Canon EOS R Series Cameras

Messages
5,521
Edit My Images
Yes
.... Exactly! None of us know how Canon would implement IBIS. Canon may design a form of IBIS which is different and consequently has none, or significantly fewer, of the claimed disadvantages. That anyway assumes that Canon Rumors about this future feature are correct.
:thinking: What are the claimed disadvantages for IBIS?
 
Messages
655
Edit My Images
Yes
All right chaps. But apart from the Angry Photographer and the dubious assertion that even if someone is right it is best to ignore them, I will say the three others I linked are fairly credible figures. I believe the argument is that the possible mechanics/implementation of IBIS are finite and that none known so far seem to escape the downsides mentioned by these people who aren't just squabbling about it on a forum. Of course, Canon might come out with a major innovation in terms of IBIS but I'm going to guess not.

Anyway, we will see and perhaps revisit this thread at that time.
 
Last edited:
Messages
22,771
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
:thinking: What are the claimed disadvantages for IBIS?
- Less effective with longer lenses (too much movement required)
- Less effective on full-frame (too much movement required)
- Heat transferred to the sensor can increase noise (but not proven or quantified)
- You can't turn it off and actually lock the sensor down (but unproven effect)
- Can introduce blurring at high shutter speeds, same as in-lens IS (theoretical issue, unproven)
- Extra cost and bulk (clutching at straws now)
 
Messages
5,521
Edit My Images
Yes
All right chaps. But apart from the Angry Photographer and the dubious assertion that even if someone is right it is best to ignore them, I will say the three others I linked are fairly credible figures. I believe the argument is that the possible mechanics/implementation of IBIS are finite and that none known so far seem to escape the downsides mentioned by these people who aren't just squabbling about it on a forum. Of course, Canon might come out with a major innovation in terms of IBIS but I'm going to guess not.

Anyway, we will see and perhaps revisit this thread at the time.
I'm not even going to click on the Angry Photographer, but from the other three links I can't see any compelling reasons not to have IBIS for most people. :confused:
 
Messages
22,771
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
I'm not even going to click on the Angry Photographer, but from the other three links I can't see any compelling reasons not to have IBIS for most people. :confused:
Good summary
 
Messages
655
Edit My Images
Yes
Well you chaps ought to invest in IBIS then if and when it is available to you. As you say, redhed, most people will probably want to buy into it. I would prefer not. We are different. It's all good.
 
Messages
5,521
Edit My Images
Yes
- Less effective with longer lenses (too much movement required)
One could assume that if Canon implement IBIS, it will be in addition to the OIS system on some of their lenses like Nikon have done. If you have a long lens without OIS, then it could either improve image taking, or be turned off.
- Less effective on full-frame (too much movement required)
Time will tell on that one. Sony and Nikon seem to be doing it pretty well.
- Heat transferred to the sensor can increase noise (but not proven or quantified)
Mmm, not "proven or quantified". That says it all for me. One of the articles mentioning that was also talking about it in regards to video too, which a lot of people may never even use.
- You can't turn it off and actually lock the sensor down (but unproven effect)
Again, "unproven effect". And again mentioned in regards to video.
- Can introduce blurring at high shutter speeds, same as in-lens IS (theoretical issue, unproven)
Again, "unproven". If these were widespread problems I think we would all have heard a lot about them because there are quite a few Sony users.
- Extra cost and bulk (clutching at straws now)
I know you may not believe any of the above Hoppy, but thanks for highlighting the points. :)
 
Last edited:
Messages
5,521
Edit My Images
Yes
Well you chaps ought to invest in IBIS then if and when it is available to you. As you say, redhed, most people will probably want to buy into it. I would prefer not. We are different. It's all good.
I didn't say most people will buy into it, I meant for general handheld photography it will benefit most people. If it didn't work, they wouldn't go to the expense of development and production.

You obviously have the right to buy whatever you want, :) but there are some features, like video in cameras, where the benefits are so good and far reaching, that unless there is a compelling reason to not have it, as for a niche product, like the Panasonic camera aimed at videographers in one of those linked articles, then it may be a feature that may be hard not to have at some point. And as long as you have the option to turn it off, or not use it, as I do with the video option on my cameras, then I don't see much downside to having it.

I thought the EOS R not having IBIS, when Sony and Nikon have it, was a mistake, but then if they sell loads of EOS R's, and then get more people to buy a new version, at possibly a higher price, with one of the added features being IBIS to justify the camera itself, but also the price difference, then is it really a mistake. ;) :LOL:
 
Messages
655
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm not sure turning it off is possible, at least to the extent where the bad effects are prevented. I get that, for video, it's a good thing but that doesn't interest me. I just don't really need it or want it but of course its nice to have a choice for those that do :)
 
Messages
5,521
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm not sure turning it off is possible, at least to the extent where the bad effects are prevented. I get that, for video, it's a good thing but that doesn't interest me. I just don't really need it or want it but of course its nice to have a choice for those that do :)
What bad effects? :confused: I'm still not sure what negative effects you are asserting to IBIS and still images. :thinking:
 
Messages
655
Edit My Images
Yes
What bad effects? :confused: I'm still not sure what negative effects you are asserting to IBIS and still images. :thinking:

I did provide four links above. I know. you won't watch one of them (which is fairly clear about the disadvantages) because you don't like the guy but in this instance he speaks some truth.

The main issue is that it can mess with images at certain shutter speeds. This is true even of the superior lens stabilisation and I know this from experience. However with lenses you can easily turn it off without ill effect and this isn't the case with IBIS.

There are other issues which are outlined in the links also and I can' t be bothered transposing Ken's video to help you if you won't watch it so that's that.


For example, Ming says:

"Since the move to 36MP and higher, I’ve had enough images ruined by stabilisation mishaps under unexpected circumstances that I’ve now become very cautious, especially as resolution increases. As far as I’m concerned, the higher the resolution, the higher the tolerances everything in the imaging chain must be capable of achieving – and moving parts are rather antithetical to that. Stabilisation’s envelope of usefulness is no longer quite what we were used to – especially assuming that we want to maintain pixel acuity (and thus resolution) – otherwise we might as well just shoot smaller files. The sample images in this post were shot with a couple of different cameras under different circumstances, but illustrate clearly the difference between optimal and degraded acuity.

The worrying thing is that I’ve seen this behaviour from all brands – suggesting that we are approaching limitations of physics. Worse still, over time, I’ve seen on several lenses and cameras that internal components such as springs can weaken and begin to sag; this creates differences in optics when the camera is rotated (since systems are often optimised for horizontal panning) or even when stabilisation is switched off – often the lower or upper side of the frame is softer than the rest, as though something has slipped out of position. There seems to be no ‘good’ lens or camera or brand – over time (actual VR run time, not age of lens), all lens-based systems I’ve used seem to be susceptible to sag; the magnetically-suspended sensor systems are better, but can still return inexplicable results. I can’t help but wonder if electronic or leaf shutters plus better feeling release buttons are a better way of eliminating shake; for the moment, it’s stabiliser off – or better absent entirely – for me. Consider yourself informed if you’re trying to get the most out of your camera… MT"


Anyway, as I keep saying; you buy IBIS and be happy if you want to take the risk but to me it's just the latest new thing. I wish you happiness with it. I don't want it and would like to avoid it if possible.
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,112
Edit My Images
Yes
What bad effects? :confused: I'm still not sure what negative effects you are asserting to IBIS and still images. :thinking:
Really good modern IBIS requires a "floating" sensor held in space by magnets. (science!!)
Sometime, at certain shutterspeeds and with certain body+lens combinations, there is sometimes blur/unsharpness which would not happen with a fixed sensor in the same conditions.
Unfortunately these disadvantageous combinations are hard to predict and hard to fix.
Having said that, really good IBIS is awesome at slow shutterspeeds : much better than a fixed sensor.
 
Messages
22,771
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
I did provide four links above. I know. you won't watch one of them (which is fairly clear about the disadvantages) because you don't like the guy but in this instance he speaks some truth.

The main issue is that it can mess with images at certain shutter speeds. This is true even of the superior lens stabilisation and I know this from experience. However with lenses you can easily turn it off without ill effect and this isn't the case with IBIS.

There are other issues which are outlined in the links also and I can' t be bothered transposing Ken's video to help you if you won't watch it so that's that.


For example, Ming says:

"Since the move to 36MP and higher, I’ve had enough images ruined by stabilisation mishaps under unexpected circumstances that I’ve now become very cautious, especially as resolution increases. As far as I’m concerned, the higher the resolution, the higher the tolerances everything in the imaging chain must be capable of achieving – and moving parts are rather antithetical to that. Stabilisation’s envelope of usefulness is no longer quite what we were used to – especially assuming that we want to maintain pixel acuity (and thus resolution) – otherwise we might as well just shoot smaller files. The sample images in this post were shot with a couple of different cameras under different circumstances, but illustrate clearly the difference between optimal and degraded acuity.

The worrying thing is that I’ve seen this behaviour from all brands – suggesting that we are approaching limitations of physics. Worse still, over time, I’ve seen on several lenses and cameras that internal components such as springs can weaken and begin to sag; this creates differences in optics when the camera is rotated (since systems are often optimised for horizontal panning) or even when stabilisation is switched off – often the lower or upper side of the frame is softer than the rest, as though something has slipped out of position. There seems to be no ‘good’ lens or camera or brand – over time (actual VR run time, not age of lens), all lens-based systems I’ve used seem to be susceptible to sag; the magnetically-suspended sensor systems are better, but can still return inexplicable results. I can’t help but wonder if electronic or leaf shutters plus better feeling release buttons are a better way of eliminating shake; for the moment, it’s stabiliser off – or better absent entirely – for me. Consider yourself informed if you’re trying to get the most out of your camera… MT"


Anyway, as I keep saying; you buy IBIS and be happy if you want to take the risk but to me it's just the latest new thing. I wish you happiness with it. I don't want it and would like to avoid it if possible.
There are some interesting issues being raised, both in Ming Thein's article quoted above https://blog.mingthein.com/2016/08/19/stabilisation-is-good-but-only-up-to-a-point/ and also in this story from DPReview https://www.dpreview.com/articles/5...m-f4-vr-to-fix-blur-at-certain-shutter-speeds but the situation is far from clear. I don't think anybody is saying that image stabilisation it in its various forms is not extremely effective at reducing camera shake at longer shutter speeds, but that it could in theory at least, be counter-productive at fast shutter speeds. This hypothesis has been around for many years, but there appear to be rather different concerns now being raised particularly with high resolution sensors, mirrorless cameras and shutter shock, plus the effects of electro-magnets in IBIS mechanisms and electronic first-curtain shutters etc etc. Some of these things, perhaps most of them, are related to specific products like the Nikon 300/4 VR PF lens that was recalled for a firmware upgrade.

The problem is, it's very difficult to test some of these things and to properly identify and isolate the issues. Ming T's article is frankly unconvincing - it's not good enough to simply say 'this image isn't as sharp as I think it should be, therefore the image stabilisation is to blame' when there could be any number of other reasons, ie more camera-shake than the system could cope with, subject movement blur, subject moving out of focus etc etc. The only way I can think of testing it is to take hundreds of pictures in a series of highly controlled hand-held tests, with and without image stabilisation, check the sharpness of every image and see if any trends emerge. Then do it all again at different shutter speeds, with different lenses, then across other brands. Many long days of work to do it properly, but even then I have a strong feeling that what would emerge would be the same as DPReview found (which is the same as my own brief tests showed).

DPReview said of the problematic Nikon 300/4 VR PF lens "Furthermore, VR Off in either drive modes (Single Shot, or Mirror Up with electronic front curtain) can yield sharper results than any of the VR On shots, although 80% or so of your shots will be blurred from hand-holding shake. Still, the fact that the best you can get with VR On, in either drive mode, is worse than the best you can get with VR off is interesting." In other words, if you take ten shots at the most critical settings with VR image stabilisation off, you may be lucky (when the camera actually just happens to be momentarily stationary) and get a couple of very sharp images, but all the others would show varying amounts of unacceptable blur. With VR on, you'd get ten out of ten very acceptable images, even if none of them was quite as sharp as the best with VR off. I know which I'd prefer though.

This theory about image stabilised lens elements and image sensors flapping around by themselves even when turned off doesn't sound like an insurmountablde problem, even if it's true (and I'm far from convinced). It just needs some kind of locking device, like applying the hand-brake rather than just putting the car into neutral at the traffic lights. Sorted.
 
Last edited:
Messages
4,775
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
This theory about image stabilised lens elements and image sensors flapping around by themselves even when turned off doesn't sound like an insurmountablde problem, even if it's true (and I'm far from convinced). It just needs some kind of locking device, like applying the hand-brake rather than just putting the car into neutral at the traffic lights. Sorted.
.... Firstly, thanks for posting such an informative (as usual) reply.

I feel very confident that Canon won't release any form of IBIS until they are satisfied that it will work well. That's not to say that their efforts are guaranteed but I think they have been holding back on IBIS for valid reasons. Canon IBIS may not appear in all future bodies anyway but just in some perhaps - We simply don't know.

Taking up the car handbrake analogy, my car has a driver-operated handbrake but also has a feature called 'hill-assist' integrated into its DSG gearbox so that it automatically steadies the car without applying the handbrake. In other words, there is nothing to say that a camera manufacturer cannot overcome potential IBIS problems through further advancing technology. Technology progression never stands still but does take time to develop.
 
Messages
22,771
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
.... Firstly, thanks for posting such an informative (as usual) reply.

I feel very confident that Canon won't release any form of IBIS until they are satisfied that it will work well. That's not to say that their efforts are guaranteed but I think they have been holding back on IBIS for valid reasons. Canon IBIS may not appear in all future bodies anyway but just in some perhaps - We simply don't know.

Taking up the car handbrake analogy, my car has a driver-operated handbrake but also has a feature called 'hill-assist' integrated into its DSG gearbox so that it automatically steadies the car without applying the handbrake. In other words, there is nothing to say that a camera manufacturer cannot overcome potential IBIS problems through further advancing technology. Technology progression never stands still but does take time to develop.
The claim is that all image stabilisation systems can move even when switched off. Like a car in neutral won't move, but it can be pushed. Probably true of some or even all systems, but even though we tend to talk about these things generically, they are definitely all different in detail. I recall an exchange I had with Sigma when I was testing one of their OS macros that was making a clonking sound when off the camera and gently shaken. I suspected the OS mech and sure enough when that was switched off before removing the lens from the camera, the noise went away. That's not uncommon but I decided to follow it up this time and Sigma confirmed that the OS system is never actually mechanically locked solid but held in a neutral position when the system is off. That doesn't happen if the lens is removed very quickly while it's still active, leaving the OS components free to rock around against the buffers. It doesn't do any harm, just a little disconcerting, and normal service is resumed as soon as the lens is put back on the camera.

So that is one example of a simple technological solution in action. It's surely not an isolated one. It's not a solid lock like a kind of hand-brake but it does an effective job and if you happen to be shaking the camera around so violently that it can still be made to move, you'd better have the stabilisation system on anyway. It perhaps raises the question of does 'held in a neutral position' actually mean stationary? I would say yes, because a) a valid reason for turning image stabilisation off is to save battery power* and this method stops the stabilisation module moving even when without power off the camera, and b) when I MTF tested that lens with stabilisation off it was exceedingly sharp, like all macros, right up there with some of the very best non-stabilised primes.

I'm still intrigued by all this though, if only for the sake of geeky interest. There have been mumblings for very many years about in-lens stabilisation being potentially detrimental to image quality in subtle but unstated ways (manufacturers say very little, if anything) but conclusive pictorial evidence has been conspicuous by its absence. IBIS in-camera stabilisation is basically the same in princliple as in-lens, but it's relatively new, and very new when applied to bigger, heavier full-frame sensors.

*This is the reason many sports photographers turn off stabilisation - to save battery power during a long game, rather than to prevent it interfering with image quality at fast shutter speeds. They're using a monopod or tripod anyway, so it's unnecessary.
 
Messages
655
Edit My Images
Yes
.......

This theory about image stabilised lens elements and image sensors flapping around by themselves even when turned off doesn't sound like an insurmountablde problem, even if it's true (and I'm far from convinced). It just needs some kind of locking device, like applying the hand-brake rather than just putting the car into neutral at the traffic lights. Sorted.
Really? But this is one of the problems Ming and the (ignored) Ken has pointed out. They are saying it really isn't so easy and that you can't turn IBIS off the way you can turn lens IS off. In other words, the "handbrake" you hypothesise hasn't emerged in a practical form. Why not? It would surely be standard if it was so simple. Ming suggests there's an awful lot more difficulties than you are stating. I believe there's a reason Canon stayed away from it for so long. Cameras are not cars and sensors are not gearboxes.

It's possible that they have sorted something out and we will see. Currently I'd avoid IBIS though. If Canon don't come up with something ( and I have no idea how they could ) I hope they continue to stay away from it in future. I am inherently suspicious and particularly since it's something that I really don't miss, I am extremely cautious.
 
Last edited:
Messages
4,775
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm still intrigued by all this though, if only for the sake of geeky interest. There have been mumblings for very many years about in-lens stabilisation being potentially detrimental to image quality in subtle but unstated ways (manufacturers say very little, if anything) but conclusive pictorial evidence has been conspicuous by its absence. IBIS in-camera stabilisation is basically the same in princliple as in-lens, but it's relatively new, and very new when applied to bigger, heavier full-frame sensors.

*This is the reason many sports photographers turn off stabilisation - to save battery power during a long game, rather than to prevent it interfering with image quality at fast shutter speeds. They're using a monopod or tripod anyway, so it's unnecessary.
.... As a wildlife photographer, although not sports and not professional (meaning paid), I sometimes switch a lens IS setting to Mode 3 which only applies IS at the exact moment of actual exposure, thereby enabling continuous autofocus to track the target faster by not having to spend time on extra communications and hence nano actions. I don't know any photographer who does this to save battery power as all the wildlife and sports shooters I know always carry at least one spare battery (although an EOS 1DX-2 battery costs £179 and so I only carry one spare!).

I think that 'artificially intelligent' autofocus which senses when IS is needed or not could be the way forward but it's the mechanisms which is where the potential problems are if I have understood it all correctly.
 
Messages
4,775
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
Really? But this is one of the problems Ming and the (ignored) Ken has pointed out. They are saying it really isn't so easy and that you can't turn IBIS off the way you can turn lens IS off. In other words, the "handbrake" you hypothesise hasn't emerged in a practical form. Why not? It would surely be standard if it was so simple. Ming suggests there's an awful lot more difficulties than you are stating. I believe there's a reason Canon stayed away from it for so long. Cameras are not cars and sensors are not gearboxes.

It's possible that they have sorted something out and we will see. Currently I'd avoid IBIS though. If Canon don't come up with something ( and I have no idea how they could ) I hope they continue to stay away from it in future. I am inherently suspicious and particularly since it's something that I really don't miss, I am extremely cautious.
.... Canon introduced an automatic protective sensor curtain whenever a lens is unmounted and everyone has been asking themselves why they didn't do that as it is so simple.

I think it's best to keep an open mind and unless you are on a camera's design team and therefore with a direct insight into the overall development, it's pretty pointless wondering how they might do something. And anyway, I would rather think positive than negative and consequently pre-judge Canon's unknown IBIS feature.
 
Messages
22,771
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
Really? But this is one of the problems Ming and the (ignored) Ken has pointed out. They are saying it really isn't so easy and that you can't turn IBIS off the way you can turn lens IS off. In other words, the "handbrake" you hypothesise hasn't emerged in a practical form. Why not? It would surely be standard if it was so simple. Ming suggests there's an awful lot more difficulties than you are stating. I believe there's a reason Canon stayed away from it for so long. Cameras are not cars and sensors are not gearboxes.

It's possible that they have sorted something out and we will see. Currently I'd avoid IBIS though. If Canon don't come up with something ( and I have no idea how they could ) I hope they continue to stay away from it in future. I am inherently suspicious and particularly since it's something that I really don't miss, I am extremely cautious.
I don't share your suspicion, in that if there are issues I'm sure they're fixable. But IBIS is new to bigger, heavier full-frame sensors. We know it's not as effective as it is with smaller sensors. It's one of a number of issues surrounding some mirrorless cameras, along with shutter-shock and electronic rolling shutter effects, banding etc and - a new one on me - strange bokeh effects with very low f/number lenses caused by the mechanical shutter positioned too far forward of the sensor and shading it.

All this will disappear when we finally get all-electronic global shutters and can do away with mechanical shutters completely, and that's surely coming soon but even when it does I'm sure there will be other downsides to contend with... :D
 
Last edited:
Messages
655
Edit My Images
Yes
In general there's usually no such thing as a free lunch and for every innovation there's often downsides. Whether it's worth the risk or not is an individual decision. It would be nice to have IBIS available to those who want it as long as the downsides weren't an issue. At the moment I would prefer to deal with a bit of camera shake in the traditional way but I appreciate for others the risk is worth it. I would prefer to have the choice not to buy into it at the moment and I'm glad Canon has done this so far. I would really not be all that happy if IBIS was forced on me
 
Last edited:
Messages
7,280
Edit My Images
No
In general there's usually no such thing as a free lunch and for every innovation there's often downsides. Whether it's worth the risk or not is an individual decision. It would be nice to have IBIS available to those who want it as long as the downsides weren't an issue. At the moment I would prefer to deal with a bit of camera shake in the traditional way but I appreciate for others the risk is worth it. I would prefer to have the choice not to buy into it at the moment and I'm glad Canon has done this so far. I would really not be all that happy if IBIS was forced on me
There is no risk or proof that IBIS causes major issues with camera's!!

What next?

Flippy screen on the EOS R having huge risks too?

You do know that you can disable IBIS right? IMO you are clutching on straws here
 
Messages
376
Name
Gordon
Edit My Images
Yes
I am planning a trip to Glencoe early in the new year and whilst I have a couple of Lee square ND filters if it's raining it's a devil keeping the spots off them. I thought the EOS R mount Adapter with the variable ND filter may provide the answer but I cannot find what the "variable" strength is, does anyone know?
 
Messages
1,349
Name
Allan
Edit My Images
Yes
I am planning a trip to Glencoe early in the new year and whilst I have a couple of Lee square ND filters if it's raining it's a devil keeping the spots off them. I thought the EOS R mount Adapter with the variable ND filter may provide the answer but I cannot find what the "variable" strength is, does anyone know?
Great idea, but they will cost a fortune at £399
 
Messages
1,843
Edit My Images
No
Well, I went to Slimbridge on Saturday afternoon, hoping for some light on the Bewick’s as they came in from the delta. I realised that I was standing next to Andy Rouse. He was shooting with an EOS R. He still shoots RAW and jpegs but just loves the jpegs. And he had bought it with his own £ as he hadn’t been given one to test it. (it would be fair to say he wasn’t impressed with that but don’t feel sorry for him as he was the tester for the 1dx2. He was shooting with the 300 f2.8 as the light faded; I had left my long lens at home and realised just how much better my prime was cf the 100-400 mkIi zoom. Just thought 5ose reading the thread might be interested to hear of a pro wildlife point of view.
 
Messages
4,775
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
Well, I went to Slimbridge on Saturday afternoon, hoping for some light on the Bewick’s as they came in from the delta. I realised that I was standing next to Andy Rouse. He was shooting with an EOS R. He still shoots RAW and jpegs but just loves the jpegs. And he had bought it with his own £ as he hadn’t been given one to test it. (it would be fair to say he wasn’t impressed with that but don’t feel sorry for him as he was the tester for the 1dx2. He was shooting with the 300 f2.8 as the light faded; I had left my long lens at home and realised just how much better my prime was cf the 100-400 mkIi zoom. Just thought 5ose reading the thread might be interested to hear of a pro wildlife point of view.
.... Was he shooting handheld or on his Flexline Pro head?

A great feature of the EF 300mm F/2.8L, and the other Canon version II prime telephoto lenses, is that it takes the Extenders very well so you have the equivalent of a 600mm F/5.6L if you want it.

I'm not convinced he'll be that impressed with the R for fast wildlife action shots < I think I'll ask him.
 
Messages
4,775
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
Messages
4,775
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
Messages
4,775
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
Not quite what I am looking for, more of an intervalometer is required.
.... If you are on Facebook, join this EOS R Group and ask there : https://www.facebook.com/groups/421157698288581/

Or phone Wex who are very helpful : 01603 486413 > Option 3 for product advice. They're not a hard-sell team and the staff are mostly photographers themselves.

If you find a solution you might post it here to help anyone else looking.
 
Messages
18,925
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
.... I would hope that the heavily knurled ring on them is a programmable Control Ring. Otherwise I think you are better off keeping it all Canon.
Looking at the pictures on the website I think it's just a grip rather than something you turn as I can't think what function you'd use that for with an FD lens... but it's all in Japanese so I can't read it. The advantage over a Canon adapter would no doubt be the price.
 
Messages
4,775
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
Looking at the pictures on the website I think it's just a grip rather than something you turn as I can't think what function you'd use that for with an FD lens... but it's all in Japanese so I can't read it. The advantage over a Canon adapter would no doubt be the price.
.... If the knurled ring is just a grip then even if it was free of charge it would not have the advantage which a Canon adapter has with its programmable ring which really transforms the EOS R when mounting EF lenses.
 
Messages
1,843
Edit My Images
No
.... Was he shooting handheld or on his Flexline Pro head?

A great feature of the EF 300mm F/2.8L, and the other Canon version II prime telephoto lenses, is that it takes the Extenders very well so you have the equivalent of a 600mm F/5.6L if you want it.

I'm not convinced he'll be that impressed with the R for fast wildlife action shots < I think I'll ask him.
Hand held,I think.
 

StewartR

Efrem Zimbalist Jr
Advertiser
Messages
11,715
Name
Stewart
Edit My Images
Yes
Looking at the pictures on the website I think it's just a grip rather than something you turn as I can't think what function you'd use that for with an FD lens...
Well, if it was a control ring then you could use it to set the shutter speed, ISO, or exposure compensation, just as you can with RF lenses natively and EF lenses wit the control ring adapter. The only thing you wouldn't be able to do with it would be to set the aperture.
 
Messages
18,925
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
.... If the knurled ring is just a grip then even if it was free of charge it would not have the advantage which a Canon adapter has with its programmable ring which really transforms the EOS R when mounting EF lenses.
Deep sigh...

I was talking about FD's, as mentioned in both of my posts!!!!!!!

FD's are film era manual lenses.
:D
 
Messages
18,925
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
Well, if it was a control ring then you could use it to set the shutter speed, ISO, or exposure compensation, just as you can with RF lenses natively and EF lenses wit the control ring adapter. The only thing you wouldn't be able to do with it would be to set the aperture.
Looking at the pictures it seems to be just a knurled ring. I could be wrong and no doubt more information on these will eventually surface.

I don't know if Canon have an FD adapter out yet or not, I just posted the link for info incase anyone is interested.

FD's aren't my favourite film era lenses, I find them functional and competent enough but I can't point to one I have and say it's the best I have at that focal length and aperture but anyone wanting to use manual lenses on a Canon mirrorless may like to keep it all in the family and have lenses carrying the same name as the camera body.
 
Messages
4,775
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
Deep sigh...

I was talking about FD's, as mentioned in both of my posts!!!!!!!

FD's are film era manual lenses.
:D
.... :rolleyes: Deeper sigh! The Control Ring has very worthwhile advantages as Stewart describes :

Well, if it was a control ring then you could use it to set the shutter speed, ISO, or exposure compensation, just as you can with RF lenses natively and EF lenses with the control ring adapter. The only thing you wouldn't be able to do with it would be to set the aperture.
I would go further and say that a Control Ring transforms the EOS R and will do so whatever lens you can physically mount and regardless of its brand's badge.

Do you have an EOS R with a Control Ring? Or have you hired one for a few days to actually experience its strengths and limitations? < Stewart could doubtless help you hire one. I have hired an expensive lens from his company in the past and it is a seamless service.

EDITED to correct my mistake: By the way, @StewartR, unfortunately at the moment the Control Ring does not offer the option to set exposure compensation, or is that different on non-EF/RF lenses?

However, by setting it to control ISO it influences exposure and histogram and you can see it all WYSIWYG in the EVF and screen before firing the shutter. Mine is set to adjust ISO and I love this feature as it is much more direct and simpler than on Canon D-SLR bodies.
 
Last edited:
Top