Canochrome

I'd like to see that too - old-school RF 70-200, using the EF Mk III tech (since it's already outstanding), but in black. Of course, if it has any fluorite elements, then a black color would not ...

Yes, there's the 100-500L, and it's a fantastic lens. But it's f/7.1 at the long end. Then, for a lot more money, the 400/2.8 and 600 f/4, both excellent, but both hugely expensive. Would like to ...

Dollar ain't doing so hot either. But apparently, other countries have a printing press even bigger than that of the US.

A great and thorough writeup. You covered many of the positive aspects to the camera, and made sure to mention the deficiencies. Much appreciated

With the EF 100-400L iI IS, the EF 1.4X Mk III is the best choice. It's plenty sharp even at 560 mm focal length. I"m pretty sure that you can't use the RF teleconverter with the adapter, though ...

Probably not - but I wasn't going to purchase one before. There are only a couple of third party lenses that interest me, plus one Nikon lens.

The one lens that it's 2/3 of a stop slower than is the Nikon 500 f/5.6 PF, which is said to be a great lens. But, it's a prime. Which isn't a terrible thing, but in terms of carrying around out ...

It's my understanding that lenses like the RF 16/2.8, the new 15-30, and to a lessor extend, the 14-35, all reach a wider field of view than their focal length would suggest, and then through ...

a poster on another forum also noted that turning eye detection off improved his hit rate with birds in flight quite a bit. I'm still experimenting when I get a chance.

Clickety-Clack Don't talk back! sorry....

Pretty good review. He noted the same thing that many are saying - lack of lenses dedicated to the APS-C RF body. I would think that they are coming, especially since every reviewer out there is ...

Perhaps the Canon roadmap had them coming out with an APS-C R body later down the road, but competition pushed them to jump out there early. I would expect that they'll be filling in the lens ...

Yes, it seems that they do complement one another. Both can do what the other does, but each excels in a different area. When I was more involved with rallies and events, I'd carry my 5Dxx with the ...

Well, I never even knew that feature existed. I use Lightroom to edit normally, but this looks like a great, fast way to cull the bad shots and just delete them before I even import them into LR. ...

Great - I think you'll be happy. This thread inspired me to visit the-digital-picture and compare the new RF to my original 70-200 2.8 L IS - big difference. If I were shooting events again, I ...

I almost jumped at the opportunity to sell my original 70-200L f/2.8 IS lens and buy the RF version. But then I reconsidered - I really like the 70-200 lens, but I rarely use mine. It is already ...

There are only a couple of areas that need to be filled out in the RF-S lens lineup - an ultra-wide zoom, say 10-20(ish), a faster, constant aperture normal lens like a 15-60 f/4 (would be ...

Just giving this thread a courtesy bump to bring it to the attention of potential R10 owners. The data on PhotonsToPhotos is very useful, and it seems like the R10 isn't listed yet.

My personal belief, with no evidence, is that they'll redesign the mounts on at least a couple of the M mount lenses, including the 11-22. Not sure about the 22 f/2, since the new 24/1.8 lens is ...

The HDR version has a 3D look to it. Very nice.