R5? R6? Anyone?

[Fast Glass]

I mean I get why someone might like the 100-500mm. But wow, $2800?!

So I looked at the 100-400mm II, it's still $2400!

Wow, I'm out of touch with what some of these cost. I remember when the original 100-400mm was well under 2k especially a good used one.

I'm used to the big whites being thousands, but those are serious professional level tools that deliver. I expect those to be expensive and having used some, they are indeed amazing.

I just don't really follow certain lenses that I don't have an interest in, I see the specs when they first come out and go that's interesting but not always see what they cost or research them much.

Might need to freshen up.

[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.

[Busted Knuckles]

So how long does it take to take 500 frames w/ the electronic shutter and 20 fps? well not that long. Just did a short tour of a popular birding spot and focused on perhaps 8 birds.... 467 frames later..... LOL LOL LOL

[Kayaker72]

Not long. It’s dangerous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[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.

[DavidEccleston]

Check your AF setup. I think Canon usually defaults to Servo bursts using Shutter Priority, then Focus Priority, so the first shot is taken when you press the shutter, focussed or not (okay for non-fast moving subjects / has no predictive focus, tracking always lags), then subsequent shots will use predictive focus. I change it to Focus priority always. See if this helps improve your keeper rate. It may add a delay a bit on a shutter press, so not always ideal, but far better for moving subjects. Shutter priority is good when you need a specific moment more than you need accurate focus.

[Fast Glass]

Check your AF setup. I think Canon usually defaults to Servo bursts using Shutter Priority, then Focus Priority, so the first shot is taken when you press the shutter, focussed or not (okay for non-fast moving subjects / has no predictive focus, tracking always lags), then subsequent shots will use predictive focus. I change it to Focus priority always. See if this helps improve your keeper rate. It may add a delay a bit on a shutter press, so not always ideal, but far better for moving subjects. Shutter priority is good when you need a specific moment more than you need accurate focus.

Next time I'm hanging out with him I'll bring that subject up and try it. I know we were not focused in making great images, we were focused on just lighting and how to control it. In the end he guided me to take my best lit portraits ever.

I just having a hard time with all the praise of this camera to dismiss it. I know others also feel the 1Dx III has better AF. But my issue is more about it being flat out poor in dim lighting vs the finer points of AF.

But I will definitely try. I didn't fiddle with the settings to see what could be done about it.

[Joel Eade]

Interesting comparison.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGrEWOZYgDw

[Kayaker72]

Interesting comparison.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGrEWOZYgDw

Interesting to see them side by side. I'd call them more similar than different. Of course, anymore, I am generally thinking that all the recent cameras are excellent and can do a lot of the same things. Some reviewers are still trying to find ways to differentiate the cameras, but these are getting less and less significant. I've always appreciated that Bryan talks about what cameras can do and really keeps comparisons to a very brief section at the end of the reviews. Nice to see Jared showing what they do and then stating his impressions having used both. Very interesting, despite is stated preference for high MP, he'd prefer the R3.

[Joel Eade]

Might be very interesting to see what the next R5 firmware update has for us in terms of AF performance.