CANON R6III RELEASE UPDATE

Just a hobbyist here, or maybe not even that, I was just looking for the best camera/lens combo for vacation pics. Replaced the aging 7D to pick up the latest tech (mirrorless, awesome autofocus, bluetooth to the phone, etc). Brought the new R6II/24-105 F4 L on vacation in a lowepro sling bag, but found the combo heavier than the 7D with EF-S 15-85mm. I also use pop-up flash for fill when taking outdoor portraits, so I brought a long my 270EX II, but I found it too cumbersome to keep attaching/detaching every time I took it out of the sling.

So I ended up trading in the 7D and a bunch of lenses for an R10 and love it. Similar enough to the R6II, but lighter. But as someone mentioned, the lack of a good RF-S lens was now a problem. I bought the Canon EF EOS R mount adapter and mounted my EF-S 15-85mm which is very sharp and has the focal length I need, but the length of the barrel with the mount adapter puts a nasty shadow on the bottom of the image when I use the pop-up flash.
Yes, an R10 sounds much more in line with your preferences.
I couldn't find any RF-S equivalents that had the same high image quality, so I ended up buying a Sigma 18-50mm 2.8 DC DN even though it lacks IS. It doesn't throw a shadow when I use the pop-up flash and is very light. I don't miss the lack of IS in the R10 body or lens cause most of my shots are taken at shutter speeds of 1/60th or faster.
And a great lens solution for you!
Not interested in an R6III.
Our needs are definitely different! FF is the most suitable for what I do, so the R6iii is a no-brainer for me. And I might even spring for an R7ii if performance comes close to my R5ii (for birding). Unfortunately the R7 (OG) didn't work out for that and I sold it.
R7 was good but I had that and my R6II in hand. This spring I was going to sell one in preparation for the next version of something. I kept the R6II. I may just go with the R6III and forgo the R7II. I have seen so many awesome bird shots with the 1DX and high end R series over the years. I really liked my 5D4 and R sensors. I think it was same sensor in both.

Here is my 5D4 cropped. It's not an R5/II and not a wall mount but still. I think I'll start with the R6III and take it from there.

78988546af0d4886b7ebff10602ba869.jpg

93501d7f0fe84a81b37e9dccf8510a9b.jpg


But enjoy that R10. I've recommended it to quite a few shooters. It's a super value!

R2


--
Funny how millions of people on an internet platform where they can communicate instantaneously with people on the other side of the world using incredibly powerful handheld computers linked to orbiting the satellites hundreds of miles in space don’t believe in science. Neil deGrasse Tyson
 
Can you elaborate a bit more, which lenses would I be jealous of?
RF 10-20mm f/4 for a start. Superb lens and tiny compared with the EF 11-24mm.
ok, interesting, a nice lens for sure, but its very niche, a lot of people won't need/buy this lens, but it is a unique lens, agreed.
I use it an awful lot more than I use 85mm. Now portraits with the eyelashes in focus but not the eyebrows, that's niche.
The RF 28mm f/2.8 isn't too big or heavy either
it falls down on so many levels though, no wr, not even a seal for dust/moisture, and the af motor, ok, its ok for what it is.
As you say, the AF motor is ok. Seals need to be renewed regularly if they're to remain effective. Water resistance is overrated for a 28mm lens that size, even one used on APS-C, you could wear a hat with a big peak. I don't get paid for photographs so there's absolutely no point in bringing my camera out in conditions where I'm going to get crappy pictures anyway. My RF 100-400mm makes no claims to weather protection but has been drizzled on and wiped off and is still clean inside after being used on a dusty desert
and the RF 100-400mm gets used a lot more than I thought it would be just because of the R8's low light performance, the lens' portability and the fact that it will go into a big jacket pocket. Sneer all you like about the 16mm but it's a nice lens to have along with you on the off-chance you need an ultra-wide and didn't bring one because of the bulk and weight. Just make sure you use any of them with a RAW converter with decent provision for them.
I wouldn't personally buy either of those lenses again, I'm not sneering I just don't feel as if that's the sort of lens I should be putting on a £4.5k camera body, sorry.
There's no need for any correlation between the price of the body and the lens.
This is the real problem for me, Canon has produced a pretty nice pair of lightweight 2.8 lenses in the 16-28-70, the 16-28 has to be preferable to the 16mm prime anyway, and like wise the 28-70 is easily a better purchase than the 28mm 2.8 prime too. The gap is currently a 70-300 4-5.6 with reasonable close focus, and no I don't want a 100mm start and/or a 200 finish, something smallish/portable with some tele, is that so difficult?
I wouldn't buy a 70-300mm as the bit from 70mm to 95mm is almost useless for me and I'm fairly sure that a ⅔ crop (to 44% of the pixels) from 300mm is going to be worse than the 400mm end of the RF lens.
The 24-240 is an ok lens to be fair, but its being stretched at 240mm and it's fairly slow throughout anyway and 24mm is there only for the sake of saying its 24mm wide, but its ok, its af motor could be faster and again it lacks any sort of weather sealing, for a travel zoom again, its a miss from Canon on many levels that could have been easily corrected from the start.
At a price. The Fuji XF 35mm f2 Lens with WR and an aperture ring is double the price of the XC version that uses the same glass. It's also 30% heavier. Put the camera into a Ewa Marine bag if its going to be that dusty/wet/snowy and stop worrying.
I think Canon are just not doing the basics well for FF, its hardly like we need them to produce incredible lenses, just modern day classics with wr and decent modern af motors. The 85f2 suffers the same fate, great optically but no wr and an af motor on the R5ii that cannot keep up and worst of all its af motor gets very loud when pushed, almost like a pumping sound action. I really like the R5ii, I see little to no point in an R6III and for what the difference in cost will be, just buy the R5ii.
In the immortal words of John McEnroe, you can not be serious. Currently the R5 II is double the price of the R6 II.
The problem for me right now is the lens patch is missing, I thought I'd cope with the 28-70 but the lack of 24 is infuriating and I don't really want a 24-105 f4, so my options currently are non-existent if I'm being honest for a work horse light 24-70 2.8 lens and travel 70-300 4-5.6 tele.
That's you, of course. I couldn't live with a 24-70mm having had 24-105mm for a dozen years,I don't need anything between 50mm and about 95mm. While a travel 70-300 4-5.6 looks as if it would be better for concerts as it's a stop faster than my lens, the last EF one is still 30% heavier on my camera than my lens, and has 1½ stops less stabilisation and 25% less reach. There isn't an f/2.8 24-70mm made that's less than 700g on a mirrorless cameras; mass is almost certainly the reason Canon went for 28-70mm.
 
Last edited:
Just a hobbyist here, or maybe not even that, I was just looking for the best camera/lens combo for vacation pics. Replaced the aging 7D to pick up the latest tech (mirrorless, awesome autofocus, bluetooth to the phone, etc). Brought the new R6II/24-105 F4 L on vacation in a lowepro sling bag, but found the combo heavier than the 7D with EF-S 15-85mm. I also use pop-up flash for fill when taking outdoor portraits, so I brought a long my 270EX II, but I found it too cumbersome to keep attaching/detaching every time I took it out of the sling.

So I ended up trading in the 7D and a bunch of lenses for an R10 and love it. Similar enough to the R6II, but lighter. But as someone mentioned, the lack of a good RF-S lens was now a problem. I bought the Canon EF EOS R mount adapter and mounted my EF-S 15-85mm which is very sharp and has the focal length I need, but the length of the barrel with the mount adapter puts a nasty shadow on the bottom of the image when I use the pop-up flash.
Yes, an R10 sounds much more in line with your preferences.
Absolutely, I had used a Rebel many years ago for vacations and got some great pics. The R10 feels even smaller, but is a huge upgrade over the DSLR Rebels.
I couldn't find any RF-S equivalents that had the same high image quality, so I ended up buying a Sigma 18-50mm 2.8 DC DN even though it lacks IS. It doesn't throw a shadow when I use the pop-up flash and is very light. I don't miss the lack of IS in the R10 body or lens cause most of my shots are taken at shutter speeds of 1/60th or faster.
And a great lens solution for you!
Given the current lineup, I agree.
Not interested in an R6III.
Our needs are definitely different! FF is the most suitable for what I do, so the R6iii is a no-brainer for me. And I might even spring for an R7ii if performance comes close to my R5ii (for birding). Unfortunately the R7 (OG) didn't work out for that and I sold it.

But enjoy that R10. I've recommended it to quite a few shooters. It's a super value!

R2
For sure, I understand. I will also be keeping my R6II and 24-105 F4L (also got the 70-200 F4L for shooting a marathon). It's my first full frame and feels great in my larger hands. Noticeably a much better camera when you pick it up and shoot with it after using the R10. But the R10 will be my vacation go to.
 
RF 10-20mm f/4 for a start. Superb lens and tiny compared with the EF 11-24mm.
ok, interesting, a nice lens for sure, but its very niche, a lot of people won't need/buy this lens, but it is a unique lens, agreed.
I use it an awful lot more than I use 85mm. Now portraits with the eyelashes in focus but not the eyebrows, that's niche.
The RF 28mm f/2.8 isn't too big or heavy either
it falls down on so many levels though, no wr, not even a seal for dust/moisture, and the af motor, ok, its ok for what it is.
As you say, the AF motor is ok. Seals need to be renewed regularly if they're to remain effective. Water resistance is overrated for a 28mm lens that size, even one used on APS-C, you could wear a hat with a big peak. I don't get paid for photographs so there's absolutely no point in bringing my camera out in conditions where I'm going to get crappy pictures anyway. My RF 100-400mm makes no claims to weather protection but has been drizzled on and wiped off and is still clean inside after being used on a dusty desert
and the RF 100-400mm gets used a lot more than I thought it would be just because of the R8's low light performance, the lens' portability and the fact that it will go into a big jacket pocket. Sneer all you like about the 16mm but it's a nice lens to have along with you on the off-chance you need an ultra-wide and didn't bring one because of the bulk and weight. Just make sure you use any of them with a RAW converter with decent provision for them.
I wouldn't personally buy either of those lenses again, I'm not sneering I just don't feel as if that's the sort of lens I should be putting on a £4.5k camera body, sorry.
There's no need for any correlation between the price of the body and the lens.
This is the real problem for me, Canon has produced a pretty nice pair of lightweight 2.8 lenses in the 16-28-70, the 16-28 has to be preferable to the 16mm prime anyway, and like wise the 28-70 is easily a better purchase than the 28mm 2.8 prime too. The gap is currently a 70-300 4-5.6 with reasonable close focus, and no I don't want a 100mm start and/or a 200 finish, something smallish/portable with some tele, is that so difficult?
I wouldn't buy a 70-300mm as the bit from 70mm to 95mm is almost useless for me and I'm fairly sure that a ⅔ crop (to 44% of the pixels) from 300mm is going to be worse than the 400mm end of the RF lens.
The 24-240 is an ok lens to be fair, but its being stretched at 240mm and it's fairly slow throughout anyway and 24mm is there only for the sake of saying its 24mm wide, but its ok, its af motor could be faster and again it lacks any sort of weather sealing, for a travel zoom again, its a miss from Canon on many levels that could have been easily corrected from the start.
At a price. The Fuji XF 35mm f2 Lens with WR and an aperture ring is double the price of the XC version that uses the same glass. It's also 30% heavier. Put the camera into a Ewa Marine bag if its going to be that dusty/wet/snowy and stop worrying.
I think Canon are just not doing the basics well for FF, its hardly like we need them to produce incredible lenses, just modern day classics with wr and decent modern af motors. The 85f2 suffers the same fate, great optically but no wr and an af motor on the R5ii that cannot keep up and worst of all its af motor gets very loud when pushed, almost like a pumping sound action. I really like the R5ii, I see little to no point in an R6III and for what the difference in cost will be, just buy the R5ii.
In the immortal words of John McEnroe, you can not be serious. Currently the R5 II is double the price of the R6 II.
That's your opinion, if the new camera is not stacked it would make even less sense to buy it imo.
The problem for me right now is the lens patch is missing, I thought I'd cope with the 28-70 but the lack of 24 is infuriating and I don't really want a 24-105 f4, so my options currently are non-existent if I'm being honest for a work horse light 24-70 2.8 lens and travel 70-300 4-5.6 tele.
That's you, of course. I couldn't live with a 24-70mm having had 24-105mm for a dozen years,I don't need anything between 50mm and about 95mm. While a travel 70-300 4-5.6 looks as if it would be better for concerts as it's a stop faster than my lens, the last EF one is still 30% heavier on my camera than my lens, and has 1½ stops less stabilisation and 25% less reach. There isn't an f/2.8 24-70mm made that's less than 700g on a mirrorless cameras; mass is almost certainly the reason Canon went for 28-70mm.
Sony 24-70 gmii 2.8 has been around for some time now is <700gr, mkii Nikon Z 24-70 2.8 same and Sigma 24-70 2.8art ii 730gr.

As I said, RF 28 2.8 and a slow 100-400 are just not why I spent 4.5k on an Incredible camera, makes no sense. Equally, overweight lenses are not compatible with the small form factor Canon have achieved. Are Canon camera and lens development team actually working together or as it seems as separate entities, certainly that's how it feels.
 
Can you elaborate a bit more, which lenses would I be jealous of?
RF 10-20mm f/4 for a start. Superb lens and tiny compared with the EF 11-24mm.
ok, interesting, a nice lens for sure, but its very niche, a lot of people won't need/buy this lens, but it is a unique lens, agreed.
I use it an awful lot more than I use 85mm. Now portraits with the eyelashes in focus but not the eyebrows, that's niche.
The RF 28mm f/2.8 isn't too big or heavy either
it falls down on so many levels though, no wr, not even a seal for dust/moisture, and the af motor, ok, its ok for what it is.
As you say, the AF motor is ok. Seals need to be renewed regularly if they're to remain effective. Water resistance is overrated for a 28mm lens that size, even one used on APS-C, you could wear a hat with a big peak. I don't get paid for photographs so there's absolutely no point in bringing my camera out in conditions where I'm going to get crappy pictures anyway. My RF 100-400mm makes no claims to weather protection but has been drizzled on and wiped off and is still clean inside after being used on a dusty desert
and the RF 100-400mm gets used a lot more than I thought it would be just because of the R8's low light performance, the lens' portability and the fact that it will go into a big jacket pocket. Sneer all you like about the 16mm but it's a nice lens to have along with you on the off-chance you need an ultra-wide and didn't bring one because of the bulk and weight. Just make sure you use any of them with a RAW converter with decent provision for them.
I wouldn't personally buy either of those lenses again, I'm not sneering I just don't feel as if that's the sort of lens I should be putting on a £4.5k camera body, sorry.
There's no need for any correlation between the price of the body and the lens.
This is the real problem for me, Canon has produced a pretty nice pair of lightweight 2.8 lenses in the 16-28-70, the 16-28 has to be preferable to the 16mm prime anyway, and like wise the 28-70 is easily a better purchase than the 28mm 2.8 prime too. The gap is currently a 70-300 4-5.6 with reasonable close focus, and no I don't want a 100mm start and/or a 200 finish, something smallish/portable with some tele, is that so difficult?
I wouldn't buy a 70-300mm as the bit from 70mm to 95mm is almost useless for me and I'm fairly sure that a ⅔ crop (to 44% of the pixels) from 300mm is going to be worse than the 400mm end of the RF lens.
The 24-240 is an ok lens to be fair, but its being stretched at 240mm and it's fairly slow throughout anyway and 24mm is there only for the sake of saying its 24mm wide, but its ok, its af motor could be faster and again it lacks any sort of weather sealing, for a travel zoom again, its a miss from Canon on many levels that could have been easily corrected from the start.
At a price. The Fuji XF 35mm f2 Lens with WR and an aperture ring is double the price of the XC version that uses the same glass. It's also 30% heavier. Put the camera into a Ewa Marine bag if its going to be that dusty/wet/snowy and stop worrying.
I think Canon are just not doing the basics well for FF, its hardly like we need them to produce incredible lenses, just modern day classics with wr and decent modern af motors. The 85f2 suffers the same fate, great optically but no wr and an af motor on the R5ii that cannot keep up and worst of all its af motor gets very loud when pushed, almost like a pumping sound action. I really like the R5ii, I see little to no point in an R6III and for what the difference in cost will be, just buy the R5ii.
In the immortal words of John McEnroe, you can not be serious. Currently the R5 II is double the price of the R6 II.
That's your opinion, if the new camera is not stacked it would make even less sense to buy it imo.
The problem for me right now is the lens patch is missing, I thought I'd cope with the 28-70 but the lack of 24 is infuriating and I don't really want a 24-105 f4, so my options currently are non-existent if I'm being honest for a work horse light 24-70 2.8 lens and travel 70-300 4-5.6 tele.
That's you, of course. I couldn't live with a 24-70mm having had 24-105mm for a dozen years,I don't need anything between 50mm and about 95mm. While a travel 70-300 4-5.6 looks as if it would be better for concerts as it's a stop faster than my lens, the last EF one is still 30% heavier on my camera than my lens, and has 1½ stops less stabilisation and 25% less reach. There isn't an f/2.8 24-70mm made that's less than 700g on a mirrorless cameras; mass is almost certainly the reason Canon went for 28-70mm.
Sony 24-70 gmii 2.8 has been around for some time now is <700gr, mkii Nikon Z 24-70 2.8 same and Sigma 24-70 2.8art ii 730gr.

As I said, RF 28 2.8 and a slow 100-400 are just not why I spent 4.5k on an Incredible camera, makes no sense. Equally, overweight lenses are not compatible with the small form factor Canon have achieved. Are Canon camera and lens development team actually working together or as it seems as separate entities, certainly that's how it feels.
Weren't the available lens choices obvious to you when you bought the camera??

I had very specific lenses in mind when I bought all of my cameras. Sure, I spent a lot of money on lenses, but they did the job for me. IOW I knew what I had going in.

R2
 
Can you elaborate a bit more, which lenses would I be jealous of?
RF 10-20mm f/4 for a start. Superb lens and tiny compared with the EF 11-24mm.
ok, interesting, a nice lens for sure, but its very niche, a lot of people won't need/buy this lens, but it is a unique lens, agreed.
I use it an awful lot more than I use 85mm. Now portraits with the eyelashes in focus but not the eyebrows, that's niche.
The RF 28mm f/2.8 isn't too big or heavy either
it falls down on so many levels though, no wr, not even a seal for dust/moisture, and the af motor, ok, its ok for what it is.
As you say, the AF motor is ok. Seals need to be renewed regularly if they're to remain effective. Water resistance is overrated for a 28mm lens that size, even one used on APS-C, you could wear a hat with a big peak. I don't get paid for photographs so there's absolutely no point in bringing my camera out in conditions where I'm going to get crappy pictures anyway. My RF 100-400mm makes no claims to weather protection but has been drizzled on and wiped off and is still clean inside after being used on a dusty desert
and the RF 100-400mm gets used a lot more than I thought it would be just because of the R8's low light performance, the lens' portability and the fact that it will go into a big jacket pocket. Sneer all you like about the 16mm but it's a nice lens to have along with you on the off-chance you need an ultra-wide and didn't bring one because of the bulk and weight. Just make sure you use any of them with a RAW converter with decent provision for them.
I wouldn't personally buy either of those lenses again, I'm not sneering I just don't feel as if that's the sort of lens I should be putting on a £4.5k camera body, sorry.
There's no need for any correlation between the price of the body and the lens.
This is the real problem for me, Canon has produced a pretty nice pair of lightweight 2.8 lenses in the 16-28-70, the 16-28 has to be preferable to the 16mm prime anyway, and like wise the 28-70 is easily a better purchase than the 28mm 2.8 prime too. The gap is currently a 70-300 4-5.6 with reasonable close focus, and no I don't want a 100mm start and/or a 200 finish, something smallish/portable with some tele, is that so difficult?
I wouldn't buy a 70-300mm as the bit from 70mm to 95mm is almost useless for me and I'm fairly sure that a ⅔ crop (to 44% of the pixels) from 300mm is going to be worse than the 400mm end of the RF lens.
The 24-240 is an ok lens to be fair, but its being stretched at 240mm and it's fairly slow throughout anyway and 24mm is there only for the sake of saying its 24mm wide, but its ok, its af motor could be faster and again it lacks any sort of weather sealing, for a travel zoom again, its a miss from Canon on many levels that could have been easily corrected from the start.
At a price. The Fuji XF 35mm f2 Lens with WR and an aperture ring is double the price of the XC version that uses the same glass. It's also 30% heavier. Put the camera into a Ewa Marine bag if its going to be that dusty/wet/snowy and stop worrying.
I think Canon are just not doing the basics well for FF, its hardly like we need them to produce incredible lenses, just modern day classics with wr and decent modern af motors. The 85f2 suffers the same fate, great optically but no wr and an af motor on the R5ii that cannot keep up and worst of all its af motor gets very loud when pushed, almost like a pumping sound action. I really like the R5ii, I see little to no point in an R6III and for what the difference in cost will be, just buy the R5ii.
In the immortal words of John McEnroe, you can not be serious. Currently the R5 II is double the price of the R6 II.
That's your opinion, if the new camera is not stacked it would make even less sense to buy it imo.
The problem for me right now is the lens patch is missing, I thought I'd cope with the 28-70 but the lack of 24 is infuriating and I don't really want a 24-105 f4, so my options currently are non-existent if I'm being honest for a work horse light 24-70 2.8 lens and travel 70-300 4-5.6 tele.
That's you, of course. I couldn't live with a 24-70mm having had 24-105mm for a dozen years,I don't need anything between 50mm and about 95mm. While a travel 70-300 4-5.6 looks as if it would be better for concerts as it's a stop faster than my lens, the last EF one is still 30% heavier on my camera than my lens, and has 1½ stops less stabilisation and 25% less reach. There isn't an f/2.8 24-70mm made that's less than 700g on a mirrorless cameras; mass is almost certainly the reason Canon went for 28-70mm.
Sony 24-70 gmii 2.8 has been around for some time now is <700gr, mkii Nikon Z 24-70 2.8 same and Sigma 24-70 2.8art ii 730gr.

As I said, RF 28 2.8 and a slow 100-400 are just not why I spent 4.5k on an Incredible camera, makes no sense. Equally, overweight lenses are not compatible with the small form factor Canon have achieved. Are Canon camera and lens development team actually working together or as it seems as separate entities, certainly that's how it feels.
Weren't the available lens choices obvious to you when you bought the camera??
Sure, but the reality of things like the slow af motor of the 85f2 on the R5ii are not exactly common knowledge, you only learn these failings once you buy the lenses. Same with the 24-240, its only once you try it out repeatedly you start to get a sense for its limitations. Its easy to sit there saying or you knew what you were buying into, fact is you don't. Also, I thought I could overlook the 28 start in my zoom lens, again it's become a pivotal problem for me. I recently had the 17-40 1.8 on Fuji x and even the extra 2.5mm proved much more practical in, although still not as flexible as a 24-70. So, yes I'm looking at my options and thinking well Canon made a 70-200z, lightweight, aperture ring, why can't they offer the same in their standard zoom?
I had very specific lenses in mind when I bought all of my cameras. Sure, I spent a lot of money on lenses, but they did the job for me. IOW I knew what I had going in.
above, you don't know until you've tried it, I expected Canon to be rolling out lenses quicker, mkii 24-70 2.8, or even a 20-60. Same with 100-500, I like its sharpness but 7.1, hmm. I do like the R5ii but the lens options are holding it back imo.
 
Sure, but the reality of things like the slow af motor of the 85f2 on the R5ii are not exactly common knowledge, you only learn these failings once you buy the lenses.
All this complaining about the 85mm f2 AF speed is actually super funny. Nobody has ever shown this. It's just constant complaining. Not only by you but by thunderstorm as well.

Care to show us this significant flaw?

I can show you (and have shown before) that my copy is reasonably fast. The last time I showed this it was just ignored and complaining continued (check the ISO, this is even under difficult conditions):


Do this with a few lenses and you will actually get a good sens for slow and fast lenses. The 85mm f2 is actually faster than the Tamron 35-150, pretty much on par or even slightly faster than the Nikon Z 85mm 1.8. The RF 85mm f2 is by no means a fast lens but it isn't a slow lens either, therefore I don't get this discussion AT ALL.

And yes, sometimes I'm a bit quick to cancel focus and switch target again and don't focus all the way through, but other than that this is pretty much flawless over quite a long time period. There are lenses and cameras that struggle quite a lot in those conditions.

As I said before: It's a noisy lens and this can irritate you into believing that it is slow. It's a bit of a "sensation transference".

And sure, some reviewers report slow AF, but maybe they mixed this up with video mode where Canon is using an intentional slow down to limit noise? In his review Dustin Abbot never showed any examples in photo mode and it's not sure if his conclusion is about photo or video mode. Christopher Frost doesn't show photo mode examples either.. Again: Only video samples. And of course there is always the possibility of a faulty batch. Maybe try another copy?!

Update: Found another video showing very good (aka reliable and fast enough AF) in photo mode (it's german, sorry for that but the pictures speak for themselves):
He says that he really liked the results of the running test and that each photo in the series was properly focused. He confirms good tracking performance, but mentions slow, STM motors as well, but here I spotted another flaw in those tests: The reviewers tend to focus to "pseudo macro range". Switching from infinite or middle ground distances to minimum focus distance is probably not a fair comparison. Use the lens with similar magnification as other 85mm 1.8s and it is performs well.
 
Last edited:
above, you don't know until you've tried it, I expected Canon to be rolling out lenses quicker, mkii 24-70 2.8, or even a 20-60. Same with 100-500, I like its sharpness but 7.1, hmm. I do like the R5ii but the lens options are holding it back imo.
The one theory I keep coming back to is that Canon probably was targeting ONLY the Pro market. In my mind a Canon Pro shooter is the kind of professional that brings along an assistant. They are getting paid enough to not be bothered by the weight and bulk as long as the end result is what they were after.

Canon didn't realise or care about the "solo Pro" or enthusiast market.

They didn't realise the non-pro mirrorless users will take Canon seriously and convert to Canon. (I dumped all of my m43 gear once I took pictures of then three year old daughter with the R6 and realised what good AF AND excellent IQ/colors meant)

Sony has been besting Canon in terms of lenses but keep in mind that Canon is playing the catch up game with Sony. Sony a7 was release in 2013 whereas Canon R was released in 2018. That's 5 years of catching up to do.

Both Canon 24-70 f/2.8 and 28-70 f/2 are bulkier than Sony's. Sony has the global shutter whereas Canon doesn't.

I have tried (ie bought and sold) Sony a7r IV, a7 c2, a6700, rx100 vii. Having learnt what I learnt using Sony and Canon, and Fuji (still have kept the X100T), and Olympus, Panasonic ... for me Canon is the best camera system in terms of IQ, haptics/customisability, speed and overall usability.

I don't know if there is any other camera that allows me to configure AF where the shutter button AF is single point one-shot, AF-ON button is for human eye-detect servo and *(AEL) button is configured for animal eye-detect servo. Couple that with Fv mode and mapping C1-3 to do all of the above except changing Picture Profile and couple other settings... my R6 II is in super-charged photo-ninja mode... works for me better than anything else I have tried.

The Fv mode is one of the most underrated features which only Canon has.

I wish they allowed direct control of contrast on the fly instead of customising picture profiles. (Olympus have this and also now there is the live ND Grad but I am not switching to Olympus just for that knowing what I know having used Olympus m43 for about 7 years)

I will be one of the first in line if/when Canon do get around to release a lighter RF 24-70 f/2.8 but until then there is the 28-70 f/2.8 (granted it kinda gives up at 70mm)

Canon in my opinion for stills shooting are somewhat like Arri Digital for cinema production. The IQ and output are pretty much 95% there and not much is needed in terms of editing or post-production. From what I am seeing and reading about R5 II, for me I think it is going to be the camera that will produce the kind of SOOC JPEGs I am after.

Looking forward to pairing R5 II with one of the new VCM primes. I have the 50 f/1.4 to start with.

But I agree with what you said, you don't know until you've tried it.
 
above, you don't know until you've tried it, I expected Canon to be rolling out lenses quicker, mkii 24-70 2.8, or even a 20-60. Same with 100-500, I like its sharpness but 7.1, hmm. I do like the R5ii but the lens options are holding it back imo.
The one theory I keep coming back to is that Canon probably was targeting ONLY the Pro market. In my mind a Canon Pro shooter is the kind of professional that brings along an assistant. They are getting paid enough to not be bothered by the weight and bulk as long as the end result is what they were after.

Canon didn't realise or care about the "solo Pro" or enthusiast market.

They didn't realise the non-pro mirrorless users will take Canon seriously and convert to Canon. (I dumped all of my m43 gear once I took pictures of then three year old daughter with the R6 and realised what good AF AND excellent IQ/colors meant)

Sony has been besting Canon in terms of lenses but keep in mind that Canon is playing the catch up game with Sony. Sony a7 was release in 2013 whereas Canon R was released in 2018. That's 5 years of catching up to do.

Both Canon 24-70 f/2.8 and 28-70 f/2 are bulkier than Sony's. Sony has the global shutter whereas Canon doesn't.

I have tried (ie bought and sold) Sony a7r IV, a7 c2, a6700, rx100 vii. Having learnt what I learnt using Sony and Canon, and Fuji (still have kept the X100T), and Olympus, Panasonic ... for me Canon is the best camera system in terms of IQ, haptics/customisability, speed and overall usability.

I don't know if there is any other camera that allows me to configure AF where the shutter button AF is single point one-shot, AF-ON button is for human eye-detect servo and *(AEL) button is configured for animal eye-detect servo. Couple that with Fv mode and mapping C1-3 to do all of the above except changing Picture Profile and couple other settings... my R6 II is in super-charged photo-ninja mode... works for me better than anything else I have tried.

The Fv mode is one of the most underrated features which only Canon has.

I wish they allowed direct control of contrast on the fly instead of customising picture profiles. (Olympus have this and also now there is the live ND Grad but I am not switching to Olympus just for that knowing what I know having used Olympus m43 for about 7 years)

I will be one of the first in line if/when Canon do get around to release a lighter RF 24-70 f/2.8 but until then there is the 28-70 f/2.8 (granted it kinda gives up at 70mm)

Canon in my opinion for stills shooting are somewhat like Arri Digital for cinema production. The IQ and output are pretty much 95% there and not much is needed in terms of editing or post-production. From what I am seeing and reading about R5 II, for me I think it is going to be the camera that will produce the kind of SOOC JPEGs I am after.

Looking forward to pairing R5 II with one of the new VCM primes. I have the 50 f/1.4 to start with.

But I agree with what you said, you don't know until you've tried it.
We are on the same page, personally speaking the R5ii is the single best camera in all respects I have ever owned coming from all of the above too and I refuse to let it go until I have exhausted all of my options. But it's difficult, bought the X-T5 to give me a light travel option and used it in partnership with R5ii on occasion, but I'm going to hire the a1ii and try it against it and see for myself the differences, I'm interested to see both the 24-50 2.8 and Sigma art 24-70 2.8 up against the RF 28-70. From there I'll sort of know where I'm going.
 
Sony 24-70 gmii 2.8 has been around for some time now is <700gr, mkii Nikon Z 24-70 2.8 same and Sigma 24-70 2.8art ii 730gr.

As I said, RF 28 2.8 and a slow 100-400 are just not why I spent 4.5k on an Incredible camera, makes no sense. Equally, overweight lenses are not compatible with the small form factor Canon have achieved. Are Canon camera and lens development team actually working together or as it seems as separate entities, certainly that's how it feels.
Weren't the available lens choices obvious to you when you bought the camera??
Sure, but the reality of things like the slow af motor of the 85f2 on the R5ii are not exactly common knowledge, you only learn these failings once you buy the lenses.
The strengths and weaknesses of the RF 85/2 were entirely clear to me before I bought it back 5 years ago. Reviews, and members here (like Thunder Storm), already had its behavior nailed down. I then bought the lens for its particular strengths (and my own usage has reflected this).
Same with the 24-240, its only once you try it out repeatedly you start to get a sense for its limitations. Its easy to sit there saying or you knew what you were buying into, fact is you don't.
This lens' proclivities have been widely known for quite some time now too. When did you buy it? Or did you pre-order it before it was available? (That could indeed be a gamble).

If a person is still unsure about a particular piece of equipment even after researching it however, then I agree, they certainly should try it out first before buying. You seem to be more of an impulse buyer than I am tho.

Also, I thought I could overlook the 28 start in my zoom lens, again it's become a pivotal problem for me.
Again, something like this should be apparent before buying. Or is the issue simply lack of experience? (which is just fine, as we all were inexperienced at some point).

Heck, I myself was unsure if I could live with the 28mm wide end of the 28-70 f/2, but fortunately it turned out to be a non-issue for me. The lens is incredible. I pair it with the equally excellent RF 15-35 f/2.8 and the super-light RF 70-200/2.8 (OG).

I understand that your own needs will likely be completely different from mine. But the vetting process should remain the same!
I recently had the 17-40 1.8 on Fuji x and even the extra 2.5mm proved much more practical in, although still not as flexible as a 24-70. So, yes I'm looking at my options and thinking well Canon made a 70-200z, lightweight, aperture ring, why can't they offer the same in their standard zoom?
We all certainly have our wish lists. ;-)
I had very specific lenses in mind when I bought all of my cameras. Sure, I spent a lot of money on lenses, but they did the job for me. IOW I knew what I had going in.
above, you don't know until you've tried it,
I'm fortunate to be part of a large circle of shooters of all levels (incl this forum) that I can lean on for advice. I research thoroughly before buying. Even for a new camera like the R6iii (which I'll likely be pre-ordering) I know what I'm getting into beforehand.

Bring it on!
I expected Canon to be rolling out lenses quicker, mkii 24-70 2.8, or even a 20-60. Same with 100-500, I like its sharpness but 7.1, hmm. I do like the R5ii but the lens options are holding it back imo.
You should buy into a system as it exists, not as you would like it to be. That's how you ensure satisfaction.

Everything else will then be gravy! :-D

R2
 
The strengths and weaknesses of the RF 85/2 were entirely clear to me before I bought it back 5 years ago. Reviews, and members here (like Thunder Storm), already had its behavior nailed down. I then bought the lens for its particular strengths (and my own usage has reflected this).

R2
Is that the case? All I see from thunderstorm is "trust me bro" and some of the more critical reviewer have not shown any evidence that the lens is slow in photo mode. AlphaZ decided to stay silent on this topic as well (see my previous post). Those critical reviewers only show the extending lens barel while (presumably) focusing to pseudo macro mangification levels. This is not a fair comparison as other lenses do not even offer this kind of magnification.

I found another review with actual sample footage:

Gordon Laing calls the RF 85 f2 snappy. The 85mm 1.2 demonstrated after the 2.0 is on par or even slower. My footage shows the same. Davision showed good and reliable tracking performance.

Why should we trust some "trust me bro" sources when we can have actual sample footage that show the opposite? Still waiting for someone to actually prove slow AF in photo mode. And don't get me wrong: I wouldn't call it fast either. But certainly sufficient, even for some action.

Update: drsnoopy found and posted the same review at the same time. :-D
 
Last edited:
Sure, but the reality of things like the slow af motor of the 85f2 on the R5ii are not exactly common knowledge, you only learn these failings once you buy the lenses.
All this complaining about the 85mm f2 AF speed is actually super funny. Nobody has ever shown this. It's just constant complaining. Not only by you but by thunderstorm as well.

Care to show us this significant flaw?

I can show you (and have shown before) that my copy is reasonably fast. The last time I showed this it was just ignored and complaining continued (check the ISO, this is even under difficult conditions):


Do this with a few lenses and you will actually get a good sens for slow and fast lenses. The 85mm f2 is actually faster than the Tamron 35-150, pretty much on par or even slightly faster than the Nikon Z 85mm 1.8. The RF 85mm f2 is by no means a fast lens but it isn't a slow lens either, therefore I don't get this discussion AT ALL.

And yes, sometimes I'm a bit quick to cancel focus and switch target again and don't focus all the way through, but other than that this is pretty much flawless over quite a long time period. There are lenses and cameras that struggle quite a lot in those conditions.

As I said before: It's a noisy lens and this can irritate you into believing that it is slow. It's a bit of a "sensation transference".

And sure, some reviewers report slow AF, but maybe they mixed this up with video mode where Canon is using an intentional slow down to limit noise? In his review Dustin Abbot never showed any examples in photo mode and it's not sure if his conclusion is about photo or video mode. Christopher Frost doesn't show photo mode examples either.. Again: Only video samples. And of course there is always the possibility of a faulty batch. Maybe try another copy?!

Update: Found another video showing very good (aka reliable and fast enough AF) in photo mode (it's german, sorry for that but the pictures speak for themselves):
He says that he really liked the results of the running test and that each photo in the series was properly focused. He confirms good tracking performance, but mentions slow, STM motors as well, but here I spotted another flaw in those tests: The reviewers tend to focus to "pseudo macro range". Switching from infinite or middle ground distances to minimum focus distance is probably not a fair comparison. Use the lens with similar magnification as other 85mm 1.8s and it is performs well.
Gordon Laing ("Cameralabs") did a full review of the 85/2 which shows its AF performance in stills mode. Starts at 13:48


You can see it is certainly "fast enough". And clearly faster than the RF 85/1.2. My (brand new) copy is subjectively slower to AF, and a little noisier, compared to my USM-powered RF lenses and some of my other RF STM lenses are subjectively faster. But this is mostly about changing from say near to far. Once you are approximately focused during a session, small adjustments are fast and quiet. Gordon's review also shows it tracking him as a moving subject, also in stills mode, with good performance.

I quite like the 85/2, but I'm still not sure whether it will replace my EF 100/2.8 L macro. It is a little slower to perform a 20-image focus bracket than the EF macro. Whether that will matter in practical applications is something I now need to test. I would also point out that it was available at a bargain price (£475 in UK, non grey market) which swung my purchasing decision.
 
Last edited:
Sony 24-70 gmii 2.8 has been around for some time now is <700gr, mkii Nikon Z 24-70 2.8 same and Sigma 24-70 2.8art ii 730gr.

As I said, RF 28 2.8 and a slow 100-400 are just not why I spent 4.5k on an Incredible camera, makes no sense. Equally, overweight lenses are not compatible with the small form factor Canon have achieved. Are Canon camera and lens development team actually working together or as it seems as separate entities, certainly that's how it feels.
Weren't the available lens choices obvious to you when you bought the camera??
Sure, but the reality of things like the slow af motor of the 85f2 on the R5ii are not exactly common knowledge, you only learn these failings once you buy the lenses.
The strengths and weaknesses of the RF 85/2 were entirely clear to me before I bought it back 5 years ago. Reviews, and members here (like Thunder Storm), already had its behavior nailed down. I then bought the lens for its particular strengths (and my own usage has reflected this).
Same with the 24-240, its only once you try it out repeatedly you start to get a sense for its limitations. Its easy to sit there saying or you knew what you were buying into, fact is you don't.
This lens' proclivities have been widely known for quite some time now too. When did you buy it? Or did you pre-order it before it was available? (That could indeed be a gamble).

If a person is still unsure about a particular piece of equipment even after researching it however, then I agree, they certainly should try it out first before buying. You seem to be more of an impulse buyer than I am tho.
Also, I thought I could overlook the 28 start in my zoom lens, again it's become a pivotal problem for me.
Again, something like this should be apparent before buying. Or is the issue simply lack of experience? (which is just fine, as we all were inexperienced at some point).

Heck, I myself was unsure if I could live with the 28mm wide end of the 28-70 f/2, but fortunately it turned out to be a non-issue for me. The lens is incredible. I pair it with the equally excellent RF 15-35 f/2.8 and the super-light RF 70-200/2.8 (OG).

I understand that your own needs will likely be completely different from mine. But the vetting process should remain the same!
I recently had the 17-40 1.8 on Fuji x and even the extra 2.5mm proved much more practical in, although still not as flexible as a 24-70. So, yes I'm looking at my options and thinking well Canon made a 70-200z, lightweight, aperture ring, why can't they offer the same in their standard zoom?
We all certainly have our wish lists. ;-)
I had very specific lenses in mind when I bought all of my cameras. Sure, I spent a lot of money on lenses, but they did the job for me. IOW I knew what I had going in.
above, you don't know until you've tried it,
I'm fortunate to be part of a large circle of shooters of all levels (incl this forum) that I can lean on for advice. I research thoroughly before buying. Even for a new camera like the R6iii (which I'll likely be pre-ordering) I know what I'm getting into beforehand.

Bring it on!
I expected Canon to be rolling out lenses quicker, mkii 24-70 2.8, or even a 20-60. Same with 100-500, I like its sharpness but 7.1, hmm. I do like the R5ii but the lens options are holding it back imo.
You should buy into a system as it exists, not as you would like it to be. That's how you ensure satisfaction.
Well RF exists, I thought I could work around its lens options, but it's proving difficult, all the advice and research and on-line reviewers are nothing compared to real world first hand use. On that front I know where I now stand with RF.

Like I say, Canon is investing heavily in updating camera bodies like the R6 at an unprecedented and quite honestly alarming rate, to add what a few extra pixels and tilting rear screen, and then completely avoiding the huge lens gaps, compact fast 24 to x zoom, compact 24,35,50 and 85 <f2 primes with fast modern focus motor, wr and a 24-200 and 70-300 zoom with wr and decent af motors!
Everything else will then be gravy! :-D
There's very little of that it seems.
 
Sony 24-70 gmii 2.8 has been around for some time now is <700gr, mkii Nikon Z 24-70 2.8 same and Sigma 24-70 2.8art ii 730gr.

As I said, RF 28 2.8 and a slow 100-400 are just not why I spent 4.5k on an Incredible camera, makes no sense. Equally, overweight lenses are not compatible with the small form factor Canon have achieved. Are Canon camera and lens development team actually working together or as it seems as separate entities, certainly that's how it feels.
Weren't the available lens choices obvious to you when you bought the camera??
Sure, but the reality of things like the slow af motor of the 85f2 on the R5ii are not exactly common knowledge, you only learn these failings once you buy the lenses.
The strengths and weaknesses of the RF 85/2 were entirely clear to me before I bought it back 5 years ago. Reviews, and members here (like Thunder Storm), already had its behavior nailed down. I then bought the lens for its particular strengths (and my own usage has reflected this).
Same with the 24-240, its only once you try it out repeatedly you start to get a sense for its limitations. Its easy to sit there saying or you knew what you were buying into, fact is you don't.
This lens' proclivities have been widely known for quite some time now too. When did you buy it? Or did you pre-order it before it was available? (That could indeed be a gamble).

If a person is still unsure about a particular piece of equipment even after researching it however, then I agree, they certainly should try it out first before buying. You seem to be more of an impulse buyer than I am tho.
Also, I thought I could overlook the 28 start in my zoom lens, again it's become a pivotal problem for me.
Again, something like this should be apparent before buying. Or is the issue simply lack of experience? (which is just fine, as we all were inexperienced at some point).

Heck, I myself was unsure if I could live with the 28mm wide end of the 28-70 f/2, but fortunately it turned out to be a non-issue for me. The lens is incredible. I pair it with the equally excellent RF 15-35 f/2.8 and the super-light RF 70-200/2.8 (OG).

I understand that your own needs will likely be completely different from mine. But the vetting process should remain the same!
I recently had the 17-40 1.8 on Fuji x and even the extra 2.5mm proved much more practical in, although still not as flexible as a 24-70. So, yes I'm looking at my options and thinking well Canon made a 70-200z, lightweight, aperture ring, why can't they offer the same in their standard zoom?
We all certainly have our wish lists. ;-)
I had very specific lenses in mind when I bought all of my cameras. Sure, I spent a lot of money on lenses, but they did the job for me. IOW I knew what I had going in.
above, you don't know until you've tried it,
I'm fortunate to be part of a large circle of shooters of all levels (incl this forum) that I can lean on for advice. I research thoroughly before buying. Even for a new camera like the R6iii (which I'll likely be pre-ordering) I know what I'm getting into beforehand.

Bring it on!
I expected Canon to be rolling out lenses quicker, mkii 24-70 2.8, or even a 20-60. Same with 100-500, I like its sharpness but 7.1, hmm. I do like the R5ii but the lens options are holding it back imo.
You should buy into a system as it exists, not as you would like it to be. That's how you ensure satisfaction.
Well RF exists, I thought I could work around its lens options, but it's proving difficult, all the advice and research and on-line reviewers are nothing compared to real world first hand use. On that front I know where I now stand with RF.

Like I say, Canon is investing heavily in updating camera bodies like the R6 at an unprecedented and quite honestly alarming rate, to add what a few extra pixels and tilting rear screen, and then completely avoiding the huge lens gaps, compact fast 24 to x zoom, compact 24,35,50 and 85 <f2 primes with fast modern focus motor, wr and a 24-200 and 70-300 zoom with wr and decent af motors!
Everything else will then be gravy! :-D
There's very little of that it seems.
Only if you've made the wrong buying decisions.

Avoiding those is what I'm getting at!

R2
 
It's imminent. Multiple videos, etc out there. Called my dealer this morning and told him to out me on the list. I'll have the first crack at it.
 
It's imminent. Multiple videos, etc out there. Called my dealer this morning and told him to out me on the list. I'll have the first crack at it.
Safe to say that it doesn't appear so imminent now. My guess is it won't be until Q1 next year.
I guess I'll be able to save up some more money :-) We'll see. Some of people like Jan Wegener said mid September but added it may be delayed a few weeks.
 
Well gee, the "Before September 15th" R6iii announcement hasn't happened.

Anyone have any guesses as to when the next (absolutely true) announcement date will be?? ;-)

R2
 
But even without any announcements, I think it is a fairly low risk guess IMO that

- R6III will be somewhat bigger/heavier than R6 II (due to inclusion of dual DiG!C-X)

- Will have the 30mp non-stacked sensor

- CFe B card slot

Seems like Sony and Canon are deadlocked waiting for each other to announce "something" and then decide on which marketing slide deck to use.

--C
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top