Zudo said:

I understand that the form factor I want, compact travel size will always have limitations due to size. I am not one whom would ever own a Canon R7 as that is way too large. I just want someone to finally update a compact superzoom camera. From many searches it seems that the likely best version of that type of camera rumored to be released soon is the Canon SX750. The SX740 is an old superzoom camera yet it sells for more than it did new and has been in such high demand where many want the features that provides that a smartphone cannot. None of the brands other than the Panasonic TZ99 there has been nothing with any decent zoom made for many years. To me the TZ99 is not much of a upgrade from their old model. That makes me hopeful as the old SX740 seems better than the TZ99 so I am hopeful that a new Canon SX750 type of camera would be a camera for me. Sure it will never be on par of a full size camera like your R7, etc. but I do not want a huge full size camera. I want a small compact camera for travel and I and many others are willing to spend the cost of your full size camera but would never do so due to the desire for a compact size. Yes it will never be on par to a full size but whatever brand, hopefully Canon comes out with finally an upgrade to the compact super zoom travel size will get my dollars, sure it will have limits but there has been no new cameras in this sector for over 5 years..

Click to expand...

An upgrade to the sx740 makes sense. I was commenting on your hopes for a super zoom with a V1 sensor being small. That simply cannot happen. One thing the SX740 does not support that needs to be added is the ability to save RAW files. That feature of the Panny ZS series is a pretty big advantage if you are willing to process images with today's best post tools in spite of the fact that the lenses on the zs series were not the best. I don't think Canon has ever provided raw files on a 1/2.3 sensor camera, so it will be interesting to see what arrives. The comments I made above about diffraction hold, so the price of a very small but long zoom will always be soft images at the long end due to the small aperture required to keep the lens compact. The point I was making when referring to the R7 was simply that an 800 mm lens (1280mm equivalent on the R7) that is not too far into diffraction loss will produce more detail than even a 3000mm equivalent lens (Nikon P1000) on a 1/2.3 imager that is deep into the diffraction zone. The resolution of a telephoto lens is directly related to the entrance pupil size, so if the lens is small in diameter, it will not resolve much detail no matter what sensor you put behind it. The P1000 does the best job of any of the super zooms, but that is because it is far from small with a 77mm filter thread, but it still only resolves at less than half the linear resolution of the sensor when zoomed all the way out, which is to say it is at best about a 4MP camera (likely closer to 2MP) at 3000mm equivalent. The net effect is that a shorter lens with the same entrance pupil (i.e. faster f stop) will often have as good or better detail as the slower but longer lens with the price that you have to crop the image to get the framing you want. What that translates to is that a G3x replacement using the V1 sensor with even a 400mm equivalence would likely out resolve an sx750 with a 960mm equivalent lens if the lens sizes were comparable to the G3x and SX740 respectively and shots at wider settings would be dramatically better. The catch is that even a G3x does not fit your desire for a pocket camera form factor.

Steve_FR said:

Mine arrives off the truck soon as well.
Looking forward to some discussion. I’ll be using mine more heavily on the video side.

Click to expand...

This lens is wonderfully designed/featured for video.

Dragon said:

The problem with your wish list is that the telephoto end of small sensor super zooms is almost always diffraction limited, so no matter how fine the lens is, it will be soft. The only way around that is to keep the lens fast, i.e. f/2.8 or faster over the whole range and that makes a 40:1 zoom huge, even on a 1/2.3 sensor. The Panasonic ZS 300 is a 25:1, constant f/2.8 and is stays decently sharp over the full range, but then, again, it only has a 12MP sensor. If you go smaller pixels and longer zoom, the lens needs to be both faster and much bigger. Physics is a hard mistress. The Nikson P1000, which has an excellent lens is very soft at the long end at f/8 with a 16MP sensor. I have both the FZ300, and the P1000, so I understand the limitations of each. My R7 with a 200-800 that is f/9 at the long end provides much better detail thanks to the much bigger pixels not being as far into diffraction territory, but even there, diffraction is a big factor in the result. Bottom line, there is no point in wishing for something physics won't let you have.

Click to expand...

I understand that the form factor I want, compact travel size will always have limitations due to size. I am not one whom would ever own a Canon R7 as that is way too large. I just want someone to finally update a compact superzoom camera. From many searches it seems that the likely best version of that type of camera rumored to be released soon is the Canon SX750. The SX740 is an old superzoom camera yet it sells for more than it did new and has been in such high demand where many want the features that provides that a smartphone cannot. None of the brands other than the Panasonic TZ99 there has been nothing with any decent zoom made for many years. To me the TZ99 is not much of a upgrade from their old model. That makes me hopeful as the old SX740 seems better than the TZ99 so I am hopeful that a new Canon SX750 type of camera would be a camera for me. Sure it will never be on par of a full size camera like your R7, etc. but I do not want a huge full size camera. I want a small compact camera for travel and I and many others are willing to spend the cost of your full size camera but would never do so due to the desire for a compact size. Yes it will never be on par to a full size but whatever brand, hopefully Canon comes out with finally an upgrade to the compact super zoom travel size will get my dollars, sure it will have limits but there has been no new cameras in this sector for over 5 years..

Exploreshootshare said:

I am currently looking at macro lenses: the decision is between the EF 100mm F2.8 L and the RF 100mm F2.8. Do I really need the magnification of 1,4:1? Is it worth a premium of about 400-600 €? I don't think so because I am not that much into macro... only thing with the EF... I need an adapter once again... grrrr

Click to expand...

That decision is looming for me as well. I have a 20-year-old Tamron 90/2.8 Di macro that is dying. I love this lens dearly but the focus ring is becoming very stiff and the AF motor is struggling to move it. My requirements for a new lens: good AF, stabilization, 1:1 magnification.

For me, the RF 100 is beyond my budget.

For me the contenders are:

EF 100/2.8 L. These are readily available on the used market for a reasonable price. Has hybrid IS. However, the adapter is needed. One the one hand the adapter is not a big deal, but on the other hand it'd be nice to go without.

RF 85/2 plus something like a NiSi dual-element close-up filter. The 85/2 alone does 2:1 which is sufficient most of the time, and if I want to get closer then I could add the front filter. Like the EF 100 is is not an all-in-one solution and involves messing around with accessories.

Michael Clark said:

"Only two things are infinite: The Universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe."

Popularly attributed to Albert Einstein, though he didn't actually say it. Rather, someone else said it before continuing, "Today we know that statement is not quite correct. Einstein has proved the Universe is limited." The reference to Einstein was the proof that the Universe is finite, though unbounded, and not the opening quote.

View attachment 230348

Click to expand...

There are so many bogus quotes with photos of respected people floating around. People see the photo, read the quote, and say, "It must be true. His picture is right there." The quotes can even be accurate, but a meme doesn't have context. Context means everything.

Del Paso said:

And AI can also solve the reflecting pool issue without duck killing chemicals.
We're living in a wonderful new world!

Click to expand...

The factory of the future has one human and one dog. The man's job is to feed the dog. The dog's job is to bite the man, or anyone else, that touches the machines.

Michael Clark said:

For some it's not so much distortion correction as it is Peripheral Illumination Correction which makes the corners so *noisy* compared to the center and mid-frame areas of an image, especially if shot in low light at higher ISO to begin with.

Click to expand...

Yeah, because EF lenses never had 3-4 stops of vignetting.

scyrene said:

The human capacity for insight is exceeded only by its aptitude for stupidity. Today I saw someone AI/robots could solve the issue of spiralling costs repairing a historic building.

Click to expand...

"Only two things are infinite: The Universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe."

Popularly attributed to Albert Einstein, though he didn't actually say it. Rather, someone else said it before continuing, "Today we know that statement is not quite correct. Einstein has proved the Universe is limited." The reference to Einstein was the proof that the Universe is finite, though unbounded, and not the opening quote.

neuroanatomist said:

It’s clear that forced distortion correction is triggering for some people. I’ve asked many such people to provide examples of those ‘low-quality corners and edges’, and yet no one has been able to do so. Will you be the first?

It seems that you believe optical correction of geometric distortion is the gold standard. How does that belief hold up with the EF 17-40/4L? More of a tarnished brass standard, that one.

Personally, I found that the RF 14-35/4 after digital correction was just as sharp in the corners as the EF 11-24/4 at 14mm, where the latter has minimal distortion.

You don’t have to take my word (and test results, which I posted here a few years ago) for it. Look at the wide ends of the MTF charts for the RF 24-105/2.8L, the RF 24-70/2.8L and the RF 24-105/4L. The 24-105/2.8 requires distortion correction to ‘fill the corners’, the other two lenses do not. Yet the 24-105/2.8 is as good in the corrected corners as the 24-70/2.8 (despite a larger zoom range, which is usually optically detrimental) and better than the 24-105/4. How is that ‘low-quality corners’?


I am pretty sure a 24-70/2 will require digital distortion correction at the wide end. Either way, I’m sure the lens will deliver modern L-series image quality across the frame.

If required digital correction of barrel distortion bothers you that much, don’t buy those lenses. Think of all the money you’ll save by not buying the smaller, lighter, and optically excellent lenses that digital distortion correction makes possible. Lucky you!

Click to expand...

For some it's not so much distortion correction as it is Peripheral Illumination Correction which makes the corners so *noisy* compared to the center and mid-frame areas of an image, especially if shot in low light at higher ISO to begin with.

zardoz said:

...either Canon are unable to innovate and get on top of Sony again, or they have lost touch with their target market).

Click to expand...

Or perhaps someone else has lost touch with what the majority of Canon's market wants?

zardoz said:

If they get the geometry right, I'll be getting on the waiting list the day the announcement is out.

Click to expand...

How will you know whether they "got the geometry right" on the day of an announcement weeks or even months before any independent reviewers could test a copy of the lens?

Some of this stuff is nice.

But no touch AF? Grrr.