distance. Which, of course, also depends on the photographer's favourite subjects.
What is excellent for dragonflies could be mediocre for distant landscapes...

 

[AlanF]

Sharpness of a lens depends on distance, best examples are macro lenses. All lenses are optimised for the "usual" shooting distance. Therefore, assessing the sharpness of a telezoom by means of a test chart can lead to unrealistic results, if the chart isn't set up at "usual" shooting distance. Which, of course, also depends on the photographer's favourite subjects.
What is excellent for dragonflies could be mediocre for distant landscapes...

That it is a very important point. The only tests I am aware of where the distance is known are the Lensrentals, essentially at infinity on an optical bench, and TPD where he does have the information when you dig for it as he uses different distances and different charts for them to fill the frame. Incidentally, some of the Nikon telephotos appear to be optimised for close up.

 

[john1970]

Does that depend on distance?

I do not recall sharpness depending on distance although with any subject if it is too far away sharpness can suffer from atmospheric interferences and have less to do with the lens. I would say that most subjects were within 50 feet of the lens. With that said, I did not perform a perfectly controlled experiment. I could do that once weather improves in the spring.

 

[esglord]

A new R100 should still be cheaper.

Depends where you are and when you look I suppose. Right now, R10 is $499 refurbished with the kit lens from Canon and R100 is $499 on sale new with the kit lens at a couple authorized dealers

 

[esglord]

I have multiple batteries (two for my R3, four for my R8/M6II/M6), so at home I charge a spare to full in the wall charger then swap it in. I only use in-camera charging when traveling, to avoid carrying more chargers than I need.

Yes, I always have a spare battery charged or charging, so that’s probably why I don’t value the feature very highly, but mostly, I’m just stubborn and should probably change my habits.

 

[John Wilde]

Most first-time camera buyers are used to taking photos with a smartphone. The R100's lack of a touchscreen is crazy. Even the 2017 M100 had a touchscreen.

The Japan-only BCN Retail shows the R50 selling well in that country, but I don't recall ever seeing the R100 on their Top 50 list.

 

[juststeve]

Back in olden times (days of film) the lens chart testing standard was 50 times focal length for distance between chart and film plane. I believe TDP is operating similarly. However, one can quickly see where 50 times the focal length could be a problem. Not so for a 10-20 lens. The chart would be in .5 meter to 1 meter range. Of course lighting it evenly could be a bit of a challenge. But that 200-800 would need to be 10 meters to 40 meters away from the chart. Might need to rent an indoor stadium..

 

[neuroanatomist]

But that 200-800 would need to be 10 meters to 40 meters away from the chart. Might need to rent an indoor stadium..

That’s why testers use a smaller chart at a closer distance.

 

[vikingar]

Most first-time camera buyers are used to taking photos with a smartphone. The R100's lack of a touchscreen is crazy. Even the 2017 M100 had a touchscreen.

I'd argue the R100 doesn't need a touchscreen.

Why? Well with the R100, Canon is selling the experience of taking photos like a real photographer, through the EVF.

Thats the distinguishing feature why people buy an entry-level camera nowadays. If they wanted to take a picture with a touchscreen they'd just use their phones. The specs don't even matter so much.

And everyone comparing with the M100 is missing the point: the M100 was intended as a entry-level point-and-shoot alternative or a second camera for someone who already has a larger camera. Both those use cases are now covered by the smartphone.

Entry-level today means it has an EVF like a DSLR did to sell the experience, and thats exactly what Canon prioritized here.

 

[scyrene]

If it’s similar to my R5: You need an USB-PD power bank capable of 9V/1A, the battery icon will turn light grey when it works.

View attachment 213827

Charging needs only 5V/1.5A, which virtually all USB-PD chargers can provide.

The R5 and R6 are less capable than the R6II/R7/R8, the newer models will charge even with the power switch the to ‘on’, the R5 and R6 will only charge with it set to off.

Thanks. Maybe I'll need a new power bank!

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'd argue the R100 doesn't need a touchscreen.

Why? Well with the R100, Canon is selling the experience of taking photos like a real photographer, through the EVF.

Thats the distinguishing feature why people buy an entry-level camera nowadays. If they wanted to take a picture with a touchscreen they'd just use their phones. The specs don't even matter so much.

And everyone comparing with the M100 is missing the point: the M100 was intended as a entry-level point-and-shoot alternative or a second camera for someone who already has a larger camera. Both those use cases are now covered by the smartphone.

Entry-level today means it has an EVF like a DSLR did to sell the experience, and thats exactly what Canon prioritized here.

Excellent point!