In-body image stabilisation

Holy balls. The thought of fiddling with anything near my cameras sensor while out gives me nightmares.
 
For interest sake. If you have a 24-105 f/2.8, what else are you going to need outside of that?
Is that a serious question?

An interesting point though I think a CPL is more useful.
Different horses and all that.

I'm of the school though that if you spend R10k+ on a lens you should at least spend a few hundred on a basic filter for it.
I'm of the school that doesn't put an extra layer of glass over their lens unless it serves a genuine purpose, like an ND or CPL.

Holy balls. The thought of fiddling with anything near my cameras sensor while out gives me nightmares.
Yeah, that's a hard pass from me too. I've got my camera set to close the shutter when I power off just so more crap doesn't get on my sensor, but I'm still not doing that!
 
Yeah, that's a hard pass from me too. I've got my camera set to close the shutter when I power off just so more crap doesn't get on my sensor, but I'm still not doing that!
Exactly and same here! Lens changes always happen quickly and with the sensor face down as well. 2 and a half years later and the sensor is still pristine.

On the side, since I almost exclusively use the electronic shutter, the shutter count must be under 2000 still
 
Holy balls. The thought of fiddling with anything near my cameras sensor while out gives me nightmares.
It's quite easy with the older ones. Newer ones have a shorter flange making it more difficult but not impossible. The biggest shortsightedness of Canon was obviously designing the filter into the adapter and not the flange itself. Though you still can only use one filter it would be useful for something like a CPL.

Is that a serious question?
Indeed. I imagine there isn't much in normal everyday situations that isn't covered why it is called the ultimate videographer lens. But the point is still it covers multiple lenses so if you need more than 105mm you might not need it to be a F2.8 and might go for F4 instead. Or if you're serious about wildlife or sport you might actually go for the 100-300 F2.8 which offers something other lenses don't.

The point is if you have a bunch of EF lenses then good for you, use them. But if you're looking to move over or start afresh then the advice to go for EF is bad and will eventually cost you in the long run because of all the options you're discounting. It should be RF by default and only if that's not an option EF.

I'm of the school that doesn't put an extra layer of glass over their lens unless it serves a genuine purpose, like an ND or CPL.
You know you likely have 10 layers already? A thin hairline layer purposely designed for it won't make much difference, and UV filters and such do serve a purpose. Personally I like to always have a CPL attached just for when I need it.
 
Indeed. I imagine there isn't much in normal everyday situations that isn't covered why it is called the ultimate videographer lens.
Good for them, but I'm not a videographer, I'm a working photographer.

Or if you're serious about wildlife or sport you might actually go for the 100-300 F2.8 which offers something other lenses don't.
300mm is a little short for my needs.

But if you're looking to move over or start afresh then the advice to go for EF is bad and will eventually cost you in the long run because of all the options you're discounting.
2nd hand EF lenses are affordable and easy to come by. Discounting them because they're not RF is foolish.

You know you likely have 10 layers already?
All carefully crafted by Canon.

A thin hairline layer purposely designed for it won't make much difference, and UV filters and such do serve a purpose.
UV filters serve no purpose aside from completing the weather sealing on a select number of lenses.

Personally I like to always have a CPL attached just for when I need it.
The chances of me needing a CPL are slim and are far outweighed by the inconvenience of continuously having to make sure it's not engaged.
 
On the side, since I almost exclusively use the electronic shutter, the shutter count must be under 2000 still
I use electronic shutter as much as possible, the rated shutter life on the R7 is only 200,000 actuations, but when it really matters, or I need to use flash, I bite the bullet and switch to EFCS.
 
Good for them, but I'm not a videographer, I'm a working photographer.
You know it doesn't mean only video right? Reason I mention it is video requirements are a lot more demanding like switching from closeup to wide in an instant. If it's good for video it's even better for photography.

300mm is a little short for my needs.
:(

2nd hand EF lenses are affordable and easy to come by. Discounting them because they're not RF is foolish.
I didn't say they shouldn't be an option. The issue is with discounting RF lenses when in a lot of situations they are more practical, better quality, and can even save you money in the long run. If EF lenses are considered because of price it should only be as a bridging option until someone can afford better.

UV filters serve no purpose aside from completing the weather sealing on a select number of lenses.
I also thought so and it's a widely believed misconception that cameras have filters. The truth is while sensors are less sensitive to UV this is only for specific wavelengths. In some situations a good quality UV filter will actually give better image quality than what is lost. Personally though I don't think it offers as much advantage as other filters.

The chances of me needing a CPL are slim and are far outweighed by the inconvenience of continuously having to make sure it's not engaged.
More of a concern when shooting in nature and certain reflective surfaces. I don't know what you mean by making sure it isn't engaged. A CPL only works if turned correctly and if not it usually doesn't have any effect.

On the subject of that adapter filter you still need to change filters when not wanting to use a filter and can't just remove it as the filter completes an electrical circuit. That to me means it won't save me any more time than a system to attach and detach filters from lenses.
 
You know it doesn't mean only video right? Reason I mention it is video requirements are a lot more demanding like switching from closeup to wide in an instant. If it's good for video it's even better for photography.
Where did you come up with that?

I didn't say they shouldn't be an option. The issue is with discounting RF lenses when in a lot of situations they are more practical, better quality, and can even save you money in the long run. If EF lenses are considered because of price it should only be as a bridging option until someone can afford better.
People are going to upgrade their bodies with greater frequency than their lenses.

I also thought so and it's a widely believed misconception that cameras have filters. The truth is while sensors are less sensitive to UV this is only for specific wavelengths. In some situations a good quality UV filter will actually give better image quality than what is lost. Personally though I don't think it offers as much advantage as other filters.
There's no misconception - Modern sensors filter out UV light and are unnecessary. They also make your lenses more prone to flaring.

More of a concern when shooting in nature and certain reflective surfaces. I don't know what you mean by making sure it isn't engaged. A CPL only works if turned correctly and if not it usually doesn't have any effect.
CPLs spin freely and take time to make sure they're engaged/disengaged. CPLs can be very useful but if you don't need it, remove it. You're just adding another unnecessary optical layer.

On the subject of that adapter filter you still need to change filters when not wanting to use a filter and can't just remove it as the filter completes an electrical circuit. That to me means it won't save me any more time than a system to attach and detach filters from lenses.
Presumably you're referring to the Meike? You just remove the ND and replace it with a blank. One filter for every [EF] lens you own. Seems simple and convenient to me especially when there are lenses you cannot simply screw a filer on.

Also, the more you add and remove screw on filters on the front of your lens the more likely you are to damage the threads.
 
I use electronic shutter as much as possible, the rated shutter life on the R7 is only 200,000 actuations, but when it really matters, or I need to use flash, I bite the bullet and switch to EFCS.
Here's an example of one of the foibles of an electronic shutter.

quirk.jpg
 
Panning left to right...

Mechanical Shutter
mechanical.jpg

Electronic Shutter
electronic.jpg
 
So weird. My camera doesn't do that at all
It's most noticeable when it's a fairly rapid pan so you're probably not going to see it unless you're spending a lot of time doing that. With a readout speed of ~29 ms the R7 might be more prone than other cameras.
 
In-body image stabilisation... turns out, useful after all.
 
TBH I completely forgot the camera had it.
Now that you know, it can be a pain as well. Make sure to turn it off if you're doing longer exposures on the tripod. The sensor movement can blur the image
 
Now that you know, it can be a pain as well. Make sure to turn it off if you're doing longer exposures on the tripod. The sensor movement can blur the image
Turns out you can only disable it if you attach a non-IS lens.
 
Come on @Harmonic it is not that bad....
I still have all of my canon gear, but decided few years ago to add Fuji, more compact and easier to carry two bodies with two prime lenses.

Sony no matter how good to me money wise looked as Nikon with its Nikon tax compared to Canon.
Bit too expensive for my taste.

Now I realized that my Panasonic LX100 is my first stabilized camera.
Although from 2015 (got it quite recently in new condition) I carry it quite often and enjoy using it.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter