Canon EOS R Series Cameras

Messages
36
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
Yeah, I'm just trying to decide if the £200 extra is worth an additional 2 years warranty. Given I've never had to make a claim, but then again this is the most expensive of all the RF lenses I've purchased, maybe I should just keep it. :)
Just ordered the RF 85mm f/1.2L from E-infinity yesterday as it was £1,799 loosed to £1,960 on Panamoz
I tend to order the more costly items from Panamoz and the lesser items from E-infin.

Panamoz seem to have an excellent reputation in dealing with problems so I feel its worth paying a bit extra.

Personally on a lens of that value I’d choose to pay the extra from Panamoz.

Also you’ll have the worry that it ships back and arrives ok and that the refund comes through!

A bird in the hand.......
 
Messages
36
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
Yeah, I'm just trying to decide if the £200 extra is worth an additional 2 years warranty. Given I've never had to make a claim, but then again this is the most expensive of all the RF lenses I've purchased, maybe I should just keep it. :)
Just ordered the RF 85mm f/1.2L from E-infinity yesterday as it was £1,799 loosed to £1,960 on Panamoz
Oh just thought I’d mention.....

I had terrible sharpness issues with my 100-500 and it turned out to be the Hoya Pro UV filter that I’d fitted to protect the glass.

I swapped it for a Canon Protection Filter and it seems ok now.

A few other folk have had issues with filters on that lens and when I spoke to Canon the first thing they said was ‘are you using a 3rd party filter’
 
Messages
468
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
Oh just thought I’d mention.....

I had terrible sharpness issues with my 100-500 and it turned out to be the Hoya Pro UV filter that I’d fitted to protect the glass.

I swapped it for a Canon Protection Filter and it seems ok now.

A few other folk have had issues with filters on that lens and when I spoke to Canon the first thing they said was ‘are you using a 3rd party filter’
I never use a filter on my lenses, just the hood.
Sharpness seems okay, I'll try and get out this week and do a better test. I've emailed Panamoz and told them I'll keep the lens.
 
Messages
23,191
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
Oh just thought I’d mention.....

I had terrible sharpness issues with my 100-500 and it turned out to be the Hoya Pro UV filter that I’d fitted to protect the glass.

I swapped it for a Canon Protection Filter and it seems ok now.

A few other folk have had issues with filters on that lens and when I spoke to Canon the first thing they said was ‘are you using a 3rd party filter’
Long lenses magnify any slight filter imperfections, they're notorious for it. Sometimes the problems are obvious, sometimes only visible in certain situations like back-lighting or only in background bokeh, but they're always there. The lens comes with a huge lens hood that offers great protection and can only enhance image quality...
 
Messages
1,401
Name
Glen
Edit My Images
No
Just been lucky enough to find an R6 with kit lens in stock so a quick trip to T4 in Swindon to pick it up and now waiting for it to charge.
Seems like the EOS R to EF lens adaptors are even harder to find than a camera in stock at the moment.
Filled all the stuff out for the free one from CPS but may have to hire one from WEX till it arrives as itching to try out some of my other lenses.
 
Messages
2,033
Name
Justin
Edit My Images
Yes
Anyone here use the RP ?

Ive basically got £1000 to spend on a camera and a walk around lens. Most important qualities are having something that is fun to use, produces very good JPEG’s and is light and compact.
So I’ve pretty much narrowed it down to the RP with the 24-105 f4-7.1 kit lens or the Fuji X-S10 with 18-55.
I’d be grateful for some advice :) thanks
 
Messages
1,487
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
Yes
Oh just thought I’d mention.....

I had terrible sharpness issues with my 100-500 and it turned out to be the Hoya Pro UV filter that I’d fitted to protect the glass.

I swapped it for a Canon Protection Filter and it seems ok now.

A few other folk have had issues with filters on that lens and when I spoke to Canon the first thing they said was ‘are you using a 3rd party filter’
Ah good to know! For me, it's very very rare that I'm using filters. Only if the camera is in range of flying mud :)
 
Messages
8,793
Name
Jonathan
Edit My Images
No
Anyone here use the RP ?

Ive basically got £1000 to spend on a camera and a walk around lens. Most important qualities are having something that is fun to use, produces very good JPEG’s and is light and compact.
So I’ve pretty much narrowed it down to the RP with the 24-105 f4-7.1 kit lens or the Fuji X-S10 with 18-55.
I’d be grateful for some advice :) thanks
i bought one at the start of lockdown and really enjoyed it. has its limitations in some areas but its very capable. ive posted quite a few shots with it in this thread.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
10,549
Edit My Images
Yes
R5 - Nearly the highest rated on dpreview, impressive stuff....

 
Messages
2,033
Name
Justin
Edit My Images
Yes
i bought one at the start of lockdown and really enjoyed it. has its limitations in some areas but its very capable. ive posted quite a few shots with it in this thread.
Thanks Jonathan :)
Have you used any Fuji cameras ? What were the RP's limitations ?
 
Messages
8,793
Name
Jonathan
Edit My Images
No
Thanks Jonathan :)
Have you used any Fuji cameras ? What were the RP's limitations ?
Yes ive owned most of the fujis except the xt4 and gfx100.

With the RP you will run into banding issues if you under expose by several stops and then try to recover it in post. If you shoot normally though its fine. The raw files are actually really nice straight out of camera. High iso performance is also decent. It wont win you any bragging rights on the Internet but it's a very capable sensor and only the 1 time have i had an issue with it.

After firmware updates af is excellent. Continuous eye af isnt at the latest sony level but its very good.

The touch screen is best in class with these canons and ive really grown to love the fully articulating screen. It has a nice deep grip but I added the hand grip extension to make it more comfortable with larger lenses. Id really recommend the rf 35mm if you like that focal length.

The shutter sound is quite loud. Not comically loud like an a7r, but it's not a stealth machine either.

1 card slot may or may not bother you and there is no ibis.

My biggest issue with it is the fps. Its quoted at 5fps with tracking af but what i was getting was about 3-4 fps. So its no pro sports camera.


2020-10-21_07-52-21.jpg 2020-10-21_07-50-08.jpg 2020-10-21_07-50-34.jpg 2020-10-21_07-54-15.jpg 2020-10-21_07-49-51.jpg 2020-10-21_07-50-17.jpg 2020-10-21_07-53-53.jpg
 
Messages
2,033
Name
Justin
Edit My Images
Yes
Yes ive owned most of the fujis except the xt4 and gfx100.

With the RP you will run into banding issues if you under expose by several stops and then try to recover it in post. If you shoot normally though its fine. The raw files are actually really nice straight out of camera. High iso performance is also decent. It wont win you any bragging rights on the Internet but it's a very capable sensor and only the 1 time have i had an issue with it.

After firmware updates af is excellent. Continuous eye af isnt at the latest sony level but its very good.

The touch screen is best in class with these canons and ive really grown to love the fully articulating screen. It has a nice deep grip but I added the hand grip extension to make it more comfortable with larger lenses. Id really recommend the rf 35mm if you like that focal length.

The shutter sound is quite loud. Not comically loud like an a7r, but it's not a stealth machine either.

1 card slot may or may not bother you and there is no ibis.

My biggest issue with it is the fps. Its quoted at 5fps with tracking af but what i was getting was about 3-4 fps. So its no pro sports camera.


View attachment 296171 View attachment 296172 View attachment 296173 View attachment 296174 View attachment 296175 View attachment 296176 View attachment 296178
Great pics although looking at them I’m pretty sure you could take a great photo with any old camera !

I’m not too fussed about the latest and greatest just the most enjoyable camera that produces good images for around 1k....
 
Messages
8,793
Name
Jonathan
Edit My Images
No
Great pics although looking at them I’m pretty sure you could take a great photo with any old camera !

I’m not too fussed about the latest and greatest just the most enjoyable camera that produces good images for around 1k....
Cheers, ive really enjoyed using it. Im not sure how much it will get used now as I've just got the r6 but it really is very good for the money.

I forgot to mention the performance with ef class with the adapter. Its excellent. Dont think twice about adapting, there's some real bargains out there.

@twist picked one up before i did and am pretty sure he liked it too.
 
Messages
1,009
Edit My Images
Yes
Hopefully they will be getting larger amounts now than in the past. The guy told me they were expecting it to be on sale on their site for immediate delivery by December
 
Messages
2,481
Name
Gary
Edit My Images
Yes
Having given the R5 the big thumbs up for my aviation and motorsport shooting I've finally been able to put it through it's paces for some landscape work over the last few weeks. A small selection from some of the locations visited. Good to test the camera in conditions ranging from bright and sunny to really grotty. The camera is like having my 5D4, 7D2 and EOS R all built in to the same camera and then some.

5R + 24-105 RF at F11, ISO100 2 secs. A huge 200MP pano(compressed heavily for posting on here). Taken from the top of Side Pike in the Lake District. A climb up in the dark resulted in less than 5 minutes of light at sunrise but well worth it.

088A0361-Pano-Edit-2.jpg

R5 + 24-105RF @47mm, 0.6 sec, F11 and iso 100. Taken from the top of Holme Fell in the Lakes just a couple of minutes after sunrise. Coniston in the distance.
088A9911-Edit-2.jpg

R5 + 24-105RF, iso 100, F11 ,1/20sec and 70mm.Loweswater and Crummock in the Lakes from the Corpse road. A hazy and dull morning with just a small patch of light making it's way through.
088A0929.jpg

R5 + 24-105 @ 35mm, F11, ISO 125 (my mistake),1/25 sec. Derwentwater in the Lakes in the pouring down rain. Another multi shot pano.
088A0521-Pano-Edit-Edit.jpg

R5 + 15-35RF at 15mm, iso 100, F16 and 0.3 sec. Lakes. Just a nice tree.
088A1082.jpg

Gary
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
10,549
Edit My Images
Yes
The above look really poor after downsizing to put on here. Need to have a look at that for future posts.

Gary
yeah posting here kills the sharpness and some times colours too.
you should thank it for not causing any banding in the sky on the first picture lol :p
 
Messages
1,487
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm super happy with the R5 for events. I'm up to 15k frames already :) Especially with the long lenses for acts on stage the ey AF performance is stunning. It's taken me some time getting used to it. Looking at results from last night's show, almost every single frame is usable.
 
Messages
468
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
I just need to get out and use mine, it's so frustrating.
Got the new 100-500 here, 85 1.2 arriving soon and I just don't seem to be able to get any time to use them at the moment, work is just too busy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dkh

LongLensPhotography

Th..th..that's all folks!
Messages
15,578
Name
[Censored] Fruitcake
Edit My Images
No
Oh just thought I’d mention.....

I had terrible sharpness issues with my 100-500 and it turned out to be the Hoya Pro UV filter that I’d fitted to protect the glass.

I swapped it for a Canon Protection Filter and it seems ok now.

A few other folk have had issues with filters on that lens and when I spoke to Canon the first thing they said was ‘are you using a 3rd party filter’
I noticed long ago that even any premium filter completely destroys the sharpness of 400mm lens. Lens hood is deep enough for protection and any cpl needs to go to the back if there is an option
 
Messages
468
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
I took the R5 and the 100-500 out to my local park this morning, after reading about some issues on the 100-500 with the image stabilisation I can't work out if these are acceptable quality or not and if the lens is okay.

What do you guys think?

This first image was taken at 363mm, f/6.3, SS 1/250 and ISO 4000.
I ran it through Topaz DeNoiseAI to clean it up a little.

https://flic.kr/p/2jYyiWV View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/paulhanleyphotos/50523142101/in/datetaken-public/


This second image was taken at 254mm, f/5.0 SS 1/200 and ISO 3200.
This has also been through Top DeNoiseAI.

https://flic.kr/p/2jYzjJL View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/paulhanleyphotos/50523339872/in/datetaken-public/
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
10,549
Edit My Images
Yes
second shot looks good, first looks to have some camera shake when looking 1:1.
not sure if that really says anything about the stabilization tbh. a lot of it will also depending on handholding too and the subject and conditions.

better to shoot a stationary subject like a brick wall or a distant building to test.
 
Last edited:
Messages
468
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
second shot looks good, first looks to have some camera shake when looking 1:1.
not sure if that really says anything about the stabilization tbh. a lot of it will also depending on handholding too and the subject and conditions.

better to shoot a stationary subject like a brick wall or a distant building to test.
Yeah the swans were fairly active, like I said I'm probably just being paranoid, agree the second image looks sharp, also the light was awful this morning.
I may go back out tomorrow when the weather is looking better and I'll try it on some stationary subjects. :)
 
Messages
4,881
Edit My Images
No
I would be shooting at full stretch wide open to test the sharpness as I would expect the lens to be used at that focal length the majority of the time (well it would be with me and where my 150-450mm f/5.6 is mostly). Second one looks good though. first one not so much.

Have to say this R5 and 100-500mm thing has me interested because that's the main reason I didn't go for the Sony AR7IV and 200-600mm
 
Last edited:

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
10,549
Edit My Images
Yes
Yeah the swans were fairly active, like I said I'm probably just being paranoid, agree the second image looks sharp, also the light was awful this morning.
I may go back out tomorrow when the weather is looking better and I'll try it on some stationary subjects. :)
good luck on the light.
I have been doing the same as you i.e. making the best of crappy light and using topaz denoise. you'd think we'd be used to it by now for this time of the year in this country :p
 
Messages
1,487
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
Yes
I have the 100-500 but I keep picking up my RF 800mm f11 when I’m out walking. It’s so lightweight and works great on the R5. I’ve been really impressed.

It’s really sharp in reality .... not looking so good on here!

View attachment 296478
f11 is not too limiting? I'm usually shooting low light, often fast-moving subjects.
 
Messages
468
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
good luck on the light.
I have been doing the same as you i.e. making the best of crappy light and using topaz denoise. you'd think we'd be used to it by now for this time of the year in this country :p
I was sceptical about Topaz DeNoiseAI but I've got to say, for the time I've used it in the trial period I am very impressed with the results.
I've had more time to go through the pics from this morning and these are the ones I'm happy with.

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmRGZmSB
 

LongLensPhotography

Th..th..that's all folks!
Messages
15,578
Name
[Censored] Fruitcake
Edit My Images
No
I took the R5 and the 100-500 out to my local park this morning, after reading about some issues on the 100-500 with the image stabilisation I can't work out if these are acceptable quality or not and if the lens is okay.

What do you guys think?

This first image was taken at 363mm, f/6.3, SS 1/250 and ISO 4000.
I ran it through Topaz DeNoiseAI to clean it up a little.

https://flic.kr/p/2jYyiWV View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/paulhanleyphotos/50523142101/in/datetaken-public/


This second image was taken at 254mm, f/5.0 SS 1/200 and ISO 3200.
This has also been through Top DeNoiseAI.

https://flic.kr/p/2jYzjJL View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/paulhanleyphotos/50523339872/in/datetaken-public/
They are fine but I would try and use faster speed to counter any bird movement. It's amazing you could basically get away with handholding it at that speed. Without IS you would be looking at minimum of 1/800s.
 
Messages
36
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
f11 is not too limiting? I'm usually shooting low light, often fast-moving subjects.
I took the deer at 1/1000 and iso 6400. Image quality was great at that on the R5.

Its actually a very sharp lens. It’s prime and I guess all set up nicely to perform best at the fixed f11.

Every shot I’ve taken with it has been very nice except for a few in a dark woodland where the iso went extreme.

I’m pleased to have it in my bag but it’s probably best saved for sunny days
 
Last edited:
Top