4lb RF 500/4? Not happening. I would like to see a 3lb RF 500/5.6 DO ... or better yet, a 4lb RF 600/5.6 DO.
armd wrote:
So sweet and coming back to Canon, I am astounded at how much less PP I need to do to my RAW images out of the R5 compared to my Sony images. Yes, I am waiting for the 4 lb RF 500 though I hope that I can afford it. The 500 IS II is such a sweet (and relatively affordable) lens. With the 1.4x TC as you demonstrated it is wonderfully sharp and doesn't take much of an AF hit. The Monarch butterflies were shot with that combo as I was walking looking for water fowl. Although it is tough carrying additional gear, but a 100-400 on a second body is the fix for those situations when the 500 is just too long.
Glad you had such a perfect trip and would love to hear about the particulars and your recommendations. I'm not getting any younger and hauling gear is getting all the more difficult so if I don't start soon it will never happen. I hope to make Homer for some eagles in March. Keep those great images coming and thanks. ...Show more →
The animal eye detection has been pretty superb for me. Not perfect, but significantly better than I could have hoped for as it tracked this Spoonbill through trees and nailed the eye as sharp as could be.
Canon EOS R5
RF24-105mm F4 L IS USM
ƒ/4.0 105.0 mm 1/640 ISO 1600 R5__9680 by LSXPhotog, on Flickr
Canon EOS R5
RF24-105mm F4 L IS USM
ƒ/4.0 97.0 mm 1/640 ISO 1250 R5__9743 by LSXPhotog, on Flickr
bobbytan wrote:
4lb RF 500/4? Not happening. I would like to see a 3lb RF 500/5.6 DO ... or better yet, a 4lb RF 600/5.6 DO.
Oh it's going to happen sweetheart.
Well ok, I'll let them slip it in at just under 5lbs. F/4 or stay home is new my motto.
With the RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1, I see very little need/demand for a slow 500/5.6 L prime. We need to feed that sensor lots of tasty photons in those early mornings & evenings.
Good point about the 500/5.6. I keep thinking about the immensely successful Nikon 500 PF and have always told myself that Canon needs to have such a lens ... forgetting the fact that we do now have a much more versatile and less expensive 100-500L that is 1/4 lb lighter - but about a stop slower. But the 6 stops of IS more than make up for the 1 stop difference!
lighthound wrote:
Oh it's going to happen sweetheart.
Well ok, I'll let them slip it in at just under 5lbs. F/4 or stay home is new my motto.
With the RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1, I see very little need/demand for a slow 500/5.6 L prime. We need to feed that sensor lots of tasty photons in those early mornings & evenings.
Kathy White wrote:
Taken with the R5 and 16 35 f4 EF
Kathy, The colors in these seem quite nice. Really like the detail as well. Seems the 16-35 is handling the parallax pretty well. Nice to see some other styles of photography here.
Hathaway wrote:
Kathy, The colors in these seem quite nice. Really like the detail as well. Seems the 16-35 is handling the parallax pretty well. Nice to see some other styles of photography here.
Bob
Thank you! So far I've liked all my lenses with it, that I've tried anyway.
armd wrote:
Well, I'm not Rob but I guess I qualify as "anyone"?
1) What's to know? It is ~17 MP and supposedly the read rate is a bit faster compared to FF. For me, storage is cheap and I never know when I want to crop or frequently need other information to clone, etc. so I don't mind shooting FF. Also, it is easier for me to keep the subject in the frame, when following BIF so I prefer to use FF and crop later. Still it is good to have when one is limited with storage or other circumstances come into play. It is set up in page 1 of the camera menu and right now, the only way to toggle it requires use of the C1, C2, etc. modes unlike my Sony's where I can assign that feature a button which cycles between crop and FF. There was a discussion on Crop mode, here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1662550
2) An EF to RF adapter. There are 3 primary Canon varieties (plain $, one with a control ring $$, and one with a drop in filter $$$) as well as a handful of knockoffs. I don't recommend the 3rd party ones when the plain adapter runs under $100. Incidentally, the adapter works great with every lens that I've tested to date from a 16-35 up to a 600 prime.
3) Right now it's DPP or ACR (LR/PS). I am sure that DxO, Capture 1, PR, Luminar, PSP, etc. will all eventually update....Show more →
Thanks. I've been doing some research on this lens and watching youtube videos to get a better feel for it. I am strongly considering the R5 after looking at the 1DX3, but I just can't swallow the 1DX price this time around and the R5/R6 became the next contenders on the list.
It's my understanding that these bodies do not have the option to Micro AF? Have there been any issues with EF lenses and these newer bodies not working together out the box? If so, what is the fix if you can't Micro AF?
