Who cares. Just get those lenses out there. Meike optics are great, as is their AF (on Sony, at least).

Another chinese brand...

Well, with that barrel diameter on the AI generated camera+lens image there should be no problem for Canon, as the barrel seems rather to small to fit the RF mount ....!!
I am not a super fan of AI generated images for that sort of things.

Edit: On second inspection it may not even be AI generated, but just a composite where lens and camera are not to scale??

el peso said:

Vistilen? Why not Vilisten, Vinistel, Vilistine? Who names them that way and why?

Click to expand...

I would guess that it is a combination of Vista + Lens. The Chinese like having syllables from western words in their naming.

Looks like Vistilen it's the brand they would use to sell Nikon Z Mount and Canon RF lenses with licensed autofocus capabilities.
Like they are going to get better performance than Meike's counterparts crippled to meet E-Mount third party lenses limitations.

I just remembered I posted a careful comparison of the RF 200-800mm and RF 100-500mm close up shots. The upshot was that at ~3.5m (or more) the 200-800mm at 500mm or 600mm is slightly sharper than the 100-500mm. At 2.4m, the RF 200-800mm is as sharp in the centre at 500 and 600mm as the RF 200-500mm but field curvature causes loss of sharpness of the longer lens moving away from the centre. At close to the minimum focal length of close to a meter, for which you have to zoom out to 200mm for the RF 200-800mm, the RF 100-500mm at 500mm has a larger image. Both are sharp at the centre but the 200mm loses sharpness quickly away from the centre.
So quick take home message is that for greater than 3m, the RF 200-800mm is my choice, for shorter distances the RF 100-500mm.

Canon Rumors said:

"Ported" and being able to actually make enough are different things. A lens like the 135 f/1.4 would be a very difficult lens to make within tight tolerances. Sigma made nothing worth owning for most of the EF days. When they did start making things that were sort of nice there were already 100+ million EF lenses. Having worked directly with Gentec, I know how few lenses they sold in the grand scheme in at least one market (maybe 2). It was peanuts.

Demand increasing 30% is great, now you have to scale everything else 30%. There's a point in lots of businesses where the next step costs exponentially more than the previous one.

Take a company like Leica (yes, they do it different). They make 40 cameras a day. Major products usually take about a year to meet the demand. How much would it cost them to increase production to 60 a day? A boatload. Sigma is closer to Leica than they are to Canon. Leica's revenue is actually higher than Sigma's.

Click to expand...

Agree it's not as simple as just ramping up production.

A similar scenario happens in the piano industry. Kawai make ABS-Carbon actions (Millennium III action) as they have the size to do the research and testing to ensure it's of sufficient quality to enable them to put into full production. Lots of the other elite piano makers just don't have the technology / research infrastructure in the background to swap to carbon so continue with wood. It's not that ABS-Carbon actions aren't good enough as Kawai use them in their top class pianos and have the advantage of needing less tuning as the carbon seldom changes whereas wood is affected far more due to changing environmental conditions during season shifts.

neuroanatomist said:

you need a bigger sensor to collect more light

Click to expand...

or faster lenses which are more expensive, bigger, heavier and have less DOF.

I’m worried about the buffer in the (rumored) R7ii. I’d like a very substantial buffer, but aren’t buffers going to be limited by the supply of CFexpress cards. Indirect logic, I know… but will Canon still raise the price of the R7ii/resist lowering the price (by installing less buffer/DRAM) if the market as a whole can’t use it?

Maybe it makes no difference, because Canon can still sell the camera based on the specs?

I feel like this is a camera that will pull people up market from cameras without CFe slots. But dang, if you don’t own CFe cards by now…

Anyway, just something I’m concerned about - In the fantasy land where the camera I actually want may be a reality

The colors of spring in the midwest USA; our pink dogwood barely made it through another winter...the 'net tells me it should grow a foot each year.

Ours is the same height as it was five years ago and is barely hanging on; we feel fortunate to see some pink blossoms this spring.

5DMk3 with Tamron SP AF 70-200mm F2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro (about 15 years old)

dolina said:

Review: Sigma 28mm 1.4 Art - phillipreeve.net

The Sigma 28mm 1.4 Art is the only fast 28mm fullframe lens for Sony E-mount with reliable Autofocus, but is it also

phillipreeve.net

Click to expand...

That's the SLR era lens. It was excellent but is huge, heavy, and the AF is very slow by today's standards.

But yes, that lens is one of the reasons that so many people are waiting for Sigma to deliver a revised mirrorless-native version. Likewise for their 40/1.4 and 105/1.4. These were all very loved lenses but don't yet exist with new designs.

neuroanatomist said:

He was talking about production capacity for cameras and lenses, which is very relevant to the topic at hand. Market cap…isn’t. But thanks for trying, at least you’re spot on about not getting the point.

Click to expand...

Oh look, it's the #1 member of the Cult of Canon! He's continuing to drink the Flavor Aid, I'm so surprised. /s

mmills79 said:

[...]

At the end of the day, clarity—actual image quality—is what most photographers are aiming for.

Click to expand...

To reiterate: If you want less noise at high ISO (i.e., better actual image quality), you need a bigger sensor to collect more light. It's really that simple, despite your amply and thoroughly demonstrated unwillingness or inability to accept that.

Michael Clark said:

This thread began discussing the R7 Mark II. The conversation lately seems to be more theoretical and more general in nature.

Was your cat's eye example taken with an R7 or R7 Mark II?

Click to expand...

I don't have a camera that hasn't been launched yet. R1 with the RF 85/1.2L DS.



(The greenish cast is from a green/shamrock runner that's on the console in front of her, St. Patrick's Day decor.)

neuroanatomist said:

Lots of misunderstandings and irrelevancies there...and I won't address most of them.

If crop your images to a few hundred pixels, then that might even matter. For example, it might make a difference in this picture of one of my cats.

View attachment 228732

But...that's not really much of a picture now, is it?


As I mentioned previously, at the light levels where those ISOs are used shot noise dominates and read noise is essentially irrelevant. All of the 'improvements' that you think are meaningful (bigger pixels, BSI, per-pixel S/N, etc.) affect read noise, albeit in a functionally insignificant way. Shot noise is dependent on the amount of light being collected by the sensor, meaning all of your arguments about this issue are irrelevant.

If you want less noise at high ISO, you need a bigger sensor to collect more light. It's really that simple, despite your unwillingness or inability to accept that.


While you're hoping for that meaningful improvement in high ISO noise performance in the R7II, you should also hope for unicorn rides and for Canon to set the price for the R7II at $14. Those are all at just about the same level of likelihood, the only difference being the first one is not going to happen because of physics while the last two are just silly fantasies.

Click to expand...

I understand the point about shot noise dominating at higher ISOs and that total light collection is a primary driver of overall noise—that’s well established.

Where I think we’re talking past each other is in how that translates to real-world use. In practice, many of us aren’t evaluating downsampled images—we’re working with native files and often cropping, particularly in action and wildlife scenarios. In those cases, how noise presents at the pixel level still matters in the final image.

It’s also not accurate to say that factors like pixel architecture or sensor design are irrelevant simply because shot noise is present. While they don’t change the fundamental photon statistics, they can influence how efficiently signal is captured and how noise manifests in the actual file. Those differences may not be dramatic, but they’re not nonexistent either.

So yes, a larger sensor collecting more total light is one way to improve noise performance—but it’s not the only path. Sensor and processing design choices can influence how efficiently that light is used and how noise ultimately presents in the image.

I’m not disputing the physics there. What I’m saying is that, within those constraints, design tradeoffs still matter—and I believe Canon may have prioritized resolution and broad feature support over high-ISO performance for action use cases.

For example, pixel density itself is a design choice. As I mentioned earlier, a lower pixel count on the same APS-C sensor would increase pixel area, improving per-pixel signal-to-noise and typically resulting in cleaner output at higher ISOs—particularly in scenarios where images are viewed at native resolution or cropped. That would come at the expense of resolution, but it illustrates that noise performance is not solely dictated by sensor size; it’s also a function of how that sensor is configured.

More broadly, the statement that these factors are “irrelevant” because shot noise dominates is an oversimplification. While shot noise sets a fundamental limit, sensor design still affects how efficiently signal is captured and how noise presents in the final image. Those distinctions matter in practice, even if they don’t change the underlying photon statistics.

Part of the challenge here is that cameras like this are being asked to serve multiple use cases—both video and high-speed action photography—which can constrain how aggressively certain optimizations are pursued.

On the “reach” point, I don’t fully agree with the framing either. Reach only has value if the image holds together. If noise degrades detail, then the effective advantage of that reach is reduced. In practice, most photographers are looking for an image that holds up in terms of detail and clarity, not just one that appears closer on paper.

This isn’t just theoretical—in applied optical and sensor system design, these tradeoffs are well understood and routinely balanced depending on the intended use case.

I’m simply saying that I’m not convinced the right balance is being achieved here for action-oriented shooting, and I’m also trying to help clarify the tradeoffs between noise and resolution for those following the discussion.

At the end of the day, clarity—actual image quality—is what most photographers are aiming for.

neuroanatomist said:

Note that we are discussing the R7II, not cameras from well over a decade ago. Having said that, even with current sensors (not just Canon) there is a shift in the amount of noise at the ISO values where second (and sometimes third) stage amplifiers come into play.

Click to expand...

This thread began discussing the R7 Mark II. The conversation lately seems to be more theoretical and more general in nature.

Was your cat's eye example taken with an R7 or R7 Mark II?

neuroanatomist said:

Technically correct, practically irrelevant. Even at base ISO...what is base ISO? Setting a camera to ISO 100 (or whatever its lowest non-expanded ISO setting is) does not mean that's the base ISO. Differences in real base ISO between one camera model and the next also fall into that 'practically irrelevant' category. Important to pedants and measurebators, not to photographers.

Sure, you can stand up and argue that when set to ISO 400, one APS-C camera has the image noise of ISO 412 and another has the noise of ISO 397. BFD. For an APS-C camera set to ISO 400, a full frame camera set to ISO 1000 would have same the image noise, and that's a meaningful difference.

Click to expand...

For quite some time, base ISO in the vast majority of digital ILCs has been whatever analog amplification is needed to simulate the response in the midtones to films with ISO100/ASA 100/DIN21°. What amplification factor is needed to get there varies significantly from one sensor design to the next. Sensel size is one of the significant factors affecting how much analog amplification is needed to do that.

Michael Clark said:

For most of Canon's FF and APS-C cameras in the late 2000s and early 2010s, ISO 125 was noisier than ISO 800! I saw other similar tests from other websites which are no longer still up.

Click to expand...

Note that we are discussing the R7II, not cameras from well over a decade ago. Having said that, even with current sensors (not just Canon) there is a shift in the amount of noise at the ISO values where second (and sometimes third) stage amplifiers come into play.

mimbu said:

Sadly no 28/1.4 yet

Click to expand...

neuroanatomist said:

Technically correct, practically irrelevant. Even at base ISO...what is base ISO? Setting a camera to ISO 100 (or whatever its lowest non-expanded ISO setting is) does not mean that's the base ISO. Differences in real base ISO between one camera model and the next also fall into that 'practically irrelevant' category. Important to pedants and measurebators, not to photographers.

Sure, you can stand up and argue that when set to ISO 400, one APS-C camera has the image noise of ISO 412 and another has the noise of ISO 397. BFD. For an APS-C camera set to ISO 400, a full frame camera set to ISO 1000 would have same the image noise, and that's a meaningful difference.

Click to expand...

That depends on how the camera handles ISO 1000. If it's like most Canon DSLRs handled ISO 1000, it's actually using ISO 800 analog amplification, metering 1/3 stop brighter (resulting in an AE value 1/3 stop dimmer), and including a 1/3 stop "push" instruction in the metadata. So it's like shooting 1/3 stop to the left and then amplifying both signal and noise by the same additional amount after digitization, which produces more noise than one might expect. For most of Canon's FF and APS-C cameras in the late 2000s and early 2010s, ISO 125 was noisier than ISO 800! I saw other similar tests from other websites which are no longer still up. All of the +1/3 stop ISOs (125, 250, 500, 1000) were noisier than the -1/3 stop ISOs (160, 320, 640, etc.) and the stops from ISO 100 (200, 400, 800, etc.).

This page capture at the wayback machine indicates that the practice by Canon began sometime between the 1D Mark IIn and the 1D Mark III and the original 5D. My 5D Mark II, 7D, and 5D Mark III certainly demonstrated the phenomenon. I never really checked the 7D Mark II or 5D Mark IV, since I had long since stopped using +1/3 stop ISOs, and generally used only full stop ISOs below ISO 3200.

Lots of misunderstandings and irrelevancies there...and I won't address most of them.

mmills79 said:

At the same time, I don’t think it’s accurate to say pixel size is irrelevant. On a fixed sensor size, increasing resolution reduces pixel area, which affects per-pixel signal-to-noise. While normalization can reduce those differences when images are resized, in real-world use—especially at high ISO—those factors can still influence how noise presents in the actual image.

Click to expand...

If crop your images to a few hundred pixels, then that might even matter. For example, it might make a difference in this picture of one of my cats.



But...that's not really much of a picture now, is it?

mmills79 said:

My concern is more about how these cameras are actually used. For action and wildlife photography, I’m often shooting at ISO 3200–6400+ to maintain shutter speeds around 1/1000, and I’m not downsampling to evaluate noise—I’m looking at the image at native resolution or cropping, which is very common in birding. In that context, how noise presents in the actual file matters, not just how it behaves after normalization.

Click to expand...

As I mentioned previously, at the light levels where those ISOs are used shot noise dominates and read noise is essentially irrelevant. All of the 'improvements' that you think are meaningful (bigger pixels, BSI, per-pixel S/N, etc.) affect read noise, albeit in a functionally insignificant way. Shot noise is dependent on the amount of light being collected by the sensor, meaning all of your arguments about this issue are irrelevant.

If you want less noise at high ISO, you need a bigger sensor to collect more light. It's really that simple, despite your unwillingness or inability to accept that.

mmills79 said:

As an action photographer, I’m really hoping the Canon EOS R7 Mark II does deliver a meaningful improvement in noise performance.

Click to expand...

While you're hoping for that meaningful improvement in high ISO noise performance in the R7II, you should also hope for unicorn rides and for Canon to set the price for the R7II at $14. Those are all at just about the same level of likelihood, the only difference being the first one is not going to happen because of physics while the last two are just silly fantasies.

Finally found someone willing to pay the 30% fee?

Michael Clark said:

It does affect full well capacity, though. This means a change in analog amplification levels to avoid blowing out highlights, which means other sensels with very little light striking them are also amplified less, which puts them closer to the read noise floor (but not Poisson distribution noise, which is reduced proportional to the area of each sensel). So this is mostly a thing for base ISO. Is it near the difference of an APS-C sensor compared to a FF sensor? No, it is not. But the difference is still there. The same with BSI vs non-BSI sensors. The smaller each sensel is, the higher percentage of that sensel is blocked from incoming light by the circuitry. Gapless lenses in front of the sensor help to refract more of the light towards the parts of the sensel where there is no circuitry, but they're not precise enough to completely redirect all light to areas of each sensel with no circuitry blocking it. Dual Pixel AF sensors have twice as much circuitry as sensors with the same "effective" resolution which are not Dual Pixel AF sensors. Again, is it near as significant with sensels in the 3-4µm neighborhood as with phone sensels in the sub 1µm range? No, but it's still there.

Click to expand...

Technically correct, practically irrelevant. Even at base ISO...what is base ISO? Setting a camera to ISO 100 (or whatever its lowest non-expanded ISO setting is) does not mean that's the base ISO. Differences in real base ISO between one camera model and the next also fall into that 'practically irrelevant' category. Important to pedants and measurebators, not to photographers.

Sure, you can stand up and argue that when set to ISO 400, one APS-C camera has the image noise of ISO 412 and another has the noise of ISO 397. BFD. For an APS-C camera set to ISO 400, a full frame camera set to ISO 1000 would have same the image noise, and that's a meaningful difference.

mmills79 said:

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.

Click to expand...

You're assuming wildlife photographers prioritize S/N performance over "reach". With advent of modern AI noise reduction, it's now all about reach.

I understand the point about total light collection and how, when images are normalized to the same output size, noise performance can converge. That makes sense in a controlled comparison, but it’s not really how I—or many others—use the camera in practice. In real-world shooting at higher ISOs, noise is a visible and often limiting factor in image quality, and that’s the condition where we were hoping to see an improvement with the R7 MII.

At the same time, I don’t think it’s accurate to say pixel size is irrelevant. On a fixed sensor size, increasing resolution reduces pixel area, which affects per-pixel signal-to-noise. While normalization can reduce those differences when images are resized, in real-world use—especially at high ISO—those factors can still influence how noise presents in the actual image.

I would also question whether dynamic range charts are the right way to evaluate this specific point. Dynamic range is related to noise, but it’s not the same as how noise actually presents in an image—especially at higher ISO. Dynamic range charts are helpful, but they’re not a direct proxy for perceived image noise. Two sensors can plot very similarly in DR and still produce different-looking images at high ISO, particularly when viewed at native resolution or when cropped. That distinction matters a lot for the kind of shooting we’re talking about.

My concern is more about how these cameras are actually used. For action and wildlife photography, I’m often shooting at ISO 3200–6400+ to maintain shutter speeds around 1/1000, and I’m not downsampling to evaluate noise—I’m looking at the image at native resolution or cropping, which is very common in birding. In that context, how noise presents in the actual file matters, not just how it behaves after normalization.

More broadly, this comes down to a design tradeoff. Resolution, noise performance, and video capability are competing priorities on a fixed sensor size. Increasing resolution shifts the balance toward detail, cropping flexibility, and enabling features like 8K video, but it doesn’t necessarily improve high ISO image quality—and it can limit how much improvement you can realize there.

That’s really the point I was making. If newer sensor technologies like BSI improve efficiency, those gains can be used in different ways. You can spend them on more pixels, or you can spend them on better signal-to-noise performance. From a photographer’s perspective—especially for action and low-light shooting—I would have preferred to see those gains translate into visibly cleaner images at higher ISO rather than increased resolution.

You could even make a reasonable case that a lower resolution APS-C sensor—something closer to 24MP—would better serve that use case. Larger pixels would improve per-pixel signal-to-noise, and in many real-world scenarios where shutter speed and ISO are the limiting factors, that could result in better overall image quality. Of course, that comes at the expense of cropping flexibility and video features, which some users value more.

It also raises a more basic question about who this camera is really for. Canon seems to be positioning it for both action/wildlife photographers and hybrid/video users, but those goals are not fully aligned. Pushing resolution higher to support 8K makes sense from a video standpoint, but for action photographers—who are often working in difficult light—the priority is usually cleaner high ISO performance, not additional resolution.

By trying to cover both use cases in a single design, Canon is making a compromise that may end up being at odds with both groups. If the improvements from a new sensor are largely used to increase resolution rather than improve noise performance, then the real-world benefit for low-light action shooting may be limited. At the same time, if video performance relies heavily on noise reduction to clean up high ISO footage, that can come at the expense of fine detail—raising questions about how meaningful that extra resolution really is.

At higher ISO, where shot noise dominates and images are often pushed in challenging light, differences in per-pixel signal-to-noise and how the sensor handles amplification can still influence real-world results in ways that aren’t fully captured by normalized comparisons.

So it’s not that higher resolution is inherently worse—it’s that it reflects a choice about what the camera is optimized for. My concern is that in trying to be a one-size-fits-all solution for both videographers and action photographers, the camera may not deliver the level of improvement either group is really looking for. A more focused design—either prioritizing high ISO image quality for photographers or leaning fully into hybrid/video capability—might have resulted in a more compelling upgrade.

As an action photographer, I’m really hoping the Canon EOS R7 Mark II does deliver a meaningful improvement in noise performance. But if those gains are largely offset by design tradeoffs around resolution and video capability, I think I—and many others shooting in similar conditions—may come away disappointed.