conversely, it took Sony 11 years and how many attempts if you include the A1, A9's and A7's in there?
Upvote
0
Canon EOS R1 & Canon EOS R5 Mark II announcement coming July 17
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
conversely, it took Sony 11 years and how many attempts if you include the A1, A9's and A7's in there?
I've gone to the point of using a white "tire marker" to mark all of my RF caps (3 rear and 2 front; 2 lenses, an EF-RF adapter, and 1 body). I also take time out to complain to official Canon employees whenever I run into them at photo events (like twice so far).
I've read (but not tried myself) that some 3rd party has made RF-rearcaps which mount in all three positions.
Upvote
0
I think you underestimate the importance of cars in many people's lives.
Your car defines who you are (silly,isn't it?)
Fatties buy sports cars to feel dynanic and young, a bigger car "proves" you are important. With a car, you buy a personality (silly, isn't it?).
I've dealt with so many "important" customers buying "premium" cars as a testimony of their "importance" to take all this circus seriously.
And, during all that time, my wife and me were driving non-premium Renaults, to our fullest satisfaction. No one knew, apart from my collegues ans boss, and they didn't care at all...( My boss had a Lamborghini Diablo!).
Upvote
0
This is what I've been doing too, but white, not red for better visibility. But now, I'm using caps from Achatzi in Germany. You can mount them like the EF caps (120 degrees), and even on EF lenses.
Not cheap, but a huge help. Original caps are the only thing I hate about RF lenses.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 383640
Guest
I'm not a protester at all - let everyone have what they want - some Sony, some Canon, some EV, some real car
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 383640
Guest
There are caps that work fully on the EF and RF mount - LensBling, labeled 50 (the helmeted skull ones don't work). If you manage to find somewhere, that's the solution. I managed to buy 4 pieces.
Attachments
Upvote
0
I have to say I find it kind of toxic in this forum that everyone who doens't completely agree with everything that Canon does is imediately classified as a troll. Because even though I would put it into different words, I kind of share the view of Cyborx, that, based on the rumored specs (!), the R5 II sounds more like a R5c II then a huge evolution (or like some youtubers call it a "wow camera") for still photographers.
Well lets go through the rumored specs relevant for stills:
- 30 fps, ok that an improvement but not a game changer. Also there are no hints, that it will be able to do 14 bit in burst mode. A thing that many people had hoped for.
- new stacked sensor is nice but even the initial claims that it will be faster than the R3 have disappeard from the spec-list and are questioned in the forum (even by neuroanatomist). So the current expectation is a 6ms readout, which would make it 1,5 times slower than a Z8/9, which I find quite dissapointing.
- New AF algorithms are of course an improvement, but are you expecting additional improvement compared to (lets say) an R3 or will it rather be a catch-up then a leap forward?
- The Eye-AF was indeed a feature I had hoped for when I first heard of it, but after hearing almost nobody uses in in the field, I can't even understand why Canon decided to opt for it instead of the smart-controller.
I can't answer for Cyborx but my expectations for an improved R5 (for still shooters) would be quite simple and IMHO are actually not that unrealistic.
- Improvement of the firmware shortcomings in the R5 like the missing acoustic feedback in ES or the inability to select different burst speeds in ES
- 30 fps burst with (!) a 14-bit readout
- fast stacked sensor that has a readout on par with the Z8, so 4ms or less readout speed for stills.
- Allow flash in full ES-mode, with sync-speed of 1/200 or better 1/250.
- Better buffer handling, meaning that it only reduces the burst-rate when the buffer is full instead of locking up the camera
- Usable pre capture feature with a configurable amount of images and that creates individual raw-files and not that stupid roll-file
- Inclusion of the smart-controller (insead of the complicated and not-so-much-liked Eye-Control-AF)
Upvote
0
Since you are one of the first ones I heard of that actually used that feature, how is your experience? Do you wear glasses? Does it work outside where the lighting and sourroundings changes all the time? Because I heard some people saying it needs a re-calibration whenever the environment changes just a little.
Do you use the feature on an R3? Because I though the same way after the first announcement, but after going through the scarse amount of reviews I could find, my initial exitement was gone quite fast, especially because I also wear glasses where the Eye-AF is even worse.
Yes, that's what is rumored for the R1. However, the rumors for the R5 II explicitly stated, that it will inherit the version from the R3.
Upvote
0
Do you want a camera that works great? Or something revolutionary, whatever that means? You must mean global shutter, of course, because the GREAT SONY now has a camera with it, even if it isn't really ready in terms of Low ISO performance or having a higher MP count. Photographers that I know want a reliable camera that does everything well. Gear-heads want revolutionary cameras that they rarely will use, but can show off to their friends. I guess we know which you are.
Upvote
0
I disagree. It's pretty obvious who is a troll and who is not. Have a look through the posting history of @Cyborx, it's very apparent. Disagreeing with Canon is fine. I disagree with several things they've done. What I don't do is suggest that my disagreement has any relevance for Canon, or imply that my viewpoint represents that of anyone else. I also don't suggest that I know more about making and selling cameras than Canon, as many people on this forum seem to think they do.
On topic, what would you consider a historical example of a 'revolutionary' update within a line? Personally, I really can't think of one.Why would anyone even expect one? Incremental updates are just that.
Some people seem to assume that an update within a line is intended to make the new camera appealing to owners of the current version of that line, e.g. Canon is expecting the primary market for an R5II to be owners of an R5. Canon has ample data on their customers' buying habits, and I would be very surprised if those data show a majority of buyers of a model were owners of its immediate predecessor. Cameras last longer than the 2-4 years between updates. Rather, the R5II is more likely targeted primarily at owners of 5-series and 6-series DSLRs, secondarily at R and R6 owners...and for those people, it probably represents a significant upgrade.
Since we all love our car analogies, there are new models every year. Do you think a 2025 car model is intended to appeal primarily to owners of the 2024 model of the same car? That's essentially what you're saying about the R5II. If you own an R5 already, you're not the target market for the R5II, and your lack of enthusiasm about the R5II is normal and expected. This is not the
Upvote
0
Yes, I've done the same, but with white paint. That did help a bit, but I still get so frustrated not to be able to put the rear cap on without looking, like I've done for decades with EF lenses. It's insane that someone approved this design, makes me wonder how well they tested it in the field...
Upvote
0
I haven't done that, personally, because for me it doesn't solve the problem. I can see the unpainted mark on the RF rear cap just fine, the problem is that I need to look at the cap and lens in the first place. With EF lenses, I just glance at the mount to make sure I don't completely miss the lens, then I can put the cap on without looking at the orientation of either cap or lens, by feel alone. I can still do that with RF, it just takes longer and is annoying.
I agree with the comments that this is a gaffe by Canon, an ergonomic step backwards.
It's ironic that though EF caps don't fit RF lenses, RF caps do fit on EF lenses...in all three orientations. EF caps do have a registration 'dot' on them (two, actually)...maybe Canon thought that users always lined those up with the red dot on the lens and so they didn't see a problem with making that mandatory with RF.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
