Latest activity

Del Paso · Nov 20, 2025

P-visie said:
Earlier this year it was rumored that new supertelelenses would be coming in 2026. Time is probably too short for the winter Olympics in February 2026, but the World Cup in soccer is in June - July 2026. 400mm and 600mm with built in teleconverters were also rumored.

"soccer" or did you mean football?

tareqphoto · Nov 20, 2025

AdamBotond said:
Well, you mentioned "pro build" twice, just to make the list of which the R3 superior is look longer. ))

Anyway, for me who shoots mostly wildlife, it would not be reasonable to buy even a used R3 anymore, which has only the benefit of stacked sensor and pro build over the R6 III. I am not sure if there is a major difference in buffer between these two, 150 RAW pics of the R6 III is plenty even at 40 fps. I rarely photograph birds, so rolling shutter is less of an issue for me. More video options, precapture/prerecording, 40fps, 32 MP, lower price etc outweights not having stacked sensor or pro build, which I also like.
Maybe a sports photographer, who can not afford the R1 would gravitate towards the R3, but still precapture, 40 fps, the price point of the R6 III is very tempting.
I also noticed the increasing number of used R3s for sale just prior to the announcement of R6 III...maybe just a cooincidence.

I agree, between the outdated still too pricey R3 or very new latest model less pricey R6III i will go for R6III, heck i even can't afford R5II which is newer model although it is cheaper than R3, i do sports, and i know people in sports prefer build quality more for reasons and battery time, but all those years i learnt that money affordable value is what i should go for over whistles and sparks, i came from 1DX which was top of the line for Canon and bloody expensive, time passed and it is outdated and just a thing of a past and all that spending didn't make history for me, it served me excellent for sure, but it wasn't that i can't make the difference with lesser bodies, such as 1D mkIII or 7D mkII, i do have 1D3 and 1Dx is superior, but my outdated very old model of Sony A7R did put both into shame and also my 1Ds2 and 1Ds3 into shame for pure resolution, not about focus or speed, and that was an old model camera, imagine what a Canon mirrorless current cameras can do now, and i don't think R1 will make superior quality over R7 or R6II, but it is better overall performance, so i won't choose R3 for sports by myself.

AdamBotond · Nov 20, 2025

GMCPhotographics said:
Not really. the R3 still has a stacked sensor, larger buffer and higher Rez EVF. Pro build, superior battery and top pro build.
The R6II was a R3 lite, the R6iii is still very much related to the previous model.

Well, you mentioned "pro build" twice, just to make the list of which the R3 superior is look longer.

))

Anyway, for me who shoots mostly wildlife, it would not be reasonable to buy even a used R3 anymore, which has only the benefit of stacked sensor and pro build over the R6 III. I am not sure if there is a major difference in buffer between these two, 150 RAW pics of the R6 III is plenty even at 40 fps. I rarely photograph birds, so rolling shutter is less of an issue for me. More video options, precapture/prerecording, 40fps, 32 MP, lower price etc outweights not having stacked sensor or pro build, which I also like.
Maybe a sports photographer, who can not afford the R1 would gravitate towards the R3, but still precapture, 40 fps, the price point of the R6 III is very tempting.
I also noticed the increasing number of used R3s for sale just prior to the announcement of R6 III...maybe just a cooincidence.

P-visie · Nov 20, 2025

rombe3jr said:
Someone over at Sony rumors is spouting off that the Canon sensors are all FSI (front side illuminated) and basically have poor dynamic range (trash) compared to Sony's BSI (back side illuminated) sensors. Can anyone explain the difference as if they are speaking with a child? My brain starts to hurt after a long day at work and I try to read a photon chart. But its sort of a big decision: Sony or Canon for church event photos and videos. Once we start buying lenses its hard to climb out of that hole.

I addition to what others have posted: these people on Sony rumors live in the past. The days that Sony BSI sensors had a better dynamic range are more than 5 years behind us. I’ve compared the R8(FSI sensor) with the A7 IV (BSI) sensor:

BSI sensors gather more light than FSI sensors at the individual pixel level since the wiring is underneath the photo diode. Improvements in FSI sensors, a.o. microlenses have largely negated that advantage.

Edit: changed the comparison from R6 Mk II to R8 since it is the R8 that you are considering.

EricN · Nov 20, 2025

P-visie said:
Earlier this year it was rumored that new supertelelenses would be coming in 2026. Time is probably too short for the winter Olympics in February 2026, but the World Cup in soccer is in June - July 2026. 400mm and 600mm with built in teleconverters were also rumored.

I like the 300 to 420, a good compromise on size and weight if the image quality is what one would presume.

P-visie · Nov 20, 2025

Del Paso said:
This is exactly why I won't buy another 24-70 or 28-70 presently.
Yet, if nothing juicy is announced within the next few months, I too could break down and regret it...

Earlier this year it was rumored that new supertelelenses would be coming in 2026. Time is probably too short for the winter Olympics in February 2026, but the World Cup in soccer is in June - July 2026. 400mm and 600mm with built in teleconverters were also rumored.

roby17269 · Nov 20, 2025

rombe3jr said:
Someone over at Sony rumors is spouting off that the Canon sensors are all FSI (front side illuminated) and basically have poor dynamic range (trash) compared to Sony's BSI (back side illuminated) sensors. Can anyone explain the difference as if they are speaking with a child? My brain starts to hurt after a long day at work and I try to read a photon chart. But its sort of a big decision: Sony or Canon for church event photos and videos. Once we start buying lenses its hard to climb out of that hole.

My understanding is that BSI sensors are more efficient at light gathering and that has positive effects such as better DR... but the improvements are dependent on sensor density: the higher the density the bigger the improvement.

So with high density sensors such as modern phone sensors, there is a visible benefit. But with current FF sensors the benefit is tiny and almost invisible. Not something you should base your choice on. As others have mentioned, other factors are more important, such as available lenses, ergonomics, speed, AF, resolution, etc.

I guess in the future BSI may matter for FF sensors if they will see significant increases in resolution.

rombe3jr · Nov 20, 2025

DocInfoSci said:
I'll take a stab. I have used Canon's Rebel, Rebel XT, T2i, 80D, 6D II, 5D IV, R6, R6 II, R5, and R3. All of my personal glass is EF, mostly L, both primes and zooms, 20mm -> 600mm. This is my opinion based on my experience. No doubt others will contribute other excellent points and experiences!

BSI is physically organized to be more efficient at capturing light than FSI -- in theory. But, in the real world, only the effect matters.

Car engines come in varieties of combustion chambers, oxygen injection, etc. Each one is also, to a degree, special to the manufacturer in terms of their experience making that kind of engine, the skill of their design team, the ability of their factories, and their choices in materials. It's possible for a V8 to outperform a V6 and a V6 to outperform a V8 -- the implementation matters as much as the general technology. The driver helps too.

Yes, many Sony sensors are BSI but their architecture is unique to Sony's capability and Canon's sensors are unique to Canon's manufacturing capability. And all of the technology tricks/secrets that each company possesses.

All of Canon's mirrorless sensors are great. If you know how to use your camera well for your situations then the R8, R6, R5, R3, and R1 can all do very well. The nitpicking you see in these forums is specific to each of our individual experiences, needs, and capabilities -- don't fret over any of it. I have full confidence the R6 II and R6 III will each take magnificent photos when used to their fullest, but there are slight strengths in each case. Nothing you cannot overcome with good attention.

That stated, the R6, R6 II, and R6 III each can capture 14-bits of dynamic range -- that's 16,384 shades or tones from pure black to pure white. A JEPG, which is often used in book printing, offers 256 shades/tones. Getting the full use of that range also depends on the lighting, lens, shutter speed, etc.

The R6 II has 102,400 ISO and a sensor released late 2022. The R6 III has ISO 64,000 and a sensor released late 2025 -- three years of time in which Canon can perfect its tricks. ISO is how the sensor translates light (photon strikes) into dark and bright in a unit of time. Pictures can become noisier if the sensitivity is high and the available light is minimal, but Canon puts significant energy into making that noise look good -- such as by approximating film photo graininess. A lot of the extra work carried out by the more advanced computer chips in each generation is put towards making the best interpretation possible. The more recent the camera, the better the effect. Strobes / flashes add extra light, as you probably know, that significantly overcomes most of the worry here. But even in limited natural light with fast action these sensors will provide a solid start and include enough additional data that you can probably get any photo you make an effort at when taking the picture shine by the time it's ready for print or online.

Canon's colours also tend to be generally acceptable as desirable or satisfactory across its camera and lens range.

Don't forget the shape of the camera bodies and placement of buttons and organization of menus. That matters when speed matters. Anything out of place or that tickles an annoyance will slow you down, take you from the moment, etc. I'd say the body is easily worth 50% of the decision if you're moving at speed, given that most modern options are going to at least be good in capability.

Finally, modern cameras include Canon's formulas that understand lens imperfections and sensor attributes such as anti-alias overlays to create adjusted final images in TIFF (PC/Mac) or HEIF and JPEG (in-camera) form from the RAW file. Even amazing glass often benefits. Not all other camera manufacturers seem to include this capability, and not all third party lenses participate.

There is also the lens investment you might already have in place. Even if a Sony camera were a smidge better in the sensor department than what you choose to afford on the Canon side, if you have a solid lens collection and your muscle memory is trained for the placement of zoom rings, buttons, etc. than you will probably do better out of the gate with familiar equipment than new equipment.

But, in the end, you should do what you are comfortable with. I assume if you're shooting weddings you're mostly doing it for money, and since it's your rent you should go with your gut. You might consider downloading sample raw images from each competing camera model from reputable review sites and play with them in your image editing application(s). Pay attention to grain, colours, contrasts, and the ability to make them brighter or darker by a few stops. See how the files behave.

What makes sense for you will very likely be different for each of us. I'll push my R6 original to 25k ISO with fast outdoor action and be thrilled with the images I have to work with. Others here will think I'm nuts or blind. Our use cases are probably very, very different. And once you throw in strobes the game changes dramatically -- to such as extent all of the Canon series cameras are probably on equal footing.

Thank you, this is very helpful. It may be human nature that we get biased towards what works for us or what we use the most. Canon, Sony, Nikon, Fuji, Lumix... there are many choices. Many "features" to parcel through. It is wise to think about each brand like an auto manufacturer. They all have their own strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes they compete directly with one another, sometimes they simply make cars that fit well within their own lineup. Different CEO's, focus and vision can change, etc, etc. All to say, what is your own preference?

My experience, started on Canon 60D as a side hustle hybrid shooter, video first and loved it. But that and my lenses were stolen without insurance. Set me back several years and when I finally saved enough to jump back in I tried a pre-owned Sony A7 II. But the video experience was so poor that I ended up also buying an A7S II, which was way better for video. But I have struggled to get photos that I like out of the A7 II and I need two cameras (so much for a hybrid!) People talk about the ergonomics and menus on Canon and that has proven true for me. My Sony's look good but they have never measured up to the Canon experience. I can possibly afford to sell these and purchase an A7 IV. It should be sufficient as a hybrid again and there is almost universal praise for the image quality of the photos. Video I'm 90% sure will be good and IQ may be sufficient but I'm worried that the experience will still feel sterile or uninspired. Darn Canon 60D may have ruined it for me! Anyway, RF lenses have been so expensive that I haven't reconsidered until seeing the new set of f/2.8 STM's (16-28 and 28-70) and a patent filed for a 70-180 f/2.8. That trinity with an R6 II seems like a dream setup to jump back into Canon (if there weren't that money part to work out LOL). I would have to sell two Sony cameras, 4 lenses, cough up my savings and forego any of the prevalent, fast and cheap Chinese glass showing up on e-mount. And once again Canon shows a glimmer of hope with the RF 45 f/1.2 for less than $500. Then I think about straddling both brands and just using the A7S II for video (they did shoot a movie on it!)... and give photography a chance again on the Canon R8 + 28-70 F/2.8 STM. The R8 could actually be a great hybrid, so you never know, perhaps end up selling the last Sony and jumping all into Canon. But then I would probably wish I had the R6 II. It's all a bit more stressfull than I was hoping for. I guess typing this out has been rather therapeutic after all. I don't think I've admitted before now that photography on the Sony A7 II has been... uninspiring.

EOS 4 Life · Nov 20, 2025

rombe3jr said:
Can anyone explain the difference as if they are speaking with a child?

All that matters is how good the sensor is.
It does not matter how it got there.
People who care about "BSI" and "Partially Stacked" are just spec chasers.
Those technologies do what they are claimed to do, but they do not always provide a tangible benefit.

Del Paso · Nov 20, 2025

Tom R5R7 said:
Since I just broke down and bought a 200-800, the 300-600 L is imminent.
Sure as if you wash your car, it will rain - if I buy a long tele, a newer, better long tele will be released.

This is exactly why I won't buy another 24-70 or 28-70 presently.
Yet, if nothing juicy is announced within the next few months, I too could break down and regret it...

EricN · Nov 20, 2025

Don't worry I have it on good authority that certain reviewer couldn't make a review quickly for a non L f1.2 because of the decadent number of L lenses coming soon. Doesn't everyone trust random people with no specific sources?

AlanF · Nov 20, 2025

EricN said:
We're these cropped and / or denoised?

All cropped so that 1 px of the crop posted = 1 pixel of original (100% crop). Just bulk standard DxO PL6 Prime output. Light was fine and that's all I use 99% of the time.

Del Paso · Nov 20, 2025

EricN said:
Some years they did 6 and some 7. Unless, I miscounted 45mm was #6 for 2025. It could be 1:2 odds?

You just shattered my hopes for a 24-70 f/2, should number 7 be the 300-600.

I can only hope 2026 will be an "L" year (35 f/1,2, 24-70 II, 180 macro, 70-150, 14 TSE, 400 L etc...).

DocInfoSci · Nov 20, 2025

rombe3jr said:
Someone over at Sony rumors is spouting off that the Canon sensors are all FSI (front side illuminated) and basically have poor dynamic range (trash) compared to Sony's BSI (back side illuminated) sensors. Can anyone explain the difference as if they are speaking with a child? My brain starts to hurt after a long day at work and I try to read a photon chart. But its sort of a big decision: Sony or Canon for church event photos and videos. Once we start buying lenses its hard to climb out of that hole.

I'll take a stab. I have used Canon's Rebel, Rebel XT, T2i, 80D, 6D II, 5D IV, R6, R6 II, R5, and R3. All of my personal glass is EF, mostly L, both primes and zooms, 20mm -> 600mm. This is my opinion based on my experience. No doubt others will contribute other excellent points and experiences!

BSI is physically organized to be more efficient at capturing light than FSI -- in theory. But, in the real world, only the effect matters.

Car engines come in varieties of combustion chambers, oxygen injection, etc. Each one is also, to a degree, special to the manufacturer in terms of their experience making that kind of engine, the skill of their design team, the ability of their factories, and their choices in materials. It's possible for a V8 to outperform a V6 and a V6 to outperform a V8 -- the implementation matters as much as the general technology. The driver helps too.

Yes, many Sony sensors are BSI but their architecture is unique to Sony's capability and Canon's sensors are unique to Canon's manufacturing capability. And all of the technology tricks/secrets that each company possesses.

All of Canon's mirrorless sensors are great. If you know how to use your camera well for your situations then the R8, R6, R5, R3, and R1 can all do very well. The nitpicking you see in these forums is specific to each of our individual experiences, needs, and capabilities -- don't fret over any of it. I have full confidence the R6 II and R6 III will each take magnificent photos when used to their fullest, but there are slight strengths in each case. Nothing you cannot overcome with good attention.

That stated, the R6, R6 II, and R6 III each can capture 14-bits of dynamic range -- that's 16,384 shades or tones from pure black to pure white. A JEPG, which is often used in book printing, offers 256 shades/tones. Getting the full use of that range also depends on the lighting, lens, shutter speed, etc.

The R6 II has 102,400 ISO and a sensor released late 2022. The R6 III has ISO 64,000 and a sensor released late 2025 -- three years of time in which Canon can perfect its tricks. ISO is how the sensor translates light (photon strikes) into dark and bright in a unit of time. Pictures can become noisier if the sensitivity is high and the available light is minimal, but Canon puts significant energy into making that noise look good -- such as by approximating film photo graininess. A lot of the extra work carried out by the more advanced computer chips in each generation is put towards making the best interpretation possible. The more recent the camera, the better the effect. Strobes / flashes add extra light, as you probably know, that significantly overcomes most of the worry here. But even in limited natural light with fast action these sensors will provide a solid start and include enough additional data that you can probably get any photo you make an effort at when taking the picture shine by the time it's ready for print or online.

Canon's colours also tend to be generally acceptable as desirable or satisfactory across its camera and lens range.

Don't forget the shape of the camera bodies and placement of buttons and organization of menus. That matters when speed matters. Anything out of place or that tickles an annoyance will slow you down, take you from the moment, etc. I'd say the body is easily worth 50% of the decision if you're moving at speed, given that most modern options are going to at least be good in capability.

Finally, modern cameras include Canon's formulas that understand lens imperfections and sensor attributes such as anti-alias overlays to create adjusted final images in TIFF (PC/Mac) or HEIF and JPEG (in-camera) form from the RAW file. Even amazing glass often benefits. Not all other camera manufacturers seem to include this capability, and not all third party lenses participate.

There is also the lens investment you might already have in place. Even if a Sony camera were a smidge better in the sensor department than what you choose to afford on the Canon side, if you have a solid lens collection and your muscle memory is trained for the placement of zoom rings, buttons, etc. than you will probably do better out of the gate with familiar equipment than new equipment.

But, in the end, you should do what you are comfortable with. I assume if you're shooting weddings you're mostly doing it for money, and since it's your rent you should go with your gut. You might consider downloading sample raw images from each competing camera model from reputable review sites and play with them in your image editing application(s). Pay attention to grain, colours, contrasts, and the ability to make them brighter or darker by a few stops. See how the files behave.

What makes sense for you will very likely be different for each of us. I'll push my R6 original to 25k ISO with fast outdoor action and be thrilled with the images I have to work with. Others here will think I'm nuts or blind. Our use cases are probably very, very different. And once you throw in strobes the game changes dramatically -- to such as extent all of the Canon series cameras are probably on equal footing.

EricN · Nov 20, 2025

john1970 said:
I was hoping to at least hear a development announcement even if it did not ship until Q1 2026. We shall see.....

Some years they did 6 and some 7. Unless, I miscounted 45mm was #6 for 2025. It could be 1:2 odds?

EricN · Nov 20, 2025

AlanF said:
Craig has reinstated the bird threads (thanks!) so here are a few shots to get it going again. A Stonechat briefly present far away, and a Kestrel today with the RF 200-800mm on the R5ii.

View attachment 226860 View attachment 226861 View attachment 226862

We're these cropped and / or denoised?

wbrock001 · Nov 19, 2025

Well since we fortunately have several brands that are open and it likely hasn't hurt their business to give folks options. Sony E Mount and still sony lenses sell like hotcakes, L-mount alliance where 3rd parties are filling the voids of panasonic. So Canon, like you said, may just be hurting the adoption of the platform when to get an rf 70-200 f/2.8 starts at $2600...etc. vs. being able to get the $1400 sigma.

ISv · Nov 19, 2025

Click said:
Thanks Craig!

Beautiful shots, Alan.

Thanks Click, I didn't know it's up...
Edited: it looks like Alan should take the scores for letting us to know the birds are alive! Never-mind: it's as a good news as it is!

rombe3jr · Nov 19, 2025

Someone over at Sony rumors is spouting off that the Canon sensors are all FSI (front side illuminated) and basically have poor dynamic range (trash) compared to Sony's BSI (back side illuminated) sensors. Can anyone explain the difference as if they are speaking with a child? My brain starts to hurt after a long day at work and I try to read a photon chart. But its sort of a big decision: Sony or Canon for church event photos and videos. Once we start buying lenses its hard to climb out of that hole.

Walrus · Nov 19, 2025

m4ndr4ke said:
Overall I'd say the 50 1.8 is always sharper.

I'd say this seals the deal (in negative) on the lens, but, as seen in the first reviews, it was to be expected.

I'm waiting, as the final word, for Chris Frost's review, that isn't coming yet, so either Canon didn't give him one to test, or they gave to him but asked to pospone the release until they say so. Either cases speak for themselves.

Click · Nov 19, 2025

Dragon said:
One last Mirror. This is one I just got in (two copies). Sigma 400mm f/5.6. I have two copies of the Sigma 600mm f/8 and they are both very soft. These are a little better, but not by much. However, with a lot of help from Topaz, these make some interesting shots due to the unique bokeh from the faster f stop. All with R8.

View attachment 226863

View attachment 226864

View attachment 226865

Interesting bokeh. Nicely done, Dragon.

Click · Nov 19, 2025

AlanF said:
Craig has reinstated the bird threads (thanks!) so here are a few shots to get it going again. A Stonechat briefly present far away, and a Kestrel today with the RF 200-800mm on the R5ii.

View attachment 226860 View attachment 226861 View attachment 226862

Thanks Craig!

Beautiful shots, Alan.

m4ndr4ke · Nov 19, 2025

So, I tried the RF 45mm f/1.2 today, a production copy of the lens.

I tried it with my R6. This is a low end lens, so I don't think it's fair putting it in a R5. Plus, the R6 is what I work with.

The overall package is lovely. Size, weight, build quality (as good as the RF 35mm f/1.8).

Yes, the AF is slow, I'd say it's just slightly faster than the 85mm f/2. It's really slow, and it's not the smartest, I think the RF 35mm 1.8 is better at subject detection.

Yes, it's soft wide open, but not that awful on a low MP camera. Wide open, I think it's a little softer than the RF 50mm f/1.8 at 1.8, but without the hazy corners. Overall I'd say the 50 1.8 is always sharper.

Now, I'm thinking some reviewers may not have received what became the final version of the lens. Some of them show the lens performing quite decently (soft wide open, but no CA), while others show a real purple festival.

I can't see any CA at all, corner to corner, even on contrasting edges. I'm viewing RAW files on Lightroom, without corrections, and checking at pixel level with the white balance tool.

I didn't test extreme contrast, like the sun (overcast day), but I took photographs at people inside a building, with a large window behind them, and more light on the outside. I see nothing weird. Sometimes there are subtle traces of purple fringing, not enough to create a like, but most of the time there's nothing.

EDIT: looking deeper at the files now, I can see some purple fringing over some surfaces, but nothing major. I'd probably need to test the lens outside, on a sunny day. Most of it it's not visible on jpegs with DLO on standard.

fox40phil · Nov 19, 2025

Now...as I know... the 12bit on eshutter is killing my hype for the MK3 :'((
WHYY!?! Canon....

btw: Can you now use e-shutter + light syncro like the R3 (+higher) before?

Dragon · Nov 19, 2025

One last Mirror. This is one I just got in (two copies). Sigma 400mm f/5.6. I have two copies of the Sigma 600mm f/8 and they are both very soft. These are a little better, but not by much. However, with a lot of help from Topaz, these make some interesting shots due to the unique bokeh from the faster f stop. All with R8.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics