Canon EOS R Series Cameras

[soupdragon]

Seriously thinking about investing in RF glass next year. 85mm or 70-200mm
Would be my first choices. It seems
a shame only having one lens - the 35mm
F/1.8 which isn’t even an L lens.

I owned the RF 70-200 2.8 as well as the RF 85 1.2.
Once again the 70-200 is a marvel of optical/mechanical engineering and as far as I can tell, is peerless.
It does, however, have a major downside in as much as you cannot fit teleconverters. Not sure what Canon were thinking there.

 

[gilbouk]

I owned the RF 70-200 2.8 as well as the RF 85 1.2.
Once again the 70-200 is a marvel of optical/mechanical engineering and as far as I can tell, is peerless.
It does, however, have a major downside in as much as you cannot fit teleconverters. Not sure what Canon were thinking there.

Didn't realise that about the 70-200mm that really sucks. I recently owned the 70-200mm mkII - after trying my friends. Either he has an amazing copy, or I got a plum as mine was always soft. I tried his 70-200mm again just the other week and I still lust after it.

AF8A1359 by Gilbo B, on Flickr

Certainly for wildlife the teleconverter compatibility is useful - that being said I would like a 100-400mm or 100-500mm (although slower than the 700-200 even with a teleconverter). I have the EF 100-400mm on rental and will be heading out with it this morning for the first time

 

[Hanley]

The RF 85mm 1.2 isn't stabilised but I don't think that's relevant now as you get that from the body so it's not a big deal like it used to be.
As soup dragon says, this lens is as close to perfect as I've seen, 2 downsides, the price and the size But you can't have an 85mm 1.2 and it not be big.

I was testing it yesterday on the dog and my wife, even at 1.2 it never missed.
It stuck to the dogs eye like glue, so all I had to worry about was composition in the frame, with confidence the focus will hit.

I used to have EF lenses but started my transition to RF in late 2019, over the last 2 years I've put together a good collection

RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L
RF 70-200mm f/2.8L
RF 85mm f/1.2L
RF 50mm f/1.2L
RF 15-35mm f/2.8L

I can tell your each one of them is perfect in its own right.
I've had the 70-200 and 15-35 for 2 years now and just love them, got the 50 and the 100-500 last year, for wildlife the 100-500 is incredible, so much so that I chose not to buy a big white, I didn't see the point to be honest as I'm not a full time photographer, so spent that cash on the R3 instead.
I've used the 50mm a lot, it's probably on the camera more than anything else, and now I've just got the 85mm which I'll be using at every opportunity.

So I guess in summary, you won't regret buying a premium RF lens.

 

[Hanley]

I know these are not the best pics as we were sat in the lounge testing the 85mm, but they show how accurate the eye detection is, these were all shot at f/1.2

 

[soupdragon]

I still think the 100-400 mkii is the best of the bunch if you're an EF shooter.

 

[soupdragon]

The RF 85mm 1.2 isn't stabilised but I don't think that's relevant now as you get that from the body so it's not a big deal like it used to be.
As soup dragon says, this lens is as close to perfect as I've seen, 2 downsides, the price and the size But you can't have an 85mm 1.2 and it not be big.

I was testing it yesterday on the dog and my wife, even at 1.2 it never missed.
It stuck to the dogs eye like glue, so all I had to worry about was composition in the frame, with confidence the focus will hit.

I used to have EF lenses but started my transition to RF in late 2019, over the last 2 years I've put together a good collection

RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L
RF 70-200mm f/2.8L
RF 85mm f/1.2L
RF 50mm f/1.2L
RF 15-35mm f/2.8L

I can tell your each one of them is perfect in its own right.
I've had the 70-200 and 15-35 for 2 years now and just love them, got the 50 and the 100-500 last year, for wildlife the 100-500 is incredible, so much so that I chose not to buy a big white, I didn't see the point to be honest as I'm not a full time photographer, so spent that cash on the R3 instead.
I've used the 50mm a lot, it's probably on the camera more than anything else, and now I've just got the 85mm which I'll be using at every opportunity.

So I guess in summary, you won't regret buying a premium RF lens.

My bad. I forgot the stabilisation was in body on the R5.

 

[KIPAX]

I still think the 100-400 mkii is the best of the bunch if you're an EF shooter.

for what?

 

[Hanley]

I still think the 100-400 mkii is the best of the bunch if you're an EF shooter.

I never had the EF 100-400 MK II but a friend did, he's since upgraded to the 100-500 and says it is streets ahead in AF speed and sharpness.

 

[soupdragon]

for what?

Taking pictures.

 

[soupdragon]

I never had the EF 100-400 MK II but a friend did, he's since upgraded to the 100-500 and says it is streets ahead in AF speed and sharpness.

I'll take your word for it.
I was put off once again by lack of full compatibility with tele converters.

 

[KIPAX]

Taking pictures.

Useless for me. Wouldn't give it house room.. not fast enough

 

[soupdragon]

Useless for me. Wouldn't give it house room.. not fast enough

Do you own the big white primes?

 

[KIPAX]

Do you own the big white primes?

certainly do f2.8

 

[Hanley]

So I photographed my first parkrun with the R3 this morning, damn the AF is quick.

I see a runner, lift the eye piece to my eye and as I look through it the camera has already found the face and started tracking it.
It definitely feels stickier than the R5 and R6. The camera itself, even though it looks big and bulky, is very light to hold, or feels that way anyway.

And it was a very festive parkrun

 

[KIPAX]

Hmmm, if high ISO is your main criteria then I'd look at the R6 or the R3.
I currently have the R5, R6 and R3 and from my own experience the R3 is best,

I conceded other cameras maybe better at high ISO than an R5 But humour me ?

If you shot a picture in poor lighting with a decent exposure at ISO 51200 on the R6 and resized to 2000 pixels.. Then took the same shot on the R5 and resized to 2000 pixels which would look best.. I am thinking the downsizing will beat the better capabilities ?? But I cant test that

 

[LCPete]

One thing I noticed with the R5 is that I can get away with lower shutter speeds for stationary subjects than with my 7D2 I was expecting to have to go to higher speeds because of the increase in resolution
Using EF 300 2.8 with 1.4 and 2.0 converters on a monopod
So the in body stabilisation must work in addition to the IS on the lens , someone on here did sat that was the case but I was still surprised how much difference there was , it means that I can shoot at 600 mm even in poor light on the monopod

 

[gilbouk]

I conceded other cameras maybe better at high ISO than an R5 But humour me ?

If you shot a picture in poor lighting with a decent exposure at ISO 51200 on the R6 and resized to 2000 pixels.. Then took the same shot on the R5 and resized to 2000 pixels which would look best.. I am thinking the downsizing will beat the better capabilities ?? But I cant test that

Good point - but for many it comes to affordability. I would love the r5 but for now I have to 'make do' with the r6 and fill the frame as best I can for the best results at the lower resolution.

I never had the EF 100-400 MK II but a friend did, he's since upgraded to the 100-500 and says it is streets ahead in AF speed and sharpness.

Again affordability - the 100-500mm may be lights years ahead, but I'd be happy with the 100-400mm as a very capable tool given what I have achieved with it on my first outing.

Look at the ISO on these ones - and I've not used selective de-noising or topaz. (I realise I should have had a slower shutter speed - but it shows you that images shot with such a high ISO can still be very useable). In the past I would just throw away photos with this hight an ISO. Shot with the r6 and the 100-400mm mkII.

AF8A4484 1 by Gilbo B, on Flickr

AF8A4544 1 by Gilbo B, on Flickr

 

[Buck]

They are excellent and that high ISO.
I have the Mk I 100-400 so hoping for something similar.
I chanced across some stags yesterday and had to put he ISO to 6400 on my 5D MkII and they are sooo grainy/noisy!

 

[Hanley]

Again affordability - the 100-500mm may be lights years ahead, but I'd be happy with the 100-400mm as a very capable tool given what I have achieved with it on my first outing.

I agree, and if I already owned the 100-400 MK II I wouldn't have bought the RF 100-500.
But as I didn't it made sense to buy the RF.

 

[Dexster]

Do any members that own a R3/5/6 live in Worcester? Reason being is that I have bought a new RF 100-500 from Panamoz and would like to try it out before I go back home to Crete, if there are any issues with it getting it sorted in the UK will be a lot easier than doing it from Greece. In all the madness to get tests, boosters etc I forgot to pack my R5.
Thank you.

 

[Bebop]

I have upgraded from the 100-400ii but to be honest I have not noticed any difference re sharpness nor speed of AF. I think the 100-400ii is very capable. I haven't tested them side by side.

My reason for upgrading was an opportunity to get some birding shots in Spain - I fancied the extra reach and slightly more compact design. It is a terrible faff if you use an extender and also have to deal with the adapter on the 100-400. I'm also wanting to make the most of life while I can

A downside I think, is that you can only attach the extender at 300mm or more. I knew this, but forgot that this means it is actually 420mm at the wide end, and it does make it trickier to capture those birds in flight. It also makes it f/10 at the long end and it no longer fits in my smaller camera bags with the extender on!

 

[rob-nikon]

First trip out today with the R6. The misty forecast seems to work well for woodland so I visited a local wood. I always seem to struggle with woodlands as I can never find good compositions. They just seem to be too chaotic. It was a nice walk around for a few hours even if I had to share the place with lots of noisy dog walkers and mountain bikers.

Taken with Canon R6 and 24-105 f4.


Misty Woods by Rob Cain, on Flickr

 

[KIPAX]

Good point - but for many it comes to affordability. I would love the r5 but for now I have to 'make do' with the r6 and fill the frame as best I can for the best results at the lower resolution.

I did quote @Hanley in my post as it was aimed at him seeing as he does own the r6 r5 and r3 so more able to compare

 

[gilbouk]

An outing with the 100-400mm Mk II today - tried hand holding vs tripod and found it easier to achieve good results without the tripod. There was visible vibration through the EVF with IS turned off on the tripod even when trying to dampen it by holding the end of the lens. Where as I was able to get keepers even as low as 1/80 SS handheld with IS!! Astounded at how well IS works - I always had to shoot at least 1/250 with my Nikon Z6 and 300mm EF f/4 IF ED. Some of my best results even given the poor light I was able to achieve very clean results with relatively low ISO compared to what I had expected given the conditions.

AF8A4793 by Gilbo B, on Flickr
AF8A4781 by Gilbo B, on Flickr

More photos from today over on my Flickr

 

[Hanley]

I did quote @Hanley in my post as it was aimed at him seeing as he does own the r6 r5 and r3 so more able to compare

I’m struggling to find time to get out with any camera let alone all 3

 

[Buck]

First trip out today with the R6. The misty forecast seems to work well for woodland so I visited a local wood. I always seem to struggle with woodlands as I can never find good compositions. They just seem to be too chaotic. It was a nice walk around for a few hours even if I had to share the place with lots of noisy dog walkers and mountain bikers.

Taken with Canon R6 and 24-105 f4.


Misty Woods by Rob Cain, on Flickr

Did you enjoy the R6 compared to what you thought it might be like?

Woodland is tough to get compositions right. i know this is about the R cameras so let me know if you want to delete this post but you have edit as “yes”, soI had a go to see if I could tweak your composition. I think you need to be lower S I feel I am looking down? Also, the foreground is a bit empty and that fern distracts me.

 

[Buck]

An outing with the 100-400mm Mk II today - tried hand holding vs tripod and found it easier to achieve good results without the tripod. There was visible vibration through the EVF with IS turned off on the tripod even when trying to dampen it by holding the end of the lens. Where as I was able to get keepers even as low as 1/80 SS handheld with IS!! Astounded at how well IS works - I always had to shoot at least 1/250 with my Nikon Z6 and 300mm EF f/4 IF ED. Some of my best results even given the poor light I was able to achieve very clean results with relatively low ISO compared to what I had expected given the conditions.

AF8A4793 by Gilbo B, on Flickr
AF8A4781 by Gilbo B, on Flickr

More photos from today over on my Flickr

Gil, have you owned the Mk I version? m just wondering how it compares as those are fantastic shots and the detail is superb.

 

[rob-nikon]

Did you enjoy the R6 compared to what you thought it might be like?

Woodland is tough to get compositions right. i know this is about the R cameras so let me know if you want to delete this post but you have edit as “yes”, soI had a go to see if I could tweak your composition. I think you need to be lower S I feel I am looking down? Also, the foreground is a bit empty and that fern distracts me.

View attachment 338527

Thanks for the edit, it’s good (at first I didn’t think it was from the same photo!). When I got the photos on the computer I thought I should next time try something like what you’ve done here. I didn’t fancy cropping yet as I’m unsure what I can get away with on the R6.

Originally it was the single green fern amongst all the brown that attracted me towards this area hence trying to make it foreground interest. Your edit looks more like the type of photo I’m really for.

I had the R6 on test drive a about 6 months ago so it wasn’t my first time using one. I’m coming from the Sony A9 so it’s more of an all round camera rather than one built for speed. The compactness of the 24-105 f4 and 70-200 f4 was a big draw. So easy to carry around.

 

[gilbouk]

Gil, have you owned the Mk I version? m just wondering how it compares as those are fantastic shots and the detail is superb.

I haven’t @Buck but I’m guessing AF won’t be as good. The 100-400mm MKII I have is from (Lenses For Hire) @StewartR over Christmas. It’s a superb copy optically and hope when I get round to buying one I get one that’s as sharp. My luck with buying second hand telephotos hasn’t been great when it comes to sharpness. My experience has been I end up with soft lenses. Either they’ve had a knock in their past or are just bad copies.

 

[KIPAX]

I’m struggling to find time to get out with any camera let alone all 3

Sorry mate wasnt trying to preassure
I gte mine today or tomorrow so will know anyways for the r5 ..thanks

 

[Buck]

I’m just about to order my R5

What recommendations do you have for memory cards as I’ll need to upgrade from my current CF cards. I was thinking a couple of 32GB or do you think with file size I should be looking at 64GB (I’m a landscaper so I don’t necessarily plan to fill my card with 100s of action shots - but who knows?)

A quick look shows Lexar to be a lot cheaper than say Sandisk Pro? (I’ve always used Sandisk). Any other recommendations. Is the benefit if dual cards back up/redundancy or am I missing something?

Also, I was looking for an L bracket. Who uses one and would you recommend it?

Cheers

 

[TimHughes]

I’m just about to order my R5

What recommendations do you have for memory cards as I’ll need to upgrade from my current CF cards. I was thinking a couple of 32GB or do you think with file size I should be looking at 64GB (I’m a landscaper so I don’t necessarily plan to fill my card with 100s of action shots - but who knows?)

A quick look shows Lexar to be a lot cheaper than say Sandisk Pro? (I’ve always used Sandisk). Any other recommendations. Is the benefit if dual cards back up/redundancy or am I missing something?

Also, I was looking for an L bracket. Who uses one and would you recommend it?

Cheers

I have sandisk SD UHS-II and agfa Cfexpress type B. I've Lexar before for 1DXM2 and found them perfectly reliable. Looks like a good deal.

With the R5 I only occasionally use an L bracket and when I do it's a simple generic one from sunway photo (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1114116-REG/sunwayfoto_dpl_03r_universal_l_bracket.html)

 

[Bebop]

I had a very good customer experience with Lexar when they replaced a faulty SD card, so I went with them for my CFexpress card.

 

[rob-nikon]

I was looking for an L bracket. Who uses one and would you recommend it?

I always have a L bracket attached. I don’t use it unless doing landscapes on a tripod but hate taking it off and putting it on so leave it on all the time.

I ordered the 3 legged thing Roxie L bracket with the R6. It’s more expensive than a generic L bracket but fits much better. The Roxie L bracket has an additional locating pin to make sure the camera is aligned straight on the L bracket. that’s a nice feature.

My only gripe would be the width of the cut out on the vertical side. It’s a bit too large for the width of my ball head clamp so I will need to be careful when locking it into the ball head clamp as the clamp is only slightly bigger than the gap in the L bracket. The cut out is needed so you can turn the screen out. The screen is still impeded slightly by having an L bracket there but it’s still useable.

I went with the grey version as the orange version would stand out far too much for my liking.

3 Legged Thing Roxie L Bracket - Grey | Wex Photo Video

www.wexphotovideo.com

Another manufacturer I’ve used previously is sunwayfoto. Their camera specific L brackets are usually good.

 

[stickytape]

I’m just about to order my R5

What recommendations do you have for memory cards as I’ll need to upgrade from my current CF cards. I was thinking a couple of 32GB or do you think with file size I should be looking at 64GB (I’m a landscaper so I don’t necessarily plan to fill my card with 100s of action shots - but who knows?)

A quick look shows Lexar to be a lot cheaper than say Sandisk Pro? (I’ve always used Sandisk). Any other recommendations. Is the benefit if dual cards back up/redundancy or am I missing something?

Also, I was looking for an L bracket. Who uses one and would you recommend it?

Cheers

I’ve just got a pro grade off of amazon (256gb) and a bunch of Sandusky 128gb SD cards I keep around as backup

 

[robinsslee]

I went with 3LT L-bracket as well, couldn't find anything 3rd party wise and Sunwayfoto has been reliable on my previous generations.

Also thinking of getting Sandisk 512gb CF Express card. That Integral 128gb CFEx I've got isn't cutting edge on clearing buffer. Can't record on 4k 120fps and buffer filled up within 5 secs.

Prices as of Amazon today.
Delkin 512gb £510.26 £1.00/gb
Prograde Cobalt 325gb £377.00 £1.16/gb
Sony Tough 512gb £649.0 £1.26/gb
Sandisk 512gb £530.58 £1.04/gb

Delkin, a tad slower but best value.
Prograde is good but expensive.
Sony Tough cost is on another planet.
Sandisk, fast and cost comparable to Delkin.

 

[TimHughes]

I went with 3LT L-bracket as well, couldn't find anything 3rd party wise and Sunwayfoto has been reliable on my previous generations.

Also thinking of getting Sandisk 512gb CF Express card. That Integral 128gb CFEx I've got isn't cutting edge on clearing buffer. Can't record on 4k 120fps and buffer filled up within 5 secs.

Prices as of Amazon today.
Delkin 512gb £510.26 £1.00/gb
Prograde Cobalt 325gb £377.00 £1.16/gb
Sony Tough 512gb £649.0 £1.26/gb
Sandisk 512gb £530.58 £1.04/gb

Delkin, a tad slower but best value.
Prograde is good but expensive.
Sony Tough cost is on another planet.
Sandisk, fast and cost comparable to Delkin.

I have Sony tough cfexpress too, I see no difference in practice to Agfa

 

[KIPAX]

Just had my first outing with the R5 - Borrowed from canon for two weeks testing before deciding to buy

My test was for low light sports so my comments are based on that.. I did a game at ISO 51200 f2.8 this evening... I already own 1dxII which has the same ISO capabilities but only half the file size.. so it made sense to me that the added ability to reduce to 25% (I only need 2000 pixels longest edge for my jobs) would be as good as a stop or two noise reduction..

First thing.. Its light which is good when your my age The back screen being so versatile and touch is good... The eye focus works amazingly even in poor lighting ..I had it setup for BBF with AF-on for eye focus and * for spot focus

Althuogh the eye focus was amazing it does have drawbacks if more than one player in the pic and you would prefer it on on particular one. (important at f2.8). if theres a way around the camera choosing then ?

there was quite a few things I like about the camera

however

the high ISO is poor.. so poor that my idea didnt work because iso 51200 is so blockey
the focusing in poor light using a 400mm f2.8 lens was absoloutly dire If that was an important game and not a test i would have missed important things....


the above two are massive deal breakers as the whole point of me trying the camera was for low light sport..nothing else...

All above based on one hrs shooting... Ih ave a few more jobs before christmas... two that doesnt need fast auto focus and one that does... I will perecivere but its not looking good

 

[TimHughes]

Just had my first outing with the R5 - Borrowed from canon for two weeks testing before deciding to buy

My test was for low light sports so my comments are based on that.. I did a game at ISO 51200 f2.8 this evening... I already own 1dxII which has the same ISO capabilities but only half the file size.. so it made sense to me that the added ability to reduce to 25% (I only need 2000 pixels longest edge for my jobs) would be as good as a stop or two noise reduction..

First thing.. Its light which is good when your my age The back screen being so versatile and touch is good... The eye focus works amazingly even in poor lighting ..I had it setup for BBF with AF-on for eye focus and * for spot focus

Althuogh the eye focus was amazing it does have drawbacks if more than one player in the pic and you would prefer it on on particular one. (important at f2.8). if theres a way around the camera choosing then ?

there was quite a few things I like about the camera

however

the high ISO is poor.. so poor that my idea didnt work because iso 51200 is so blockey
the focusing in poor light using a 400mm f2.8 lens was absoloutly dire If that was an important game and not a test i would have missed important things....


the above two are massive deal breakers as the whole point of me trying the camera was for low light sport..nothing else...

All above based on one hrs shooting... Ih ave a few more jobs before christmas... two that doesnt need fast auto focus and one that does... I will perecivere but its not looking good

For switching between people for eye af i find that a bit tricky https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4547707

 

[KIPAX]

For switching between people for eye af i find that a bit tricky https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4547707

Cheers...
haha none of them answers work for me in fast action sport The ability to switch between the two modes (af-on and *) for spot or eye is good but would take some getting used to which brings me to my next problem... it would be so different using this camera that when using it in conjunction wiht the 1dxII at football its going to be too confusing