Latest activity

neuroanatomist · Apr 2, 2026

mmills79 said:
I definetly don't understand

Yes, evidently. The concepts you are fixated on are applicable to pixels, not to pictures. Image noise is inversely proportional to total light gathered. Total light gathered is dependent on the area of the sensor, and independent of pixel size.

The R7 and R10 were released at the same time, according to your mistaken belief the 24 MP R10 has larger pixels so it should have lower noise and thus better dynamic range than the 32 MP R7.

Screenshot 2026-04-02 at 12.53.51 PM.png

It doesn't. The two sensors are the same size, they gather the same total amount of light, and because of that the image noise is the same.

mmills79 said:
I think we agree that for the same chip size, as you increase the number of pixels (or decrease the size of the individual collection sites), for each site as the density increases, the individual site collects less light. So, Canon in increasing pixel count, actually decreased the ability of each site to collect light and decreased the signal to noise (made the noise performance worse) of each site.

Yes. Each photosite collects less light. But there are more photosites, so for the sensor as a whole the same total amount of light is collected. Same image noise.

mmills79 said:
If for example, Canon would conversely chose to go to 24MP, then each indiividual site would be larger and collect even more light than the smaller individual site on a 32MP chip;

Each photosite would collect more light. But there would be fewer photosites, so for the sensor as a whole the same total amount of light is collected. Same image noise.

mmills79 said:
and the signal to noise would increase (noise performance would improve at 24MP over 32MP).

At the level of the individual pixels. Not at the level of the whole sensor.

mmills79 said:
So it is incorrect to say that simply going to a larger format, is the only way to improve noise figure, if that is what you are implying.

I am not implying it, I am stating it explicitly. Going to a larger format is the way to get better noise performance.

No, it's not the only way...fundamental improvements in sensor technology can certainly decrease read noise and thus improve noise performance, at least at low ISOs where that matters. At high ISO, shot noise is the main driver and that's dependent on the amount of light not the read noise of the sensor. But you're not talking about a fundamentally different sensor (BSI doesn't count in this case, as discussed already). So yes, if you compare an sensor from 15 years ago to a sensor from today, there will be be an improvement; on-die ADC, for example, is one such fundamental improvement that has happened.

mmills79 said:
I do also agree that as you increase the size of a photo site by going to a larger chip size or format you should also improve signal to noise but the discussion within a specific chip size and the fundamental underlying physics is the same. Increase site size, better noise performance, decrease cell size, worse noise performance. There are design choices that can be made to make the signal to noise better on an APC-S chip.

No. The whole point is that the size of the pixel is irrelevant. Only the area of the sensor matters.

mmills79 said:
If the rumour is true and Canon has decided to go to newer sensor technology as in BSI, then that technology actually improves each sites ability to collect light. BSI technology moves the collection site higher and closer to the lens actually improving light collection and increasing (making better) the signal to noise

If Canon stays at the original 32MP density and improved the sensor technology by evolving to a BSI sensor, then the noise figure could have actually improved on the new R7 APC-S chip.

As already discussed, that is not true for the pixel sizes relevant here. But if you want to drink the marketing Koolaid, go right ahead.

homebodyMacro2 · Apr 2, 2026

Dragon said:
I agree that CE will be affected for years, but for a different reason than the implied shortage. The continuation of the AI boom is dependent on continued financing and so far a lot of the money is flowing in a loop (or not flowing at all). Nvidia invests in an AI company and then the AI company agrees to buy Nvidia GPUs, but as you say, there is no power to run the beast. They hype causes gullible investors to throw money at the AI company and by association at Nvidia, which has a completely ridiculous market cap. The timeline is too long for investor patience to last, even if there is some magic application out there that could eventually produce enough revenue to fund the monster. When the house of cards collapses, the dot com bust will look like child's play and the ensuing recession will have an effect on CE for years to come. Take pictures and invest wisely.

I wasn't exactly intending to enumerate all the causes of the likely years-long implosion of consumer electronics.

I agree with the description of the AI "boom" as a venture capital scam, see here: https://pivot-to-ai.com/2025/08/23/...e-think-the-ai-bubble-keeps-going-until-2027/

And I think it will indeed keep going into 2027. If it was based on investment fundamentals in any way, it would already be over. It is not gullible investors exactly, but self-interested venture capital scammers (that's their only "innovation": endless fraud) AND plenty of idiots AND people just jumping on the bandwagon because the markets and institutional investors function on FOMO.

The memory and storage supply implosion right now is caused by AI "hyperscalers" (people hoarding chips for datacenters that aren't built and for which there is no profitable use) buying out the entire supply of memory manufacturers - there are only 3 meaningful manufacturers on earth for RAM, which was already a very corrupt cartel. When AI collapses, the likes of Micron will still have no consumer supply, so prices will stay elevated for some time (and they will try to keep them up even when supply increases as there is no competition).

"Crucial" is Micron's consumer business, which they've ended because they're making so much money on datacenter HBM, which is not usable for anything else (similar to crypto mining chips, which were sold to many of the exact same people pushing AI).

Smaller electronics retailers and product lines will be crushed because with DDR5 RAM at 5x price vs. a year ago and fast SSD storage at something like 3x, a lot of consumers simply stop buying certain things entirely. As I said the other day, I'd have bought a 2nd 4TB external SSD the other day, but it has doubled in price. It's something I could use, but will get around until I have absolutely no choice.

Anyways yes, the recession from the AI crash will also further implode consumer demand and buying power, added on top of the tariff nonsense and the monumentally stupid imperial ambitions in the middle east. Everything will be worse for consumers for a long time.

Reference material/comments:
Here's a more recent article on the bubble, the timeline, the years required to rebuild supply lines, and "hyperscalers" buying more chips than they can use purposefully: https://pivot-to-ai.com/2026/03/27/the-ai-bubble-and-the-global-polycrisis/. Ed Zitron has dug into the numbers a lot, and only 1/3rd of claimed data centers are actually being built: https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-ai-industry-is-lying-to-you/.

OpenAI shut down its Sora video slop model the other week; of course, video models are the pinnacle of setting money on fire. They still only make worthless memes, but they cost astronomically more to run than text or still image generators. This is one of the first real cracks in the glass.

I think the "Subprime AI crisis" analogy is a good one (Ed first brought it up in 2024, but his most recent article breaks down a ton of numbers here: https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-subprime-ai-crisis-is-here/).

roby17269 · Apr 2, 2026

P-visie said:
Canon has a patent application for a 400-600mm f2.8-f4 lens (and a Canon RF 300-600mm F2.8-4.5L)
See: https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-patent-application-lets-go-long/

Ah thank you - I tend to forget about patents

Bob Howland · Apr 2, 2026

Regarding Meike, I bought one of their EF-to-RF 0.7x Speed Boosters about a month ago. It was $250 gamble, optically about as good as the Metabones. Both of them work extremely well with my EF Sigma 150-600 Sport zoom, converting it to a 106-426 f/3.5-4.5, including the DOF. The Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 L becomes a very large and heavy 50-140 f/2.

DocInfoSci · Apr 2, 2026

I'd love to see Canon run with Sigma's 500mm f/5.6 concept at the same tier as the 200-800 silver ring, making it a series of mid-tier performers at a more economical cost for hobbyists:

RF 500mm f/5.6 IS
- IQ meets or exceeds 200-800 at 500mm
- weather sealing meets or exceeds 200-800
- Programmable similar to 200-800
- Variable aperture
- Excellent edge-to-edge performance with 1.4x
- Excellent center performance with 2x
- MSRP CAD $4.5k
- As compared to zoom: 200-800 is CAD $2.8k, and at 500mm is f/8
RF 300mm f/4 IS
- IQ meets or exceeds 200-800 at 300mm
- weather sealing meets or exceeds 200-800
- Programmable similar to 200-800
- Variable aperture
- Excellent edge-to-edge performance with 1.4x
- Excellent center performance with 2x
- MSRP CAD $3.5k
- As compared to zoom: 200-800 is CAD $2.8k, and at 300mm is f/6.3

This would create a more budget appropriate, in the context of Canon, line of mid-tier L or L-like lenses from 14mm -> 1000mm (with TC). By targeting the tele primes in the same series as the silver ring Canon avoids cannibalising professional tier equivalents due to build, AF drive, and aperture reductions. To the professional, the price and quality of the zoomable Great Whites or primes will be economically justified. The typical hobbyist is probably not buying those lenses to start with, so in the majority of cases Canon justifies the purchase and use of its camera bodies more than it loses anything to lens sales at the premium end.

This would also be conceptually similar to the 300mm f/4 and 400mm f/5.6 lenses released in the 1990s, which were extremely popular with hobbyists (and continue to be recommended today across the Internet as low budget options with reasonable performance).

Canon could market these as backyard safari options: the 200-800 for ultimate convenience in variable situations (field events), the 300 for large game (dogs, sports children), and the 500 for dangerous or small game (cats, urban coyotes, racoons). No doubt the 1.4 extender would pretty much well sell 1:1 within 24 months of a lens purchase. They'd have a similar design and visual aesthetic, which does matter in terms of collection for many people. They'd be especially well positioned for the 20-32mp crowd, especially those who don't believe in downsizing all those precious pixels to achieve IQ, which means ISO 12800 quality actually means something.

I have no doubt if Canon can make and sell a 200-800 for CAD $2.8k list price then they could easily achieve with modern materials and similar compromises the primes for probably the same, but with allowance for markup because, well, Canon — and that's what Sigma charges for its 500 5.6.

Someone like me would probably grab one of each over a nine year period and never think of Sigma again.

(But wait — wouldn't that be the same as buying a $10K lens? Yes... and no. Yes for total cash. No for the fun factor of multiple lenses, mm spread, and wife approval factor, which is more easily accommodated in installments.

)

Dmcavoy · Apr 2, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
The only thing I know for sure that changed is the AA filter. The R used the sensor from the 5DIV, with the old-style AA filter (‘4-point’). The R5II uses the newer ‘16-point’ AA filter. That new design is the reason that the 24 MP R1, R3 and R8 deliver higher resolution than the 30 MP R/5DIV (and a prime example of why resolution does not equate to MP count).

This is really interesting, didn’t know this! I’m still using the original R and really starting to see it lag behind newer cameras. It’s held up pretty well until the last couple of years but an upgrade is definitely on the horizon soon. This explains a lot.

P-visie · Apr 2, 2026

roby17269 said:
I haven't heard of a Canon RF 400-600 2.8-4 - that would be awesome if indeed they make one but I would expect it to be more than $15K... and in any case it is academic until it materializes.

Canon has a patent application for a 400-600mm f2.8-f4 lens (and a Canon RF 300-600mm F2.8-4.5L)
See: https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-patent-application-lets-go-long/

neuroanatomist · Apr 2, 2026

John Wilde said:
Canon execs are well practiced in giving vague non-answers, so there is no reason for them to flat out lie.

Exactly my point. "We do not comment publicly on that," is a frequent answer from Canon to many questions.

Hypothetically, Canon tells Sigma they will license the RF mount for FF lenses and they want a percentage of each lens sold. If that percentage is high enough to make selling the lenses unprofitable for Sigma (i.e., higher than the profit margin on the lens at the price Sigma would want to sell it), Sigma would choose not to make them. Canon tells the truth, that Sigma could make the lenses if they want. Sigma doesn't want to.

John Wilde · Apr 2, 2026

roby17269 said:
Third about Canon execs not lying. Canon is a corporation. Corporations lie. It happens. Not all the times but sometimes it does.

Canon execs are well practiced in giving vague non-answers, so there is no reason for them to flat out lie.

mmills79 · Apr 2, 2026

I definetly don't understand your discussion. In some cases you seem to agree but in the end you disagree. That is confusing.

I think we agree that for the same chip size, as you increase the number of pixels (or decrease the size of the individual collection sites), for each site as the density increases, the individual site collects less light. So, Canon in increasing pixel count, actually decreased the ability of each site to collect light and decreased the signal to noise (made the noise performance worse) of each site. If for example, Canon would conversely chose to go to 24MP, then each indiividual site would be larger and collect even more light than the smaller individual site on a 32MP chip; and the signal to noise would increase (noise performance would improve at 24MP over 32MP). So it is incorrect to say that simply going to a larger format, is the only way to improve noise figure, if that is what you are implying. I do also agree that as you increase the size of a photo site by going to a larger chip size or format you should also improve signal to noise but the discussion within a specific chip size and the fundamental underlying physics is the same. Increase site size, better noise performance, decrease cell size, worse noise performance. There are design choices that can be made to make the signal to noise better on an APC-S chip.

If the rumour is true and Canon has decided to go to newer sensor technology as in BSI, then that technology actually improves each sites ability to collect light. BSI technology moves the collection site higher and closer to the lens actually improving light collection and increasing (making better) the signal to noise.

If Canon stays at the original 32MP density and improved the sensor technology by evolving to a BSI sensor, then the noise figure could have actually improved on the new R7 APC-S chip.

Now the problem I have with all the "rumours" or speculation is that it was suggested strongly that this MII was targeted for action shooters. If that is the case (and I now question if that rumour was true), then they should not have increased pixel density (it wasn't necessary) at the cost of the same or worse signal to noise in the camera. The R7 is well documented to be noisy at ISO 6400+. The R7's noise performance could have been made better simply by improving the sensor technology to a BSI chip. However, and this is what is confusing about the rumour or marketing, it seems Canon is rumored to also want to support 8K video, requiring a higher pixel count to do so. If you are a photographer, what you wanted to see in a Canon R7 MII was a reasonable resolution (like 32MP). better high ISO performance (like at 6400 for those many moments where there is low/poor light and you need shutter speeds of 1/1000 for action photography - helped by a BSI chip), a reduction in rolling shutter (also helped by the addition of a BSI chip with faster readout), some reasonable improvement to the number of frames per second, and perhaps better pre-capture. You can technically accomplish those goals on APC-S chip and I contend it is what most photographers wanted to see. If however, you want a device for 8K video, than perhaps either there should have been two versions as in the R50. I'm not interested in the 8K part, if it compromises the actual image quality that could otherwise have been had.

AlanF · Apr 2, 2026

Etnaphele said:
Canon prime 600mm F4 is 3kg, the Sigma less than 4kg, where does the "behemoth" line lie?

That is not an easy question to answer. Behemoth is an evocative word term for something of monstrous size, power, or appearance. It is not defined by precise quantities but is something that you know to be huge when you see it. It is frequently used to describe large telephoto lenses. A quick search finds that the 300-600 has already been defined as a behemoth by a respected reviewer.

https://uk.pcmag.com/lenses/158089/sigma-300-600mm-f4-dg-os-sports

“After two weeks of lugging the Sigma 300-600mm F4 around for wildlife snaps at a refuge, the zoo, and my backyard, I walked away with some fantastic photos and a seriously sore shoulder. At 18.5 by 6.6 inches (HD) without the hood attached, and 8.8 pounds, the lens is a behemoth. That's big even among its peers.” And the reviewer recommends: "Keep your Chiropractor on Speed Dial"

So, I think that if there were a hypothetical line to be drawn, the Sigma is likely to be on the behemoth side. Though this guy might disagree.

roby17269 · Apr 2, 2026

Canon Rumors said:
In a recent published interview with French publication Phototrend.fr, a pretty big bit of information came from Canon themselves. It doesn't sound like the lack of third-party autofocus lenses for the RF mount has anything to do with Canon. Full Frame Sigma RF Lenses While I touched on it in the interview, I think the […]

See full article...

I am sorry but this new article adds objectively nothing to the previous discussion.
So if the aim was to convince people that Canon is not responsible for the current lack of 3rd party RF FF AF lenses, color me unconvinced yet.

There are a few points that make little sense to me. Firstly about Sigma's capacity. There's no law that says that a manufacturer needs to meet demand. It's typical to start with limited quantities to test the waters. Unless one sells stuff as loss-leaders, every single unit sold is a good thing. If capacity was a crippling issue, how come Canon is fine and yet every new lens they sell goes into the "sorry we can't make enough of these" list?

Also the RF mount may be complex but we have no information about material differences between the RF and RF-S mounts, so that point sounds suspect to me too.

Third about Canon execs not lying. Canon is a corporation. Corporations lie. It happens. Not all the times but sometimes it does. Sure they do it in a very careful way to avoid liabilities, but there simply are a lot of circumstances when honesty is bad for business. It is sad but it is what it is. I accept that.

And maybe they were not lying, but logic is not on their side on this one. Until we know more facts, or until Sigma RF FF AF lenses appear, I remain skeptical.

candyman · Apr 2, 2026

antonn said:
R1/R1/R52 + RF600/4, Hirundo rustica

Excellent shots!

mimbu · Apr 2, 2026

Probably a shell company set up specifically to sell RF versions of the Meike lenses under a different brand. That way when Canon decides to sue the pants off them, there are no assets to go after. That shell company can just be shut down and another one will pop up. This might end up being the way the Chinese brands get their lenses onto RF.

roby17269 · Apr 2, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
As stated, if you want to see meaningful noise improvement, get a camera with a larger sensor. Period. Full stop.

I wonder how many more times you will need to explain that?

roby17269 · Apr 2, 2026

GMCPhotographics said:
While the world as you put it may have "moved on", I've yet to see a Sigma wildlife lens that is actually sharp wide open, let alone sharp with a 2x teleconverter.
My old EF 400mm f2.8 LIS was a beautiful lens. Sharp optics, fast AF, great IS....just a bit too heavy. Super sharp wide open and super sharp with a 1.4x, to the point that it was just as sharp as it was natively on my camera. However results with a 2x TC were not so great and needed at least 1/3 of a stop to sharpen up enough. A full stop and it was really usable.
The mkII version is lighter and one of three sharpest lenses Canon have ever produced - period. It's wide open performance with a 2x teleconverter is better than the older mkI lens with a 1.4x tc....it's THAT good. So in my findings, Sigma have not come close to that lofty bench mark set by Canon from over 15 years ago. In fact they don't seem to be able to make a super tele that is sharp at it's longest end natively, wide open. So they are inferior to the optics Canon was producing 27 year ago with their mkI.
Even Canon's newer EF mkIII version is not as sharp as the mkII (which is the same lens as the current RF version). It's design brief was to match the sharpness of the Mk1 BUT it's primary design objective was to be as light and portable as possible. It did this astonishingly well, hand holding a mkI was for the brave / super fit and could only be done for a few mins / seconds at time. The mkII was a lot better in this regard but the mkIII is only a liitle more cumbersome than a 70-200/2.8 and a 1.4x TC. It's THAT good, to the point that it opens up new opportunities to hand hold a lens like this that could not realistically be done before without a tripod. It's AF and IS is slightly superior, it's handling and usability is vastly superior but it's Image quality took a step backwards. But even this mkIII version knocks the new Sigma back 20+ years. Sigma is coming out of the dark ages, but is still a long way from where Canon was even 27 years ago with ther mkI.
I would not buy a RF 400mm f2.8 LIS because it's not great fit for me, my current EF mkII is actually a better lens for me. if I did consider an RF wildlife lens, it would be the RF 600mm f4, because I won't need the 2x Tc option too much and it would give me the option of either lens. 400 or 600.
However, I am keen to see what Canon develops next for a rumoured mkII or a zoom variant. If they can make a EF 100-300/f2.8 that matches their superlative EF 300mm f2.8 LIS II (one of the other three top performers) then a rumoured RF 400-600mm f2.8-f4 will be iconic and revolutionary. Combining ALL of the benefits of a 400/2.8 and 600/f4, the sharp ness of the mkII primes but none of the down sides.

My upgrade path is not found in Sigma becuase they have NOTHING that can upgrade what I already have. Sigma have some similar lenses but they have no benefits for me over what I already have. I have no gear lust because I don't make those kinds of mistakes. My lenses are tools and they very carefully assessed and selected before I make my investment. My upgrade path is found in Canon because I can see real world benefits, the question is...is it fiscally incentivised enough to sway me with my current gear and my current budget? I don't spend money because I have it, I invest in equipment that will bring me a direct improvement to my photography. I save and buy, I then compare old to new and if I was right (and I usually am) I then sell the old one.

I am not as prejudiced as you suppose or keep hinting at, I'm a Canon beliver because the gear is worth beliving in. I like to invest in "best of breed" gear, not "it's ok", "quite good" or "90% but cheaper" gear. I think it is one of tenets of Socialism that you accuse your opposition of the thing you are more guilty of.

I haven't heard of a Canon RF 400-600 2.8-4 - that would be awesome if indeed they make one but I would expect it to be more than $15K... and in any case it is academic until it materializes, like all the discussions on the RF 300-600 4-5.6 or 5.6... they may be great lenses but we cannot mount them on RF bodies since they do not exist yet. So I won't call them iconic or revolutionary just yet. The Sigma 300-600 exists but we cannot mount it on RF bodies as well since Canon doesn't want us to.

Everything I have read about the 300-600 4 say it's a great lens apart from the weight. Especially in the context of price. Do you have any evidence of the contrary? Otherwise yes, you would be prejudiced. By definition.

Regardless. It is totally fine that you are fully satisfied with the Canon system. But you seem unable to accept that not everyone is a Canon believer. They are a corporation that wants to make money, not the leaders of a cult. I am a Canon user, no more no less. I like my Canon gear as I like my Hasselblad gear. And I would appreciate more choice, specifically access to some of Sigma's latest offerings.
So what exactly would I be "guilty" of? Apologies but I am not really sure about what you're trying to say in your last paragraph.

neuroanatomist · Apr 2, 2026

mmills79 said:
My point is that with higher pixel denity on the same size chip, the less light you can collect (we agree) and that worsens the noise figure.

No, we don't agree on that. For an individual pixel, smaller means more noise, sure. People who measurebate pixels love discussing that. People who take pictures care about image noise. Image noise is fundamentally independent of pixel size, but rather depends on total light gathered, which is determined by the area of the image sensor, not the number of pixels packed into that sensor. Divide a FF sensor into 45 million pixels or 24 million pixels, the total light gathered is the same.

mmills79 said:
With a BSI chip however (or even a stacked chip - if the rumours are true), that technology improves the ability to collect more light. However if the net overall performance gain between the increased pixel count and the BSI technology offsets in still no improvement in noise figure, then Canon missed an opportuniy to improve the camera overall. Had they kept the pixel density the same as the original 32MP sensor, then with the addition of the BSI technology, there would have been a much needed improvement in noise figure.

At the pixel sizes relevant for APS-C and FF sensors, BSI makes effectively no difference in noise. BSI was developed to enable packing more pixels into smartphone-sized camera sensors while maintaining acceptable image quality. With pixel sizes <2 µm, the benefit of BSI is meaningful. In the 2-3 µm range, the effect is marginal at best, and >3 µm BSI is effectively a marketing slogan.

mmills79 said:
I'm a photographer and I wanted to see a noise performance improvement and they may have missed the boat there.

As stated, if you want to see meaningful noise improvement, get a camera with a larger sensor. Period. Full stop.

roby17269 · Apr 2, 2026

GMCPhotographics said:
That's a key point, most users of a 600mm f4, want the flexibilty of a sharp and convienient (relatively) 800mm f5.6, ie popping on a 1.4x TC. If the native lens isn't particularly sharp wide open at 600mm, what's it going to be like with a 1.4x tc? I'd never buy lens like a 300-600mm and then prat around with it at the wide end becuase that's where it's sharp. Surely it's long end performance that matters.

Do you have any links about the Sigma 300-600 4 being not good at 600mm? The reviews I have seen speak highly of that lens.

Also you keep comparing the Sigma 120-300 2.8 to the Canon RF 100-300 2.8. It's true that the Canon is the significantly better lens. But the Sigma is a 2012 $3800 (at launch) lens pre-mirroless, while the Canon is a 11 years younger $10500 lens. It seems unfair to me.

mmills79 · Apr 2, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
"If you want better noise performance, you need a bigger sensor."

My point is that with higher pixel denity on the same size chip, the less light you can collect (we agree) and that worsens the noise figure. With a BSI chip however (or even a stacked chip - if the rumours are true), that technology improves the ability to collect more light. However if the net overall performance gain between the increased pixel count and the BSI technology offsets in still no improvement in noise figure, then Canon missed an opportuniy to improve the camera overall. Had they kept the pixel density the same as the original 32MP sensor, then with the addition of the BSI technology, there would have been a much needed improvement in noise figure. It seems however, Canon also tried to target this new camera for higher video capabilities too and so they may have increased pixel density. Sometimes you can't have it both ways. On one hand the marketing has suggested this is a camera for birdiers but it also seems that they chose not to improve noise performance in favor of video. That choice is likely to ultimately be unpopular since as I mentioned above, a lot of action shots take place in poor or low light and it seems Canon may not have done much to improve low light/high ISO performance - thus this Mark II is likely to be a disappointment to action photographers but, maybe vidographers may like it. In my opinion, they could have either released two versions of the R7 like they did for the R50 or perhaps they should have improved one of the full frame models to support video. I'm a photographer and I wanted to see a noise performance improvement and they may have missed the boat there.

Click · Apr 2, 2026

Very nice shots, antonn. I really like the second one.

antonn · Apr 2, 2026

R1/R1/R52 + RF600/4, Hirundo rustica

mmills79 · Apr 2, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
If you want better noise performance, you need a bigger sensor. For those who understand the relevant concepts, there’s not much more to discuss. The 20% increase in pixel density will make zero difference. BSI will make zero difference.

The R5II has a much higher pixel density than the R6III, the noise performance is the same.

View attachment 228690

A larger sensor has less image noise, because it gathers more total light. Crop down the R5II to APS-C size, you lose DR (because of increased image noise), and what you get is essentially the same as the R7.

View attachment 228689

antonn · Apr 2, 2026

R52 + RF600/4, Ardea cinerea

Etnaphele · Apr 2, 2026

AlanF said:
It's a 4.3 kg behemoth. The Sony 300mm f/2.8 is only 1.74 kg, and according to the-digital-picture site is sharper with the 2xTC attached at 600mm. If I had the choice of two such lenses for Canon, I'd 100% go for the light prime despite my general preference for tele zooms.

More choice is always better, you mentioned two options not available with a Canon body. You are comparing a prime 300mm with an equally priced zoom starting at 300mm, with a full stop advantage at 600mm with 2×TC, I would hope there is a difference there. Canon prime 600mm F4 is 3kg, the Sigma less than 4kg, where does the "behemoth" line lie?

Much more interesting and sadly not much discussed are the actual focal lengths at MFD, with zooms loosing a bunch of magnifications when focused near (as they are often used). This could be much more of a dealbreaker than pixel peeping extremely sharp lenses, as they all are.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics