[surfar]

The R5 is what I'm honed in on right now

Like a lot of people,some are only receiving theirs now from preorders,unless $ony change their strategy,the R5 will dominate the FF M/L genre.

the 800 F11 a weird but actually cool lens and not expensive by telephoto standards.

I'm thinking of buying it but I'll wait for a good deal to come along.The weight is a major consideration,those Sigma/Tamron 150-600s weigh a ton!

[LeeRunge]

Like a lot of people,some are only receiving theirs now from preorders,unless $ony change their strategy,the R5 will dominate the FF M/L genre.

I'm thinking of buying it but I'll wait for a good deal to come along.The weight is a major consideration,those Sigma/Tamron 150-600s weigh a ton!

Yes it seems it took a minute but Canon is not being very competitive and Sony’s losing market share to them. I’m concerned for Nikon in the long run but they’ll probably be ok as much of the user base will eventually switch over to z cameras in time. I’m sure many are just waiting for the lens lineup to fill out.

Looking at the reviews for that R5 I’m pretty impressed with it. Canons lens are attractive so far as well. I’m actually a huge fan of the mega zooms for general purpose use. Some days i just feel like taking only one lens that covers everything and the 24-240 for RF looks pretty decent. I can’t stand 28mm for some reason and much prefer 24.

For primes a 20, 35 and 85 and I’m happy.

[surfar]

I can’t stand 28mm for some reason and much prefer 24.

I'm with you on that one,24 is wide enough for most of what i want to shoot.28 is ok but limited,its a FL i never use much.

the 24-240 for RF looks pretty decent.

Ive owned it about 6 months,in good light its great....Some raw shooters complain about the vignette but i shoot jpeg and turn corrections on and its sweet.

For primes a 20, 35 and 85 and I’m happy.

Thats a good spread, I use a K20mm f4 manually.An RF35f1.8 and an the old EF 85f1.8.As well as the plasticFantastic 50mm f1.8STM.Picked all 4 up at bargain prices too.Occasionally I'll use the 40mm pancake EF as well but the 35 is a much better lens.

[mee]

The R5 is what I'm honed in on right now if I decide to jump to mirrorless. I feel like this will come down to a Sony/Canon market as the dominant players.

The image stabilization is nuts on that R5. Also I find the 800 F11 a weird but actually cool lens and not expensive by telephoto standards. With what? IBIS at 8 stops of stabilization! that makes F11 not so bad.

At 3900 USD it better be incredible. 8 stops is rather impressive, if it is tested in the same way as other cameras. I wonder how far IS can be taken?

[BigMackCam]

The R5 is what I'm honed in on right now if I decide to jump to mirrorless. I feel like this will come down to a Sony/Canon market as the dominant players.

The image stabilization is nuts on that R5. Also I find the 800 F11 a weird but actually cool lens and not expensive by telephoto standards. With what? IBIS at 8 stops of stabilization! that makes F11 not so bad.

Think carefully on that 800 f/11...

Two things would concern me. Firstly, at that kind of focal length and with long distance subjects, atmospheric distortion is a real consideration depending upon conditions (clearly that isn't a limitation of this specific lens, but of long-distance subjects generally). Secondly, whilst image stabilisation is all well and good, and 8 stops is incredible on paper, very low shutter speeds aren't much use if there's any sort of movement in the subject. For a typically twitchy critter, you're likely to require multiple shots and a large dose of luck to deliver (maybe) just one sharp, blur-free image. At 1/4s (roughly 8 stops down from 1/800s), any wildlife you shoot had better be asleep, frozen stiff, stuffed or carved from stone. At more realistic shutter speeds and f/11, you're going to need very good light and/or increased ISO - neither of which might be a problem depending on what you're shooting and your expectations; but it's certainly a consideration.

I'm sure in the right conditions it's a very good and very useful lens... but I'd bet a lot of folks who buy it might be surprised by how niche its applications are - not to mention the skill required - once they've used it for a while...

[Serkevan]

At 3900 USD it better be incredible. 8 stops is rather impressive, if it is tested in the same way as other cameras. I wonder how far IS can be taken?

Considering the 5 stops of the K-1 don't magically make my Sigma 400/5.6 work at 1/200, much less 1/13, the Canon IS better be spectacular. 8 stops is 1/3 seconds in an 800 mm lens, but the scale breaks on super teles.

[mee]

Considering the 5 stops of the K-1 don't magically make my Sigma 400/5.6 work at 1/200, much less 1/13, the Canon IS better be spectacular. 8 stops is 1/3 seconds in an 800 mm lens, but the scale breaks on super teles.

Yes, I too have my reservations on Canon's claims. I have no doubt it is a robust system, but from what I gather all the different camera and lens manufacturers test their IS differently (in terms of focal length used in what conditions). So the numbers between manufacturers may be difficult to compare directly.

As BigMackCam says, the object must be motionless or I think one must have really super tracking skills to make use of such a system. Otherwise it's marketing speak to sell products.

I'm surprised no one has come up with an automated system of testing IS across systems using robotics in a closed environment.

[reh321]

Think carefully on that 800 f/11...

Two things would concern me. Firstly, at that kind of focal length and with long distance subjects, atmospheric distortion is a real consideration depending upon conditions (clearly that isn't a limitation of this specific lens, but of long-distance subjects generally). Secondly, whilst image stabilisation is all well and good, and 8 stops is incredible on paper, very low shutter speeds aren't much use if there's any sort of movement in the subject. For a typically twitchy critter, you're likely to require multiple shots and a large dose of luck to deliver (maybe) just one sharp, blur-free image. At 1/4s (roughly 8 stops down from 1/800s), any wildlife you shoot had better be asleep, frozen stiff, stuffed or carved from stone. At more realistic shutter speeds and f/11, you're going to need very good light and/or increased ISO - neither of which might be a problem depending on what you're shooting and your expectations; but it's certainly a consideration.

I'm sure in the right conditions it's a very good and very useful lens... but I'd bet a lot of folks who buy it might be surprised by how niche its applications are - not to mention the skill required - once they've used it for a while...

The first thing to find out is how this camera performs at high ISO.
There would no need for a shutter speed of 1/13 if you could boost the ISO enough as I could on my Pentax KP.

[LeeRunge]

Think carefully on that 800 f/11...

Two things would concern me. Firstly, at that kind of focal length and with long distance subjects, atmospheric distortion is a real consideration depending upon conditions (clearly that isn't a limitation of this specific lens, but of long-distance subjects generally). Secondly, whilst image stabilisation is all well and good, and 8 stops is incredible on paper, very low shutter speeds aren't much use if there's any sort of movement in the subject. For a typically twitchy critter, you're likely to require multiple shots and a large dose of luck to deliver (maybe) just one sharp, blur-free image. At 1/4s (roughly 8 stops down from 1/800s), any wildlife you shoot had better be asleep, frozen stiff, stuffed or carved from stone. At more realistic shutter speeds and f/11, you're going to need very good light and/or increased ISO - neither of which might be a problem depending on what you're shooting and your expectations; but it's certainly a consideration.

I'm sure in the right conditions it's a very good and very useful lens... but I'd bet a lot of folks who buy it might be surprised by how niche its applications are - not to mention the skill required - once they've used it for a while...

All of this is true. It would need to be a sunny day lens for the most part. The fact that they have an 800mm prime and 600 for @800 dollars is impressive though. I have a Sigma 150-600 which is an F6.3 at 600mm and it requires that you're in ISO 2000-5000 in anything but very sunny days at the long end to keep it at shutter speeds of 1/2000 for stuff moving really fast. Which is fine for the D750. At F11 anything moving would probably need to be at ISO 12800 or higher to get the shutter speeds needed to freeze it. Probably doable but not ideal. For many types of wildlife that move slower than birds in flight it would be ok though at slower shutter speeds.

[BigMackCam]

For many types of wildlife that move slower than birds in flight it would be ok though at slower shutter speeds.

Yes... but by "slower shutter speeds", I think we're probably talking about 1/60s minimum if there's even the slightest movement in the subject - which is close to four stops from 1/800s, rather than the eight stops available. My point being, 8 stops of stabilisation is great on paper, but not necessarily of benefit in some of the use cases where one might want such a long focal length...

[reh321]

Yes... but by "slower shutter speeds", I think we're probably talking about 1/60s minimum if there's even the slightest movement in the subject - which is close to four stops from 1/800s, rather than the eight stops available. My point being, 8 stops of stabilisation is great on paper, but not necessarily of benefit in some of the use cases where one might want such a long focal length...

Yes, stabilization affects only camera movement, but cannot help with subject movement.

[LeeRunge]

Yes... but by "slower shutter speeds", I think we're probably talking about 1/60s minimum if there's even the slightest movement in the subject - which is close to four stops from 1/800s, rather than the eight stops available. My point being, 8 stops of stabilisation is great on paper, but not necessarily of benefit in some of the use cases where one might want such a long focal length...

Agreed.

I think 8 stops would be much more interesting for hand held with primes in extreme dark. I remember some examples of the EM-1 ii with the 12-100 which was the first setup I saw with sync IS and people hand holding shots for 10 and 20 seconds. Something like that would be very useful at times. Although I think the IBIS is rated for 6.5? in the body on the R5/6 and then varies by lens with sync. I think the 800mm if I remember was not boosted much.

Also you're correct as it's claimed 8 stops on paper, what it is in reality may be different.


At any rate the R5/6 are pretty attractive cameras right now and as I watch the lens lineup's build Canon's is looking pretty good so far. I have Nikon lenses but I'm not sold on the Z6 yet. I'm fine with 20mp in the R5 also and generally prefer smaller MP cameras for the file sizes as I utilize iPhone and iPad with lightroom for a lot of editing when I'm traveling now. Huge file sizes don't help with limited space on those devices and the cloud is slooooow.

I think it's a matter of time before one of these brands strait up adds cell data capability and uploads photo's in real time with these cameras, especially with 5G so RAW's can go to edit strait away during certain situations, like a press briefing etc. I know they can do that with attachments and FTP but that process could be streamlined line it is on a iPhone.


Right now I'm leaning toward Canon when the time comes to start a FF mirrorless system. Of course I don't "need" it as the D750 takes perfectly fine images with really no difference in a Z camera at 24mp or a Sony or Canon, images al are pretty close. The travel experience with the 24-240 is appealing to me and I think what will happen is I pick up an R5/6 probably a 5 and that lens and replace my OMD setup for travel. Eventually it will grow as the lenses arrive to replace what I have in Nikon/Pentax. Unless I decide to keep Pentax gear with the K-3 iii when it arrives to have a SLR around.

The IBIS/Sync capability is a big advantage for Canon and was a highlight for Olympus. I think Panasonic is doing that as well. Nikon missed the boat.

Livebulb, Live comp and procapture are extremely useful modes for OMD that I really hope we see showup in the other brands. Catching lightning with Livecomp is an effortless and extremely fun option, as is watching Bulb exposures happen in real time. It reminds me of being under the red lights in a darkroom watching a photo expose as a kid/teen.

[KiloHotelphoto]

Think carefully on that 800 f/11...

Two things would concern me. Firstly, at that kind of focal length and with long distance subjects, atmospheric distortion is a real consideration depending upon conditions (clearly that isn't a limitation of this specific lens, but of long-distance subjects generally). Secondly, whilst image stabilisation is all well and good, and 8 stops is incredible on paper, very low shutter speeds aren't much use if there's any sort of movement in the subject. For a typically twitchy critter, you're likely to require multiple shots and a large dose of luck to deliver (maybe) just one sharp, blur-free image. At 1/4s (roughly 8 stops down from 1/800s), any wildlife you shoot had better be asleep, frozen stiff, stuffed or carved from stone. At more realistic shutter speeds and f/11, you're going to need very good light and/or increased ISO - neither of which might be a problem depending on what you're shooting and your expectations; but it's certainly a consideration.

I'm sure in the right conditions it's a very good and very useful lens... but I'd bet a lot of folks who buy it might be surprised by how niche its applications are - not to mention the skill required - once they've used it for a while...

Long telephotos are not just for shooting long distances where heat haze can be a problem. They are great for filling the frame with smaller animals like small birds.

The R5 is pretty good at high ISO so you don't have to lower the shutter that low and if you do 20fps with the electronic shutter and animal eye AF on you will easily get a keeper in a quick burst.

I won't be replacing my 600 F4 with one of these F11 RF lenses but they are a new and affordable option for people who want to do some birding without having to spend $17,000 and carry bigger equipment. I didn't get it when they announced them but after getting the R5 and seeing reviews of the F11 lenses on the R5 and 6 I get it now. I give Canon credit for thinking outside the box with them, they won't replace the big L primes but will be a great option at a low price for people.

[LeeRunge]

Long telephotos are not just for shooting long distances where heat haze can be a problem. They are great for filling the frame with smaller animals like small birds.

The R5 is pretty good at high ISO so you don't have to lower the shutter that low and if you do 20fps with the electronic shutter and animal eye AF on you will easily get a keeper in a quick burst.

I won't be replacing my 600 F4 with one of these F11 RF lenses but they are a new and affordable option for people who want to do some birding without having to spend $17,000 and carry bigger equipment. I didn't get it when they announced them but after getting the R5 and seeing reviews of the F11 lenses on the R5 and 6 I get it now. I give Canon credit for thinking outside the box with them, they won't replace the big L primes but will be a great option at a low price for people.

Tony Northrup had an entertaining video on the use of one in comparison with a D850 and 600F4. That setup is as large as a bazooka.

I think we'll probably see some affordable 150-600's for RF as well in time. Although those are also pretty large they aren't anything close to the 600F4 in price or size and IMO are good enough for most. I'm pretty happy with the one I own for image quality.

Long distances will always have atmosphere issues. I use a 2 million dollar video camera for work and when you look out 10-20 miles it's always going to be terrible with particles in the atmosphere or temperature effects.

[reh321]

Long distances will always have atmosphere issues. I use a 2 million dollar video camera for work and when you look out 10-20 miles it's always going to be terrible with particles in the atmosphere or temperature effects.

Which, of course, is why optical telescopes tend to be located on mountain-tops.