Phylloxera

Interesting. I just tried several times and couldn't reproduce the effect. Just once I heard a faint click shortly after removing the converter.

Your HQ lenses cry for an R5! :-)

Replaced my excellent EF 16-35/4.0 by an RF 14-35/4.0  (considering size and weight with adapter). RF 14-35 shows more vignetting in the corners at 14/16mm  but corners seem a lilttle bit sharper. ...

When I bought the F2,8 (mainly for landscape) the F4.0 didn't exist yet. According to tests the F2.8 is better than the F4.0 even if comparing 2.8 to 4.0. Landscapers tend to pixel peeping but my ...

Downloaded 1.80 from the German Website. Tested it (but shortly) and found no problem. Now it has dissappeared from the website ...

That's what I did for my R6/R5 cages:

For my landscape panos I bought the 70-200/2.8 in 2019. The 4.0 wasn't yet available otherwise I'd have preferred this one due to size, weight and price. On the other hand the 2.8 is somewhat ...

My Smallrig cages don't limit the movement of the swivel screen but then you cannot turn the camera into portrait positing without an additional adapter piece

Both my R5 and R6 are equipped with Smallrig cages which multiply the fixing points for straps and add two additional grips on the left and on the top. They add 1/2" on the bottom. However the ...

Thanks again - I wish you had written the R5 manual for Canon!

Thanks a lot - in the meantime I discovered it. But why are AEB and HDR so far apart?

Is AEB the same as HDR ? If so my R and my R5 allow only 3 images. If not - where is AEB hidden in the menu ?

I started landscape panos with the R (30 MP) + RF 70-200/1.4. Then I switched to the R6 (20 MP + IBIS)  supposing the reduction of the linear resolution of only around 20 % wouldn't mind. But it ...

Convincing demo - tried that too but with negative result. You sure that your dealer unpacked three items to listen?

I agree - I forgot that I had one 10 years ago and it was even a little bit sharper than the L-version!

You are right - the weight of the RF 70-200/4 is around 770 g and that of the Canon 500 D lens around 170 g. However the RF 700-200/4 has nearly 1300 g and the thread of its extending barrel is ...

Im using both RF 100 Macro and (mainly for landscape panos) the RF 70-200/2.8. Too heavy to carry both to sightseeing points, but in case I want to shoot some flowers or small animals I use the ...

The R6 has no thread to fix a cable support near the USB plug, so I made a device to be fixed at the SmallRig cage I'm using most times. It is primitive but rather sturdy

At 35 mm even the RF 24-105 L is clearly better than the RF 14-35/4 ...