Canon EOS R Series Cameras

Brentor said:

I bought an Integral 64GB UHS-II SD Card V90 Up to 300MBs Read and 280MBs Write Speed 1866X SDHC Professional High Speed Memory Card to resolve this problem. Other similar spec cards should be fine.​

Click to expand...
Thank you! I’ll get one now!
 
It's only 120MB/s write speed - and write is what you need to clear the buffer as quickly as possible.

I just got a Kodak 128GB v90 UHS-II card for £62 - write speed is 270MB/s. Integral do one, Kingston do one too. Both were well under £100 for a 128GB card last time I looked
 
The 128gb Integral version of the one I bought is £89.95 on Amazon. Unfortunately you need to pay for the speed. However, compared with some other cards they are still relatively cheap.
 
I Have Got the r5 mk2 and the r5 mk1 I use nothing else but the Sandisk 256gb 300mb/s and never had them Buffer up with birds inflight but they are expensive and at the same time my Friend got the r5mk2 but Lexar cards gold 256gbs and had nothing but trouble with them ?
 
hunnymonster said:
It's only 120MB/s write speed - and write is what you need to clear the buffer as quickly as possible.

I just got a Kodak 128GB v90 UHS-II card for £62 - write speed is 270MB/s. Integral do one, Kingston do one too. Both were well under £100 for a 128GB card last time I looked
Click to expand...
Thanks for that - I've ordered that one you've suggested, so should arrive on Saturday! Thanks for the tip. When I get home I'll take a couple photos of the card I'm using now, as it is frustrating.. hopefully this will solve.
 
cruso said:
I Have Got the r5 mk2 and the r5 mk1 I use nothing else but the Sandisk 256gb 300mb/s and never had them Buffer up with birds inflight but they are expensive and at the same time my Friend got the r5mk2 but Lexar cards gold 256gbs and had nothing but trouble with them ?
Click to expand...
Hmm interesting. I think I am using a Lexar memory card - but I'll double check what's in the camera this evening.
 
I used the Canon Test Drive service to try out the R3. I know its been out a couple of years. Tried it at Silverstone with my EF 100-400L and was very satisfied with the results, compared to what I would have expected from the 1DX Mk II, especially in the consistency between photos in a burst (electronic shutter). Impressed.

Not quite as robust feeling as the 1DX (you couldn't bash nails in with it), and I miss a designated ISO button - its part of a multifunction button. Tried eye control - needs longer to get used to it...

I'm on the wait list to give the R5 Mk II a go, it would be interesting to see if that focuses as quickly as that possibly runs at a lower voltage to the bit 1D battery.
 
stickytape said:
Thanks for that - I've ordered that one you've suggested, so should arrive on Saturday! Thanks for the tip. When I get home I'll take a couple photos of the card I'm using now, as it is frustrating.. hopefully this will solve.
Click to expand...
Hmm well the Kodak card arrived today. Did a quick test in super high speed.. and it’s the same result! Just as slow.

That’s disappointing. Maybe it’s just a limitation on the R8. A forced one of course. I think I’ll just return the card though, not worth me paying that for no visible difference, just stick to the 256GB SD cards that I’ve got anyway!
 
Anyone else aware of the rumour that Canon’s answer to the Zf will be a RF version of the AE1, by year end?

Still not sure it’s what I’d want, I’d always dreamed of a rangefinder style body and a couple of nice pancake lenses (would have even been happy with apsc )

But I had (long term loan) an AE1p for a while in the 80’s and I do have a soft spot
 
Phil V said:
Anyone else aware of the rumour that Canon’s answer to the Zf will be a RF version of the AE1, by year end?

Still not sure it’s what I’d want, I’d always dreamed of a rangefinder style body and a couple of nice pancake lenses (would have even been happy with apsc )

But I had (long term loan) an AE1p for a while in the 80’s and I do have a soft spot
Click to expand...
Yea, good old AE1, used it for years!!!!...great workhorse!
 
andrewc said:
I used the Canon Test Drive service to try out the R3. I know its been out a couple of years. Tried it at Silverstone with my EF 100-400L and was very satisfied with the results, compared to what I would have expected from the 1DX Mk II, especially in the consistency between photos in a burst (electronic shutter). Impressed.

Not quite as robust feeling as the 1DX (you couldn't bash nails in with it), and I miss a designated ISO button - its part of a multifunction button. Tried eye control - needs longer to get used to it...

I'm on the wait list to give the R5 Mk II a go, it would be interesting to see if that focuses as quickly as that possibly runs at a lower voltage to the bit 1D battery.
Click to expand...
I had similar results, and used the extra cashback from the test drive in conjunction with the Canon cashback offer at the time, plus an extra small amount through the Canon Club to buy my R3 a few weeks later. I then sold my original 1DX. I'm still using my 1DX II as a second body though mostly for single/panning shots rather than bursts. I find I get better panning results using the optical viewfinder than the EVF. I'm considering upgrading my 1DX II to a 1DX III for the built in wifi functionality which I'm using a lot more these days.
 
JohnStewart said:
I had similar results, and used the extra cashback from the test drive in conjunction with the Canon cashback offer at the time, plus an extra small amount through the Canon Club to buy my R3 a few weeks later. I then sold my original 1DX. I'm still using my 1DX II as a second body though mostly for single/panning shots rather than bursts. I find I get better panning results using the optical viewfinder than the EVF. I'm considering upgrading my 1DX II to a 1DX III for the built in wifi functionality which I'm using a lot more these days.
Click to expand...
Yup I went from a 1 Dx2 straight to the R5 /2. af is in a different league but I'm still learning, at my age it takes a while.....buit I'm disappointed in the battery life... bought a couple of Neewer ones and so far they seem to be better but I haven't had a chance to give them a real work out.

Looking forward to the firmware upgrade which has been rumoured for a while....
 
George said:
Yup I went from a 1 Dx2 straight to the R5 /2. af is in a different league but I'm still learning, at my age it takes a while.....buit I'm disappointed in the battery life... bought a couple of Neewer ones and so far they seem to be better but I haven't had a chance to give them a real work out.

Looking forward to the firmware upgrade which has been rumoured for a while....
Click to expand...
The battery life on the 1DX2 is fantastic - I can shoot a whole weekend on a single battery charge and still not run out. The R3 on the other hand (which uses the same battery type) typically lasts less than a day, and I often swap it out at lunchtime to play it safe.
 
for Canon R1 at events for heavy use all day I'll need 2 maybe 3 batteries.
 
Hmmm, it's looking a bit as if all the pro Caron R series are prone to heavy battery usage particularly when compared with the mirror ones.

One of my pals who shoots Nikon always seemed to get mugh better battery life than me, seems strange that Canon hasn't done any thing about it as they must know.
 
George said:
Hmmm, it's looking a bit as if all the pro Caron R series are prone to heavy battery usage particularly when compared with the mirror ones.

One of my pals who shoots Nikon always seemed to get mugh better battery life than me, seems strange that Canon hasn't done any thing about it as they must know.
Click to expand...
ALL mirrorless cameras have higher battery use than their DSLR cousins, it’s a fact of life, not a Canon specific or Canon pro specific.

In real life, all it means is that you keep an eye on your battery status.

I do 2 battery swaps per day where I used to do one, Canon 1d owners possibly did none
 
I *may* be getting an R6ii for my birthday ;)
I have old EP6/EP6N batteries from my older DSLRs (5d3, 80d, 7d).
I understand I can use these older batteries in the R6ii.

Other than the lower capacity, what else am I going to lose using them? Slower burst rate? (Not that I shoot with fast fps very often). ChatGPT seems to indicate it's just capacity and data comms with the EP6 batteries not reporting life correctly. But is there anything else?
 
LC2 said:
I *may* be getting an R6ii for my birthday ;)
I have old EP6/EP6N batteries from my older DSLRs (5d3, 80d, 7d).
I understand I can use these older batteries in the R6ii.

Other than the lower capacity, what else am I going to lose using them? Slower burst rate? (Not that I shoot with fast fps very often). ChatGPT seems to indicate it's just capacity and data comms with the EP6 batteries not reporting life correctly. But is there anything else?
Click to expand...
Slower burst rate - I found this with my R7 and some older batteries inherited from previous cameras.
 
Ive come back to photography after a while out! I am looking to shift my 80D on and move mirrorless..... do the lens adaptors actually fully work on the EF L Lenses?
 
G12RDH said:
Ive come back to photography after a while out! I am looking to shift my 80D on and move mirrorless..... do the lens adaptors actually fully work on the EF L Lenses?
Click to expand...
Yes
 
G12RDH said:
Ive come back to photography after a while out! I am looking to shift my 80D on and move mirrorless..... do the lens adaptors actually fully work on the EF L Lenses?
Click to expand...
they work better than ever before! I still have almost all EF lenses, only two RF so far after several years.
 
G12RDH said:
Ive come back to photography after a while out! I am looking to shift my 80D on and move mirrorless..... do the lens adaptors actually fully work on the EF L Lenses?
Click to expand...
I use my R7 with a Newer adapter, ef and ef-s fit lenses, I've not had any problems.
I've heard that some RF lenses do AF a little faster.
 
Nostromo said:
I use my R7 with a Newer adapter, ef and ef-s fit lenses, I've not had any problems.
I've heard that some RF lenses do AF a little faster.
Click to expand...
for the two RF lenses I am, 85 1.2 and RF 135 1.8 i have not noticed any noticable improvement in AF compared with EF 85 1.4 and EF 135 2.0. When I first got them I thought there might have been, but after a lot of use there are about the same.
 
TimHughes said:
for the two RF lenses I am, 85 1.2 and RF 135 1.8 i have not noticed any noticable improvement in AF compared with EF 85 1.4 and EF 135 2.0. When I first got them I thought there might have been, but after a lot of use there are about the same.
Click to expand...
Tbh I have no experience of this as I don't have any RF lenses, but I have read on r7 groups that the RF 70-200 and RF 100-500 (compared to the ef 100-400ii) do af a bit faster. But I don't get the impression it's really that noticeable in the real world.
 
Nostromo said:
Tbh I have no experience of this as I don't have any RF lenses, but I have read on r7 groups that the RF 70-200 and RF 100-500 (compared to the ef 100-400ii) do af a bit faster. But I don't get the impression it's really that noticeable in the real world.
Click to expand...
in my experience it's not a reason to switch to an RF version if you have the EF equivalent.
 
TimHughes said:
for the two RF lenses I am, 85 1.2 and RF 135 1.8 i have not noticed any noticable improvement in AF compared with EF 85 1.4 and EF 135 2.0. When I first got them I thought there might have been, but after a lot of use there are about the same.
Click to expand...

Are the RF lenses significantly optical better than the EF lenses? I have tried a few RF lenses on hire but cannot justify buying them as an amateur when the EF lenses are very good. The price difference is too great for me. I am testing a RF 100-500 L this weekend. Yes it is good, but so is the EF 100-400 L ii. I’m probably just too mean!
 
I don’t take many portraits but when I do I really like my EF 85 1.8 on my R6, or any of my DSLRs.
 
Brentor said:
Are the RF lenses significantly optical better than the EF lenses? I have tried a few RF lenses on hire but cannot justify buying them as an amateur when the EF lenses are very good. The price difference is too great for me. I am testing a RF 100-500 L this weekend. Yes it is good, but so is the EF 100-400 L ii. I’m probably just too mean!
Click to expand...
I haven't tried many RF lenses so can't give a definitive answer. From the few I've used I think it's very much case by case. I did get the RF 85 1.2 and RF 135 1.8 as they are both marginal improvements on the EF versions 1.2 vs 1.4 and 1.8 vs 2.0 and it bit sharper (which I doubt it noticable unless you're using r5). I have the 100-400 ii as well and so far not tempted with the new zooms. The RF 100-300 2.8 mind you would be great but I don't have enough jobs where I'd use it to justify.
 
TimHughes said:
for the two RF lenses I am, 85 1.2 and RF 135 1.8 i have not noticed any noticable improvement in AF compared with EF 85 1.4 and EF 135 2.0. When I first got them I thought there might have been, but after a lot of use there are about the same.
Click to expand...
They are all usm so should be very similar other than some weight reductions making life easier for the motors.

Stm ones will be noticeably slower and louder. I currently have sigma 70mm with stm. Optically it is excellent but af is so darn horrible. I just wouldn't buy another stm as long as alternative was available
 
TimHughes said:
I haven't tried many RF lenses so can't give a definitive answer. From the few I've used I think it's very much case by case. I did get the RF 85 1.2 and RF 135 1.8 as they are both marginal improvements on the EF versions 1.2 vs 1.4 and 1.8 vs 2.0 and it bit sharper (which I doubt it noticable unless you're using r5). I have the 100-400 ii as well and so far not tempted with the new zooms. The RF 100-300 2.8 mind you would be great but I don't have enough jobs where I'd use it to justify.
Click to expand...
I ended up having insurance 70-200 f4. It certainly has some improvements, notably in flare department. You can just shoot that thing into stray light and not worry about it. This was a no no with any ef or art primes. Sharpness seems top notch on R6 but you need the R5 to really judge the performance. Best of all it only takes space of one medium size lens in a bag so you can just just take it everywhere.
I'm pretty excited about the new 2.8 version, but certainly not the price.

But then I'm not excited at all about any of their wider lenses that can't get a line straight without severe corrections in post
 
LongLensPhotography said:
They are all usm so should be very similar other than some weight reductions making life easier for the motors.

Stm ones will be noticeably slower and louder. I currently have sigma 70mm with stm. Optically it is excellent but af is so darn horrible. I just wouldn't buy another stm as long as alternative was available
Click to expand...
I’d wondered why you kept posting that STM lenses were louder.
And the answer is you haven’t got any Canon ones, and you’ve made a massively incorrect assumption.

My first STM lens was the Canon EF 50; quieter than its predecessor (non USM though)
Next the RF 85 f2? Quieter than the EF 85 USM
I now have several, and they’re all as close to silent as any lens I’ve used. Indeed, that was Canons design criteria.
They developed STM for video because the almost silent USM lenses were ‘too noisy’.
 
Phil V said:
I’d wondered why you kept posting that STM lenses were louder.
And the answer is you haven’t got any Canon ones, and you’ve made a massively incorrect assumption.

My first STM lens was the Canon EF 50; quieter than its predecessor (non USM though)
Next the RF 85 f2? Quieter than the EF 85 USM
I now have several, and they’re all as close to silent as any lens I’ve used. Indeed, that was Canons design criteria.
They developed STM for video because the almost silent USM lenses were ‘too noisy’.
Click to expand...
I had canon 50 stm. Yes it was loud. Not as bad as the old one but still loud. I'm allergic to that screw type motor noise. Sigma is right on par, except a lot more precise.

Clearly I have no intention to acquire any more of them, and decided against Nikon who seen incapable of developing their own hla motor
 
Last edited:
LongLensPhotography said:
I had canon 50 stm. Yes it was loud. Not as bad as the old one but still loud. I'm allergic to that screw type motor noise. Sigma is right on par, except a lot more precise.

Clearly I have no intention to acquire any more of them, and decided against Nikon who seen incapable of developing their own hla motor
Click to expand...
We clearly have a different view of ‘loud’.
 
Nostromo said:
I use my R7 with a Newer adapter, ef and ef-s fit lenses, I've not had any problems.
I've heard that some RF lenses do AF a little faster.
Click to expand...
I have all the glass I want, i just dont need to be changing the if I dont have to :)
Thanks for the comment :-)
 
Brentor said:
Are the RF lenses significantly optical better than the EF lenses? I have tried a few RF lenses on hire but cannot justify buying them as an amateur when the EF lenses are very good. The price difference is too great for me. I am testing a RF 100-500 L this weekend. Yes it is good, but so is the EF 100-400 L ii. I’m probably just too mean!
Click to expand...
How did you get on?

I decided to go the full monty and get the 100-500 as an upgrade to the 100-400 mk2, so I can't compare as I didn't try the adaptor as I wanted the extra 100 reach and I changed from the 1Dx/2 to an R5/2

I'd be interested in your comparative results as perhaps I've spent a bit of cash unnecessarily!!!

100-500 is lovely however (as is the R5/2 once I master the AF!!!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top