Canon EOS R5 Unite and Discuss!

JM_2 wrote in post #19322611
No, you're doing it right. I have several C/Y Zeiss lenses that I use with my R5 and R6 via a "dumb" adapter (mine is by Urth). As others have said, you won't get a focus point, because there are no electrical connections in the adapter. I've been using adapters like these for years with micro four thirds cameras and a Sony a7R, and the best way I've found to focus is to use the magnifier. The R5 and R6 allow you to cycle through three levels of magnification using the magnifier button on the back of the camera. The viewfinders on the R5 and R6 make proper focus easy to judge. With no magnification, you won't see any white boxes or guides in the viewfinder. With the first press of the magnifier button, you will see "X6" in the lower right corner of the viewfinder along with a white rectangle. Inside the rectangle is a smaller, solid white rectangle. The larger rectangle represents the whole image while the small rectangle represents the area being magnified in relation to the full image. Another press of the magnifier button takes you to "X15" magnification and the small rectangle becomes smaller still to indicate a smaller area being magnified. You can use the joystick to move the magnified area around and you will see the small rectangle move accordingly within the larger white rectangle to indicate where you are within the frame. I apologize if this is as clear as mud, but I hope it helps.

I fully understood, thanks JM Thats what I discovered, magnify and use the joy stick to move to different area's to obtain focus for that area. (Really not the best way to use manual focus lenses.)

Sony is more user friendly using legacy glass, you will get a focus point that you can move around and focus in on.

I highly doubt Canon will address this short coming for manual only focused lenses.. We just have to make the best of what we have using legacy glass.

lowrider wrote in post #19322565
^^^^Or just use a "smart adapter." The Canon adapters both work fine with EF lenses on an "R" Canon and one of the adapters has a controller ring like the RF lenses.

Lou

Thanks Lou, but C/Y lenses are a different mount than EF mount so the EF to R wont work. Additionally to the best of my knowledge, there are no smart adapters for C/Y to RF.

There are some folks who use smart adapters on Sony camera's as they want to AF there manual only lenses. I use dumb adapters on my Sony, as I enjoy focusing manually.

That's not to say I dont have AF lenses, because I do as well.

Anyone using python to extract exif from the images.
I wanted to use it for keeping the images cataloged. Using exifred and that works for jpg and CR2. It is not working for CR3.
Wondering which other module will solve this issue?
Any ideas?
Sorry, I know this is not exactly the R5 question, but closely related.

Python's hot this year...

Does anyone here own an RF 14-35L? If so, I'd be interested to hear what you think of it. I am looking at buying my third RF lens for my R5. I already have the RF 100-500L, which I love, and the RF 24-105L, which is versatile but is often temperamental when on my camera. I was thinking of the RF 14-35L as my next acquisition, thus given me coverage from 14mm to 500mm. I already own an EF 16-35L, which I admit I hardly ever use, but I took it out today and was really pleased with the results. Is it worth selling the EF and buying the RF wide-angle? I suspect not, as I shoot very little wide angle - it's just that it would be nice to have the latest version. A clear case of Lens Acquisition Syndrome! Maybe I should stick with the EF and save myself some money. Any thoughts?

Terrycanon wrote in post #19324633
Does anyone here own an RF 14-35L? If so, I'd be interested to hear what you think of it. I am looking at buying my third RF lens for my R5. I already have the RF 100-500L, which I love, and the RF 24-105L, which is versatile but is often temperamental when on my camera. I was thinking of the RF 14-35L as my next acquisition, thus given me coverage from 14mm to 500mm. I already own an EF 16-35L, which I admit I hardly ever use, but I took it out today and was really pleased with the results. Is it worth selling the EF and buying the RF wide-angle? I suspect not, as I shoot very little wide angle - it's just that it would be nice to have the latest version. A clear case of Lens Acquisition Syndrome! Maybe I should stick with the EF and save myself some money. Any thoughts?

I, too, do need the wide-angle lens but do not use it often, so I opted to keep my EF 16-35L. It works great with the R5 with the adapter. My EF 100 Macro, on the other hand, although I also do need it but do not use often, I sold it for the RF version because of the features that made my EF ancient to merit the upgrade.

I have it. I just picked it up a couple weeks ago, so my usage is limited. I really struggled with the decision between the 14-35 and the 15-35. My primary use case is hiking, so the weight won out over the faster lens. I have the 50 f1.2 and the 24-70 f2.8, so figured I would be fine with the F4. So far, I’m really happy with it. Seems sharp, focus is fast, quiet. I can’t comment on the 16-35, as I don’t own it, but I am happy with my decision to get the 14-35!

I guess it comes down to use.

F4 vs 2.8. 2.8 is better for astrophotography

Terrycanon wrote in post #19324633
Does anyone here own an RF 14-35L? If so, I'd be interested to hear what you think of it. I am looking at buying my third RF lens for my R5. I already have the RF 100-500L, which I love, and the RF 24-105L, which is versatile but is often temperamental when on my camera. I was thinking of the RF 14-35L as my next acquisition, thus given me coverage from 14mm to 500mm. I already own an EF 16-35L, which I admit I hardly ever use, but I took it out today and was really pleased with the results. Is it worth selling the EF and buying the RF wide-angle? I suspect not, as I shoot very little wide angle - it's just that it would be nice to have the latest version. A clear case of Lens Acquisition Syndrome! Maybe I should stick with the EF and save myself some money. Any thoughts?

I have the R not the R5 , I also have the 15-35 from the ef16-35 , not the 14-35. The distortion seems to be a little more on the rf , maybe the 1mm but who knows. It seem sharper and more detail though edge to edge.
Over all I'm extremely happy with the change. I'm happy to get rid of all my ef lenses to rf. The converter was getting under my skin. I'm also not worried about losing more money on selling my EF lenses now.
But most of my happiness is from my point of view. The actual advantages are slight.

HTH,
Joe

how did you dudes and dudettes like the r5?
I did Bama vs Cincy Cotton Bowl
Canon CPS was there with loaners
got a 400 2.8 III and an r5
struggled with menu settings
struggled with following players especially downfield
got better the second half
The resolution when you crop is unreal
here is an example
Im in ednzone
Im thinking of an r6 or r5 Im mainly a sports shooter fb
but I also shoot more and more models
any help appreciated

SYS wrote in post #19324649
I, too, do need the wide-angle lens but do not use it often, so I opted to keep my EF 16-35L. It works great with the R5 with the adapter. My EF 100 Macro, on the other hand, although I also do need it but do not use often, I sold it for the RF version because of the features that made my EF ancient to merit the upgrade.

That's really interesting and you've made me think that's perhaps what I should do, too. I have the EF 100 macro but haven't tried it on the R5. I'll do so, but I feel I should keep the EF 16-35, which as you say works fine on the R5 with the adapter, then trade in the EF 100 macro and get the RF 100 macro. I see it gives 1.4 magnification rather than the EF's 1-1. I found that the.EF 100 macro could be difficult to focus with my old 5D IV. It shouldn't be as much a problem on the R5 as its auto-focusing is brilliant. Thanks for your help.

Pretty amazing ability to crop with that R5

Yes. This is not really usable for print but you can get away with it on forums.

Terrycanon wrote in post #19324633
Does anyone here own an RF 14-35L? If so, I'd be interested to hear what you think of it. I am looking at buying my third RF lens for my R5. I already have the RF 100-500L, which I love, and the RF 24-105L, which is versatile but is often temperamental when on my camera. I was thinking of the RF 14-35L as my next acquisition, thus given me coverage from 14mm to 500mm. I already own an EF 16-35L, which I admit I hardly ever use, but I took it out today and was really pleased with the results. Is it worth selling the EF and buying the RF wide-angle? I suspect not, as I shoot very little wide angle - it's just that it would be nice to have the latest version. A clear case of Lens Acquisition Syndrome! Maybe I should stick with the EF and save myself some money. Any thoughts?

I went from EF 100-400 II, 24-105 f/4L, and 100 f/2.8L Macro to RF 100-500, 24-105 f/4L, and 100 Macro. When I put an extender on the 100-500, it only works from 300-500. So the 1.4x results in 420-700. I almost always carry two cameras (formerly 1DX2 and 5D4; now R5 and R6). With the 24-105, I had a big gap between 105 and 420mm. So I traded the 24-105 for the 24-240. Very happy with that! I did keep one EF lens - the 16-35 f/4L. I keep Canon's control ring adapter on it and use it as needed (which isn't very often). I don't have the urge to go with the 14-35.

I think the 24-240 was initially under-rated. I find it gives really nice images