maybe the best thing about Canon R5/R6

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
Dexter75 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,657
Re: maybe the best thing about Canon R5/R6

shootrawww wrote:

Dexter75 wrote:

Shootrawww is right and so is Irene. Most of us portrait shooters know the EOS R colors are not as good as Canons prior cameras. I dont like them at all and chose the RP instead because the RP tones are warmer and more Canon-like. Here is another video that shows just how bland the R colors are for portraits. Typical Canon portrait colors are closer to the Fuji in this video. He has a handful of these videos that show the same thing. Thankfully both the R5 and R6 look much better and more like classic Canon colors for portraits.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mANQVayUunM

Thanks !

I really love Canon for their great reliable camera's and the R, RP and 6d II disappointed me, not because of their features because it's more then enough for me, but their disappointed colors and no I could never tweak it the way i wanted, files always have that ugly '6d ii /R / RP' look mostly..

The RP is a tad better but not like old canon like 6d, 5d iii etc

The M50 on the other hand did have very nice skin tones !

Yep. I have to set the WB on my RP to cloudy to get the warmer skin tones I could get on my 6D and older Canon DSLR's. The newer sensors have leaned much cooler and I dont like that. This looks like a return to the classic colors.

RLight Senior Member • Posts: 2,772
Back to the basics...

5DIII, EOS R, 90D, R6 (1DX III standing in for the R6)

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos90d&attr13_1=canon_eosr&attr13_2=canon_eos1dxiii&attr13_3=canon_eos5dmkiii&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=0.8666205943331031&y=0.15361487286080308

90D, R6 (again, 1DX III), 80D and 5DIV

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos90d&attr13_1=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr13_2=canon_eos1dxiii&attr13_3=canon_eos80d&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=0.8666205943331031&y=0.15361487286080308

I noted, with the M6 Mark II, the colors are "better" than the cold 80D/5DIV days which have plagued us since everything after the 70D till now.

The one compliant I had about the M6 Mark II, the AWB some times could be flaky. Easily fixed though as I shot RAW+JPEG with a "hard" WB set like Daylight, Tungsten, etc, depending what you were shooting.

I have not to date, seen a single AWB skew from the R6 or 1DX III, which I did from the get-go with the 90D/M6 Mark II so I gather Canon's fixed that, as I suspected they would by now as it was a new sensor then which I gather the 1DX III and R5 are based on (circa 2019 sensor design).

I even went back and grabbed DPR's 1DX III RAWs the other night and looked at their WB settings; they did in fact dictate the lighting type directly, which is one way to avoid the trouble (obviously they were expecting it), but I found AWB or AWB-W to be more accurate on the DIGICX equipped 1DX III samples then their "hard" WB settings so in fact, them trying to outsmart the camera, actually hurt their own output, ironically... That's how smart the DIGICX is now. Go figure. Our cameras are outsmarting us, suppose that's a good problem to have.

All to say, Canon's gone back to the basics, I've noticed in all the footage from both the R5 and R6, they appear to share the same CFA or color response regardless of how and seems to be a slight tweak from the 90D/M6 Mark II response, which was a return to the classic, except slightly more true to life, which is a good thing.

 RLight's gear list:RLight's gear list
Canon G5 X II Canon EOS R Canon RF 28-70mm F2L USM Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro Canon RF 24-240mm F4-6.3
OP shootrawww Forum Member • Posts: 66
Re: Back to the basics...
1

I definitely hope so! Thosd 'older' Canon colors were so magical.

I admit i won't be buying an R6 instantly at 2750 € body only but it gives me confidence to replace my 6d or 5d ii when they die and when the r6 price drops below 2k 😁

Maxxum Fan Regular Member • Posts: 452
Re: maybe the best thing about Canon R5/R6
1

shootrawww wrote:

is the comeback of the older Canon color science I've come to love (5d ii, 5d iii, 6d, ...)

(besides all the other cool new features of course)

Taken from a video I found on youtube previewing the R cameras.

Color science doesn't exist it's how the WB is

I wish DPR wouldn't have talked about this, it's pure myth and very misleading

Yes there are differences in settings even kelvins, results from cameras are almost identical when processed

henrikbengtsson Senior Member • Posts: 1,417
Re: maybe the best thing about Canon R5/R6
1

Maxxum Fan wrote:

shootrawww wrote:

is the comeback of the older Canon color science I've come to love (5d ii, 5d iii, 6d, ...)

(besides all the other cool new features of course)

Taken from a video I found on youtube previewing the R cameras.

Color science doesn't exist it's how the WB is

I wish DPR wouldn't have talked about this, it's pure myth and very misleading

Yes there are differences in settings even kelvins, results from cameras are almost identical when processed

Except that there really is a difference.

 henrikbengtsson's gear list:henrikbengtsson's gear list
Canon EOS 5DS Canon 6D Mark II Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM +1 more
MAC Forum Pro • Posts: 15,344
Re: Back to the basics...
1

RLight wrote:

5DIII, EOS R, 90D, R6 (1DX III standing in for the R6)

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos90d&attr13_1=canon_eosr&attr13_2=canon_eos1dxiii&attr13_3=canon_eos5dmkiii&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=0.8666205943331031&y=0.15361487286080308

90D, R6 (again, 1DX III), 80D and 5DIV

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos90d&attr13_1=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr13_2=canon_eos1dxiii&attr13_3=canon_eos80d&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=0.8666205943331031&y=0.15361487286080308

you can't rely on DPR's chart for colors...didn't you hear they  admitted that their chart was badly changing colors over time  and they put out a disclaimer and had to replace the chart

I noted, with the M6 Mark II, the colors are "better" than the cold 80D/5DIV days which have plagued us since everything after the 70D till now.

The one compliant I had about the M6 Mark II, the AWB some times could be flaky. Easily fixed though as I shot RAW+JPEG with a "hard" WB set like Daylight, Tungsten, etc, depending what you were shooting.

I have not to date, seen a single AWB skew from the R6 or 1DX III, which I did from the get-go with the 90D/M6 Mark II so I gather Canon's fixed that, as I suspected they would by now as it was a new sensor then which I gather the 1DX III and R5 are based on (circa 2019 sensor design).

I even went back and grabbed DPR's 1DX III RAWs the other night and looked at their WB settings; they did in fact dictate the lighting type directly, which is one way to avoid the trouble (obviously they were expecting it), but I found AWB or AWB-W to be more accurate on the DIGICX equipped 1DX III samples then their "hard" WB settings so in fact, them trying to outsmart the camera, actually hurt their own output, ironically... That's how smart the DIGICX is now. Go figure. Our cameras are outsmarting us, suppose that's a good problem to have.

All to say, Canon's gone back to the basics, I've noticed in all the footage from both the R5 and R6, they appear to share the same CFA or color response regardless of how and seems to be a slight tweak from the 90D/M6 Mark II response, which was a return to the classic, except slightly more true to life, which is a good thing.

 MAC's gear list:MAC's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS Rebel SL1 Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS Rebel T7i Canon EOS RP +12 more
Patlezinc Regular Member • Posts: 378
Re: maybe the best thing about Canon R5/R6

How do you know if you see jpg here Henrick? I think we do.
i have a R and I recognize the left look, typical with vegetation (too cold). The question doesn’t exist with raw of course

-- hide signature --
 Patlezinc's gear list:Patlezinc's gear list
Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.5 1-5x Macro Canon RF 50mm F1.2L USM +1 more
MAC Forum Pro • Posts: 15,344
Re: I get the same feeling

henrikbengtsson wrote:

shootrawww wrote:

is the comeback of the older Canon color science I've come to love (5d ii, 5d iii, 6d, ...)

Irenes example and the WB questions aside, I still get the same feeling after viewing all sample images available so far. Colors seem slightly richer and not as cold and "cyanish" as the R/5D4 sensor.

There's a slight warm/red bias again which I loved so much from the 5D2 and 6D (and all earlier models). The 5D3 was good, but a step down from 5D2 if you ask me. After that, Canon colors went south. Washed out and dull, even in DPP. The 6D2/RP is an exception though. Just like Dexter, I actually got the RP instead of the R because of the CFA.

I like my RP colors also

I buy canon  (6d, rp) in large part for their colors

I really hope they continue on this new color path because Fujifilm, Olympus and Panasonic have all been more "eye pleasing" than Canon lately. Again, if you ask me. It's a personal thing I guess.

Anyway...I am optimistic based on what I've seen so far...

 MAC's gear list:MAC's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS Rebel SL1 Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS Rebel T7i Canon EOS RP +12 more
Maxxum Fan Regular Member • Posts: 452
Re: maybe the best thing about Canon R5/R6
2

henrikbengtsson wrote:

Maxxum Fan wrote:

shootrawww wrote:

is the comeback of the older Canon color science I've come to love (5d ii, 5d iii, 6d, ...)

(besides all the other cool new features of course)

Taken from a video I found on youtube previewing the R cameras.

Color science doesn't exist it's how the WB is

I wish DPR wouldn't have talked about this, it's pure myth and very misleading

Yes there are differences in settings even kelvins, results from cameras are almost identical when processed

Except that there really is a difference.

Not really I've shot 40 bodies since 2005 and I can say that the biggest difference is the WB, even identical settings are not always the same, but the differences are tiny. Color science is a myth DPR invented it just doesn't exist in reality

The 2 shots lighting is different, a quick WB tweak and it looks the same

henrikbengtsson Senior Member • Posts: 1,417
Re: maybe the best thing about Canon R5/R6
1

Maxxum Fan wrote:

henrikbengtsson wrote:

Maxxum Fan wrote:

shootrawww wrote:

is the comeback of the older Canon color science I've come to love (5d ii, 5d iii, 6d, ...)

(besides all the other cool new features of course)

Taken from a video I found on youtube previewing the R cameras.

Color science doesn't exist it's how the WB is

I wish DPR wouldn't have talked about this, it's pure myth and very misleading

Yes there are differences in settings even kelvins, results from cameras are almost identical when processed

Except that there really is a difference.

Not really I've shot 40 bodies since 2005 and I can say that the biggest difference is the WB, even identical settings are not always the same, but the differences are tiny. Color science is a myth DPR invented it just doesn't exist in reality

Is it a confirmed myth, or a myth because you don't see any difference?

You don' think Phase one spent millions of dollars on the TriChromatic CFA in order to achieve the most accurate and pleasing colors if it was just down to a quick WB shift do you?

Or that Canon has experimened with their CFA over the years in order to prioritize mid-orange in most scenes to make skin look as good as possible (that said, some other color trade-offs had to be accepted)

But it doesn't matter really. If you've had 40 bodies and haven't noticed and color difference, then we have very different color vision so I don't expect this discussion to go anywhere. No offense...

But sure, in somewhat neutral daylight or in a controlled environment like a studio and a custom camera profile for each camera, you can of course make many cameras look more or less the same. But for many photographers, that is not reality.

 henrikbengtsson's gear list:henrikbengtsson's gear list
Canon EOS 5DS Canon 6D Mark II Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM +1 more
Maxxum Fan Regular Member • Posts: 452
Re: maybe the best thing about Canon R5/R6
2

henrikbengtsson wrote:

Maxxum Fan wrote:

henrikbengtsson wrote:

Maxxum Fan wrote:

shootrawww wrote:

is the comeback of the older Canon color science I've come to love (5d ii, 5d iii, 6d, ...)

(besides all the other cool new features of course)

Taken from a video I found on youtube previewing the R cameras.

Color science doesn't exist it's how the WB is

I wish DPR wouldn't have talked about this, it's pure myth and very misleading

Yes there are differences in settings even kelvins, results from cameras are almost identical when processed

Except that there really is a difference.

Not really I've shot 40 bodies since 2005 and I can say that the biggest difference is the WB, even identical settings are not always the same, but the differences are tiny. Color science is a myth DPR invented it just doesn't exist in reality

Is it a confirmed myth, or a myth because you don't see any difference?

You don' think Phase one spent millions of dollars on the TriChromatic CFA in order to achieve the most accurate and pleasing colors if it was just down to a quick WB shift do you?

Or that Canon has experimened with their CFA over the years in order to prioritize mid-orange in most scenes to make skin look as good as possible (that said, some other color trade-offs had to be accepted)

But it doesn't matter really. If you've had 40 bodies and haven't noticed and color difference, then we have very different color vision so I don't expect this discussion to go anywhere. No offense...

But sure, in somewhat neutral daylight or in a controlled environment like a studio and a custom camera profile for each camera, you can of course make many cameras look more or less the same. But for many photographers, that is not reality.

Seems like snake oil to me! lol

No offense but I'm talking raw not jpeg profiles which of course do differ

Until we get 3 color layer sensors with good low light ie organic sensor etc, the entire color science debate is kinda like snake oil it's just not reality for raw shooters.

henrikbengtsson Senior Member • Posts: 1,417
Re: maybe the best thing about Canon R5/R6
1

Maxxum Fan wrote:

henrikbengtsson wrote:

Maxxum Fan wrote:

henrikbengtsson wrote:

Maxxum Fan wrote:

shootrawww wrote:

is the comeback of the older Canon color science I've come to love (5d ii, 5d iii, 6d, ...)

(besides all the other cool new features of course)

Taken from a video I found on youtube previewing the R cameras.

Color science doesn't exist it's how the WB is

I wish DPR wouldn't have talked about this, it's pure myth and very misleading

Yes there are differences in settings even kelvins, results from cameras are almost identical when processed

Except that there really is a difference.

Not really I've shot 40 bodies since 2005 and I can say that the biggest difference is the WB, even identical settings are not always the same, but the differences are tiny. Color science is a myth DPR invented it just doesn't exist in reality

Is it a confirmed myth, or a myth because you don't see any difference?

You don' think Phase one spent millions of dollars on the TriChromatic CFA in order to achieve the most accurate and pleasing colors if it was just down to a quick WB shift do you?

Or that Canon has experimened with their CFA over the years in order to prioritize mid-orange in most scenes to make skin look as good as possible (that said, some other color trade-offs had to be accepted)

But it doesn't matter really. If you've had 40 bodies and haven't noticed and color difference, then we have very different color vision so I don't expect this discussion to go anywhere. No offense...

But sure, in somewhat neutral daylight or in a controlled environment like a studio and a custom camera profile for each camera, you can of course make many cameras look more or less the same. But for many photographers, that is not reality.

Seems like snake oil to me! lol

Okey...? Good one....

No offense but I'm talking raw not jpeg profiles which of course do differ

RAW, yes.

Until we get 3 color layer sensors with good low light ie organic sensor etc, the entire color science debate is kinda like snake oil it's just not reality for raw shooters.

II'll raise that with Phase One. Their targeted RAW shooters have been fooled all along Clearly the CFA only has an impact on JPEGs

 henrikbengtsson's gear list:henrikbengtsson's gear list
Canon EOS 5DS Canon 6D Mark II Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM +1 more
lightnchade Regular Member • Posts: 259
Re: maybe the best thing about Canon R5/R6
1

Maxxum Fan wrote:

shootrawww wrote:

is the comeback of the older Canon color science I've come to love (5d ii, 5d iii, 6d, ...)

(besides all the other cool new features of course)

Taken from a video I found on youtube previewing the R cameras.

Color science doesn't exist it's how the WB is

I think Canon would disagree:

The above is from a Canon White Paper. However, it's quite basic and not the one I wanted to show (that's on another computer), but this will serve to illustrate the process.

The other paper goes into much more detail about analysis of the common sources of illumination in various types of scenes, the reflectivity (of those sources) of common subjects and how the compounds used in the CFA accounts for the specific frequencies to be captured based on the anticipated customer for a given camera by prioritising certain wavelengths over others.

Canon deeply considers the entire process, end to end, and to some degree you can even deduce the what type of scenarios and subjects they expect the camera to be used for by the default JPEG they give to specific models.

Canon used to talk about this a lot more in their white papers, but in recent years this has tended to be left out; perhaps they were giving away too much secret sauce, or maybe the subject of skin tones became more contentious, perhaps both.

Now, it is certainly true that once colour is digital, it can be manipulated towards the required results. But this actual fact is often convey together with the anti-facts that to do so is easy and convenient, when it is neither.

For example, we could shoot a colour checker and use it to create Lightroom profiles. But this an imperfect and often impractical approach.

  1. First, it requires you adopt Lightroom, which is an analogy for saying you start to limit your toolset.
  2. Next, there are many scenarios where it is highly inconvenient or sometime impossible to shoot a color checker at the location.

And even if we shoot a checker, it won't give consistent results for all colours across all scenes, although I'll happily conceded it's often a good enough approximation.

But even then, when not working to some constrained reference, the choice of colour treatment we want to apply to our photos can be personal and subjective. And in this respect, how the CFA and sensor have captured your scene can have a significant input to the processing you'll need to do, and the tools you need to use to do it to your liking.

This is why some people talk about CFAs and colour science, it's not always because of myths, although I'll concede again that there are certainly lots of examples of that too.

Maxxum Fan Regular Member • Posts: 452
Re: maybe the best thing about Canon R5/R6

lightnchade wrote:

Maxxum Fan wrote:

shootrawww wrote:

is the comeback of the older Canon color science I've come to love (5d ii, 5d iii, 6d, ...)

(besides all the other cool new features of course)

Taken from a video I found on youtube previewing the R cameras.

Color science doesn't exist it's how the WB is

I think Canon would disagree:

The above is from a Canon White Paper. However, it's quite basic and not the one I wanted to show (that's on another computer), but this will serve to illustrate the process.

The other paper goes into much more detail about analysis of the common sources of illumination in various types of scenes, the reflectivity (of those sources) of common subjects and how the compounds used in the CFA accounts for the specific frequencies to be captured based on the anticipated customer for a given camera by prioritising certain wavelengths over others.

Canon deeply considers the entire process, end to end, and to some degree you can even deduce the what type of scenarios and subjects they expect the camera to be used for by the default JPEG they give to specific models.

Canon used to talk about this a lot more in their white papers, but in recent years this has tended to be left out; perhaps they were giving away too much secret sauce, or maybe the subject of skin tones became more contentious, perhaps both.

Now, it is certainly true that once colour is digital, it can be manipulated towards the required results. But this actual fact is often convey together with the anti-facts that to do so is easy and convenient, when it is neither.

For example, we could shoot a colour checker and use it to create Lightroom profiles. But this an imperfect and often impractical approach.

  1. First, it requires you adopt Lightroom, which is an analogy for saying you start to limit your toolset.
  2. Next, there are many scenarios where it is highly inconvenient or sometime impossible to shoot a color checker at the location.

And even if we shoot a checker, it won't give consistent results for all colours across all scenes, although I'll happily conceded it's often a good enough approximation.

But even then, when not working to some constrained reference, the choice of colour treatment we want to apply to our photos can be personal and subjective. And in this respect, how the CFA and sensor have captured your scene can have a significant input to the processing you'll need to do, and the tools you need to use to do it to your liking.

This is why some people talk about CFAs and colour science, it's not always because of myths, although I'll concede again that there are certainly lots of examples of that too.

That's Canon marketing. The reality is in raw there are little differences across makers all things being equal, and the raw development varies depending on the software.

Jpegs are another matter, clearly there is some element of manipulation of hues and saturation, as there has to be to create a jpeg

Canon also state their in camera battery indicator is a good idea on battery health, reality is it only counts the charge cycles not tests the battery, and IMO should be ignored

Canon also released a white paper on IBIS years ago stating it would make cameras huge and wasn't as effective as in lens IS. Fast forward to 2020 2 new cameras with IBIS and we saw many times it didn't add significantly to camera size. Forgive me if I take white papers with quite a lot of salt

The images shown also have no relevance, the lighting/subject is not the same many cameras over or under correct WB in shaded areas. A quick adjustment would yield very similar results

lightnchade Regular Member • Posts: 259
Re: maybe the best thing about Canon R5/R6

Maxxum Fan wrote:

lightnchade wrote:

Maxxum Fan wrote:

shootrawww wrote:

is the comeback of the older Canon color science I've come to love (5d ii, 5d iii, 6d, ...)

(besides all the other cool new features of course)

Taken from a video I found on youtube previewing the R cameras.

Color science doesn't exist it's how the WB is

I think Canon would disagree:

The above is from a Canon White Paper. However, it's quite basic and not the one I wanted to show (that's on another computer), but this will serve to illustrate the process.

The other paper goes into much more detail about analysis of the common sources of illumination in various types of scenes, the reflectivity (of those sources) of common subjects and how the compounds used in the CFA accounts for the specific frequencies to be captured based on the anticipated customer for a given camera by prioritising certain wavelengths over others.

Canon deeply considers the entire process, end to end, and to some degree you can even deduce the what type of scenarios and subjects they expect the camera to be used for by the default JPEG they give to specific models.

Canon used to talk about this a lot more in their white papers, but in recent years this has tended to be left out; perhaps they were giving away too much secret sauce, or maybe the subject of skin tones became more contentious, perhaps both.

Now, it is certainly true that once colour is digital, it can be manipulated towards the required results. But this actual fact is often convey together with the anti-facts that to do so is easy and convenient, when it is neither.

For example, we could shoot a colour checker and use it to create Lightroom profiles. But this an imperfect and often impractical approach.

  1. First, it requires you adopt Lightroom, which is an analogy for saying you start to limit your toolset.
  2. Next, there are many scenarios where it is highly inconvenient or sometime impossible to shoot a color checker at the location.

And even if we shoot a checker, it won't give consistent results for all colours across all scenes, although I'll happily conceded it's often a good enough approximation.

But even then, when not working to some constrained reference, the choice of colour treatment we want to apply to our photos can be personal and subjective. And in this respect, how the CFA and sensor have captured your scene can have a significant input to the processing you'll need to do, and the tools you need to use to do it to your liking.

This is why some people talk about CFAs and colour science, it's not always because of myths, although I'll concede again that there are certainly lots of examples of that too.

That's Canon marketing. The reality is in raw there are little differences across makers all things being equal, and the raw development varies depending on the software.

Jpegs are another matter, clearly there is some element of manipulation of hues and saturation, as there has to be to create a jpeg

Canon also state their in camera battery indicator is a good idea on battery health, reality is it only counts the charge cycles not tests the battery, and IMO should be ignored

Canon also released a white paper on IBIS years ago stating it would make cameras huge and wasn't as effective as in lens IS. Fast forward to 2020 2 new cameras with IBIS and we saw many times it didn't add significantly to camera size. Forgive me if I take white papers with quite a lot of salt

The images shown also have no relevance, the lighting/subject is not the same many cameras over or under correct WB in shaded areas. A quick adjustment would yield very similar results

As you wish it.

Baron_Karza
Baron_Karza New Member • Posts: 18
Re: maybe the best thing about Canon R5/R6
1

The pic on the left - it makes her dress look real dark red and skin very pale, but in the pic on the right- her skin looks like it has more color and her dress more green.   The R5 even changes the R's hairpiece into a hat.  AMAZING!!  Colors are back!

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads