Canon EOS R Series Cameras

I’ve been setting up my R6 this week. Couple of things I can’t work out. Not an issue but some clarification would be cool.

1. Moving focus points back and forth with the joystick. On the mk4I could swap between centre and last positioned focus point, back and forth by pressing the joystick button. Now it only returns to the centre and doesn't return back with another press. Any setting for this?

2. Is face tracking only set up to select whatever focus point it wants? On the mk4 face tracking only comes on when a face is found otherwise it's in single point af which you can point the point around If no face is detected.

Thanks!
 
magicolor1 said:
So the 70-200/4 is going to be £1699 and the 50/1.8 is £219! Hardly bargains are they?
Click to expand...

I don't know about the 70-200, I'm sure it's excellent being a new L lens. But for those just wanting that FL zoom for casual use the old non OIS 70-200 F4 is meant to be very decent [though not WR and obviously no OIS] and can be had for about £300 used. The new 50mm though is nicely priced IMO. It's a complete overhaul from what I've seen, new optics, closer focusing, quieter motors and it's got the control ring - some will see that as worth the higher price alone. Also you don't need the RF adapter, perfect for anyone just looking for a nice budget friendly set up. Think the RP + new RF 50mm + the 85mm F2 macro, very nice all-rounder FF set up for less than £2K. And if we compare the 50mm to an APSC equivilent, something like the Fuji 35mm F1.4, it's £200 less
 
Love the weight of the r6 and kit lens for early morning walks.

1R1A0619-XL.jpg
 
When you guys have bought the R5 / R6 what do you do with your old body?

Now I have the R5 I'm almost certain I won't use the R again, I used to always keep a 750D as a spare body to my 5D Mark IV but never used it so ended up selling it.

Not sure whether I should sell or keep the R.
 
Hanley said:
When you guys have bought the R5 / R6 what do you do with your old body?

Now I have the R5 I'm almost certain I won't use the R again, I used to always keep a 750D as a spare body to my 5D Mark IV but never used it so ended up selling it.

Not sure whether I should sell or keep the R.
Click to expand...

i guess it depends if you need a 2nd as back up. might be worth cashing in on the R before it drops in value?
ive got the RP as backup and have used it as a 2nd camera for a few things. but its never going to be chosen over the R6 if im honest.
 
Hanley said:
When you guys have bought the R5 / R6 what do you do with your old body?

Now I have the R5 I'm almost certain I won't use the R again, I used to always keep a 750D as a spare body to my 5D Mark IV but never used it so ended up selling it.

Not sure whether I should sell or keep the R.
Click to expand...

You probably want r5 and r6 as backup. One is high Res, premium business and personal body, the other a daily workhorse. It should be self explanatory where you use each
 
Hanley said:
When you guys have bought the R5 / R6 what do you do with your old body?

Now I have the R5 I'm almost certain I won't use the R again, I used to always keep a 750D as a spare body to my 5D Mark IV but never used it so ended up selling it.

Not sure whether I should sell or keep the R.
Click to expand...
My "old" camera is a 12 year old 5D MkII.. I'm thinking of having it converted to infrared.
 
Been out for another wander round the woods today with the 6r but with the 300 f2.8 MKII and a 1.4x MKIII
Dont find the single spot A/F as accurate as my 1DX MKII and that its just to big for being precise but the animal eye A/F although not rock solid works well if you first use single point to get a start for it,have eye A/F configured to the spot meter button so just slide my finger over from the A/F on button which is set for single point.

1R1A0767-XL.jpg


1R1A0847-XL.jpg


1R1A0918-XL.jpg


1R1A0903-XL.jpg


1R1A0943-XL.jpg
 
Last edited:
Gadget-Guy said:
Been out for another wonder round the woods today with the 6r but with the 300 f2.8 MKII and a 1.4x MKIII
Dont find the single spot A/F as accurate as my 1DX MKII and that its just to big for being precise but the animal eye A/F although not rock solid works well if you first use single point to get a start for it,have eye A/F configured to the spot meter button so just slide my finger over from the A/F on button which is set for single point.

1R1A0767-XL.jpg


1R1A0847-XL.jpg


1R1A0918-XL.jpg


1R1A0903-XL.jpg


1R1A0943-XL.jpg
Click to expand...

its really impressive from canon for a 1st attempt at animal eye af. i wonder if an improvement via a firmware update will come at some point next year.
 
magicolor1 said:
So the 70-200/4 is going to be £1699 and the 50/1.8 is £219! Hardly bargains are they?
Click to expand...

Hopefully these are only early adopter prices otherwise it makes zero business sense to buy either vs EF variants. I could get a brand new f/2.8 III vs this f/4 jobby and there is like zero reason including sharpness not to except for the saving of space in the bag. EF 2.8 is just going to be so much more useful, made of metal and will look like a proper pro tool, unlike the RF one. I do note the EF f/4 II are getting hard to find now brand new, and very scarce used.

The 50mm RF is only a very minor design improvement over EF STM version. All differences are in the rear element group. MTF charts show a very modest improvement wide open, and both of course will be excellent at f/5.6. It seems like you still need to buy Sigma ART or f/1.2L version if you want fancy results wide open. I have little reason to believe bokeh will be any better, i.e. without onion rings and STM is too slow and crude for any faster action. The price bump may cover the two extra lens elements and some plastic bits, but it is mostly a markup. As f/5.6 or best case f/4 effective fixed lens it is still way overpriced.
camnostic.com

RF 50MM, 70-200MM LAUNCHED, SHOW Decent Sharpness - Camnostic

As everyone expected, Canon launched its new “nifty fifty” in RF mount and the new RF 70-200 f/4 L lens. Both show MTF charts that indicate good quality, with the new 50mm offering significantly better than the older EF version. The new 70-200 f/4 doesn’t quite rise to the level of their latest...
camnostic.com camnostic.com

EF vs RF 50 1.8 STM MTF chart comparison

According to Canon, the RF 50 1.8 is significantly softer than the EF 50 1.8 and RF 35 1.8. EF vs RF (RF mirrored for comparison): 35 1.8 below: Admittedly the EF 50's chart seems incredibly optimistic, but if we compare it to the 35 it's basically softer across the entire frame. I will...
www.canonrumors.com www.canonrumors.com
Hopefully they have a decent f/1.4 IS version coming, but obviously not any time soon.
 
Talking about designs not keen on white lenses. I am not sure why some manufacturers hell bent on making lenses white. Nikon and sigma have proved by now that colouring them while is unnecessary.
 
nandbytes said:
Talking about designs not keen on white lenses. I am not sure why some manufacturers hell bent on making lenses white. Nikon and sigma have proved by now that colouring them while is unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Its Canons thing though, why Sony did it to look like the cool kid is the most bizarre decision. Alpha orange on black would look the business (like KTM).
 
twist said:
Its Canons thing though, why Sony did it to look like the cool kid is the most bizarre decision. Alpha orange on black would look the business (like KTM).
Click to expand...

Not sure who started it might have well been canon but Minolta had them too before Sony.
 
I thought this was at least partly as white is supposed to reflect heat and thus minimise the chance of the various bits and bobs being affected by heat and expanding and potentially affecting image quality. If that's anywhere near true it may explain why larger lenses are sometimes white as presumably because of their size they'll have a larger area exposed to the sun and stand more chance of being affected by heat? But if that is the case why not all big lenses?
 
woof woof said:
I thought this was at least partly as white is supposed to reflect heat and thus minimise the chance of the various bits and bobs being affected by heat and expanding and potentially affecting image quality. If that's anywhere near true it may explain why larger lenses are sometimes white as presumably because of their size they'll have a larger area exposed to the sun and stand more chance of being affected by heat? But if that is the case why not all big lenses?
Click to expand...
That's correct as far as Canon goes: https://petapixel.com/2016/02/19/canon-lenses-white-instead-black/
 
nandbytes said:
Talking about designs not keen on white lenses. I am not sure why some manufacturers hell bent on making lenses white. Nikon and sigma have proved by now that colouring them while is unnecessary.
Click to expand...

It's almost synonymous with Canon name itself by now. Probably there is no other reason.

I wouldn't say I like white (well its light grey actually), but at least it looked good with proper EF tele's. Not any more... I would much much rather they made their lenses in titanium casings - both durable, lightweight and less polluting on environment. For the price we pay there is no reason not to.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
It's almost synonymous with Canon name itself by now. Probably there is no other reason.

I wouldn't say I like white (well its light grey actually), but at least it looked good with proper EF tele's. Not any more... I would much much rather they made their lenses in titanium casings - both durable, lightweight and less polluting on environment. For the price we pay there is no reason not to.
Click to expand...

Titanium is much more expensive and more difficult to work with.
 
twist said:
Titanium is much more expensive and more difficult to work with.
Click to expand...

Good. This would make our lenses truly premium, apart from I guess fragile internals. I love my titanium watch. I hope I'm not becoming a Leica-Zeiss snob.
 
addicknchips said:
Yes. Lovely village. Lost several hours in front of open fires in the pubs there too.
Click to expand...


It’s one of the places I’ve often considered visiting, as I’m only 10 minutes or so drive away from Oxford outskirts. So the cotswolds are pretty close too.

Its a pity all the beautiful places like this are always (understandably) flooded with parked cars and stuff though. All of the ‘calendar worthy’ opportunities you see of these places are like gold dust :D

Exactly the same in the village where I live...
 
nandbytes said:
Surprised they didn't go for 1:2 macro with the 50mm to complete the trio :D
Click to expand...

The price would probably double. If they could keep it close to the same size and weight though and maybe not double the cost, it'd be a cracking all-rounder lens.

nandbytes said:
Talking about designs not keen on white lenses. I am not sure why some manufacturers hell bent on making lenses white. Nikon and sigma have proved by now that colouring them while is unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Wasn't it something to do with over heating? white reflecting harsh sun, keeping the lenses cooler? But like you say, the other manufacturers proved black works just fine for teles
 
Last edited:
Didn’t Nikon have the 28-70 f2.8 AFS, 70-200 f2.8 AF-S VR& 80-200 AF-S available in Tropical Grey ?
 
I've read a few posts about the issue with Lightroom rendering the colours correctly with images from the R5 (and R6 I believe).
So I took an image I shot at the weekend for Remembrance Day and imported the CR3 into Lightroom, I then opened the same CR3 file in Canon DPP software, exported to 16-bit TIFF and imported that into Lightroom, looking at both images side by side I was shocked with the difference.
CR3 left and TIFF right.

2020-11-09 10.32.41.jpg
 
Hanley said:
I've read a few posts about the issue with Lightroom rendering the colours correctly with images from the R5 (and R6 I believe).
So I took an image I shot at the weekend for Remembrance Day and imported the CR3 into Lightroom, I then opened the same CR3 file in Canon DPP software, exported to 16-bit TIFF and imported that into Lightroom, looking at both images side by side I was shocked with the difference.
CR3 left and TIFF right.

View attachment 298365
Click to expand...

are you using your camera colour profile in LR or the adobe's colour profile?

Screenshot 2020-11-09 at 10.44.33.png
 
Last edited:
Hanley said:
I believe there are no camera profiles yet for the R5 or R6

View attachment 298368
Click to expand...

Looking at the online list looks like they haven't added matching colour profiles for R5/6 yet - https://helpx.adobe.com/uk/camera-raw/kb/camera-raw-plug-supported-cameras.html

Well explains why the colours suck anyway. The pains of being an early adopter, I have the same issue with my new A7C.

Edit:
At the same time they haven't added for RP yet!! may be they are having difficultly adding canon RF bodies' colour profiles?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

yet another reason for me to dislike adobe :facepalm:
 
Last edited:
I'll just need to change my workflow a little.

Canon DPP
Lightroom (I could move away from LR but I've got catalogues of images going back years so it would be such a hassle)
Affinity Photo (for major edits)
Topaz DeNoise AI (when needed)
 
been meaning to move away from LR for these kind of reasons but same as you I have catalogues going back when with backups happening on my imports (i.e. keeper) automatically. LR acts as a central place for most things in my workflow, even for running topaz AI.

Replacing it is more complicated than I thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top