R5ii is waiting for her companion. Sold the R7 long time ago - didn`t do his job. Rumors sounds good.

blackcoffee17 said:

What is the point of designing another accelerator? I can't see it reducing cost much, especially because it's already made in volume for another cameras, like the R1/R5. Battery life cannot be an issue if its not for the R5.
Product segmentation can be the only reason.

Click to expand...

The R1 accounts for very little 'volume' and while only Canon knows the unit numbers, I suspect the R5II is also not a high-volume camera body. The R7II will be significantly cheaper, and will likely sell in much higher numbers than the R1+R5II. I suspect you can't see it reducing cost much because you don't have the data that Canon has. Product segmentation may be a part of it, but if that was the only reason then it would likely be significantly cheaper to just use software to 'gimp' the existing accelerator to a 'lite' version (and Canon is not above doing so). But for the reasons outlined in the article (did you even read it?), that's not likely. The point is that having an APS-C sensor is more than sufficient differentiation for the R7II compared to any FF camera.

What is the point of designing another accelerator? I can't see it reducing cost much, especially because it's already made in volume for another cameras, like the R1/R5. Battery life cannot be an issue if its not for the R5.
Product segmentation can be the only reason.

If Canon gets the R7 Mark II right, I can see a lot of R1 and R5 Mark II shooters picking it as a second body or for specific uses. Continuity in performance is a big deal for a lot of shooters.

Click to expand...

Add R3 shooters to that list. I use 2 R3's because I like the continuity when switching between 2 cameras in the field, but having an R7 MII with 1.6 crop for specific gigs would be a huge plus. I just really hope the R7 MII has the ability to register a second focus zone.

It's important to note that the "FCC Covered List" restricts DJI as a company from getting approval to register ANY new electronic device within the country. The products we've seen hit the market from DJI in the past 4 months were previously registered and approved before product launch. So the Pocket 4 will not be coming to the United States.

To me this is a philosophical game changer - If quality and durability and user friendliness go with it, as GoPro seemed to be veering off. GoPro just revived the MFT lens market, if the market responds.

erader said:

for a size estimate tape two coffee cans together

Click to expand...

I was thinking equivalent to 1 gallon buckets in series.

I am going to put this on my R100 (that I do not own, to spite Richard) and take BIF pictures with it. That is like equivalent of 2,880mm of focal length using the built-in 1.5 Tx. Easily I can zoom to a hummingbird in the next county while sitting in my living room drinking vodka, getting dialysis after selling my kidneys for it. Don't burst my bubble as to why it will be insane or impossible!

Canon Rumors said:

Ultima 25-600mm T4 S35 Broadcast Zoom

See full article...

Click to expand...

Whoa. Laowa is such an interesting company. To get 600mm T4 the front element of that lens is probably 165mm in diameter or maybe even bigger. That is a seriously large piece of glass and an interesting indication of where Laowa is going with lens design. I wonder how long before we see them add more fast supertele hybrid/mirrorless lenses to the 200/2 they released not so long ago!

Chig said:

A 200-800mm f/6.3 would have a front entrance pupil of 127mm which is quite a lot larger than the 100-300mm f/2.8's front entrance of 107mm so with L build quality I'd expect a lot higher price than the 100-300 too and definitely not $5K

Click to expand...

Ya gotta laugh at the asinine suggestions that some people make around here. I know that it's too much to hope for that people will think before they post. Maybe it's even too much to hope for that people will think, at all.

If that “lite” processor also comes with reduced power draw and heat production, I’m all for it. Even better if they come up with a Sony style solution to combine the two. Heard plenty of complaints about the R5ii’s battery drain and always wondered if the co-processor was responsible.

It would make sense that Canon would do the same thing with the Accelerator processor. A smaller sensor isn't reading as much data, so it wouldn't need as much processing power to keep performance close to the professional EOS R cameras.

Click to expand...

Is this true if the R7 II has a higher pixel count than the R1? I would think that amount of data is related to the pixel count, not the actual dimensions of the sensor. Or am I missing something?

Canon have made a wee video. Looks like the R5C gets compatibility support for the newly announced $80K Cine servo 40-1200 lens. Which every R5C owner will be rushing out to buy.

Mark M said:

I'm not seeing any mention of the R5C in any of Canon's announcements. Can anyone point me towards a specific mention of the R5C? Curious as to what a new firmware would bring beyond bug fixes.

Click to expand...

exactly, I was also keen to understand the updates on my R5C...

blackcoffee17 said:

I'd rather see a an L version of the 200-800 with 6.3 aperture and L build quality but $5K.

Click to expand...

A 200-800mm f/6.3 would have a front entrance pupil of 127mm which is quite a lot larger than the 100-300mm f/2.8's front entrance of 107mm so with L build quality I'd expect a lot higher price than the 100-300 too and definitely not $5K
Also it would be at least 3kg maybe even 3.5kg

ronbyram said:

Hello gang, first I know canon has these white lenses hoods designed for the RF 100-500 and 70-200 lens. But I dislike these larger white hoods.
But my question is can an older Black EF hood be used instead? Has anyone done this?

Click to expand...

I use the lenshood of the RF 50 1.2 on the 100-500. Perfect.
And a JJC copy of the 24-105Z hood on 70-200Z. Just physical protection.

Noreaster said:

Just because it is a bird in the water doesn't make it a duck

Click to expand...

He might just be ducking the issue...

Nemorino said:

Thank You, Alan! I used tracking.

My favorite is Flußseeschwalbe
(river-sea-swollow)

No! The German name of the familiy Charadriidae is "Regenpfeifer" .
In German Lapwings are also Regenpfeifer.
Sames gear:
View attachment 228939
View attachment 228937View attachment 228938

Click to expand...

Great shots again! I went out with my R5ii and 200-800mm at 1120mm for BIF, inspired by yours. It did fast focus very well much to my surprise. The AF at narrow apertures has really improved from that of the R5, where they restricted the the focus area of the 800 f/11 to a central rectangle. I checked that the restriction is indeed not present with the R5ii.

Noreaster, Nemorino and foda,

Well done, guys!

antonn said:

R52 + RF600/4, Apus apus

Click to expand...

Nice dynamic shots . I really like the last one. Well done!

I'm not seeing any mention of the R5C in any of Canon's announcements. Can anyone point me towards a specific mention of the R5C? Curious as to what a new firmware would bring beyond bug fixes.

Nemorino said:

Lapwings
R5m2 + RF 200-800 + 1.4 TC
View attachment 228941View attachment 228942View attachment 228943

Click to expand...

Just because it is a bird in the water doesn't make it a duck

Surf Scoter seen while birding on the Yaquina River near Newport, Oregon, March, 2025.

R5MkII RF200-800mm

Ian K said:

The crop ratio on the APS-C is 1.6x

Click to expand...

@AlanF stated, "The R5ii combo resolves at least as well - in terms of pixels, not pov, the R7 is only 1.4x not 1.6x." Apparently that was lost on you. Since your previous statement mentioned 'better resolving', he was pointing out that the R7 provides 1.4x more pixels on target than the R5II. He was not talking about only the 'crop factor'.

Edit: had this draft started when @Nemorino posted to the same effect.

With rare exceptions (such as the original version of the EF 24-70/2.8L), lens hoods for zooms are only maximally effective at the wide end of the zoom range. In terms of what a lens hood is intended for, namely to improve images by reducing flare and increasing contrast, using a shorter hood than the one Canon provides with (or recommends for) a given lens reduces the utility even at the wide end.

I suppose if your only goal is to have some additional physical protection for the front of your lens, using a shorter hood would still provide that.