justaCanonuser said:

Indee, the prime was superior as long as Canon only offered the Mk I "dust pump", which wasn't really sharp @400mm. After I've seen tests I bought the 400mm prime and liked it much: quite light for that time, and a perfect shape for the hand. The Mk II of the zoom changed that picture completely.

Click to expand...

The EF 100-400mm (original) was the worst lens I have ever had. My copy was soft, and the AF failed on the last day of a birding trip to the Pantanal. Lucky it lasted until then. I had sold a 400/5.6 prime to buy it, but that had been just as soft. It was an important lesson, and the initial reason I got paranoid about having back up lenses and bodies. The Mk II was a breakthrough - super sharp and beautifully made.

I don't often photograph animals, but this year I was lucky enough to photograph moose. It was snowing heavily and the snowflakes made it very difficult to focus.
R1 + RF600/4

AlanF said:

The EF 400mm f/5.6 L had quite a following, who thought it very sharp. Then along came the EF 100-400mm ii that was sharper than the prime, had excellent IS, not much heavier and was a zoom. A splendid lens, fully worth its price. Fortunately, it morphed into the RF 100-500 so I don't miss my two 100-400s.

Click to expand...

Indee, the prime was superior as long as Canon only offered the Mk I "dust pump", which wasn't really sharp @400mm. After I've seen tests I bought the 400mm prime and liked it much: quite light for that time, and a perfect shape for the hand. The Mk II of the zoom changed that picture completely.

AlanF said:

WEX was having a Road Show day today with Canon reps plus gear and I took advantage of it to do some comparisons of telephotos on my R5ii. The store in Cambridge is situated about 70m from the front of Sidney Sussex College that has some good targets for comparison. Here, I have selected crops from the centre of a shield and cockerel, and also dug up some images from a year ago from the RF 200-800mm and RF 800mm f/11 on the R5. With these copies of the lens: the image from the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 + RF 2xTC at 400mm is extremely good, as is the RF 100-500mm at 500mm; the RF 100-300mm f/2.8 + RF 2xTC at 600mm is softer; the EF 600mm f/4 iii is similar to the 100-500mm; adding the RF 1.4xTC to the RF 100-500mm at 700mm doesn't add much detail; and the two 800mm lens add clearly more detail.

View attachment 225693View attachment 225694View attachment 225695

Click to expand...

The 200-800 and 800 f/11 both look very good on an absolute basis and downright awesome for the money. I really like both of those lenses. Unless you really need speed, it is very hard to justify spending more. Other than the occasional planetary shot, my EF 800 f/5.6L has been mostly in retirement since I got the 200-800.

AlanF said:

It's an incredible lens. I did a comparison of it with other star lenses and it did so well. I really should get one.

https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...tc-vs-ef-600mm-f-4-iii-vs-rf-200-800mm.44688/

Click to expand...

The 200-800 and 800 f/11 both look very good on an absolute basis and downright awesome for the money.

Chig said:

I have the 200-800 as well and I really like it but I also have the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM Z which I use with my RF 2x extender for low light and when I'm lucky enough to get really close to the birds like this shot where I was about 3m away from this pūweto (spotless crake). This lens has a minimum focus distance of just 68cm which is great when you're super close like I was for the second image when I was about 1m away from the toutouwai (North Island robin)

Click to expand...

It's an incredible lens. I did a comparison of it with other star lenses and it did so well. I really should get one.

Chig said:

I have the 200-800 as well and I really like it but I also have the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM Z which I use with my RF 2x extender for low light and when I'm lucky enough to get really close to the birds like this shot where I was about 3m away from this pūweto (spotless crake). This lens has a minimum focus distance of just 68cm which is great when you're super close like I was for the second image when I was about 1m away from the toutouwai (North Island robin)

Click to expand...

Nice shots. Learning how to approach wildlife without disturbing it is half the fun of wildlife photography. Last weekend I went out with my 400 mm f2.8 lens and photographed a beaver less than 15 feet from me. Wow!

AlanF said:

The RF 200-800mm is my go-to lens. Although I use it at 800mm for about 90% of my shots, the shorter end, as well as close focussing ability, has been essential for some of my best shots. Although 800mm on FF is very good for distant slow flying birds, it's too long for close fast flying large or small BIF.

Click to expand...

I have the 200-800 as well and I really like it but I also have the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM Z which I use with my RF 2x extender for low light and when I'm lucky enough to get really close to the birds like this shot where I was about 3m away from this pūweto (spotless crake). This lens has a minimum focus distance of just 68cm which is great when you're super close like I was for the second image when I was about 1m away from the toutouwai (North Island robin)

ring-necked duck (Aythya collaris)
most of the time it is hard to see the ring

I would LOVE for them to build an RF 28 F1.4 L VCM!

neonlight said:

Most people using APS-C are doing so for reach (birding and other wildlife for example) or generally cheaper than FF and won't be concerned about DOF.
*or FF 50/1.8 of course

Click to expand...

I suspect most people use APS-C for the second reason – lower cost systems. The small minority using crop sensors for ‘reach’ are overrepresented in a forum like this.

I disagree that APS-C buyers aren’t concerned about DoF. The various incarnations of the nifty-fifty (50/1.8) are perineal bestsellers, for example the RF 50/1.8 STM is currently #1 in mirrorless lenses on amazon.com. Since APS-C kit lenses have pretty much always covered that focal length (or close enough at 45mm), I would expect many people buy the 50/1.8 for a thinner DoF. But probably some buy it for low light use and may not even be aware that the DoF at f/1.8 may be too thin.

EOS 4 Life said:

It is really important when comparing cameras with non-standard image sensor sizes.
It was really just intended for focal lengths.
The arguments start to come in when we apply depth of field.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but that’s completely wrong. Equivalence is relevant when comparing any sensors of different sizes.

It was and remains intended to compare images, not just focal lengths. Field of view, depth of field and noise are all characteristics of images.

The arguments seem to start when people claim to understand equivalence then show that they don’t. Q.E.D. Some people don’t like being corrected, and their opinions are loud enough to prevent them from perceiving facts.

EOS 4 Life said:

Depth of field is not always important.
In fact, sometimes having more in focus can be an advantage.

Click to expand...

True, but irrelevant. You could similarly say that shutter speed is not always important (and sometimes having more of it can be an advantage)…so by your apparent logic, we can just ignore shutter speed in a discussion of the exposure triangle. That would also be silly.

Reading through the 15 comments so far, it's obvious there are plenty of incompatible wish-lists for this camera.

The article mentions an "all-new" sensor and suggests it could be a Canon-manufactured 1-inch stacked sensor. This would be good news, for it suggests dual pixel autofocus would be coming to PowerShot G-type cameras for the first time. Long-awaited!

I have a G7Xii and, had they continued to be manufactered, would have upgraded to a G5Xii, rather than a G7Xiii, because, especially in bright light, an EVF is so much more practical than a rear screen. So, I would appreciate a PowerShot with the next generation of Canon's pop-up EVF.

Some people want a 20x or 30x zoom. That introduces a whole lot of compromises. If two models are released -- high zoom and "modest" zoom -- I would take the "modest" zoom model (say 24 - 100 mm -ish FF equivalent; ie 4x zoom) and expect better image quality as a result.

The G7Xii has no hotshoe, but does have a small flash. I'd expect a built-in flash on a stills-oriented small camera and some sort of shoe would be handy, simply for attaching potential accessories, though you might question what sort of flashgun you'd be connecting to a hot shoe on such a small camera.

And, yes, it may only be a 1-inch sensor, but [naturally!] I'd still like as good low-light quality as can be squeezed from it. This is a carry-round-at-all-times camera, so, inevitably, there are plenty of times when you find yourself using it in less than ideal lighting.

Philnick said:

I have the Sigma RF-S 17-40mm f/1.8 Art on my R7, which gives it better than parity with a 28-70mm f/2.8 RF lens on a full-frame body: it's a stop and a third faster, overcoming the noise and bokeh advantages of full-frame.

Click to expand...

Not better than parity. For FoV and DoF, 17-40/1.8 on 1.6x crop is equivalent to 27-64/2.9 on FF, and the noise difference between crop and FF is 1.3 stops. So…parity, but not ‘better than parity’. The 17-40/1.8 on crop is essentially equivalent to a 28-70/2.8 on FF.

Parity is a good thing, especially when paired with very good IQ. While I prefer 24-105mm (FF) as my walkaround focal range, if I were using an APS-C body as my main camera then the Sigma 17-40/1.8 would be a great lens for it.

I have the Sigma RF-S 17-40mm f/1.8 Art on my R7, which gives it better than parity with a 28-70mm f/2.8 RF lens on a full-frame body: it's a stop and a third faster, overcoming the noise and bokeh advantages of full-frame.

For a direct upgrade from the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, look at Sigma's RF-S 18-50mm f/2.8 DC DN - much smaller and lighter (the size of a Campbell's soup can) and though it lacks IS, the R7's IBIS does the job.

The 17-40/1,8 is bigger and heavier - the size and weight of the RF 85mm f/2 IS Macro - but its sharpness at all focal lengths wide open and its constant f/1.8 turns the R7 into a capable challenger to a full frame camera with a standard f/2.8 zoom.

shawnc said:

I've been using the Sigma 17-40 on my R7 for months. I won't be switching.

Click to expand...

Similarly I just want a 15-85. Whilst I have a number of L Lenses for my R7 and 7DII, my ageing 15-85 whilst not optically wonderful is a great Jack of all trades lens with just that slightly longer reach. Really hoping the R7 II is a proper successor to the 7DII

neuroanatomist said:

Well, 2024 is the latest year for which there are market data but Canon was wearing #2 on their compact camera party hat, about 8% behind Sony.

1. Sony … 470,000 units
2. Canon … 430,000 units
3. Fujifilm … 130,000 units
4. Ricoh … 60,000 units

Incidentally, 8% is the same margin by which #2 Sony was behind #1 Canon in mirrorless ILC sales that year.

Party on!

Click to expand...

To compare this with the overall market, in 2025 1.4 billion smartphones, including 247,000,000 iPhones were sold. Sony made ~4 billion sensors for these. For 2027, iPhones are going over to Samsung sensors instead of their current Sony.

Chig said:

The amazing lightness of Sony's 300mm f/2.8 is something I'm jealous of and it's much cheaper than Canon's 100-300mm f/2.8: USD 6,800 vs 10,600
Also the Canon zoom is quite front heavy compared to a prime as I found out when I tried it out along with the RF400mm f/2.8. The 400 actually felt lighter to handhold even though it's half a kg heavier as the centre of mass is much closer to the camera.
I still much preferred the RF 100-300mm f/2.8 though as I missed too many shots of birds in the NZ bush (on Tiritiri Matangi Island) with the 400 either because the bird was closer than the minimum focus distance or the 400mm was too tight a FOV and these were usually the best shots as nothing beats getting super close to the bird in my opinion.

Click to expand...

The RF 200-800mm is my go-to lens. Although I use it at 800mm for about 90% of my shots, the shorter end, as well as close focussing ability, has been essential for some of my best shots. Although 800mm on FF is very good for distant slow flying birds, it's too long for close fast flying large or small BIF.

AlanF said:

The same was true for the EF 400/5.6 L being superseded by the 100-400mm ii. The 100-300 is fine for you youngsters, but the 2.7kg working weight is above my 2.1kg limit for carrying and hand holding. I do prefer zooms but age limits me to the lighter ones.

Click to expand...

The amazing lightness of Sony's 300mm f/2.8 is something I'm jealous of and it's much cheaper than Canon's 100-300mm f/2.8: USD 6,800 vs 10,600
Also the Canon zoom is quite front heavy compared to a prime as I found out when I tried it out along with the RF400mm f/2.8. The 400 actually felt lighter to handhold even though it's half a kg heavier as the centre of mass is much closer to the camera.
I still much preferred the RF 100-300mm f/2.8 though as I missed too many shots of birds in the NZ bush (on Tiritiri Matangi Island) with the 400 either because the bird was closer than the minimum focus distance or the 400mm was too tight a FOV and these were usually the best shots as nothing beats getting super close to the bird in my opinion.

I really like the composition with that leaf at an angle. Well done, foda.

Male Fawn-breasted Brilliant seen while birding at La Florida, Bosque de Las Aves, at km 18, Colombia, November, 2025.

R5MkII RF200-800mm

...these two now-aged Sonys should serve as targets for the new G7 whatever...exactly as Maximilian as described.

Well played Max.

Maximilian said:

That sounds very nice IMO.
As I stated several times, my favorite PowerShot was the G7m3 and a real successor with new tech in it would be a great and well updated all rounder again.
Add another one with super zoom lens, make sensor and ergo and everything else possible the same and save R&D money. Et voilà.

Click to expand...

...speaking of 'Max': for what it is worth, when I first began to get serious (at least as serious as I want to be), my favorite film:

Kodak MAX 800!

A lightweight RF 500 mm f4 would be great as well and a nice surprise.

AlanF said:

Active couple of days. Today, from the largest, a Great White Egret - formerly very rare but now more common, a tiny Eurasian Wren, a Pied Wagtail (White Wagtail). A Linnet from the same locality, and from my garden yesterday, a Jay, Chaffinch and Goldfinch. All with R5ii and RF 200-800mm.View attachment 228854View attachment 228855View attachment 228856View attachment 228857View attachment 228858View attachment 228859View attachment 228860View attachment 228861

Click to expand...

A lovely set of portraits. Well done!

neuroanatomist said:

Zooms are the new primes. Once the 70-200/2.8 IQ matched that of the 200/2.8, the latter was never updated and won't be. Since we have the RF 100-300/2.8, there will likely not be a new 300/2.8. Fortunately, the 100-300/2.8 is an excellent lens.

Click to expand...

The same was true for the EF 400/5.6 L being superseded by the 100-400mm ii. The 100-300 is fine for you youngsters, but the 2.7kg working weight is above my 2.1kg limit for carrying and hand holding. I do prefer zooms but age limits me to the lighter ones.