R5? R6? Anyone?

[neuroanatomist]

The L-series RF lenses are more expensive than their EF counterparts, sometimes substantially so. But they generally offer meaningful improvements for that extra money. An extra 100mm on the long end of the 100-500, IS on the 24-70/2.8, an extra 2mm on the wide end of the 14-35/4 IS, a lighter and much more compact 70-200/2.8, etc. The 24-105/4 didn’t seem to offer any significant improvements, but it launched at the same price as it’s EF predecessor.

At the other end of the cost spectrum, the RF system offers some excellent budget lenses (as long as you’re willing to give up a stop or two of light, which if you’re upgrading from an older DSLR can be compensated by the significant ISO noise improvements in newer cameras). The 600/11 and 800/11 give unprecedented reach in an OEM lens at that cost, the new RF 100-400 is small, light, and delivers great optical performance at low cost, then there’s the 16/2.8 as an inexpensive ultrawide option. I think it’s truly impressive that you can get a three-lens RF kit spanning 16-400mm (16/2.8, 24-105 non-L, 100-400) for $1300.

[Fast Glass]

100%! The RF stuff is amazing glass.

I got to spend some time with a very good friend who is a incredible photographer and was teaching me lighting and using mono lights, flashes, different monolights ect.

But he also uses the RF system and the R5 along with the RF 85mm f/1.2. Besides the IQ being insanely good, the AF actually sucked. The eye detect matched exactly what I was used to on the 1Dx III and not good at all. Most of the images didn't focus and it was faster, easier and more accurate to use my 1Ds III. Eye glasses wrecked havoc on the eye detect AF. I'm doubtful he or I got a single image in focus even at f/4 or f/5.6 in the poor lighting, good lighting was much better though. The closest we got to it being in focus was the eye lashes, she had longish eye lashes so it resulted in clearly OOF images. Other times it was just way off. VS my 1Ds III when it nails the images, which is most of the time, it is consistently on the actual eye. It's actually scary accurate, including my 1D III, focuses EXACTLY the same with no AF micro adjustment.

This is the 3rd RF body I have used not counting the DPAF of the 1Dx III. What I am finding is most people either really don't look at their images that closely or think the eye lashes is where you want focus. Or in my cases we were focused on lighting so focus was barely on our radar. But in either case I never found it faster and super annoying to the point I wanted to throw the camera away, it was so annoying. I did get stuff in focus with my 1Dx III I had, but I was either using single point or I was kind of trying to use it within it's limits, when we were shooting it was dim evening light or indoors. Which even with the 1Dx III it would struggle to the point I also felt the same way.

I'm willing to try other bodies, but 0 out of 3 compared to PDAF doesn't look good and I don't see it being better. But I'm keeping an open mind.

The R3 promises to be much much better, along with the R1. The R5 unless it proves itself otherwise to me is just incredibly annoying to me. I can focus and recomposes much much faster.

To reiterate, this is not how it always behaves, just in dim light. In good light it is much more consistent and accurate.

[Busted Knuckles]

Man need to RTFM again i think.


Found that when face recognition focusing is on and it fixes on the wrong subject, I can mfn button to jump it back to the center. So aim at the target. Mfn button (twice) to kick it to the center and poof it is tracking the right target. This might be old news to everyone but me.... wrong target acquisition was a major frustration of mine with the body i rented