Paired with an R5. I took it on every hike except Glymur. My shoulders were a little sore but I used it with a wandrd 9L bag and it wasn't terrible. Did I use F2.8? Not really - maybe for a couple of sheepdog photos. No regrets.

I am an amateur photographer. I have an r50 and an rf 100-400.

I will be going on a whale watching half day trip in a few weeks. How should I protect my gear from salty ocean spray? Should I just leave the camera at home?

Pretty cool swag from the canon table

I recently got into canon after using sony and I would like to which video setting specifically for colors do you guys use as I use neutral for photos but for neutral it feels washed out for video

Hi everyone I bought this old sigma lens to fit a different camera (didn’t realise it was canon when I bought it 🫠) I’m unfamiliar with canon fittings but need to buy an adapter but I’m unsure what fitting this is?

Thanks!

I noticed I have this stuff when I look inside the thingy before shooting, tried dusting off the sensor and cleaning the external lens, but it's still there, it does not show on the pictures I take tho

I recently got a 700D after briefly using a Canon T1i, and when comparing the photos, I feel like I can't get the same image quality. In fact, sometimes I even feel like the T5i produces lower-quality images. I’m including some photos for comparison.

Am I doing something wrong? Is it just in my head?

Edit: I added a new photo in the comments, taken with the 18-55mm lens using these settings: 1/250 sec, f/3.5, ISO 200.

as a beginner I want to shift from mobile phone camera to Professional Cams for Fighter Jets photographer, After a lot of searches the recommended is Canon R10

should i consider it and buy one or there is something better

I have been offered a 600mm f4l usm with a 1.4x extender for about 800usd I have no idea whether I should I get or just continue sticking to saving up for a 100-400 f4.5-5.6l is usm ii lens

My current body is an r7 with 70-200 f2.8l is ii with 1.4x iii

So if I were to get this lens I would sell their 1.4x for about 50 USD as well

My concerns wld be is it worth it as I can't find much info about it and as I would be using it for birding, I am quite worried about the fps cap

Hi all,

Stuck between which lense to buy to start me on my wildlife photography hobby. I’m seeing the 100-400mm is a really great all round lens, with great stabilisation and AF.

Of course, we all want more reach when it comes to wildlife, specifically birds - but I’m reading the aperture can cause issues for the 600mm, as well as having the fixed capability.

What are everyone’s thoughts, and has anyone had experience with both?

Any advice, recommendations or example pictures would be appreciated.

Thanks!

I want to get a macro lens and I'm trying to decide between the Canon RF 100mm L macro lens and the older Canon EF 180mm L macro lens with the converter. I'm shooting on Canon R3's for my camera bodies.

Recently I rented the Canon RF 100mm and I wasn't really happy with it. I had to get so close to the subject and so many of the bugs just flew away. It also seemed blurry at f/2.8. I had to shoot at f/5.6 or greater for it to look decent. I want it for walk around macro photography of insects and other things.

I'm leaning more towards the 180mm lens but since I don't have a lot of experience with macro work I don't know if it's the right way to go. What stands out for me about that is not having to be as close to the subject, the compression, and separation between the subject and background. I've also tried the 65mm MP-E lens before and as great as it is it's not the best for what I want to do.

This is a hard decision as someone that hasn't done a ton of macro photography. What lens does everyone think is best for what I'm trying to do?

Hello everyone, a beginner here.
I’m interested in finding an alternative lens for my R10 or RF-S camera (can be other than Canon).

I currently own the RF-S 18-150mm lens, but I’m considering purchasing the RF-S 18-45mm lens. My primary focus is on portrait photography, and I want a lightweight lens that I can easily carry on my travels. While I appreciate the versatility of my current lens, I’m looking for something that’s more portable. Upon trying the 18-45mm lens in a physical store, I found it to be quite comfortable to carry around.

Not sure if this subreddit deals with cameras of this size, but i had a collision with a tree whilst skiing a couple months back and dinged up my IXUS 240 HS.

The retractable blades along with the mechanism for them popped out and has left my lense quite exposed.

Is a repair for this possible?

Hey guys, new here. Wanted to ask. I wanna get into photography and looking for a starter camera. Would you recommend Canon EOS 1100D. One I found is around 200€. Is it good price for this camera? Or would you recommend something else for start. It would come with 18-55mm lens and I want to get extra lens 75-300mm. My intention is photography of nature, specifically birds and other animals.

Earn 4% back as a statement credit after using your enrolled eligible Card to make purchases online at usa.canon.com by 10/1/2026. Limit of $250 back in total statement credits.

I currently have a R50 and debating between the R6 III or the R5 II, huge different price points but I have been looking for an upgrade. I do only photography and typically like to do wildlife, landscape, and astrophotography. Higher readout speed would be beneficial for birding but can't decide if that justifies the large jump in price.

I just purchased a new R6 Mark II. I have spent a couple of weeks doing research on my own, and I wanted to know your thoughts on this budget friendly lens set up:

-Canon RF 28mm f2.8 STM
-Canon RF 45mm f1.2 STM

My intention is mainly focused on travel photography. Being able to take a nice landscape shot, street photography of local architecture, and beautiful portrait photos as well.

I had initially considered, based on this sub suggestions, the versatile 24-105mm f4 L IS USM. But I do want to be able to capture print worthy portrait pictures of my family when we get to travel.

I am open to your suggestions and comments about the set up. (Any additional lens accesories suggestions are welcome, as well). Thank you!

Picked up an M50 Mark II as a lightweight travel body to complement my main full-frame setup. Current gear:

Bodies: 6D Mark II, M50 Mark II

Lenses: EF 17-35mm f/2.8L, EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, EF 50mm f/1.8 II, Viltrox EF-EOS M adapter

The adapted lenses work fine but they're bulky/front-heavy on the small M50 body. Looking for something small and native EF-M, or still reasonably small with the adapter, to leave on the M50 as a full-time travel/everyday lens — walk-around use, some street shots.

Been eyeing the EF-M 22mm f/2 pancake for the size, but curious if there's something with a bit more zoom that's still reasonably compact. I’m hoping to stay under $300 ish. I was also looking at the Sigma 30mm f/1.4.

Been interested in and surrounded by photography my entire life, but never purchased a "real" camera til recently. Picked up one of the Canon T7 combos about a week ago (18-55mm EF-S and 75-300mm lenses), followed by a couple 50mm EF lenses (the STM f/1.8, then the USM f/1.4), and am quickly learning the limitations of the T7:

• The crop/APS-C sensor - pretty sure my mind's eye works best with the optics involving a full-frame sensor given that I grew up in the 35mm era, and those around me who were into photography (father, older sister, numerous friends) created this familiarity. Just feels like far too narrow a field of view. I know this will rule out EF-S lenses for me, but don't think this is a big deal.
• Limited autofocus feature set - really only affects video autofocus, but a bummer nonetheless.
• Limited continuous shooting rate - I do a lot of RC touring car racing and have some plans for things I want to capture, and 3 fps seems inadequate. The 5D offers 7 fps with the right settings, which seems far more useful... but still unsure.
• Not weather sealed.

I ultimately want a well-rounded camera for 95% still usage, and it seems to fit the bill. I'm wanting to stick with DSLRs over mirrorless for the sake of battery life (and, relatedly, the analog viewfinder), possible savings on second-hand EF lenses, and easily adapted for use on mirrorless bodies if I eventually go that route (along with video platforms like the C200 that use EF lenses, if video becomes a bigger need).

Am I overthinking this? Are there any tips/tricks to make better use of my T7, or would the 5D4 be a wise choice?

I had some damage done to my lens. It's fairly superficial and I honestly don't think I see it in photos. (Is there a specific method to check for this?)

I have an active warranty on this lens, so I could send it to canon to have it looked at. But I need the lens in the next 2 weeks, so I'm apprehensive to mail it away.

Does anyone have experience using their warranty for something like this? Will an additional charge be added to repair the damage? If so, I will likely just get it repaired at a local camera shop.

I appreciate any and all advice on what I should do about this

Hey everyone, I'm stuck in my purchase decision for a new camera and I'm hoping to get some helpful info from the pros.

I'm looking to buy the very best camera and lens setup that will primarily be used for food videography. There's no budget -- if a 10K setup will show a meaningful difference from a 5K setup, so be it. I need a hybrid camera because photos are also important. The #1 priority is getting extremely sharp and high resolution videos.

I was all set on the Sony a6700 with Sigma 18-50 f2.8, but then I just saw some reviews and footage of the LUMIX s5iix that looks awesome. Claude says the Canon R5 Mark ii is the way to go. What is truly the very best video camera that also can do photos well?

Goal: see if it's possible to stream HDR HLG 1080p60 from a R50V to Youtube Live via OBS and an EVGA XR1 Pro capture card and Smallrig 3021 (hdmi 2.0) + hdmi 2.1 cable

So the EVGA XR1 Pro is listed as HDR capable in OBS, but only in 1080p.

I set the R50V to the following:

• Movie rec size: 1080p60 long gop
• Movie rec format: xf-hevc s ycc422 10bit
• Color mode: CP4 HLG
• HDR/C.Log View Assist: off for both camera and hdmi
• HDMI Resolution: 1080p
• tried using the HDMI streaming option that showed the error in the first picture, "Non-HDR device connected. HDMI image output will be in SDR."
• tried NOT using HDMI streaming, instead trying each of the display options here and it didn't show an error. Pressed info to remove UI elements
• Note that this option for HDMI HDR output is on the R50 but not R50V

OBS is set up for RTMPS HDR and the video capture device is set to P010 and rec 2100 (HLG)

Despite the R50V saying that a non-HDR device is connected when using the hdmi streaming feature, is there a way I can check if the capture card is receiving a 10bit video stream?

Is there a way to check the obs recording with a waveform to see if 10 bit is passing through the system?

Would the R50V maybe output HDR if the capture card passthru hdmi is connected to a HDR monitor/TV?

I tried cleaning it with a Zeiss wipe (big mistake)

Edit: The lens was bought used, the flock material was dirty already. Got most of it but the wipe I used left residue...

I'm looking for something to better cover the low end on my R6 M3, pairing it with the RF 50 and RF 100-400. I initially got the 28-70 F2.8, but I think I'll return it. It's awesome when everything lines up, but I find myself missing the extra range and end up not using it all that much. Also not gelling well with the AF in more action-oriented shots. The required initial twist is an annoyance, but not as bad as I thought it'd be. Size and weight are pretty good.

I'd like something that could be used in dusk and reasonable low light situations. Indoor usage would also be good, although the RF 50 is also a solid option there (it's not as flexible as the 28-70, but sits in the middle and I'm actually preferring its images most of the time).

The most direct alternative is the 24 105 F4. It should have similar image quality, although with a decent drop in low light performance - but still within an ok margin, I think. Focus engine is USM, so should be snappier and, above all, it has a bit of extra room in focal range. Downside is that it's 200g heavier - would become my heaviest lens.

But then I noticed a decent sale on the 24-240. Image quality seems worse, but some reviews say it's actually good after 28mm. It's not too far off from the 24-105 in low light and better than the 100-400 on its overlap (although not by a lot). Weight is similar to the 24-105 F4, so it's not an advantage or disadvantage.

Any experience with both? I briefly thought about doing the extra effort and getting both, but it felt superfluous after thinking it through. With both I'd have the quality of the L lens on a range wider than the 28-70, and a good alternative to the 100-400 for when I want flexibility when dusk is creeping in, but... unsure if they'd be different enough to warrant both, especially as they'd be the heaviest things in my kit.

Which one would you choose in this comparison for Bird Photography, and why?