Karl_Guttag

A good set of instructions with realistic expectations. Another important point is that you are NOT cleaning the "sensor" per se. You are cleaning the IR filter several millimeters away from the ...

The WiFi interface is clunky by today's standards, but I have never had it take more than a minute or two to make the connection. Since you said "In the field," I'm assuming you are using the R5 as ...

You can also try a lasso mask on the spots and use "Generative Fill." Generative fill does a better job (more intelligent in the fill) but is slower as it has to go up to Photoshop and back. "Dust ...

The spots are small and in a fixed location in the RAW image (with no lens correction), so fixing the pictures should be possible. I know you have been discussing "RAWTherapee." as a possible way ...

You are making it too difficult. Since you are using Photoshop and with RAW pictures, it is pretty easy. 1. Open RAW pictures in Photoshop but each time, uncheck the lens correction. This will ...

The easiest way to find the dead pixel would be to put the lens in manual focus and then adjust the focus to make the image completely blurry (say, focus at infinity when the wall is relatively ...

I opened several of your pictures using Photoshop RAW with LENS CORRECTIONS OFF (so it would not move the pixels around due to lens correction). By overlaying two pictures and turning a layer on ...

I don't think there is the "metering mode" you want on the R5 that links the focus point to the metering. Canon claims that evaluative is the best all around. Some claim that "evaluative" is ...

It can't be the lens; most likely, it is something with the sensor. I'm a bit worried since it showed up at f2 (based on the image EXIF). Normally, dust on the "sensor" (really to the top layer ...

Check that you are using the lastest version. They greatly upgraded it 8 months ago. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW15KNXE4rE There is zero chance that dust in the lens, even if it is there ...

As stated in a prior reply, there are too many variables to give a solid answer. Sony makes the sensor in the OM-1 so that it might be good in terms of noise (I don't know). The R7 is not ...

a) For many, it will still be a significant problem to store due to the awkward shape (this would be my main issue). I take the foot off the 100-500 to get it to fit in my bag with other lenses.  ...

As per usual, Jan's reviews are great. There seems to be a consistent opinion among the pros and serious amateurs. 1. Image sharpness is good for a "consumer" lens. It is just a tad soft at the ...

That is not what it looks like to me. The RF200-800 seems to lack contrast in the two "periphery" comparisons even if I bump the 200-800 to f11 (or at f9). There is a greater distinct chroma ...

All the reviews seem to agree that while not as sharp as the RF100-500, it is sharp enough for almost all purposes, although sharper in the center than in the corners. Like other RF lenses with ...

Most likely, you are closing the card door without the card inside—a common issue/complaint on this forum with the R5. The "On/OFF" switch is a SOFTWARE switch and does not completely cut power. If ...

On the R5, it seems to us the 1/focal_lenth for the minimum shutter speed, but I don't ever want to rely on it. Almost all my shots are taken in two modes: Manual with auto-iso - so I can control ...

Below are some links to comparisons I made about two years ago: RF100-500, RF70-200f2.8L, and RF24-240 at 200mm or 240mm: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65502069 RF16f2.8 vs RF15-35 vs ...

That's not true in my experience. There are sort of two groups of "consumer" RF lenses. The 24-240 is a bit weak in image quality, particularly in the corners, but is fine in focusing speed and ...

Like many on this forum, I very much like the RF24-240. It's not a perfect lens, but it is good enough for most uses, and the 10x zoom range makes it a great walk-around lens. The lens is sharp in ...