Anyone using an R8?

[DavidEccleston]

Interesting that the R8 has a mechanical second curtain shutter, yet they don't use it to protect the sensor when off. I'm going to guess that one was marketing driven, to not make the R8 too appealing.

The only EF-S mode mentions I could find anywhere were all about using the 10-18mm for vlogging. I couldn't find a single still image. I know it's a niche feature, but that was surprising.

I looked up the Fv mode. It's basically you choose one thing, the camera auto selects the other two. So it's 1) Av+Auto Tv/ISO, 2) Tv+Auto Av/ISO, or 3) manual ISO+Auto Av/Tv, with the camera auto selecting every creative option, ie. DoF and motion blur. I'd still prefer to choose the creative parts and let the camera select just the exposure.

Maybe Fv is smarter than the old sports mode which used a fixed 1/60th shutter. I can't remember if this baffling choice was on the Canon T1i or the old Sony H1, but I lost any trust of camera firmware authors after that. Perhaps with the AI subject detection it chooses an appropriate shutter speed, but what does it consider appropriate? No blur? A bit of blur on something fast? What makes the DoF appropriate? It doesn't know if I want an isolated subject. Nah, I'd rather pick.

Since Auto ISO was already a thing, the only real new option it gives you is manual ISO + Auto everything else... which is green box mode with a random Av or Tv change applied to compensate for your ISO choice... Or am I missing something compelling?

Adding further wrinkles (that nobody can help with) Magda wanted something light, as the old 1Ds2 hurt her hands. She also requested a zoom faster than 2.8 since she became aware such a thing existed... The two requests seem mutually exclusive on Canon mirrorless, as the RF 28-70 f/2 seems to be the only option, and it weighs the same as the 1Ds2 did. Maybe I need to invest in helium lens coats.

[neuroanatomist]

I looked up the Fv mode. It's basically you choose one thing, the camera auto selects the other two. So it's 1) Av+Auto Tv/ISO, 2) Tv+Auto Av/ISO, or 3) manual ISO+Auto Av/Tv, with the camera auto selecting every creative option, ie. DoF and motion blur. I'd still prefer to choose the creative parts and let the camera select just the exposure.

Maybe Fv is smarter than the old sports mode which used a fixed 1/60th shutter. I can't remember if this baffling choice was on the Canon T1i or the old Sony H1, but I lost any trust of camera firmware authors after that. Perhaps with the AI subject detection it chooses an appropriate shutter speed, but what does it consider appropriate? No blur? A bit of blur on something fast? What makes the DoF appropriate? It doesn't know if I want an isolated subject. Nah, I'd rather pick.

Since Auto ISO was already a thing, the only real new option it gives you is manual ISO + Auto everything else... which is green box mode with a random Av or Tv change applied to compensate for your ISO choice... Or am I missing something compelling?

I think you're missing something compelling.

With Fv, one dial controls which side of the exposure triangle you are setting and the other dial controls the value for that setting. I view it as a practical combination of Av+Tv+M (+P), and functionally you can switch between analogs of all those modes on the fly. You can set any or all of the three controls to Auto in Fv mode, but you can also set a specific value for any or all of them in Fv. If you set all of them to Auto, that's like P mode. If you set two of them to Auto, that's like Tv or Av mode with Auto ISO. If you set all of them to a specific value, that's like M mode. But all of that is done without changing your mode dial.

In M mode on a three-dial camera, you can have shutter speed, aperture and ISO each on their own dial. Fv mode gets you very close to that capability with only two dials.

https://www.eos-magazine.com/article...e/fv-mode.html

The only 'challenge' is if you have dialed in a setting for one of the values then you want to go back to Auto for that setting. Auto is at one end of the range, i.e. if you're in Fv mode shooting with a specified aperture and you decide you need a fast shutter speed. You rotate the quick dial 2 to select shutter speed and you rotate the main dial to set 1/1000 s. But then you want to go back to Auto, so you have to spin the main dial all the way past 30 s, which is a lot of clicks (granted, you had to do that to get from Auto to 1/1000 s). My workaround for that is to set a button to reset the active control to Auto (a button can also be assigned to reset all three controls to Auto).

To be honest, I just left Fv alone for a while. Reading about it made it seem cumbersome and a bit confusing. But once I started using it, I loved it. On my R3, I have mode changes assigned to the M.Fn button and I have the available modes restricted to M and C1-3. All of my C# modes are based on Fv; C1 for static subjects, C2 for moving subjects, C3 for birds, with different controls set to default values e.g. C3 is set to aperture wide open (I set it with an f/1.4 lens mounted so any lens I mount starts wide open), shutter speed 1/2500 s and Auto ISO. But I can change any of those on the fly with Fv.

[Jonathan Huyer]

Wow thanks for that explanation! Super helpful.

[DavidEccleston]

Yes, thanks for the explanation. It's something to try out if/when I get one of the R's.

[DavidEccleston]

So.... I'm rethinking the RF 100-500mm, and considering the EF 100-400mm II and an EF 1.4x. Why? Because it would ALSO work on the 7D2.

As I mentioned above, I already find the 70-300L's reach limiting, and it's equal to a 480mm FOV on the 7D2. The so 100-500mm buy me the same reach with the R8's higher quality pixels. Maybe some extra cropping power, but no real extra reach. The RF 1.4x would get some extra reach, but currently only works on 3 lenses, the 100-500mm being the only one I'm interested in (the other f/11 super-teles all appear soft in Bryan's charts... maybe they're better real world).

The 100-400mm on the other hand would buy me more reach on the 7D2. The extender would nearly double my current reach (560mm vs 300mm)... but yes, bit softer. The lens would also work on the R8 w/ or w/out the extender w/ the EF adapter, which I'd most likely be getting anyway to keep my other lenses available.

A worthwhile option, or a pointless clinging to my old camera where I'd wish I'd just gone with the RF from the start?

[Joel Eade]

I have both the RF100-500 and the EF100-400 .... they both work well on the R5

I think with the 1.4 TC you will not notice much drop in sharpness with the EF100-400 but the AF maybe a touch slower.

I have not tried the teleconverters with the RF100-500 but at 500mm it is an f/7.1 lens already, adding a 1.4TC loses one more stop I think.

I use the RF100-500 a lot on my R5 and it is very sharp for a zoom lens, no issue there at all and I am sure you would love it on the R8. (see my Tiger Swallowtail image in the August part II competition) In 1.6 crop mode you sort of get the effect of a teleconverter.

So, for versatility if you plan to still use the 7D2 frequently, go with the EF100-400, RF-EF adapter and the 1.4TC

If you think you are going to go completely to mirrorless (which I think you might once you get the R8!) and sell the 7D2 go with the RF100-500.

[Kayaker72]

So.... I'm rethinking the RF 100-500mm, and considering the EF 100-400mm II and an EF 1.4x. Why? Because it would ALSO work on the 7D2.

As I mentioned above, I already find the 70-300L's reach limiting, and it's equal to a 480mm FOV on the 7D2.

When you want reach, there is no such thing as enough. But, if you have figured out the 100-400 plus TC will allow you to photograph something you couldn't with the 100-300L, cool. I still have the EF 100-400 II and use it fairly regularly with the 1.4TC. IQ sharpness is great. I think bokeh takes a slight hit. AF, I mean, the general consensus has always been that it falls off with the 1.4xTC, I still find it to be snappy and have used it for BIF, etc. It does hunt a bit more often. But, overall, a great combination. All of these comments are based on my used on the 5DIV and R5.

And while I opened up with the "no such thing as enough" reach comment, I can also say, I own the 100-300L and the 100-400 II. I picked up the 100-300L on a good deal when I shot with the Sigma 150-600S as a light weight alternative. After I picked up the 100-400 II, the 100-300L pretty much just sits. The difference in reach is noticeable and worth the extra weight.

A worthwhile option, or a pointless clinging to my old camera where I'd wish I'd just gone with the RF from the start?

I am not sure if you are debating having two camera bodies or not, but a photon-to-photos chart on DR. I checked, and it is almost the exact difference I see with my M6 II vs R5, which I find to be a noticeable difference. Low ISO, not so much, but mid-ISO and long exposures, absolutely. High ISO, not even really comparable. So, while you are considering reach, you may also consider the other benefits of the R8. Low light, modern AF, AF across the entire screen, etc.


As for advice, my thoughts pretty much mirror Joel's.

[DavidEccleston]

So, we WANT the full-frame FOV, thin DOF, lower noise, etc at times. But we also want reach for wildlife. They two separate issues. The 70-300L is nice, but definitely has it's limits.

Further digging reveals it's commonly believed that the EF 100-400 II doesn't resolve enough to add any detail with a 1.4x over just cropping the bare lens with used on a crop body... so I'd really only get 400mm usable reach anyway. (640mm equiv.), it would just be softer and need more downsampling with the 1.4x.

On the other hand, the RF 100-500 DOES resolve extra detail. Adding the 1.4x makes it 300-700mm. If I went all out and got both an R8 and an R7, I'd have an effective reach of 1120mm, more than double my current 300 (effective 480), plus 50% more pixels... that's a lot of reach.

[DavidEccleston]

Another interesting recent development is the idea of the 0.71x mount adapter. Intended for super 35 cinema bodies to make better use of EF glass, it is similar to a reversal of the 1.6x crop (not exact), making lenses use the full FOV of a lens on a crop body, regaining the lost light, and acting a stop faster... so perhaps giving you something like FF framing, DOF, and noise levels on a crop body.

This sounded pretty cool. BUT. Canon's version of this adds in purple flaring. And Canon, not wanting to share the RF mount yet, is suing the maker of an alternative... people are expecting a firmware update to block the non-Canon adapter... sigh.

It's a neat idea that makes choice between FF and crop less distinct, with crop bodies getting the ability hold a dual role depending on the use of the converter or not... Of course it doesn't help you with actual RF glass, only converted EF glass, so it's likely to become a less useful trick over time, so not really a viable option.

[DavidEccleston]

Alright, enough talk.

Ordered: R7, R8, 2x mount adaptors, 2x Lexar 128GB v60 cards (one free with each camera), 2x Lexar 64GB v90 cards (they write twice the speed), an RF 100-500mm, an RF 1.4x, and a spare battery for each.