blackcoffee17 said:

Im afraid any aperture increase will be a significant size and weight increase and im not sure Canon will do that. The main selling point of this lens is being a compact do-everything sports, wildlife and events. But full TC compatibility would be great.

Click to expand...

Yes, I already said it would add size / weight. However the current version starts to fall apart in low light, due to the aperture. I would gladly exchange the change for more utility. If fact I'm about to take delivery of a RF 100-300 f/2.8, to use with and without a 1.4x or 2x. To make a “RF 100-300 f2.8 + RF 140-420 f/4 + RF 200-600 f/5.6”.

If youre having issues with the leica app your doikg something wrong, that app is the most reliable and easy to connect than any other.

David - Sydney said:

I do wonder how diffraction in practice seems to be less of an issue for higher mp sensors than the maths would indicate.

Click to expand...

I suspect that's because we're still at the point where it's not a big issue at the middle f/stops. If we work off the assumption that an Airy disk of twice the size of a photo site is the point where we start seeing noticeable loss of acuity (microcontrast) then on an R5 II that starts showing up at f/6.6 in theory so really at f/8 or smaller. That's still the traditional "sweet spot" of "two stops below wide open to about f/8" that has been the rule. Well, at least on lenses at least f/3.3 wide open. I suspect it'll first be noticed with people using supertelephotos or long tele-zoom lenses where two stops down is inside that problem area.

I've noticed the major lens vendors are focusing now on sharpness wide open. I suspect that is so there will be more aperture choices as that "sweet spot" moves up and problems start showing up at things like f/4 (about 120MP for full frame and around 60MP for crop sensors).

ctk said:

There is a big market opportunity for cameras that are better than phones but decidedly NOT ILCs.

Click to expand...

Canon's ancient-tech PowerShots reportedly still sell well. It will be interesting to see what the future models look like.

I'm OK with a 1" sensor augmented with software. HEIF sweep panorama mode, fake bokeh, "smart" HDR. I have crested the top of the ILC mountain with my a7CII and dont feel the need to keep chasing the bleeding edge of tech. My RX100 has a lot of unfulfilled potential that something like this could meet.

I would also really love an IP67 or even IP68 1" sensor body. Obviously dont need a bleeding edge lens on it. Just let me dunk it in pools and oceans without concern.

I think it would be a mistake to try and make these things compete head on with ILCs on stuff like sensor size and lens speed. If people want ILCs they will buy ILCs. There is a big market opportunity for cameras that are better than phones but decidedly NOT ILCs.

neuroanatomist said:

1.6 squared is 2.56. The base 2 log (i.e., stops) of 2.56 is 1.356144.

I round that to 1-1/3 so it translates to camera-based 1/3-stop exposure settings.

Click to expand...

I agree with your math. My mistake. A long time ago, I calculated that the 1.6x sensor size allows a 4/3 stop speed booster to be made, although the image quality on the edges might be fairly poor. (I used ln2.56/ln2)

You're right, the Lumix L 10, which I didn't know, is a very interesting little camera, and its Vario Summilux too. Of course, the lens isn't made by Leica, maybe not even developed by them. Yet, Leica wouldn't accept a miserable lens to be named so. If I have some $ left and the coming Canon compact is underwhelming...

The G1Xiii is a superb little camera, it just doesn’t have a ‘fast’ lens, but the one it has is very good, and not ‘soft’ as some anti Canon and / or Nikon centric commentators have stated.
However , I can see that the asp-c sensor created compromises in the lens range and speed in order to keep the size very small.
I always found the 1.5” sensor of the original G1X to be much better than the ubiquitous 1”, which I found gave images that looked like they had come from a small sensor, whereas the 1.5” didn’t, and 1.5 is only fractionally larger than M4/3, so therefore for a high quality compact the M4/3 or Canon 1.4” makes sense.
Certainly the LUMIX L10 looks very interesting. If Canon doesn’t produce a G1Xiv equivalent I may well get an L10 to try.