On the Canon EOS R6, if like me you wondered how to find the single shot vs continuous shooting setting and couldn’t find it, read on.
Use the Q button to bring up the menu items. The shooting setting is fourth from the left on the bottom row. Tap on that and now there are options, including self-timer options, Slow Speed Continuous, High Speed Continuous, and High Speed Continuous+
Not surprisingly the difference between High-Speed Continuous and High-Speed Continuous+ is their maximum shooting speeds.
High-Speed Continuous+ shoots up to 12 fps with the mechanical shutter and up to 20 fps with the electronic shutter.
High-Speed Continuous shoots at 8 fps with the mechanical shutter. In fact, High-Speed Continuous mode is only available with the mechanical or first-curtain electronic shutter. With electronic shutter, the only high-speed option is H+.
High-Speed Continuous suits me because 8 fps is already a shock even when I am expecting it. Plus, it is supposed to have more reliable AF tracking than H+.
Time was when film compacts had to have a swirl and a curve in the design. They didn’t appeal to me. As far as I was concerned they were old fashioned and didn’t do anything to enhance the functionality of the camera. Here’s a Nikon with a curve to show you what I mean. I wanted to be a serious photographer, and curves that didn’t do anything didn’t seem serious.
High End Film Cameras
What I said about curves only applied to point and shoot compacts. High end cameras didn’t look like that. In fact you could tell they were high end just by the look of them, like this Contax.
Digital
When digital cameras came out, the whole idea of digital was that they were functional and so the designs were much more minimalist and straight lines. Like this Canon. The only nod to the old is the slight curve at the end of the body.
Except Mju
What I said is mostly true, and some curvy cameras were a lot worse than the Nikon. But one film camera that was kind of curvy but still looked good was the Olympus Mju II. Olympus were known for svelte design. And somehow despite the curve, the camera looked the business.
I owned one at one time, but before I got to own one I had a go at owning one that didn’t come off. What happened was this.
I didn’t set out to buy an Olympus Mju II. But I was in New York, on Broadway and looking in camera shops. The store was narrow and deep with a counter running all down the left side. Maybe I asked for a Mju II or maybe the conversation went in that direction. Whichever it was the man got one out and I looked it over. Did I start to haggle or did he just start to come down in price to see at what price I would bite?
It was obvious to me and to him that I was hesitating, and then the price got crazy low. I didn’t know how to ask him without offending him. But this was Broadway, known for cheap goods and probably a lot of knock-offs and fake brands. So I approached the subject in what I hoped was the gentlest of ways. With the price being so low, I asked, do you think there is any possibility that this is not a genuine Olympus?
He didn’t answer me. He just picked up the camera and threw it down the length of the counter to the back of the shop. It was a long throw and he plainly didn’t care whether the camera survived.
I was shocked, disappointed, relieved. My bargain had slipped away. But would it have been a bargain? Now I didn’t have to think about it.
I am English and I was a tourist in New York. The man who served me was maybe Iranian or Iraqi or Egyptian and so his behaviour wasn’t as unexpected as it would have been if he had been from Middle England.
He didn’t order me out of the shop or any anything like that, but I felt my time in the shop was up. I kind of admired the man for not giving a sh*t about offending customers. And then I was out of the shop and laughing.
And to round out this look at curves, here I just one more photo of a curved design in a film camera, this time the Tronic MiniCam KH35. Look at the bump at the end at the top, as though they couldn’t fit the flash in so they added a bit on the corner like an afterthought. This is not a camera that is asking to be taken seriously.
Comparing the specifications of three iterations of the Canon EF 70-200mm F4 lens
EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
Release Date September 1999
Image Stabilization (IS) None
Optical Construction 16 elements in 13 groups
Minimum Focusing Distance 1.2 meters
Maximum Magnification 0.21x
Aperture Blades 8
Filter Diameter 67mm
Dimensions (diameter x length) 76mm x 172mm
Weight 705g
Additional Features Ring-type Ultrasonic Motor (USM) for autofocus; no weather sealing.
EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
Release date November 2006
Image stabilisation up to 4 stops
Optical construction 20 elements in 15 groups
Minimum focusing distance 1.2 meters
Maximum magnification 0.21x
Aperture blades 8
Filter diameter 67mm
Dimensions (diameter x length) 76mm x 172mm
Weight 760g
Ring-type USM for autofocus
Weather-sealed construction.
EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II USM
Release date June 2018
Image stabilization up to 5 stops
Optical construction 20 elements in 15 groups, including 1 fluorite and 2 UD elements
Minimum focusing distance 1.0 meter
Maximum magnification 0.27x
Aperture blades 9
Filter diameter 72mm
Dimensions (diameter x length) 80mm x 176mm
Weight 780g
Enhanced weather sealing
Improved autofocus with a new CPU
Fluorine coatings on front and rear elements
So if we are looking at just the second two iterations, then how much better is the latest version compared to the previous version?
The EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II USM has a 5-stop Image stabiliser with three modes: a mode for general stabilisation for still subjects; a mode for panning; and a mode that activates stabilisation only during the shot. The EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM has a 3-stop image stabiliser with two modes: one for general stabilisation and one for panning.
If I am looking at the lens for use on a Canon EOS R6 or any of the R cameras with in-body image stabilisation, it is on all the time in the camera, so whether it is on on the lens only during the shot seems a redundant consideration.
So then the question is only whether the Mk II lens has better autofocus. How to find out? If it is better, how much better? From reading several reviews I think the difference is not that great.
To get back to the camera I would be using, the obvious question is why not go for the RF mount version. It weighs 695g, so that isn’t enough to sway me one way or the other.
It comes down to money. The Canon RF 70-200mm f4L IS USM is £1,600 new.
A new EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II USM is about the same price. but a second hand lens from a reputable dealer sells for about £650.
It’s even more dramatic with the earlier EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM. It is only available used because it is no longer made, and from a reputable dealer it is about £375.
Of course I would have to buy an EF to RF adapter, which are £119 new at the moment., so add that to the cost.
But if I opt for the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM then I am looking at no more than £500 overall compared to £1,600 for the RF lens – a third of the cost.
If I was buying a workhorse lens and I knew I would be using it for a long time, then maybe I would go for the RF lens. But for an experiment in working with a long lens on full frame it’s a good option.
Alternatives
To muddy the water, Ken Rockwell thinks the Canon 70-300mm IS II is a better lens because it focuses faster (actually instantly), zooms 50% longer and only costs half as much. The 70-300 is also a little lighter and a little shorter.
Ot I could call it a day with Canon and buy a Nikon.
The new camera is the Analogue aF-1. more about that below.
Looking back over the past year to do some comparisons, Pentax launched the Pentax 17 half-frame film camera in June. From what I heard it exposes well and produces good images, but what were they thinking with the design? I handled one in a camera shop a while ago and a screw-head sticks out exactly where you grip the camera with your right hand. You can see the screw-head in this photo.
You have to wonder much effort would it have taken to make a screw with a head flush with the body? Perhaps it was a deliberate feature to get people talking and to herald another model for 2025?
That may well be the case because I received an email from Analogue Wonderland which said
We’ve been working closely with Pentax Japanese Film Project team for a long time now, and they trust that they will get both positivity and truth from the AW community. So if you have 5 minutes to answer a few questions then Pentax will be eternally grateful, and you’ll know that your opinion has been heard at the very top of the analogue industry.
A half-frame camera has a frame mask that covers half the area of a 35mm frame, so you get twice as many shots on a roll of film. The disadvantage is that the quality drops because the area is smaller. And unless you turn the camera 90° when you shoot then everything will be in portrait orientation.
In terms of sharpness and ability to capture detail, digital sensors overtook film years ago. I am not sure where the break point is, but micro-four-thirds sensors can definitely out-resolve 35mm film. Perhaps even one-inch sensors can. So the fact that the quality is not going to be as good as a full 35mm film is not a reason for saying no to half-frame cameras or to 35mm films cameras generally. Photographers shoot film for lots of reasons, including the ‘look’, which is different from digital.
Here’s a photo I took in Japan in March last year with another small film camera – the Minolta Freedom Escort.
A reason for not getting the Pentax 17 is the price – £499 – at a time when high quality secondhand cameras are available at a fraction of the price.
And the Pentax 17 uses zone focusing, which means you have to guesstimate the distance to the subject every time you want to take a photo. If I want to do that then I already have an Olympus XA2 that uses zone focusing, and you can read about it here.
And here is my Olympus XA2 camera with the clamshell closed and then open and ready to shoot. Notice the icons of mountains, two people, and two upper torsos. It defaults to the two people icon when you close the clamshell, and you set the focus distance with the slider when you open the camera.
Of course you have to know what the zones are, and for that you must read the manual and then fix those distances in your head. Autofocus is so much easier. And it is more accurate because there are many more increments of focus.
Rollei 35AF
Hong Kong based MiNT Camera launched the Rollei 35AF in the Autumn last year. It’s really pricey at £750 – going on for twice the price of the Pentax 17.
The design of the camera is close to the original line made by Rollei. The Rollei company still exists today, but it doesn’t make cameras, only photography accessories like filters, tripods, and studio lighting.
The new Rollei is tiny and it has autofocus, which the original Rollei models did not.
Were it not so expensive I would be tempted because it is so tiny, weighs just 242g, and would easily slip into a pocket.
New in 2025 – Analogue aF-1
Now there is a third film camera on the horizon for 2025.
Analogue is a film camera shop based in Amsterdam and they are also the makers of the aF-1, launching this summer.The retail price is €399 and they are offering a pre-launch 15% discount for early birds.
The autofocus system on the Analogue The aF-1 is LiDAR with ToF. LiDAR is a laser pulse that the camera sends out when you focus. The sensor measures the Time-of-Flight (ToF) that the laser beam takes to hit the subject and return. It is said to be a very quick way for a camera to attain focus.
As you can see, it has a clamshell design like the Olympus XA-2. Here it is in the open, ready to shoot, position.
And would I be tempted? Again, not when I compare it to the film cameras (including the Olympus XA-2) available on the second hand market.
How many units do any of these manufacturers of new cameras have to sell in order to make the venture worthwhile? There’s the research and development, the tooling, the materials, the assembly, the marketing, the distribution.
It makes you wonder.
And what advances could there be when the lenses in some of those older cameras are already very good? Here is a photo I shot with the Olympus XA2 on Kentmere 100 film in September 2023. The tree is a Ginkgo biloba growing on Mill Road in Cambridge, looking slightly surreal as though it has outgrown its surroundings.
Man in Beetlejuice costume in New Year’s Day Parade in London.
I used a Ricoh GR III and I held the camera out in front of me at upper chest height and smiled at him and he smiled at me. But the photo shows him looking at a point higher than the lens of the camera, as of course it would because he was looking at my face.
Had he been a model and we were on a photoshoot I would have told him to look into the lens. Or had I looked at him and held the camera at eye height and shot him from there I would maybe have caught him looking right at me. But I doubt it. Basically the camera is tiny, and I doubt he would have known where to look. And with its 28mm full frame equivalent lens is too wide to work with for portraits, at least for me.
Of course many people seize up when a lens is pointed at them and the photographer is looking at them through a viewfinder. The idea setup would be an invisible camera.
