# Canon EOS R5, Canon EOS R6 and new lens SKU and kit information



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 10, 2020)

> The Canon EOS R5 and Canon EOS R6 will be announced in about 3 weeks, and they will obviously come in body-only and in lens kits, below are the likely available purchase options.
> *Canon EOS R5 and Canon EOS R6 purchase options:*
> 
> Canon EOS R5 Body Only
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jun 10, 2020)

Sounds like a plan!


----------



## knight427 (Jun 10, 2020)

Hopefully the R6 will have some better bundle options by Thanksgiving.


----------



## edoorn (Jun 10, 2020)

wondering if they'll throw in things like CF readers or EF adapters


----------



## Dmcavoy (Jun 10, 2020)

Is this RF 85mm the new macro lens that was mentioned a little while back? Or is there another dedicated 100mm 2.8 replacement coming as well? 

Either way an 85mm f2 macro lens sounds fantastic for someone who shoots a mix of food/products and portraits!


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jun 10, 2020)

I suddenly realised the new cameras may not be immediately supported by Adobe. I wonder what happens with the raw files in PS and Lightroom.


----------



## Rbus (Jun 10, 2020)

I am hoping the R5 comes with the EF adapter as I have a good selection of L glass and not ready to upgrade that yet.


----------



## Nelu (Jun 10, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I suddenly realised the new cameras may not be immediately supported by Adobe. I wonder what happens with the raw files in PS and Lightroom.


You always have DPP to play with until they are supported by Adobe or Capture One.
Actually, I find DPP's RAW conversion really good, better than Adobe's and at the same level as Capture One.


----------



## Dmcavoy (Jun 10, 2020)

Rbus said:


> I am hoping the R5 comes with the EF adapter as I have a good selection of L glass and not ready to upgrade that yet.


I'd imagine it would, but even if it doesn't the basic adapter isn't overly expensive.


----------



## Go Wild (Jun 10, 2020)

My purchase plan: 

1 - EOS R5 and 2x RF - EF extender
2 - After seeing the R6 decide to upgrade the EOS R for one or not
3 - RF 50mm F1.8 
4 - RF16-35mm F2.8 

And...I will be out of money for about 5 years!!


----------



## Aaron D (Jun 10, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I suddenly realised the new cameras may not be immediately supported by Adobe.


Give DPP a try in the meantime--it's really a good RAW processor. More three-dimensionality to my eye.....


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jun 10, 2020)

RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM is way up there. I often use my EF [email protected] (non IS) as a lightweight trip to the zoo lens or on my daily walk as I can get close enough to rabbits and the like with it.


----------



## JoeDavid (Jun 10, 2020)

Given the R6 kit lens pairing it’s obvious Canon considers it to be the new low end camera. The 85/2 macro IS lens is interesting to me and will probably be the first lens in the list that I purchase. Bring on the R5!


----------



## aceflibble (Jun 10, 2020)

Corrections: as per Nokishita, the 50mm f/1.8 and 70-200 f/4 have _not_ been registered. The codes are correct but neither lens is in certification yet. Also, again via Nokishita, the R6 will have _two_ kits, one with the f/4-7.1 STM and one with the f/4L USM.
Given that Nokishita's info has been 100% correct so far, I see no reason to ignore the R6's higher-end bundle or to misrepresent the 50 and 70-200.


----------



## mpb001 (Jun 10, 2020)

I am wondering why the R6 isn’t bundled with a 24-105f4 L option? Even the RP is available with the 24-105L.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 10, 2020)

Go Wild said:


> My purchase plan:
> 
> 1 - EOS R5 and 2x RF - EF extender



You'll be waiting some time then. The RF extenders are for RF lenses*, not EF. 

* - at the moment only the 100-500


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jun 10, 2020)

Nelu said:


> Actually, I find DPP's RAW conversion really good, better than Adobe's and at the same level as Capture One.



Interesting. I tried it 4 years ago when purchased 5DIV to check dual pixel raw, and never run it again  All my catalogs are in LR, so using DPP would mean just an additional step in processing.
Will be preordering the R5 unless it's too expensive or doesn't have the expected megapixel count...


----------



## slclick (Jun 10, 2020)

"Sweetheart, Community College is just as good as a University"


----------



## Chaitanya (Jun 10, 2020)

R6 kit is quite interesting.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jun 10, 2020)

I found an 'R6 kit' on Aliexpress. Unfortunately the specs are totally off and don't match rumours. Also It's Yamaha R6 Kit, not Canon. But does the brand matter? The price is so tempting.


----------



## Nelu (Jun 10, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Interesting. I tried it 4 years ago when purchased 5DIV to check dual pixel raw, and never run it again  All my catalogs are in LR, so using DPP would mean just an additional step in processing.
> Will be preordering the R5 unless it's too expensive or doesn't have the expected megapixel count...


Of course, I didn't mean to change your workflow, that would be crazy.
Just to play with the new raw files while waiting for Adobe support. Don't tell me you'll get your new toy and keep it in a closet or just shooting jpeg's until Adobe supports it!


----------



## cayenne (Jun 10, 2020)

Ugh...so many new toys!!

I just scored a used Fuji GFX100.....so, I guess I'll be saving my pennies for awhile and living vicariously through ya'll with the R5's when they come out.

But, I'll get one eventually, but likely will have to wait till next year...

cayenne


----------



## cayenne (Jun 10, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I found an 'R6 kit' on Aliexpress. Unfortunately the specs are totally off and don't match rumours. Also It's Yamaha R6 Kit, not Canon. But does the brand matter? The price is so tempting.



Whew...I'd be hesitant to buy something that $$ from a Chinese site like Aliexpress....you don't really know who your dealing with, how real the products are, nor sure how much recourse you might have if you don't like what you get and need to return it for refund....

:O

That's just my $0.02....

C


----------



## Trey T (Jun 10, 2020)

I need to find a 2nd job and get the R6 (assuming the specs is as good as prediction)


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jun 10, 2020)

Nelu said:


> Of course, I didn't mean to change your workflow, that would be crazy.
> Just to play with the new raw files while waiting for Adobe support. Don't tell me you'll get your new toy and keep it in a closet or just shooting jpeg's until Adobe supports it!


jpeg? never!
But you made me think of my workflow and I've just realised I spend 50/50 of my photography time in the field and in LR/PS.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jun 10, 2020)

edoorn said:


> wondering if they'll throw in things like CF readers or EF adapters


The EF adapter is just as essential now as it was with the R and RP, and the R5 will sell strongly to people (like myself) who are moving into the RF ecosystem for the first time. Surely Canon will continue to bundle the basic version. However the first thing I will have to do is get hold of a control ring adapter, which presumably won't be bundled.

I don't think there's a cat's chance of a CFExpress reader being bundled until the early adopters have been suitably fleeced and a bit of competition sets in.


----------



## degos (Jun 10, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I suddenly realised the new cameras may not be immediately supported by Adobe. I wonder what happens with the raw files in PS and Lightroom.



Well they're both likely to use CR3 format so they'll already be usable in most commercial and much open source software. In general RAW converters don't need to be updated for specific bodies.

The real issue is lens correction profiles for all these new ones particularly if the non-L lenses exhibit Canon's recent trend towards dodgy optics corrected heavily by software.


----------



## Nelu (Jun 10, 2020)

degos said:


> Well they're both likely to use CR3 format so they'll already be usable in most commercial and much open source software. In general RAW converters don't need to be updated for specific bodies.
> 
> The real issue is lens correction profiles for all these new ones particularly if the non-L lenses exhibit Canon's recent trend towards dodgy optics corrected heavily by software.


The CR3 file format used by the 1DX Mark III is still not supported by the latest MacOS:
Digital camera RAW formats supported by iOS 13, iPadOS 13, and macOS Catalina


----------



## Whowe (Jun 10, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I found an 'R6 kit' on Aliexpress. Unfortunately the specs are totally off and don't match rumours. Also It's Yamaha R6 Kit, not Canon. But does the brand matter? The price is so tempting.


I guess it just depends on your expectations...


----------



## Starting out EOS R (Jun 10, 2020)

If the price is right, it will be an R5 body only for me as it will match well with the rf24-105 F4L & 70-200mm F2.8L I have. I've never used extenders before and it's confusing if the new RF extenders will be compatible with these lenses? If they are, I might add these as well.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Jun 10, 2020)

degos said:


> In general RAW converters don't need to be updated for specific bodies.



Usually they do. Unless Canon has created a new universal RAW format with CR3, they are still camera specific. At least that is how it has always been for CR2 format and most other RAW formats (Maybe there's a few exceptions with cameras using the exact same sensor?).

EDIT: For example latest April-update of Camera Raw added support Canon EOS 850D, Leica S3, Nikon D6 and Samsung Galaxy S20/S20+ cameras:





Cameras supported by Camera Raw


List of supported camera models for Adobe Camera Raw with the minimum Camera plug-in version and Lightroom version required for each model.




helpx.adobe.com


----------



## 1D4 (Jun 10, 2020)

Rbus said:


> I am hoping the R5 comes with the EF adapter as I have a good selection of L glass and not ready to upgrade that yet.



Would it really make any difference buying it separately for $100 over the price of the body being inflated by $100? I'm partially going back to Canon after a very brief stint with Nikon, and I'll be getting all RF glass. I'd rather the body price to be lower than getting a $100 adapter that would be completely useless to me, since I already sold all my EF glass.


----------



## Sibir Lupus (Jun 10, 2020)

degos said:


> Well they're both likely to use CR3 format so they'll already be usable in most commercial and much open source software. In general RAW converters don't need to be updated for specific bodies.
> 
> The real issue is lens correction profiles for all these new ones particularly if the non-L lenses exhibit Canon's recent trend towards dodgy optics corrected heavily by software.



Which recent Canon lens has "dodgy optics"??


----------



## Joules (Jun 10, 2020)

Sibir Lupus said:


> Which recent Canon lens has "dodgy optics"??


The RF 24-240mm does not cover the FF image circle at 24mm. To compensate, the lens correction profile applies a slight crop to the image. It is a completely new approach to ILC lens design for Canon, but I would agree that calling it "dodgy" is a bit over the top.


----------



## Hanley (Jun 10, 2020)

Go Wild said:


> No!!  The RF 1x4 and 2x is for use with EF lenses! So you can use a 1.4 and 2x extender without the need of also the adapter! It´s actually very clever from Canon! So now we can use our telephoto lenses with an extender, without the need of the extra adapter!
> 
> EDIT: Well the rumor I´ve heard was that the new RF extenders would be RF-EF. If I am wrong there is no point in getting now. If someone has some info please help on this one



Sorry that’s wrong.
The new teleconverters being released are native RF.


----------



## sanj (Jun 10, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> jpeg? never!
> But you made me think of my workflow and I've just realised I spend 50/50 of my photography time in the field and in LR/PS.


That is how it is. 50/50 plus prep and payment collection. Normal!


----------



## Wikzo (Jun 10, 2020)

I pre-ordered the R6 at two local camera shops. Since they didn't know about the new cameras, they contacted Canon. They were told to expect them in stores mid or late July


----------



## KP_7 (Jun 10, 2020)

What will we do with a 600/800 F/11 lens 
On top of it, Canon is also launching 1.4x & 2X entenders   

Also confused why 100-500 'L' is f/4-7.1 

Where is Canon heading ???


----------



## Joules (Jun 10, 2020)

KP_7 said:


> Where is Canon heading ???


To Infinity! And beyooond!


----------



## AdmiralFwiffo (Jun 10, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I found an 'R6 kit' on Aliexpress. Unfortunately the specs are totally off and don't match rumours. Also It's Yamaha R6 Kit, not Canon. But does the brand matter? The price is so tempting.


There is so much counterfeit stuff on Aliexpress, I can't believe it hasn't been shut down. There are sellers of counterfeit _US coins_, the sale of which carries the same legal penalties as passing any other counterfeit money.

I'm sorta hoping the R6 is a fit for me, cause the R5 is definitely overkill. But since I'm upgrading from a 12 year old, 18 MP Rebel, a 20 MP full-frame camera feels very sad-trombone. It's probably irrational, but I don't want to feel sad-trombone.


----------



## Mechanical_EYE (Jun 10, 2020)

I'm set with RF glass so I'm in line for an R5 and an R6 body only, and possibly the RF extender.


----------



## Trey T (Jun 10, 2020)

I've seen R5 photos, but how does the R6 look? I hope it looks almost exactly like R5.


----------



## Joules (Jun 10, 2020)

Trey T said:


> I've seen R5 photos, but how does the R6 look? I hope it looks almost exactly like R5.


The CR guy has reported that he has seen the R6 and that it looks a lot rounder than the R5 a d has additional control wheels. You can search for the post, it was titled something like "I have seen the R6 IBIS in action".


----------



## herein2020 (Jun 10, 2020)

Nelu said:


> Of course, I didn't mean to change your workflow, that would be crazy.
> Just to play with the new raw files while waiting for Adobe support. Don't tell me you'll get your new toy and keep it in a closet or just shooting jpeg's until Adobe supports it!



Fortunately I don't have any of these concerns, my first R body will be for video and H.264 and H.265 is pretty universal. I can't wait to get the R6 on a gimbal and watch that AF do its job. No more trying to get clients to walk the same speed or stay the same distance away or "hope" I got a few seconds of useable footage.

I know AF isn't everything and I still love MF (there's nothing like knowing AF isn't going to suddenly ruin your take), but on a gimbal without a focus puller or AF it really is a guessing game.


----------



## Danglin52 (Jun 10, 2020)

My preorder shopping list: 

R5 Kit (R5 + 24-105 f4 L IS)
RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1
RF 1.4x extender if it works with the RF 100-500. 
EF - R adaptor
R5 grip if available
2 / 128GB Sandisk CFexpress Cards


----------



## Th0msky (Jun 10, 2020)

Does anyone know if the rumoured specs of the R6 recording capabilities are confirmed without crop? and what about the bitrate? 10 bit 4:2:2 possible?


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 10, 2020)

slclick said:


> "Sweetheart, Community College is just as good as a University"


Sweetheart, do you really need education as bitterly as Daddy needs a new camera ?


----------



## Th0msky (Jun 10, 2020)

mpb001 said:


> I am wondering why the R6 isn’t bundled with a 24-105f4 L option? Even the RP is available with the 24-105L.


agreed, i''d really love to have it with the 24-105 L lens...


----------



## Th0msky (Jun 10, 2020)

Rbus said:


> I am hoping the R5 comes with the EF adapter as I have a good selection of L glass and not ready to upgrade that yet.


I heard that they gave the basic adapter with the Eos R back then? is that true?


----------



## slclick (Jun 10, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I found an 'R6 kit' on Aliexpress. Unfortunately the specs are totally off and don't match rumours. Also It's Yamaha R6 Kit, not Canon. But does the brand matter? The price is so tempting.


Oh I was hoping it was a drumset....I forgot they make everything under the sun.


----------



## Trey T (Jun 10, 2020)

Joules said:


> The CR guy has reported that he has seen the R6 and that it looks a lot rounder than the R5 a d has additional control wheels. You can search for the post, it was titled something like "I have seen the R6 IBIS in action".


I would want the same amount of control wheels... lol, not more. If more, what are they taking away, top LCD?


----------



## definedphotography (Jun 10, 2020)

Th0msky said:


> I heard that they gave the basic adapter with the Eos R back then? is that true?



They do include the adapter in NZ & Aus (& probably other regions.)
Not in the US though. It is/was a separate purchase.


----------



## Joules (Jun 10, 2020)

Trey T said:


> I would want the same amount of control wheels... lol, not more. If more, what are they taking away, top LCD?


Indeed, no top display:

"There is also no top-down LCD on the EOS R6, but there are multiple scroll wheels and I’m not sure what that’s about. The camera also has a much more rounded shape than the current EOS R cameras." 

Source: https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-eos-r6-ibis-in-action-request/


----------



## Trey T (Jun 10, 2020)

Joules said:


> Indeed, no top display:
> 
> "There is also no top-down LCD on the EOS R6, but there are multiple scroll wheels and I’m not sure what that’s about. The camera also has a much more rounded shape than the current EOS R cameras."
> 
> Source: https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-eos-r6-ibis-in-action-request/


So, sounds almost exactly like RP w/ IBIS (and fps). I'll just wait until I can afford (or need) the R5 ... lol ... or sell one of my organ...lol


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Jun 10, 2020)

Th0msky said:


> Does anyone know if the rumoured specs of the R6 recording capabilities are confirmed without crop? and what about the bitrate? 10 bit 4:2:2 possible?








Canon U.S.A., Inc. | Press Release Details







www.usa.canon.com


----------



## H. Jones (Jun 10, 2020)

Danglin52 said:


> My preorder shopping list:
> 
> R5 Kit (R5 + 24-105 f4 L IS)
> RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1
> ...



It's going to be an expensive year!

For me I've already settled on:

R5
RF 35mm 1.8
RF 85mm f/2
EF-R control wheel adapter
128GB CF Express, 128GB UHS-II SD, ProGrade CF Express + UHS II SD dual reader
2 extra batteries
Rumored new 600EX-RT II replacement depending on what it entails, especially if it's a flash system made specially for the EOS R series
RRS L-bracket for R5(this can't come soon enough)
And then after that, my immediate interest is in either the 28-70 F/2 or the RF 70-200 2.8. Just depends on how I actually find myself using the R5. If it turns into more of a vacation camera for me over my 1DX2, the RF 70-200 would be super easy to bring everywhere, but if the R5 turns into my new main paid-assignment workhorse over the 1DX2, I'll probably get the 28-70 F/2.


----------



## navastronia (Jun 10, 2020)

Nelu said:


> Of course, I didn't mean to change your workflow, that would be crazy.
> Just to play with the new raw files while waiting for Adobe support. Don't tell me you'll get your new toy and keep it in a closet or just shooting jpeg's until Adobe supports it!



We've been waiting on Adobe support for the RP for 1.5 years, unfortunately.

EDIT: Adobe support for camera-matching RAW profiles.


----------



## ddixon (Jun 10, 2020)

Don't remember about the EOSR, but my RP, bought in early March 2019 for $1299, included for free a standard RF adapter, plus the small non-battery Extension Grip.


----------



## Nelu (Jun 10, 2020)

ddixon said:


> Don't remember about the EOSR, but my RP, bought in early March 2019 for $1299, included for free a standard RF adapter, plus the small non-battery Extension Grip.


Here in Canada my EOS-R came with the free basic adapter.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jun 10, 2020)

Funny, the Canon RF 800mm f/11 DO IS STM specs remind me a bit of those old 800mm f/8 mirror lenses that are still available from different makers such as Samyang. But the optical quality of the new RF lenses should be a bit better


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jun 10, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


The specs of the new RF tele primes and zooms, f/7.1 only @ 500mm and dark f/11 @ 600mm and 800mm show that Canon boldly trusts the low light capabilities of their new sensors, plus the AF performance of the R5/6. So, if you use a fast tele prime you should be able to shoot in the darkness... very interesting.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 10, 2020)

Rbus said:


> I am hoping the R5 comes with the EF adapter as I have a good selection of L glass and not ready to upgrade that yet.



I jumped on a bunch of control ring adapters that were for sale as refurbs a couple of months ago. Since I want the ring and that doesn't come as part of a kit.

As such I'd really rather not have a non-control ring adapter in a kit--but I DO hope they have that option for other people such as yourself.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 10, 2020)

JoeDavid said:


> Given the R6 kit lens pairing it’s obvious Canon considers it to be the new low end camera. The 85/2 macro IS lens is interesting to me and will probably be the first lens in the list that I purchase. Bring on the R5!



Yeah, that lens doesn't really "fit" with an R5 does it? Purely consumer-grade. Sounds like, at least in terms of marketing "level" the R6 is aimed at the RP level.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 10, 2020)

KP_7 said:


> Where is Canon heading ???



Pinhole cameras.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 10, 2020)

AdmiralFwiffo said:


> I'm sorta hoping the R6 is a fit for me, cause the R5 is definitely overkill. But since I'm upgrading from a 12 year old, 18 MP Rebel, a 20 MP full-frame camera feels very sad-trombone. It's probably irrational, but I don't want to feel sad-trombone.



Given that my Rebel (and M50) is 24MP, (and I own an M6-II at 32MP) I am having the same sad trombone issue with the R6. If it were 30MP I'd be looking at it, as it is, if I had to choose between the R6 and the RP, I'd take the RP. The R5 is probably overkill for me, but I can justify it, if it comes in at a decent price...otherwise, it's RP time.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 10, 2020)

Price dependent of course, but I suspect the R5 + 24-105 F/4 L is in my future. Highest thing on my shopping list after that is the EF 16-35mm F/4 L (unless I decide to splurge on the 2.8). I'll have everything covered after that given the two adapters I have.


----------



## Deleted member 68328 (Jun 10, 2020)

Still so disappointed that the 35mm f/1.2 and 70-135mm f/2.0 are not in the pipe at the moment.
Whatever, still want a new 5D Mark V instead.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 10, 2020)

I'm really curious when will going to see image leaks of bodies and lenses. That's the most interesting part


----------



## Go Wild (Jun 10, 2020)

Hanley said:


> Sorry that’s wrong.
> The new teleconverters being released are native RF.


Yes, I am sorry, I was wrong and deleted the comment!  In that case, I wont buy it...  

Thanks


----------



## Danglin52 (Jun 10, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> It's going to be an expensive year!
> 
> For me I've already settled on:
> 
> ...


thank you, I forgot to add the 2 batteries! I still have 2 LP-E6N left over from my 5dIV sale, but I assume it may not last very long or have enough juice if they are releasing a new batter even in the same format.


----------



## Danglin52 (Jun 10, 2020)

I have been musing over my body & lens slelection. If the 500 DO had been a f5.6 it would have been on my pre-order list since it should provide better IQ at 500m than the zoom. Shooting wildlife, unless there is some secret sauce with the R5 + 500/600 DO combination it is going to be useless with the 1.4 or 2x TC. So here are my thoughts, interested in feedback.

Rudy Winston in the Optic Vendor session said that if we are happy with the EF 100-400 (I assume II), we should expect the same level of performance with the RF 100-500.
The R5 is expected to be in the range of 45mp
A lot of my photos are in the 500-600 range shot with a 1dx II with the EF 100-400 II or the EF 200-400
Even with a 20-30% crop in post, I would still have over 30mp on the R5 (assuming 45mp)
If the 100-500 has similar or better optical quality than the 100-400, I could be happy with the crop version.
Only downside is the majority of my 100-400 shots are @f5.6 (560 w/200-400 + internal TC), means the loss of 2/3rd of a stop over what I normally shoot
If Canon provides a software crop mode, I think I will be very happy.
So, why buy the 600mm DO f11 if you can shoot native with the 100-500 + crop AND it is unlikely the extenders will provide any benefit on the 600mm due to the f11 aperture? If I were to buy one of the DO's to complement the 100-500, it would be the 800mm because it would truly provide more reach. I just can't wrap my head around buying an f11 lens.

BTW - they blew by my question on Canon's rationale for the 100-500 L lens being f7.1 during the Q&A.


----------



## mbike999 (Jun 10, 2020)

I hope those DO lenses have some amount of weather sealing...but probably not based on the current trend of RF STM lenses. You would think they would since clearly those lenses are meant to be used outdoors...not much use for 800mm indoors unless you want to look at your partner's nose hairs from across the room


----------



## Skux (Jun 10, 2020)

Why even bother with the R6 kit lol. Just pick up an EF mount 24-105 f4 L instead.


----------



## Joules (Jun 10, 2020)

mbike999 said:


> I hope those DO lenses have some amount of weather sealing...but probably not based on the current trend of RF STM lenses. You would think they would since clearly those lenses are meant to be used outdoors...not much use for 800mm indoors unless you want to look at your partner's nose hairs.


Well, I defended these lenses quite a bit so far. But if it is actively raining outside, the light may indeed be to bad to get much in terms of quality out of an f/11 lens anyway.


----------



## padam (Jun 10, 2020)

Danglin52 said:


> So, why buy the 600mm DO f11 if you can shoot native with the 100-500 + crop AND it is unlikely the extenders will provide any benefit on the 600mm due to the f11 aperture? If I were to buy one of the DO's to complement the 100-500, it would be the 800mm because it would truly provide more reach. I just can't wrap my head around buying an f11 lens.
> 
> BTW - they blew by my question on Canon's rationale for the 100-500 L lens being f7.1 during the Q&A.


Because the 100-500/4.5-7.1 is an L lens, and will probably cost more than the smaller and simpler 70-200/2.8, so over 3000$
And the non-L 600/11 may cost quite a bit less and it will also likely to be smaller and lighter.

Think of it this way, it is for people who can actually get by an f/11 lens with using all help from the sensor and lens based IS combined together (mainly static subjects or video on a tripod)
And due to the cost&size&weight they can put this in their bag for that "just in case" shot, which can make all the difference as opposed to not packing it in at all Similar to having a superzoom camera, with different compromises.
Everything is a compromise, it is a cliche, but it's still true.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 10, 2020)

yoms said:


> Still so disappointed that the 35mm f/1.2 and 70-135mm f/2.0 are not in the pipe at the moment.
> Whatever, still want a new 5D Mark V instead.



Wouldn't be surprised if Sigma ported its 35mm f/1.2 eventually using just the EF mount contacts. For now, I own that in FE mount, and it's so good, I'm disappointed I'll be selling it in my move back to Canon to re-buy a 35mm f/1.4 L II - which previously astounded me. It is true, though, that the Sigma 35 f/1.2 is like carrying around a roasted chicken on the end of your camera.


----------



## mbike999 (Jun 10, 2020)

Joules said:


> Well, I defended these lenses quite a bit so far. But if it is actively raining outside, the light may indeed be to bad to get much in terms of quality out of an f/11 lens anyway.


It depends, right? If they are stabilized with Dual OIS maybe they will work just fine in those conditions. They will be very interesting optics to say the least. I love the thought of having a tiny supertele prime for those times when I don't feel like using my monster 500 f/4.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 10, 2020)

Nelu said:


> The CR3 file format used by the 1DX Mark III is still not supported by the latest MacOS:
> Digital camera RAW formats supported by iOS 13, iPadOS 13, and macOS Catalina


Typical! I upgraded to Catalina yesterday as I though that it must be stable being .5 iteration now :-(


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 10, 2020)

KP_7 said:


> What will we do with a 600/800 F/11 lens



KP, I've been thinking about this. It might be a simpler answer than people are supposing. It is true that landscape photographers eventually figure out that using something 100 to 600 in focal length can pick out amazing compositions that would never be possible in their typically wide images. It's usually the 2nd or 3rd piece of advice they'd give people starting out: don't forget to try a telephoto to experiment with distant compositions. 

The thing is, if you are the proud owner of an $800 RP camera and a $400 lens, it's a big ask to tell them they should purchase something for $2,000 to $13,000 for the privilege of doing this. Perhaps Canon thinks it can sell a $1,200 telephoto to the landscape crowd.

The other application I can think of is kids sports. Johnny is in goal on the other side of the field. ISO 32,000 is fine when the picture is on facebook.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 10, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Sounds like a plan!


Looks tasty Canon can't wait - sleeping giant awake - que the Sony trolls and the crying Sony fan people on the internet.

Serious good to have good competition - hopefully kick Sony and Nikon to up their game


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 10, 2020)

Hanley said:


> Sorry that’s wrong.
> The new teleconverters being released are native RF.


I haven't seen any confirmation that the TCs are RF-RF. It makes a lot of sense them to be RF-EF to avoid stacked adaptors for RF-EF plus EF TC 1.4 or 2x to use current EF big whites.
If the new TCs are RF-RF then it is somewhat confusing for the aperture for the new RF "big black" (I claim copyright for this one!) lenses
A previous thread outlines the valid use cases for 600/800 f11 new lens but it is less convincing when combined with the TCs if they are RF-RF
Canon RF 100-500mm f/4-7.1L IS USM -> 700mm @f10 (1.4x) and 1000mm @ ~f14 (2x)
Canon RF 600mm f/11 DO IS STM -> 840mm @f16 (1.4x) and 1200mm @ f22 (2x)
Canon RF 800mm f/11 DO IS STM -> 1120mm @f16 (1.4x) and 1600mm @ f22 (2x)
I imagine that Canon would prefer people buy all three lenses rather than use any of them with TCs. It isn't clear if AF would work wide-open @f22!


----------



## Joules (Jun 10, 2020)

mbike999 said:


> It depends, right? If they are stabilized with Dual OIS maybe they will work just fine in those conditions. They will be very interesting optics to say the least. I love the thought of having a tiny supertele prime for those times when I don't feel like using my monster 500 f/4.


Yeah, absolutely. These really are the most interesting lenses out of the bunch just because they are such a strong deviation from what we came to expect from Canon based in DSLR tech.

I was more or less trying to write that as a joke. But I don't think Canon intends for these lenses to be suited to bad weather photography. Keeping in mind that the only body where you're not past the diffraction limit with these is the R6, which very much appears to be a non weather sealed budget body as well, I find that reasonable.


----------



## joestopper (Jun 10, 2020)

justaCanonuser said:


> The specs of the new RF tele primes and zooms, f/7.1 only @ 500mm and dark f/11 @ 600mm and 800mm show that Canon boldly trusts the low light capabilities of their new sensors, plus the AF performance of the R5/6. So, if you use a fast tele prime you should be able to shoot in the darkness... very interesting.



Sounds reasonable. So, give me the fast RF tele prime ...


----------



## CanonOregon (Jun 11, 2020)

Joules said:


> To Infinity! And beyooond!





KP_7 said:


> What will we do with a 600/800 F/11 lens
> On top of it, Canon is also launching 1.4x & 2X entenders
> 
> Also confused why 100-500 'L' is f/4-7.1
> ...


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 11, 2020)

Does anyone have a guess what the kit discount will be to get the R5 kit with RF 24-105 f4 vs getting them separately?  I've seen that it's been around $200 US for the R kit, but I don't know if that's what it would be for the new R5 kit.


----------



## davo (Jun 11, 2020)

Th0msky said:


> I heard that they gave the basic adapter with the Eos R back then? is that true?


Yes it did...BUT at that time there were only a few lenses available and they were expensive as hell. That was an immense deterrent for people to jump to the new RF cameras so they threw the adapter in for free. Now there are dozens of RF lenses and many are more affordable. The R system has been out for like 2 yrs now. The demand for the R5 is going to be so great I could see them....with all that taken into consideration...NOT giving the adapter away. Canon I dont think even provided EOS R/Lens bundle deals at first???....and now they will with the R5/6. I could see third-party sellers offering the R5/6 with a free EF adapter though if Canon does not..


----------



## Warrenl (Jun 11, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I suddenly realized the new cameras may not be immediately supported by Adobe. I wonder what happens with the raw files in PS and Lightroom.



From my experience with the 1DXIII, if the R5 or R6 have HEIF files, they are not supported in Photoshop.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 11, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Does anyone have a guess what the kit discount will be to get the R5 kit with RF 24-105 f4 vs getting them separately?  I've seen that it's been around $200 US for the R kit, but I don't know if that's what it would be for the new R5 kit.


In my experience in recent years the "discount" for a kit has been fairly minimal. $200 might be the maximum, but I would not be surprised to see it much less. In my opinion, Canon quit giving big discounts on kits because so many dealers will splitting them up and selling the components separately on eBay.


----------



## herein2020 (Jun 11, 2020)

Danglin52 said:


> My preorder shopping list:
> 
> R5 Kit (R5 + 24-105 f4 L IS)
> RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1
> ...



That's a serious shopping list. My preorder list






Mine's a little shorter.


----------



## Danglin52 (Jun 11, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> That's a serious shopping list. My preorder list
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The good news is the majority is “sunk cost” from gear I have already sold or plan to sell. I sold my 5dIV and 70-200 f2.8 L IS II last year for a good price. I have some other gear that will go if I like the R5 and lenses.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 11, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> I haven't seen any confirmation that the TCs are RF-RF. [..]


Apart from the product pages on the official Canon website?


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 11, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Apart from the product pages on the official Canon website?


You mean when Canon stated 
"EXTENDER RF 1.4x
Add extra length to your lenses by fitting the EXTENDER RF 1.4x extender."?
Clearly one end is fitting the RF mount but it is unclear whether this is RF-EF or RF-RF. Appreciate if you can point to where this is clarified.
Please share examples of use cases for f14-f22 for super tele focal lengths. Perhaps tracked deep sky astro long exposures but this would be highly specific and doesn't seem to match the lens roadmap as the others eg 70-200 f2.8 has a rear element that is too close for the TC to fit.


----------



## Starting out EOS R (Jun 11, 2020)

Th0msky said:


> I heard that they gave the basic adapter with the Eos R back then? is that true?


The EOSR was sold with the EF adapter included when I purchased a year ago as a kit bundle with the RF 24-105MM f4L


----------



## Wikzo (Jun 11, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I suddenly realised the new cameras may not be immediately supported by Adobe. I wonder what happens with the raw files in PS and Lightroom.


Anbody who knows how quickly Capture One updates with new camera profiles?


----------



## dflt (Jun 11, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I suddenly realised the new cameras may not be immediately supported by Adobe. I wonder what happens with the raw files in PS and Lightroom.


Use Capture One. Adobe's RAW handling is inferior in every aspect.


----------



## dflt (Jun 11, 2020)

KP_7 said:


> What will we do with a 600/800 F/11 lens
> On top of it, Canon is also launching 1.4x & 2X entenders
> 
> Also confused why 100-500 'L' is f/4-7.1
> ...


Iso invariance up to 1600. Your F11 suddenly has a lot of uses. Plus less weight, cheaper telephotos=> more sales, plus mobile like image processing will blow things out of the water.


----------



## derpderp (Jun 11, 2020)

I've already got the money set aside for the R5. Unfortunately nothing that excites me on the lens front, otherwise, Canon would have been able to get more money out of me.


----------



## navastronia (Jun 11, 2020)

A bit off topic, but I'm _so_ excited for the R1 in a couple years, assuming I can by then afford both it and some L glass. If the R5 is so high spec'd, the R1 should be terrific, no? I'll stay busy with my RP until then


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jun 11, 2020)

Joules said:


> The RF 24-240mm does not cover the FF image circle at 24mm. To compensate, the lens correction profile applies a slight crop to the image. It is a completely new approach to ILC lens design for Canon, but I would agree that calling it "dodgy" is a bit over the top.


Its not "dodgy" but its not what you expect either. Its an "OK" lens that's fine if you want a walk around lens where the output in not too important. They don't go out of their way to explain the compromises either.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jun 11, 2020)

[email protected] said:


> KP, I've been thinking about this. It might be a simpler answer than people are supposing. It is true that landscape photographers eventually figure out that using something 100 to 600 in focal length can pick out amazing compositions that would never be possible in their typically wide images. It's usually the 2nd or 3rd piece of advice they'd give people starting out: don't forget to try a telephoto to experiment with distant compositions.
> 
> The thing is, if you are the proud owner of an $800 RP camera and a $400 lens, it's a big ask to tell them they should purchase something for $2,000 to $13,000 for the privilege of doing this. Perhaps Canon thinks it can sell a $1,200 telephoto to the landscape crowd.
> 
> The other application I can think of is kids sports. Johnny is in goal on the other side of the field. ISO 32,000 is fine when the picture is on facebook.


Ive been a Landscape photographer for 45 years and lucky to shoot in many countries. 60% of the time Im either using a 24-70mm F2.8L II or 24-105mm L lenses (both EF & RF), 20% of the time Im using a 16-35mm f4L, 10% the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 but rarely with the 1.4x converter. The other 10% is made up of fixed primes including the 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8, 85mm 1.4L or the 100mm f2.8L. 
One of the business units I oversee is Lee Filters and quite a few of the Pros that use our gear use zooms in the 100-400 or 150-600 range.


----------



## tron (Jun 11, 2020)

Not thinking it for this year. Maybe next during Black Friday if there is a good offer. Video does not interest me at all so for me it's 45mp (although my 5DsR has 50) with 12 to 20fps (OK this combined with CFExpress is a real advantage) and IBIS. But I got RF15-35 and RF24-70 only because they have IS so this is enough and my EOS R is already (very) good enough.


----------



## peters (Jun 11, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I suddenly realised the new cameras may not be immediately supported by Adobe. I wonder what happens with the raw files in PS and Lightroom.


I guess they will be VERY quick to implement this support. Given its a likely a very popular camera, it shouldnt take long. Also Canon has probably a big interest in making sure that Lightroom supports their cameras. 
Though I am a bit more worried about Capture one, this is in my opinion the much better RAW converter, but its less mainstream and may take longer to implement support for these new RAW files...

I also wonder when Premiere and Davinci will support the RAW video files...


----------



## cayenne (Jun 11, 2020)

Warrenl said:


> From my experience with the 1DXIII, if the R5 or R6 have HEIF files, they are not supported in Photoshop.



I would assume most folks paying $$$ for a new R5 would be shooting in RAW, no?


----------



## cayenne (Jun 11, 2020)

peters said:


> I guess they will be VERY quick to implement this support. Given its a likely a very popular camera, it shouldnt take long. Also Canon has probably a big interest in making sure that Lightroom supports their cameras.
> Though I am a bit more worried about Capture one, this is in my opinion the much better RAW converter, but its less mainstream and may take longer to implement support for these new RAW files...
> 
> I also wonder when Premiere and Davinci will support the RAW video files...




Wow...did I miss something?

I didn't realize they were letting you shoot RAW video out of the coming R5...??? I know they have HDMI out, but I didn't know Canon was letting you shoot RAW video out of the camera....

That's pretty cool!!!


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 11, 2020)

peters said:


> I guess they will be VERY quick to implement this support. Given its a likely a very popular camera, it shouldnt take long. Also Canon has probably a big interest in making sure that Lightroom supports their cameras.
> Though I am a bit more worried about Capture one, this is in my opinion the much better RAW converter, but its less mainstream and may take longer to implement support for these new RAW files...
> 
> I also wonder when Premiere and Davinci will support the RAW video files...


For the 1dx3 canon released plugins for popular editors.


----------



## peters (Jun 11, 2020)

cayenne said:


> Wow...did I miss something?
> 
> I didn't realize they were letting you shoot RAW video out of the coming R5...??? I know they have HDMI out, but I didn't know Canon was letting you shoot RAW video out of the camera....
> 
> That's pretty cool!!!


jeah, 8k raw. Its insane. Also insane data-rate... so I guess I will only use it for very special situations.
Also 4k 120 is truely a big thing for me  we do a lot product-shots, eventfilm, imagefilms... I think thats great


----------



## peters (Jun 11, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> For the 1dx3 canon released plugins for popular editors.


Ah, I see, I didnt monitor that. I hope this happens sooner than later, cant wait to try the RAW video function in the R5


----------



## peters (Jun 11, 2020)

cayenne said:


> I would assume most folks paying $$$ for a new R5 would be shooting in RAW, no?


I guess so as well. 
Though on 1D its a bit of different story. Its used more in sports where super quick turnaround times are important. They often use only JPG which are transferred by LAN directly to the office.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jun 11, 2020)

dflt said:


> Use Capture One. Adobe's RAW handling is inferior in every aspect.


I'm not really into Capture One. Reviews say it's usually slower to adopt new camera formats, so migrating to Capture One would only worsen the situation with the prospective raw-processing workflow.
Also I use LR + PS and this combination is far ahead of Capture One in terms of the functionality.


----------



## xps (Jun 11, 2020)

Another source hat some other macro lenses in his rumor site.

https://www. c a n o n n e w s . com/canon-patent-application-canon-rf-macro-lenses


----------



## Richard Anthony (Jun 11, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> It's going to be an expensive year!
> 
> For me I've already settled on:
> 
> ...


Luckily I have already bought the RF 28-70 F2 , the 70-200 F2.8 the 15-35 F2.8 , and a 512GB CFexpress card and a 128GB UHS-II SD card and their readers , but still need the batteries , camera , bracket and flash units , It will be a very expensive year as I want more lenses yet as well .


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 11, 2020)

I'm surprised there are barely any leaks about the R6, no images, nothing.


----------



## Nelu (Jun 11, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I'm not really into Capture One. Reviews say it's usually slower to adopt new camera formats, so migrating to Capture One would only worsen the situation with the prospective raw-processing workflow.
> Also I use LR + PS and this combination is far ahead of Capture One in terms of the functionality.


I used Adobe Lightroom since it was a beta version, along with Photoshop and it worked really well for me. I still have them and use them from time to time but with the latest CaptureOne iteration I find fewer and fewer reasons to go into Photoshop.
CaptureOne now has layers, it has quite good healing and cloning tools now and it's all parametric. All adjustments are tiny little text files containing those instructions, not huge tiff files, like you get from Photoshop.
To put it bluntly, using the "Auto" button in CaptureOne brings the files closer and faster to the desired output than Lightroom. Of course, that's only the first step; sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't and then I simply undo. More often than not, it does work quite well, and the file looks very close to Canon's DPP, which I think it's the best to mirror the intended output set in the camera.
So, I use all of them, DPP, CaptureOne and Lightroom, as I use macs and Windows computers. They're just tools, a bit fancier that hammers
I guess I could say the same about cameras themselves...


----------



## Richard Anthony (Jun 11, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I'm surprised there are barely any leaks about the R6, no images, nothing.


There are


----------



## dflt (Jun 11, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I'm not really into Capture One. Reviews say it's usually slower to adopt new camera formats, so migrating to Capture One would only worsen the situation with the prospective raw-processing workflow.
> Also I use LR + PS and this combination is far ahead of Capture One in terms of the functionality.


Reviewers are not photographers . LR = lagging way behind, PS can be used with C1.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 11, 2020)

dflt said:


> Reviewers are not photographers . LR = lagging way behind, PS can be used with C1.


What about Lightroom’s DAM lags way behind? Just two days ago I had a client that asked for a specific image from four years ago but they wanted the pre edit file, it took literally seconds to find it and send it to them.

We should all understand that as different as we are as people we are as photographers and those differences bring on very different needs and challenges for our image file management and processing. Some people shoot vastly different numbers of files and have different management needs, some need processing capabilities another program many users prefer doesn’t have. There is no one fits all here and just because a bit of software suits your images and the way you work doesn’t mean that is the best for somebody else and their workflow.

Personally I have tried most options but I haven’t found anything that touches the breadth and deapth of the Adobe products and I am very happy with them and the price they charge for the capabilities I get.


----------



## Orestis (Jun 11, 2020)

Do we have any info on the macro 85? 
Is it a true 1:1 macro or something like the close up RF 35?


----------



## Howard (Jun 11, 2020)

I read that the RF 70-200 2.8 will not be compatible with the RF 1.4 and 2.0 exts, anyone else hear this? thx


----------



## Howard (Jun 11, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> You'll be waiting some time then. The RF extenders are for RF lenses*, not EF.
> 
> * - at the moment only the 100-500


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 12, 2020)

Howard said:


> I read that the RF 70-200 2.8 will not be compatible with the RF 1.4 and 2.0 exts, anyone else hear this? thx


It’s on the official product page on the Canon website. Click on ‘specifications’ and scroll down to ‘Extender compatibility’.


----------



## Bonich (Jun 12, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> It’s on the official product page on the Canon website. Click on ‘specifications’ and scroll down to ‘Extender compatibility’.


As long as the RF extenders are not officially on the web page they will not be put into the compatibility category of any lens.
Today yes, an EF converters is not compatible with RF 70-200
The RF will be compatible, the 70-200 has dedicated space left to fit.
This will give nice setups, especially 100-280 F4 with the 1,4x should perform great.


----------



## Proscribo (Jun 12, 2020)

Bonich said:


> As long as the RF extenders are not officially on the web page they will not be put into the compatibility category of any lens.
> Today yes, an EF converters is not compatible with RF 70-200
> The RF will be compatible, the 70-200 has dedicated space left to fit.
> This will give nice setups, especially 100-280 F4 with the 1,4x should perform great.


There is no room. https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/stories/rf-70-200mm-f2-8l-is-usm-lens-developers-interview/


----------



## dflt (Jun 12, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> What about Lightroom’s DAM lags way behind? Just two days ago I had a client that asked for a specific image from four years ago but they wanted the pre edit file, it took literally seconds to find it and send it to them.


And? What about Lightroom's logo? Is that better?


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 12, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> It’s on the official product page on the Canon website. Click on ‘specifications’ and scroll down to ‘Extender compatibility’.



It's also obvious if you compare the lens with the photos of the extender, there's absolutely no way it could physically fit with the RF 70-200.


----------



## Eclipsed (Jun 12, 2020)

unfocused said:


> In my experience in recent years the "discount" for a kit has been fairly minimal. $200 might be the maximum, but I would not be surprised to see it much less. In my opinion, Canon quit giving big discounts on kits because so many dealers will splitting them up and selling the components separately on eBay.


I imagine that sometimes a lot discount is to blow out unwanted stock without as overtly irritating recent buyers. Like the current $999 RP kit. That’s worth splitting up and selling. Almost.


----------



## puffo25 (Jun 12, 2020)

Regarding the cards for the R5, I understand it will accept a dual card types: SD UHS-II and CFexpress. I am wondering, as I will not shoot much video, if I can put on both slots the SD UHS-II, or each bay will accept only a dedicated card?


----------



## cayenne (Jun 12, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> It's also obvious if you compare the lens with the photos of the extender, there's absolutely no way it could physically fit with the RF 70-200.



Wow...just wow.

Why would Canon do this? Just to shrink the new RF 70-200?

Would it have fit if the did the focusing internal like they do with the EF version?

Geez, for the EF version those TC's are *VERY* nice to have......

C


----------



## R1-7D (Jun 12, 2020)

puffo25 said:


> Regarding the cards for the R5, I understand it will accept a dual card types: SD UHS-II and CFexpress. I am wondering, as I will not shoot much video, if I can put on both slots the SD UHS-II, or each bay will accept only a dedicated card?



Each slot will only use their respective dedicated cards. In other words, the SD slot will ONLY accept SD cards (such as USH-II SD's), and the CFExpress slot will ONLY accept CFExpress cards. 

If you don't shoot much video, your best bet is to purchase USH-II SD cards as they'll be cheaper than CFExpress.

I suspect CFExpress will only be beneficial if you need to utilize a large buffer when shooting at the camera's maximum burst rate, or when shooting 4K-8K video at certain frame rates.


----------



## Pape (Jun 12, 2020)

I wonder when we get focus max and minimum distance setting to camera . R lenses seems to have distance information.
Getting bored how focus hits to backround on bif.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jun 12, 2020)

R1-7D said:


> If you don't shoot much video, your best bet is to purchase USH-II SD cards as they'll be cheaper than CFExpress.



USH-II SD cards are rather expensive and come in about the same price per GB as CF Express cards. CF Express cards are much better value considering how much faster they are and they are potentially more durable.

Sandisk CF Express Extreme Pro 64GB 1500MB/s Read Speed, 800MB/s Write Speed @ £159
Sandisk 64GB Extreme Pro SDHC 300MB/s UHS-II @ £136


----------



## R1-7D (Jun 12, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> USH-II SD cards are rather expensive and come in about the same price per GB as CF Express cards. CF Express cards are much better value considering how much faster they are and they are potentially more durable.
> 
> Sandisk CF Express Extreme Pro 64GB 1500MB/s Read Speed, 800MB/s Write Speed @ £159
> Sandisk 64GB Extreme Pro SDHC 300MB/s UHS-II @ £136



Fair enough. But you'll likely be able to use USH-I cards in the R5 too, and those are dirt cheap. If burst and video don't matter, then why not be economical?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 12, 2020)

dflt said:


> And? What about Lightroom's logo? Is that better?


That is a pathetic answer. What all in one photo management and editing program outperforms Lightroom and in what areas? I haven't found anything that competes with the capabilities of Lightroom and when you add in the unrivaled capabilities of Photoshop I haven't found anything to touch Adobe.

Do other RAW processors make 'better' one click renders? Maybe, but play with the controls and you can make pretty much any processor mimic any other processor if you know what you are doing and it is child's play to make that an import preset so you never have to do it again. Do other processors have slight differences in noise characteristics or color renditions, sure, but nothing is head and shoulders 'better' than anything else and again, skilled users of any program can mimic their preferred looks from other programs.

But tell me a RAW processing program that comes anywhere near the abilities and ease of use of the Library module in Lightroom, I haven't found one.

But be specific, in what areas does_ "LR = lagging way behind"_? Because I listed one very important one where it is a standout leader.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 12, 2020)

cayenne said:


> Wow...just wow.
> 
> Why would Canon do this? Just to shrink the new RF 70-200?
> 
> ...



Yes, exactly. They did it because they figured more people would want a more compact lens than would want to use it wil teleconverters. The EF 70-200 lenses are of course still available and still excellent (i've no intention of replacing my EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II with the RF version) when adapted to work with the EOS R, and of course support EF teleconverters.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 12, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> USH-II SD cards are rather expensive and come in about the same price per GB as CF Express cards. CF Express cards are much better value considering how much faster they are and they are potentially more durable.
> 
> Sandisk CF Express Extreme Pro 64GB 1500MB/s Read Speed, 800MB/s Write Speed @ £159
> Sandisk 64GB Extreme Pro SDHC 300MB/s UHS-II @ £136



I can get a Lexar *128GB* SDHX card UHS-II 250MB/s for £41GBP - yes slower than the Extreme Pro, but vastly more affordable than the CF Express card.


----------



## RBSfphoto (Jun 12, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> I can get a Lexar *128GB* SDHX card UHS-II 250MB/s for £41GBP - yes slower than the Extreme Pro, but vastly more affordable than the CF Express card.


I have had a lot of issues since Lexar changed ownership, 4 bad cards in a year, for me I decided the cost savings over another brand are not worth it


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 12, 2020)

degos said:


> Well they're both likely to use CR3 format so they'll already be usable in most commercial and much open source software. In general RAW converters don't need to be updated for specific bodies.
> 
> The real issue is lens correction profiles for all these new ones particularly if the non-L lenses exhibit Canon's recent trend towards dodgy optics corrected heavily by software.



All .cr3 files (or .cr2, for that matter) are not equal. Each sensor has a different set of instructions for things such as number of pixels wide, exact color filter array colors, etc. Just because a raw conversion application can handle .cr3 files from an older camera does not mean it can handle .cr3 files from a new camera.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 12, 2020)

degos said:


> Well they're both likely to use CR3 format so they'll already be usable in most commercial and much open source software. In general RAW converters don't need to be updated for specific bodies.
> 
> The real issue is lens correction profiles for all these new ones particularly if the non-L lenses exhibit Canon's recent trend towards dodgy optics corrected heavily by software.



Everyone: Why can't Canon make small, light, high quality lenses like everyone else? (i.e. Sony, µ4/3, etc.)

Canon: Here, try this new 24-240mm lens.

Everyone: Canon is *******! That lens is dodgy and one must use in-camera correction to make up for its shortcomings, just like Sony and µ4/3 have been doing for years.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 12, 2020)

Joules said:


> The RF 24-240mm does not cover the FF image circle at 24mm. To compensate, the lens correction profile applies a slight crop to the image. It is a completely new approach to ILC lens design for Canon, but I would agree that calling it "dodgy" is a bit over the top.



It's the same type of thing the Micro Four-Thirds cameras and many of Sony's cameras have been doing for years, particularly for geometric distortion.


----------



## Joules (Jun 12, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> It's the same type of thing the Micro Four-Thirds cameras and many of Sony's cameras have been doing for years, particularly for geometric distortion.


In Point and Shoot cameras it should also be possible to find plenty examples of correction profiles hiding flaws of the lens.

It's just the first time we saw that from Canon. Although, I wonder if all EF-M lenses have actually been tested for it. Maybe it isn't necessary to correct those in this way since the smaller image circle is less demanding. Then again, they are so tiny. I would not be surprised if some form of the same concept was applied in existing or will be in future releases.


----------



## puffo25 (Jun 12, 2020)

RBSfphoto said:


> I have had a lot of issues since Lear changed ownership, 4 bad cards in a year, for me I decided the cost savings over another brand are not worth it



Prograde seams very solid and highly rated cards.


----------



## ERHP (Jun 13, 2020)

puffo25 said:


> Prograde seams very solid and highly rated cards.


Just make sure the camera will work with them and support all the features as many people are finding the ProGrade CFExpress Gold cards will not support the video requirements on the 1DX MK III, so you know they won't meet the R5's. Their Cobalt line does seem to offer higher specs on the CFExpress side.


----------



## dflt (Jun 13, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> That is a pathetic answer. What all in one photo management and editing program outperforms Lightroom and in what areas? I haven't found anything that competes with the capabilities of Lightroom and when you add in the unrivaled capabilities of Photoshop I haven't found anything to touch Adobe.
> 
> Do other RAW processors make 'better' one click renders? Maybe, but play with the controls and you can make pretty much any processor mimic any other processor if you know what you are doing and it is child's play to make that an import preset so you never have to do it again. Do other processors have slight differences in noise characteristics or color renditions, sure, but nothing is head and shoulders 'better' than anything else and again, skilled users of any program can mimic their preferred looks from other programs.
> 
> ...


Workflow is slow, tedious and not streamlined at all. It wasn't revised for maybe a decade and it shows. That's all. Time is money, and LR is lacking a fast workflow.


----------



## puffo25 (Jun 13, 2020)

ERHP said:


> Just make sure the camera will work with them and support all the features as many people are finding the ProGrade CFExpress Gold cards will not support the video requirements on the 1DX MK III, so you know they won't meet the R5's. Their Cobalt line does seem to offer higher specs on the CFExpress side.



Thanks for the info. So in principle which brand do you think savvy as far as the CFExpress for the R5 goes?


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 13, 2020)

puffo25 said:


> Thanks for the info. So in principle which brand do you think savvy as far as the CFExpress for the R5 goes?



Canon has a list for the 1Dx3, I assume it would match the R5.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 13, 2020)

dflt said:


> Workflow is slow, tedious and not streamlined at all. It wasn't revised for maybe a decade and it shows. That's all. Time is money, and LR is lacking a fast workflow.


In your personal opinion, however tens of thousands of professional users would disagree with you, there is very little you can't automate and if you use consoles rather than keyboards it can be incredibly quick. I've seen wedding studio pros shuttle through 10,000's of images a day each inspected, graded, culled, straightened, cropped, custom develop settings applied and keywords applied. If you can't do it fast it isn't the softwares fault.

I am a much more modest and probably more typical user, my Library is 100,000 images and everything is pretty much instant, but I took the time to optimize my Library setup and I use fast connections for RAW files and an internal SSD for Smart Previews. I can scroll through images, jump from one folder to another and pull up the Develop module and work if the RAW files are connected or not, and all with zero lag.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 13, 2020)

dflt said:


> Workflow is slow, tedious and not streamlined at all. It wasn't revised for maybe a decade and it shows. That's all. Time is money, and LR is lacking a fast workflow.


You are correct when speaking of people using it for the first time ever.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 13, 2020)

cayenne said:


> Wow...just wow.
> 
> Why would Canon do this? Just to shrink the new RF 70-200?
> 
> ...


I had an exquisite copy of the ef 70-200 2.8 IS II. Tried two 1.4s, really disappointing.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 13, 2020)

RBSfphoto said:


> I have had a lot of issues since Lexar changed ownership, 4 bad cards in a year, for me I decided the cost savings over another brand are not worth it



I've had bad luck with all kinds of cards - but the last one that literally fell apart for me was a SanDisk 256MB Extreme Pro SD card. Never had a Lexar card (old or new) come out of the card slot in multiple pieces.


----------



## dflt (Jun 13, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> If you can't do it fast it isn't the softwares fault.


DD Oh man, you are so mistaken. If X software can do a thing in 3 clicks and Y software can do it in 1 clicks. Y software will make your life easier. Everything is else is useless optimization that takes time to reach a level Y software provides you free.


----------



## brad-man (Jun 13, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> I've had bad luck with all kinds of cards - but the last one that literally fell apart for me was a SanDisk 256MB Extreme Pro SD card. Never had a Lexar card (old or new) come out of the card slot in multiple pieces.


May I ask where you bought the card from? I only use Sandisk Extremes and I have never had a failure of any kind with any of them. Knowing there are counterfits out there, I always buy from B&H.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 14, 2020)

dflt said:


> DD Oh man, you are so mistaken. If X software can do a thing in 3 clicks and Y software can do it in 1 clicks. Y software will make your life easier. Everything is else is useless optimization that takes time to reach a level Y software provides you free.


Obviously you missed the point, no problem, enjoy what you do.


----------



## puffo25 (Jun 14, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Canon has a list for the 1Dx3, I assume it would match the R5.



Hi, according to the Canon site, dpreview and canonrumors, at least for the 1DX Mark III, the only CEexpress that fully support also video raw) are Prograde Cobalt and Sandisk Extreme Pro. So actually Prograde seams perfectly compatibile at least with 1Dx3. And also to the R5 probably, correct?
As far as UHS-II V90 goes, do you think that Prograde UHS-II is fully OK and savvy for the R5 https://shop.progradedigital.com/products/prograde-digital-sdxc-uhs-ii-v90-300r-memory-card?


----------



## R1-7D (Jun 14, 2020)

ERHP said:


> Just make sure the camera will work with them and support all the features as many people are finding the ProGrade CFExpress Gold cards will not support the video requirements on the 1DX MK III, so you know they won't meet the R5's. Their Cobalt line does seem to offer higher specs on the CFExpress side.



Just bought the ProGrade 325 GB Cobalt card in preparation!


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 15, 2020)

brad-man said:


> May I ask where you bought the card from? I only use Sandisk Extremes and I have never had a failure of any kind with any of them. Knowing there are counterfits out there, I always buy from B&H.



This one was bought from a reputable camera dealer. I've bought plenty of cards and of course come across some *very* good counterfeit cards in my time. Having said that, I've also bought memory cards from cheap stalls in Hong Kong IT markets(usually brands such as Transcend or Silicon Power), and genuine or not these cards have been performing sterling service for years


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 16, 2020)

dflt said:


> Workflow is slow, tedious and not streamlined at all. It wasn't revised for maybe a decade and it shows. That's all. Time is money, and LR is lacking a fast workflow.



While innovation is necessary, sometimes things just work and don't need to be changed for the sake of change. Take the wheel, for instance. But if reinventing it floats your hovercraft, go for it!


----------



## unfocused (Jun 16, 2020)

ERHP said:


> Just make sure the camera will work with them and support all the features as many people are finding the ProGrade CFExpress Gold cards will not support the video requirements on the 1DX MK III, so you know they won't meet the R5's. Their Cobalt line does seem to offer higher specs on the CFExpress side.



*Edit:*
Please elaborate. I did a quick search and found just one forum post indicating neither ProGrade nor Sandisk (the card bundled with the 1Dx III) supported RAW video recording as of Feb. 2020. 

The Canon Website indicates that for RAW movie 5.5k60p Recording four CFExpress Cards are supported: 
ProGrade Cobalt 325GB; 
SanDisk Extreme Pro 512GB; and
Lexar 256 and 128 GB cards.

Interestingly, the SanDisk card bundled with the 1DX III is listed as "Not Supported." 

Are there other issues or are you only referring to RAW video recording?

Chart can be found under the tab: "Possible Maximum Burst Rate of 1,000 images or more in Continuous Shooting"


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 16, 2020)

unfocused said:


> The Canon Website indicates that for RAW movie 5.5k60p Recording four CFExpress Cards are supported:
> ProGrade Cobalt 325GB;
> SanDisk Extreme Pro 512GB; and
> Lexar 256 and 128 GB cards.
> Interestingly, the SanDisk card bundled with the 1DX III is listed as "Not Supported."


Why would only certain size cards be listed? 
I am assuming that the write speed would be the same for sandisk extreme pro 64/128/256GB for instance. I am looking at 128GB size cards for the R5 so is Lexar the only choice (assuming that 8k/30 will be equal/higher speed than 5.5k/60)?


----------



## unfocused (Jun 16, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> Why would only certain size cards be listed?
> I am assuming that the write speed would be the same for sandisk extreme pro 64/128/256GB for instance. I am looking at 128GB size cards for the R5 so is Lexar the only choice (assuming that 8k/30 will be equal/higher speed than 5.5k/60)?


Heck if I know.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 16, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> Why would only certain size cards be listed?
> I am assuming that the write speed would be the same for sandisk extreme pro 64/128/256GB for instance. I am looking at 128GB size cards for the R5 so is Lexar the only choice (assuming that 8k/30 will be equal/higher speed than 5.5k/60)?


As I understand it, it’s write speed related, only the larger Sandisk cards do more than 1200MB/s, which I think is the cutoff Canon uses.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 16, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> As I understand it, it’s write speed related, only the larger Sandisk cards do more than 1200MB/s, which I think is the cutoff Canon uses.


I'm not a video guy but I pulled some information from the CFe datasheets.

The Prograde data sheet in the link has a handy table for 4k raw rates (bit depth and fps). It is strange that the table shows that all the Gold cards cannot handle 478MB/s (raw 4K/30fps @12 bit) although the 512GB-1T do handle 500MB/s avg

What would the raw 8K/30 10 bit data speed be and which cards would support it?
Still bursts could be more relevant for max write speeds but why aren't the card manufacturers listing avg write speed which video will be and avg read speed?

progradedigital dot com/products/cfexpress/
600MG/s Gold 120GB => Avg 145MB/s
1000MB/s Gold 256GB => 350MB/s
1000MB/s Gold 512GB-1T => 500MB/s
1400MB/s Cobalt 325GB => 1300MB/s
The avg to max speed difference is huge from 25% to 50% for gold but cobalt is pretty close to max.

Sandisk write speeds with no mention of sustained/average speed! link is:
shop dot westerndigital dot com/products/memory-cards/sandisk-extreme-pro-cfexpress-type-b#SDCFE-064G-ANCIN
64GB 800 MB/s
128/256GB 1200 MB/s 
521GB 1400 MB/s

Lexar. I can't find a datasheet for them... only 64GB — 512GB Up to 1750MB/s read, up to 1000MB/s write.
If Lexar 128/256GB cards are okay for the 1DXiii (assumed) 1000MB/s then why aren't the Sandisk 128/256GB included?


----------



## Cryhavoc (Jun 16, 2020)

Th0msky said:


> I heard that they gave the basic adapter with the Eos R back then? is that true?



They did but not at Release. I bought mine in Nov 2018 and it did not come with the adapter. I think they bundled it for a period of time by Summer 2019 ish.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 16, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> I'm not a video guy but I pulled some information from the CFe datasheets.
> 
> The Prograde data sheet in the link has a handy table for 4k raw rates (bit depth and fps). It is strange that the table shows that all the Gold cards cannot handle 478MB/s (raw 4K/30fps @12 bit) although the 512GB-1T do handle 500MB/s avg
> 
> ...



I hadn't looked at the Lexar cards, which is why I assumed 1200MB/s was the cut-off. The Lexar press release talks about "Sustained write speeds of 1000MB/s", but the spec page has "up to 1000MB/s write".

My guess is that the Lexar performance gap between max and sustained is more like the Prograde Cobalt and the Sandisk gap is more like the Prograde Gold.

A naive calculation of 15.7MP * 12 bit * 60fps / (8 * 1024 * 1024) gives me about 1350MB/s, but Canon says it's only 325MB/s. Dropping that in half to 30fps doesn't have the bitrate according to Canon, but only reduces it by a third to 225MB/s. That's without audio, but I would've expected the 512GB+ Gold ones to work.
My best guess is that Canon does some housekeeping on the card while recording, e.g. buffering uncompressed RAW while having the Digic losslessy compress it and writing that as well.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 16, 2020)

Cryhavoc said:


> They did but not at Release. I bought mine in Nov 2018 and it did not come with the adapter. I think they bundled it for a period of time by Summer 2019 ish.



It depends on the region, the Canon subsidiaries can create their own bundles. Canon Europe likes to bundle lenses, Canon USA likes to bundle printers.


----------



## pzyber (Jun 16, 2020)

Sibir Lupus said:


> Which recent Canon lens has "dodgy optics"??


Also RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM has "dodgy optics". It could almost classify as fisheye at 24mm and you can't turn off the corrections for the lens in the camera nor in DPP. The corners looks really bad at 24mm since they get streched so much.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 16, 2020)

pzyber said:


> Also RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM has "dodgy optics". It could almost classify as fisheye at 24mm and you can't turn off the corrections for the lens in the camera nor in DPP. The corners looks really bad at 24mm since they get streched so much.



I downloaded a sample RAW file and load it into DPP4. You can turn off all corrections, except for distortion. Dragging the distortion slider to the left makes the image slightly wider, but I don't see a difference between turning it off or on.


----------



## pzyber (Jun 16, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> I downloaded a sample RAW file and load it into DPP4. You can turn off all corrections, except for distortion. Dragging the distortion slider to the left makes the image slightly wider, but I don't see a difference between turning it off or on.



It's the distortion that's really bad on the lens at 24mm. Hence why they made it so you can't turn the distortion corrections off. If you open the same image in another RAW converter you will see.


----------



## Go Wild (Jun 16, 2020)

dflt said:


> Workflow is slow, tedious and not streamlined at all. It wasn't revised for maybe a decade and it shows. That's all. Time is money, and LR is lacking a fast workflow.



In years working in photography and having a huge amount of photos to edit in every works I do, could you please tell me what program is better than Lightroom as a "fast workflow"??? 

Workflow is a very personal thing and everyone has it´s own. But there is no program out that can even equalize Lightroom. It´s the best program if you have a big amount of photos to edit! And yes, I also agree with Privatbydesign, there are no programs that can match Adobe programs! Of course some programs are better in some ways, but in overall Adobe programs are reliable, they don´t crash, you are always updated, and they deliver everything a photographer needs! I pay 120€ by year to have photoshop and lightroom and I won´t trade those 2 for nothing! I did try DXO and it´s a no for me and i do own Luminar 4 and Aurora HDR. They are fine and i like them, but we can´t compare.....


----------



## cayenne (Jun 16, 2020)

Go Wild said:


> In years working in photography and having a huge amount of photos to edit in every works I do, could you please tell me what program is better than Lightroom as a "fast workflow"???
> 
> Workflow is a very personal thing and everyone has it´s own. But there is no program out that can even equalize Lightroom. It´s the best program if you have a big amount of photos to edit! And yes, I also agree with Privatbydesign, there are no programs that can match Adobe programs! Of course some programs are better in some ways, but in overall Adobe programs are reliable, they don´t crash, you are always updated, and they deliver everything a photographer needs! I pay 120€ by year to have photoshop and lightroom and I won´t trade those 2 for nothing! I did try DXO and it´s a no for me and i do own Luminar 4 and Aurora HDR. They are fine and i like them, but we can´t compare.....




I agree that workflow is a very personal thing....

However, Adobe is not the pure king of the hill above everyone it used to be.

I don't like the "rental" model of software and have left Adobe. I use On1 RAW as my LR replacement....and Affinity Photo as my PS replacement.

IN both of those, especially AP...the new engine there is light speed faster than PS which still has so much of an old code base it supports....

And On1 has features some great features, I believe it had luminosity masks before LR did? Also, does LR have layers and compositing you can do in LR?

But again, while I agree that whatever tool/workflow floats your boat is the best way to go, I have to disagree with you that there are NO programs out there that can equal or better LR, PS or any other Adobe product.

There are several out there now that absolutely can, and at a FAR lower price.

Heck, give them a try some time....free trials and hack the affinity suite of tools I think may still be on sale (permanent license) for like $25?

LOL...you can get the entire Affinity Suite for like $75....I've had bar tabs MUCH higher than that.....you know?


And Adobe not crashing? Hmm....that wasn't my experience...especially with Premier.

Just my $0.02,

C


----------



## Go Wild (Jun 16, 2020)

cayenne said:


> I agree that workflow is a very personal thing....
> 
> However, Adobe is not the pure king of the hill above everyone it used to be.
> 
> ...



No....but we are talking different things....Of course for regular photo editing any program can be good! The best is the one you like most! But I was talking about serious workflows, ones that you have to edit a huge amount of photos! For this, I find Lightroom to be the best in so many ways.....

Regarding what´s best....I like working with Adobe, but also like the Luminar 4, when I am editing landscape for example...Or the Aurora HDR....They are good. Slow as hell but good! 

The best...is always a relative thing...

Ohh....another thing....At first I was sceptic about this new way adobe was working. But now I don´t care! I have the programs always updated I don´t need to wait that some program schedule a big update...And if you make the calculation...I pay 120€ per year.... Well, that´s the price of 1 program like Luminar for example...DXO is more expensive...And you can use 2 different types of Lightroom and Photoshop! You can say that "Ok, but at least I pay a program that is mine forever..." It´s true....but after 1 year you will still have to buy the upgrade if something big come! So.....Its the same thing....

I don´t use Premiere so i Can´t tell...I use FCPX for video.


----------



## Quirkz (Jun 16, 2020)

Joules said:


> The RF 24-240mm does not cover the FF image circle at 24mm. To compensate, the lens correction profile applies a slight crop to the image. It is a completely new approach to ILC lens design for Canon, but I would agree that calling it "dodgy" is a bit over the top.



Especially since the optics are actually fairly good for an under $1k superzoom. 
They know the precise math behind the lens optics, so can correct surprisingly well.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 16, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> When we're finally moving to IBIS bodies why does every lens have in-lens IS?
> 
> I understand it may work a little better to have both rather than IBIS alone, but even before IBIS maybe half the lenses lacked IS.
> 
> ...


Supposedly IBIS works best for wide-angle lenses, and not so well with telephotos. Camera shake is more of an issue the longer the lens. So lens IS remains important if you use telephoto lenses.


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 17, 2020)

stevelee said:


> Supposedly IBIS works best for wide-angle lenses, and not so well with telephotos. Camera shake is more of an issue the longer the lens. So lens IS remains important if you use telephoto lenses.


Yes, long telephotos drastically need lens IS more than others, since the IBIS alone only has a limited range of motion which can't come close to the amount needed for long telephotos.

But don't forget that handhold shake with wide angle lenses can't be properly fixed for the entire sensor with IBIS, since the amount of correction needed is appreciably different in the center of the sensor as in the extremities. So if IBIS fixes it in one area, it messes it up in the other areas. But lens IS would better correct all of it. So all lenses really benefit from lens IS with IBIS to help correct the lesser amount that's left.


----------



## Go Wild (Jun 17, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> You don't have to buy the upgrade. I still have CS4. Heck, I couldn't find the CS4 disk last time I bought a PC so ran Photoshop 5.5 for a few months (from 1998). And since Adobe axed the Kodak PhotoCD support, I actually HAD to use 5.5 to read some old photos.


Well of course! Upgrading is always a choice! If you don´t care about the newest developments and your use only require the old fetures then of course you will never have to upgrade. But...we all know that editing software is always in a evolution path and if you want to have the newest things you need to upgrade. I remember the time when Photoshop costs 800€! Now i can have it for 120€/year. So 800€ will give me for about 7 years of use and with the advantage that I am always updated. And with that big extra...I can also use Lightroom! So....What´s not to like in this new "renting" by Adobe?


----------



## stevelee (Jun 17, 2020)

I was resistant to Adobe's subscription model, but then I realized that I had been paying about $600 a year for Adobe upgrades anyway. I don't use some of the programs as much as I used to, particularly In Design, but it is still handy to have access to the whole suite. I use Photoshop every day and Dreamweaver almost that often. The monthly fee just winds up buried in my credit card bill, so I don't notice it. It's all a matter of perception. If I had trouble buying groceries or making house payments, then I'd see it differently. With direct deposits and online bill payments, money just seems abstract, moving electrons around. If I didn't have regular use for some of the other programs, I'd consider the Photoshop and Lightroom plan, which seems like a real bargain. These days there are so many things to subscribe to that it becomes a matter of priorities and a question of what I really use. I dropped ESPN+, not because I couldn't afford the $5, but because there are no sports being played that I want to see. I added another disc to my Netflix subscription since I'm home watching the movies more. I'm using older versions of Quicken and Sibelius because I don't need any of the things the subscription versions will do. Fortunately, both still work in the current Mac OS version. I don't begrudge anybody whose priorities are different from mine and their consequent choices.


----------



## cayenne (Jun 17, 2020)

Go Wild said:


> <snip>
> 
> Ohh....another thing....At first I was sceptic about this new way adobe was working. But now I don´t care! I have the programs always updated I don´t need to wait that some program schedule a big update...And if you make the calculation...I pay 120€ per year.... Well, that´s the price of 1 program like Luminar for example...DXO is more expensive...And you can use 2 different types of Lightroom and Photoshop! You can say that "Ok, but at least I pay a program that is mine forever..." It´s true....but after 1 year you will still have to buy the upgrade if something big come! So.....Its the same thing....
> 
> <snip>



Well, here's the thing.

How many years has it been since Adobe moved to rental model? Quite awhile, no?

Honestly, since then I've still yet to see any feature or new item that is so groundbreaking, workflow efficient a change that I just would have to upgrade from my last version of PS CS6, nor LR5.

I'd still likely use them, but they have too much 32 bit code in them for OS X Catalina to work with.

And with Adobe doing rental....really what motivation do they have to actually innovate? Not much.

However, the alternatives out there today...ARE very much viable alternatives to Adobe products, where in the past there really were no serious professional level challengers.

And with stand alone licensing..well, you don't have blips that cut people off like Adobe CC had just within the last month I believe....

And you don't automatically get new versions pushed out that have bugs that have affected people with downtime.

However, I get it...the rental version works for some people. Larger commercial entities likely think it is ok...just like leasing other equipment they need.

But for the smaller guy....you generally do not have a compelling reason to upgrade the software every single year with ever single new version...and hence, doing the licensed permanent copy is WAY more economical.....especially if you look at the Affinity Tools: Photo, Designer, Publisher....I believe they are still on sale for $25 each.

Can Adobe rental beat that?

And I was an early adopter for Affinity Photo...I think it started about 2015. 

I've had numerous FREE updates ever since then....5 years worth. So, with my one purchase for 5 years, I've gotten all the free new tools, updates, and bug fixes....with a single payment to the company.

But different strokes for different folks.....everyone should use the best tool they think is for the job.

But it is hardly fair to say that the alternatives to Adobe are not professional level, nor are they not kept up to date with software updates.

C


----------



## RBSfphoto (Jun 17, 2020)

Fyi for those with good relationships with their local camera retailer (Being in a large city one of the largest retailers in the USA is here), my shop has told me they know they have ten cameras already on pre-order with canon and are taking deposits to be on the pre-order list. I have made my deposit


----------



## Go Wild (Jun 17, 2020)

cayenne said:


> Well, here's the thing.
> 
> How many years has it been since Adobe moved to rental model? Quite awhile, no?



Well I believe since 2014 or close...



cayenne said:


> Honestly, since then I've still yet to see any feature or new item that is so groundbreaking, workflow efficient a change that I just would have to upgrade from my last version of PS CS6, nor LR5.
> 
> 
> And with Adobe doing rental....really what motivation do they have to actually innovate? Not much.



That´s not true at all! The improvements have been numerous and very significant! As the matter of fact today we had a good upgrade of photoshop and camera raw!!! 
So, of course they maintain motivation to improve! In fact, they usually are the first company to upgrade their programas to work with the new cameras and new extensions!




cayenne said:


> However, the alternatives out there today...ARE very much viable alternatives to Adobe products, where in the past there really were no serious professional level challengers.
> 
> And with stand alone licensing..well, you don't have blips that cut people off like Adobe CC had just within the last month I believe....
> 
> And you don't automatically get new versions pushed out that have bugs that have affected people with downtime.



Alternatives are good if they fit you! Like I said, I do use another programs like Luminar and I like! Its just a matter of personal choice! 

Never had those blips you talk and only one time we did have some issues, when Apple launch Catalina. Maybe Windows experience is different, don´t know...But even with some bugs at that time, they fiz it really quick and never get my workflow affected. It only afect Photshop so I worked with Lightroom...2 programs for the price of 1!  



cayenne said:


> However, I get it...the rental version works for some people. Larger commercial entities likely think it is ok...just like leasing other equipment they need.
> 
> But for the smaller guy....you generally do not have a compelling reason to upgrade the software every single year with ever single new version...and hence, doing the licensed permanent copy is WAY more economical.....especially if you look at the Affinity Tools: Photo, Designer, Publisher....I believe they are still on sale for $25 each.
> 
> ...



I accept your point of view, it´s your oppinion based on your needs and that is totally valid!  

For me...I just prefer Adobe. I was one of the firsts to use Affinity I was one of the users of the BETA version when it was still developing. And I did like it, it was very near to Photoshop. 
And if you say you prefer Affinity to Photoshop, totally understand! But thing is.....in Adobe you get for 10€ month TWO programs!!! What can beat that!!  
So...The thing is...this is just a personal opinion and based on personal uses! There are no perfect programs, just programs that adapt good to what we do...Some of us use Adobe, some of us use another ones...  
Adobe is not perfect.....But they deliver what I need....


----------



## cayenne (Jun 18, 2020)

Go Wild said:


> That´s not true at all! The improvements have been numerous and very significant! As the matter of fact today we had a good upgrade of photoshop and camera raw!!!
> So, of course they maintain motivation to improve! In fact, they usually are the first company to upgrade their programas to work with the new cameras and new extensions!



Interesting.

Can you point to some of the earth shaking, can't do without improvements Adobe has done to say, Photoshop....that makes it so superior to CS6 that you can't live without? What amazing functionality have they added since then that blows CS6 out of the water and gives functionality you cannot do before rental model?

Just curious, maybe I missed it, I do try to keep up and listen for the updates, but I"ve yet to see anything so mind blowing for PS or LR that I couldn't still do inCS6 and LR5 for the most part...

C


----------



## Go Wild (Jun 18, 2020)

cayenne said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Can you point to some of the earth shaking, can't do without improvements Adobe has done to say, Photoshop....that makes it so superior to CS6 that you can't live without? What amazing functionality have they added since then that blows CS6 out of the water and gives functionality you cannot do before rental model?
> 
> ...


Come on....Really? Just google it!  I understand that for you and your use an upgrade is not required. I also understand that for you Adobe programs are not the most indicated for your work. It all depends on our needs and also on what makes you feel confident and happy with the use! 

For me, I get that with Adobe. Of course I am not going to sit here and convice you of that! Just because it´s not my point or objective and also Adobe doesn´t pay me for that!!


----------



## stevelee (Jun 18, 2020)

I’ve seen that Lightroom has added ISO-variant default settings for Raw conversions. For example, you could set low noise reduction for shots at ISO 100, more reduction for 6400 and less sharpening, and more reduction at 40,000. It just affects what you see when you open the raw file, and you can still adjust from there. Between values it interpolates.

I don’t know whether it is also added to ACR. ACR interface has been changed to be more like Lightroom, so it will take me a while to find what is hidden where, even though it hasn’t been that long since I used the develop module during a book project.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 22, 2020)

Danglin52 said:


> So, why buy the 600mm DO f11 if you can shoot native with the 100-500 + crop AND it is unlikely the extenders will provide any benefit on the 600mm due to the f11 aperture?



Because the 600/11 and 800/11 are going to be a LOT cheaper than the 100-500, much less than a 600mm or 800mm f/5.6 lens.
If you are using the 100-400 II and 200-400/4 lenses, the 600/800 f/11 lenses are not meant for you.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 22, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> Why would only certain size cards be listed?
> I am assuming that the write speed would be the same for sandisk extreme pro 64/128/256GB for instance. I am looking at 128GB size cards for the R5 so is Lexar the only choice (assuming that 8k/30 will be equal/higher speed than 5.5k/60)?



It's not uncommon at all for smaller cards of the same series to be slightly slower than the larger cards in that series. SanDisk SD cards have been doing this for years. So have Transcend.


----------



## Danglin52 (Jun 22, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Because the 600/11 and 800/11 are going to be a LOT cheaper than the 100-500, much less than a 600mm or 800mm f/5.6 lens.
> If you are using the 100-400 II and 200-400/4 lenses, the 600/800 f/11 lenses are not meant for you.


Not sure I agree. The 100-400 II and 100-500 may be expensive, but they can replace multiple fixed focus lenses in the range and are extremely versatile with excellent IQ. The 800 (wouldn’t buy the 600 w/ the 100-500) MAY provide an option when the 100-500 + 1.4x TC or crop is not enough. Only testing will verify. The 200-400 is a great but very heavy lens. I bought a Canon factory refurb in 2016 and sold It last week after 4 years of use close to my original purchase price. I love the 600 III, but no factory refurb deals and I am not willing to tie up the cash and take the hit of full retail. i am hoping the 800 f11 will work for casual use and I can rent the f4’s for big trips. We will see when they are released.


----------



## Joules (Jun 22, 2020)

Danglin52 said:


> Not sure I agree. The 100-400 II and 100-500 may be expensive, but they can replace multiple fixed focus lenses in the range and are extremely versatile with excellent IQ.


But they are expensive. If the Sigma / Tamron 150-600mm wouldn't be around, I would still be shooting wildlife with the 55-250mm IS STM. A lens that is an amazing deal, but somewhat limited in range.

Keep in mind that these new Tele lenses are STM and f/11. The most expensive STM lens I am aware of costs less than 500$ on Amazon (the EF-M 18-150mm) and is expensive compared to many of the other STM lenses. Personally, I can't see these primes costing over 1000$. If they do, I wouldn't be surprised if few customers prefer them over 3rd party alternatives.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 22, 2020)

Joules said:


> But they are expensive. If the Sigma / Tamron 150-600mm wouldn't be around, I would still be shooting wildlife with the 55-250mm IS STM. A lens that is an amazing deal, but somewhat limited in range.
> 
> Keep in mind that these new Tele lenses are STM and f/11. The most expensive STM lens I am aware of costs less than 500$ on Amazon (the EF-M 18-150mm) and is expensive compared to many of the other STM lenses. Personally, I can't see these primes costing over 1000$. If they do, I wouldn't be surprised if few customers prefer them over 3rd party alternatives.


Sigma 100-400 c sold well at US$779.00 a Canon 800mm prime priced over $1000 is a reasonable expectation (arguably).


----------



## Danglin52 (Jun 22, 2020)

Joules said:


> But they are expensive. If the Sigma / Tamron 150-600mm wouldn't be around, I would still be shooting wildlife with the 55-250mm IS STM. A lens that is an amazing deal, but somewhat limited in range.
> 
> Keep in mind that these new Tele lenses are STM and f/11. The most expensive STM lens I am aware of costs less than 500$ on Amazon (the EF-M 18-150mm) and is expensive compared to many of the other STM lenses. Personally, I can't see these primes costing over 1000$. If they do, I wouldn't be surprised if few customers prefer them over 3rd party alternatives.


It is a brave new world with the R system and it looks like Canon has punched it up a couple of levels. I would be surprised to see a sub $1,000 800mm lens because there will be nothing that can match even $1,500 @ f11 if it has good IQ and AF on an R5/R6. I can't see them delivering a crap*** lens for use on their new flagship camera. If they can deliver an f11 with good IQ even at $1,500-$1,800 I don't think anything will be able to match the IQ - even a 150-600 + TC. The 100-500 is a no brainer for me if it has similar build/IQ/AF to the existing 100-400 II since I will cover the majority of my shooting. I submitted a question to Rudy Winston during the Canon session about the IQ of the 100-500 and the rationale for f7.1. He didn't address the f7.1, but said "if you are happy with the quality and performance of the 100-400 II, you should be happy with the 100-500". I hope the lens is f5.6 @400mm and I can live with f7.1 400-500mm. I am disappointed they couldn't pull off an f6.3 or f8 for the 600/800. We will have to revisit when all the gear is out and tested. Bottom line is that I am going to pre-order and let the reviews make my decision. I am willing give up a little IQ if the lens saves me 5-6 lbs in the bag. I am planning a late September trip to GTNP/YNP and would really like to have all of this gear to test. I hope the gear arrives mid-September so I do a real world test and return anything that doesn't fit my needs. I would love a lightweight replacement of the 200-400 f4 (bumped to 200-500) but I doubt I can get lucky on a refurb and don't want to pay full retail for a big white.


----------



## Joules (Jun 22, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Sigma 100-400 c sold well at US$779.00 a Canon 800mm prime priced over $1000 is a reasonable expectation (arguably).


But why use an STM AF, if budget isn't constrained that much? Even the RF 24-240mm has an USM AF drive, despite being so compromised in other aspects to keep it affordable (no FF image circle at wide end, performance in the corners, weight). That's a 900 $ lens.

I suppose if Canon continues to restrict the smooth viewfinder mode to RF lenses, that's enough of an incentive to buy native glass. But otherwise, I think the price has to be very low in order to make an f/11 prime a preferrable option over a third party zoom or first party zoom plus extender. Especially for a high resolution sensor like the R5.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 22, 2020)

Sub


Joules said:


> But why use an STM AF, if budget isn't constrained that much? Even the RF 24-240mm has an USM AF drive, despite being so compromised in other aspects to keep it affordable (no FF image circle at wide end, performance in the corners, weight). That's a 900 $ lens.
> 
> I suppose if Canon continues to restrict the smooth viewfinder mode to RF lenses, that's enough of an incentive to buy native glass. But otherwise, I think the price has to be very low in order to make an f/11 prime a preferrable option over a third party zoom or first party zoom plus extender. Especially for a high resolution sensor like the R5.


anything south of $2000 is a reasonable price for a 800mm Canon prime lens )
Let’s see what happens. At $1000 it will be an underselling it. But what do I know

Re smooth viewfinder onR5 potentially limited to RF lenses only: I do not see this being a requirement. 1Dx3 tracking in live view mode is silky smooth apparently With EF lenses.
I would not bet my house on it. However it is highly likely..


----------



## Joules (Jun 22, 2020)

Danglin52 said:


> there will be nothing that can match even $1,500 @ f11 if it has good IQ and AF on an R5/R6. I can't see them delivering a crap*** lens for use on their new flagship camera.


That's the thing. I don't think these f/11 le ses are intended to be used with the R5 for anything but situations where the weight is critical.

f/11 means you'll basically throw out half the resolution in the R5 due to the diffraction limit at 24 MP.

There are good arguments for these lenses to be much more expensive than I believe. But the STM strikes me as an extremely odd choice in that case. I am biased though. I'm very happy with my 150-600 mm C which I use on an 80D. Sure, at the long end there is a drop in sharpness so that a R5 + 800mm f/11 would likely give a tiny bit more effective reach. And it would be lighter. But the flexibility of a zoom has its own advantages.

We'll see. In any case, I feel like these are very interesting lenses and it is exciting to see Canon explore new paths.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 22, 2020)

Joules said:


> But they are expensive. If the Sigma / Tamron 150-600mm wouldn't be around, I would still be shooting wildlife with the 55-250mm IS STM. A lens that is an amazing deal, but somewhat limited in range.
> 
> Keep in mind that these new Tele lenses are STM and f/11. The most expensive STM lens I am aware of costs less than 500$ on Amazon (the EF-M 18-150mm) and is expensive compared to many of the other STM lenses. Personally, I can't see these primes costing over 1000$. If they do, I wouldn't be surprised if few customers prefer them over 3rd party alternatives.



I'm guessing they'll start out over $1,000, but not by much.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 22, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Sigma 100-400 c sold well at US$779.00 a Canon 800mm prime priced over $1000 is a reasonable expectation (arguably).




The Sigma 100-400 may be much cheaper than the Canon EF 100-400mm II, but its IQ is also a far cry from the EF 100-400 II IQ.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 22, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> The Sigma 100-400 may be much cheaper than the Canon EF 100-400mm II, but its IQ is also a far cry from the EF 100-400 II IQ.



That 100-400mm II is rapidly getting to be on my list of "from my cold dead hands" lenses (alongside the No-L 100mm macro).


----------



## stevelee (Jun 23, 2020)

SteveC said:


> That 100-400mm II is rapidly getting to be on my list of "from my cold dead hands" lenses (alongside the No-L 100mm macro).


They are both great lenses. I feel the same way. The only one I would add to that list is the 16-35mm f/4. I get plenty of good use out of almost all the rest of my EF lenses, but those are the ones that continue to amaze me.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 23, 2020)

stevelee said:


> They are both great lenses. I feel the same way. The only one I would add to that list is the 16-35mm f/4. I get plenty of good use out of almost all the rest of my EF lenses, but those are the ones that continue to amaze me.



That's on my list. Right after I get the R5 with 24-105 L kit, that one is next.

Unless I decide to splurge on the f/2.8 instead. Yeah, it's another thousand bucks. Decisions, decisions.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 23, 2020)

SteveC said:


> That's on my list. Right after I get the R5 with 24-105 L kit, that one is next.
> 
> Unless I decide to splurge on the f/2.8 instead. Yeah, it's another thousand bucks. Decisions, decisions.


With modern sensors I so rarely need an extra stop, so size, weight, and $1,000 would never seem worth it to me.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 23, 2020)

cayenne said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Can you point to some of the earth shaking, can't do without improvements Adobe has done to say, Photoshop....that makes it so superior to CS6 that you can't live without? What amazing functionality have they added since then that blows CS6 out of the water and gives functionality you cannot do before rental model?
> 
> ...


For me, the dehaze tool is awesome (when used appropriately). I think that you could do the same using a combination of other sliders but the way it slices through mist/clouds is great. For underwater shots, I use it with almost every shot.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 23, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> The Sigma 100-400 may be much cheaper than the Canon EF 100-400mm II, but its IQ is also a far cry from the EF 100-400 II IQ.


Yeah.... my point though is, that if even Sigma sold 100-400 C at nearly US$800, why would Canon sell 800/11 under $1000? It is way too cheap in my view.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 23, 2020)

stevelee said:


> With modern sensors I so rarely need an extra stop, so size, weight, and $1,000 would never seem worth it to me.



I'd have to see what the weight and penalty is, for sure, preferably by handling both lenses A/B. Other than that, that extra stop might help a lot with astro-photography, otherwise I'd tend to agree.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 23, 2020)

SteveC said:


> I'd have to see what the weight and penalty is, for sure, preferably by handling both lenses A/B. Other than that, that extra stop might help a lot with astro-photography, otherwise I'd tend to agree.


I would be inclined to think about a fast prime for astrophotography, but I don’t have one in mind. So I’d be more likely to apply the $1000 to that than to get the faster zoom. Or maybe I’d get a wider zoom or just break out my telescope. Or I could use the $1000 toward a better telescope. I haven’t used the telescope in the 10 years I’ve lived here, so probably not. There’s too much light pollution here anyway.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 23, 2020)

SteveC said:


> That 100-400mm II is rapidly getting to be on my list of "from my cold dead hands" lenses (alongside the No-L 100mm macro).



I traded in my 100mm non-L last year for the L version. I haven't regretted it. I was also surprised at the amount of money I got for it, more than half of what I paid for it 13 years earlier!
The big difference is smoother AF and having IS, I can't really spot any difference in IQ.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 23, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> I traded in my 100mm non-L last year for the L version. I haven't regretted it. I was also surprised at the amount of money I got for it, more than half of what I paid for it 13 years earlier!
> The big difference is smoother AF and having IS, I can't really spot any difference in IQ.



I've pretty much got the camera with the 100mm nailed in place, so IS is a non-issue. However, it's good to know that if the 100mm ever breaks and I can't find the non-L version, I can move up if need be.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 23, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> I traded in my 100mm non-L last year for the L version. I haven't regretted it. I was also surprised at the amount of money I got for it, more than half of what I paid for it 13 years earlier!
> The big difference is smoother AF and having IS, I can't really spot any difference in IQ.


Shooting macro, I focus manually and almost always use a tripod, so AF is not an issue, and IS wouldn't be of much use. When I do handhold macro shots, the shutter speed needs to be fast enough to stop the moving critter. I'm glad that the IQ is as good. That was the impression I had from reading reviews. At the time I bought it, my choice from was a financial one, between buying it or not buying it, not between it and the more expensive version. Like SteveC, if I ever had to replace it, I'd consider the L version.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 25, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Yeah.... my point though is, that if even Sigma sold 100-400 C at nearly US$800, why would Canon sell 800/11 under $1000? It is way too cheap in my view.



Who suggested Canon was going to sell it for under $1K? I do think it will be well less than $2K.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 26, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Who suggested Canon was going to sell it for under $1K? I do think it will be well less than $2K.


Hi Michael, the OP have suggested it would be sold under $1000. Hence my post.


----------



## vjlex (Jun 26, 2020)

Just saw Nokishita's tweet about the BG-R10 to be announced with the upcoming R5 and R6. Battery grip? Compatible with both R5 and R6? Afterall there was mention of a universal battery grip patent a while ago. Maybe this is a step in that direction.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 28, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Hi Michael, the OP have suggested it would be sold under $1000. Hence my post.



There's nothing in the OP about prices.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 28, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> There's nothing in the OP about prices.


There is actually.. indeed 
https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/i...ens-sku-and-kit-information.38664/post-837874

the OP was suggesting that Canon F11 telephoto primes should not cost over $1000. here:

"... Keep in mind that these new Tele lenses are STM and f/11. The most expensive STM lens I am aware of costs less than 500$ on Amazon (the EF-M 18-150mm) and is expensive compared to many of the other STM lenses. *Personally, I can't see these primes costing over 1000$.* If they do,...."


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 28, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> There is actually.. indeed
> https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/i...ens-sku-and-kit-information.38664/post-837874
> 
> the OP was suggesting that Canon F11 telephoto primes should not cost over $1000. here:
> ...



That's post #189 in this thread, not post #1.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 28, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> That's post #189 in this thread, not post #1.


ok. sorry, I called the "OP" the one I have replied to. if that makes sense. hope it explains.


----------



## Joules (Jun 28, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Who suggested Canon was going to sell it for under $1K? I do think it will be well less than $2K.


Well, that was me, as you already pointed out.

I could see them costing over 1k as well, but if they do, this seems like a weird move from Canon to me. I think the STM makes no sense in that case. I mean, how much does going from STM to one of the modern USM types cost? And is that increase really enough to push the price over the threshold acceptable for the consumer?

These lenses are very interesting. I am very excited about the upcoming announcements. I am not sure if I will purchase any of them in the foreseeable future, but I hope they'll also provide some insight into Canon's long term intentions regarding the RF and EF-M system.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jun 29, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> I can get a Lexar *128GB* SDHX card UHS-II 250MB/s for £41GBP - yes slower than the Extreme Pro, but vastly more affordable than the CF Express card.



I'll only compare like for like on the same brand. And 250MB/s is less than 300MB/s and a lot less than 1700MB/s.


----------

