Latest activity

mimbu · Apr 2, 2026

Canon Rumors said:
Sigma is closer to Leica than they are to Canon.

Sure, and in terms of market cap, Canon is closer to Leica or Sigma than they are to Sony. Much, MUCH closer. Not entirely sure what the point is, of course.

neuroanatomist · Apr 2, 2026

At the end of the day, it really doesn’t matter. Are there Sigma lenses available for Canon RF full frame cameras? No. Will there be at some point? We don’t know.

josephandrews222 · Apr 2, 2026

Exploreshootshare said:
Great pics!

Btw: What is your experience with the R5(ii) + RF 200-800mm combo? I´d really like to know what your experience is. Maybe compared to the RF 100-500mm? thx in advance!

Here are cropped images acquired the other day with the R5ii + 200-800@800 combination.

The first one (tufted titmouse) was quite far away--the range offered by the 800 was valuable here in the unedited image below:

I did edit/pretty up the image for the Northern Mockingbird a bit (I kind like the lighting). The 800 range here is useful because I like to print these at 13x19 and need all the pixels I can get.

K41A3800 picasa 2 crop-topaz2-denoise ps fix.jpg

I like the 200-800 lens. A lot. Your question here has so many dimensions. In a sense, what you are asking (primarily) is...are there particular situations where the extra reach (to 800) is valuable?

For me, the extra reach is valuable (sometimes

).

But I never owned the R5 nor do I own the RF 100-500; there are many comparisons on this site between the 200-800 and 100-500...

Also, I rely on an adapted EF 100-400 II when appropriate (instead of the RF 100-500).

I also own (and use) the very good RF 100-400.

=====

Two butterfly R5ii + 200-800@800 straight out of camera jpegs (but cropped) are here:

https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/butterflies-moths-and-assorted-insects.31073/post-1043157

If/when you purchase the 200-800, you can post your own thoughts and comparisons!

josephandrews222 · Apr 2, 2026

First large-ish butterfly sighting (for me) in my area of the midwest USA.

R5ii + 200-800 @ 800.

dark morph female Eastern Tiger Swallowtail

cropped straight out of camera jpegs

EDIT:

...and the bottom image photoshopped a bit for additional detail in the darks:

Pixel · Apr 2, 2026

Ron888 said:
Has no one noticed what day it is? lol

Stop. We're grown ups here. Fro can be a jack-ass all he wants with his pranks. That's not happening here.

roby17269 · Apr 2, 2026

DocInfoSci said:
Obviously I'm Team Canon in terms of gear.

BUT

The camera bodies after the R6 and R5 did kill a number of EF lenses from third parties. In some cases, these EF lenses simply confirmed focus and reported lens data, such as the IRIX lenses. I doubt very much that the EF instruction set changed for any technical reason in the R6 II / R5 II / R3 / R1 and so am inclined to believe Canon scuttled those lenses despite being yesteryear tech. It very much would necessitate upgrades to new Canon specific lenses and probably raise the ire of customers against the third parties. Then, RF mount adaptations of EF lenses from various Chinese manufactures "disappeared" along with their support.

It's really, really hard to not believe that, at a minimum, Canon is being deliberately antagonistic.

A company like Sigma is probably established enough that the game between them and Canon is somewhat gentlemanly and thus for whatever set of reasons to them there are now Sigma lenses for the RF crop sensor. But, I doubt other than engineering for 35mm projection across 20mm of air for the flange distance (Sony has 18mm of air) there's not much else left for Sigma to do for FF, other than make Canon happy. In fact, I'm starting to think the primary motivation for Canon's allowance for the Sigma crop lenses is simply to sidestep antitrust, as informed by my own corporate work.

Unless Canon or Sigma is very specific in their statement, history suggests the FF electronic lenses from third parties are de facto blocked, regardless of the legal or financial disincentives being used.

But I think the true disgruntlement here is that Canon has not produced a full line for quality mid-tier offerings for a focal range that matches the EF options over the 1990s and 2000s at equivalent pricing. There are steps in that direction, like the 200-800 which is an excellent compromise lens by all accounts. VCM is kinda-sorta in that direction, tech great but cost meh. More is needed to be done. And that pinch makes people look at Sigma, which is an excellent third party example of what can be done, and go... man, I wish I had some of those options in the middle.

If we just sit here and talk the best of the best, then Canon has delivered on all accounts. And priced accordingly. But if we talk great yet competent at hobbyist levels of abuse and engagement then there are huge holes in the lineup compared to what was before in terms of both cost and capability.

I think there's hope. At 6-8 lenses a year, there's room for mid-tier excellence to come into being at reasonable prices. A perfect example I return to over and over is the 300mm f/4 L (IS and non-IS) — it offered 90% of the base 2.8 performance and 80% of the TC performance in a form and cost that allowed Canon and professionals to easily justify the 2.8 option while meeting the interests and wants of the well heeled hobbyists. More of this is needed. Sigma gives that to Sony and Nikon. Does it matter who gives it to Canon? No. But Canon has only very reluctantly shown an interest in doing that in-house for FF up to this point in RF despite making oodles of cash.

It's valid for Canon enthusiasts to stand up and say that they've noticed and its starting to move from annoying to semi-insulting. It's been almost eight years since the RF mount was released. Mid-tier L was well established at the long end by then for EF.

I agree with most of what you wrote, but for a niggle: I would not agree that

If we just sit here and talk the best of the best, then Canon has delivered on all accounts.

They started great with the 2(3) f/1.2 lenses and the f/2 zoom, they amazed with the R5/6 duo and the 100-300 and a few other great lenses (I am a sucker for the 100-500), but after, from my personal perspective (and no, rumors do not count):

No high res R1 / R3
No new exotics (ideally with built-in TC)
No TS lenses
And the real original sin: no 35 f/1.2

Of course I assume that eventually they will address those exactly or closely enough... but we'd get there faster if (e.g.) we could mount Sigma lenses on RF cameras. And of course these are my personal desires... so just change "all" to "some" or even "most" and we're good

JensR · Apr 2, 2026

John Wilde said:
Canon execs are well practiced in giving vague non-answers, so there is no reason for them to flat out lie.

If the Canon exec wants to deflect blame from Canon that would be a reason, won't it?
And since i had the misfortune to watch several speeches of a certain president in the not so distant past, i know people can lie and even contradict themselves in the same speech without any rhyme or reason.

So not having a reason is no evidence it did not happen.

AlanF · Apr 2, 2026

P-visie said:
Very brave of you to explain this to @Del Paso who confuses MILC’s with MILF’s .

I rely on @Del Paso for his explanation of events the side of the English Channel, but he will call it la Manche. So, it's like minds separated by a dispute over the name of a stretch of water, and our use of French.

AlanF · Apr 2, 2026

roby17269 said:
I wonder how many more times you will need to explain that?

@neuroanatomist, to save your time and put it all in the same quotable space, maybe you could start a thread with it carefully explained, as you do every time anyway. You could then post a link to it.

P-visie · Apr 2, 2026

AlanF said:
I deleted the original post before I had seen you had replied, sorry. Over here, we use the debauched definition: Oxford Dictionary
Definition of roué noun from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary

roué
noun

/ˈruːeɪ/

/ruːˈeɪ/
(old-fashioned)
a man who behaves badly, especially by drinking a lot of alcohol, having many sexual relationships, etc.

Very brave of you to explain this to @Del Paso who confuses MILC’s with MILF’s

.

AlanF · Apr 2, 2026

Del Paso said:
Roue' rather stands for cunning, without scruple, or having "enjoyed" the breaking wheel punishment.

I deleted the original post before I had seen you had replied, sorry. Over here, we use the debauched definition: Oxford Dictionary
Definition of roué noun from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary

roué

noun

/ˈruːeɪ/

/ruːˈeɪ/
(old-fashioned)
a man who behaves badly, especially by drinking a lot of alcohol, having many sexual relationships, etc.

Del Paso · Apr 2, 2026

Dmcavoy said:
This is really interesting, didn’t know this! I’m still using the original R and really starting to see it lag behind newer cameras. It’s held up pretty well until the last couple of years but an upgrade is definitely on the horizon soon. This explains a lot.

AlanF said:
You saw the name of the author - Roué, debauched.

Roue' rather stands for cunning, without scruple, or having "enjoyed" the breaking wheel punishment.

DocInfoSci · Apr 2, 2026

roby17269 said:
You either believe that it's Sigma's responsibility that we do not have Sigma's FF AF lenses for RF, or you don't.
Based on public knowledge I have access to, I don't.
I'm happy to be corrected, as long as new facts are unveiled.

Obviously I'm Team Canon in terms of gear.

BUT

The camera bodies after the R6 and R5 did kill a number of EF lenses from third parties. In some cases, these EF lenses simply confirmed focus and reported lens data, such as the IRIX lenses. I doubt very much that the EF instruction set changed for any technical reason in the R6 II / R5 II / R3 / R1 and so am inclined to believe Canon scuttled those lenses despite being yesteryear tech. It very much would necessitate upgrades to new Canon specific lenses and probably raise the ire of customers against the third parties. Then, RF mount adaptations of EF lenses from various Chinese manufactures "disappeared" along with their support.

It's really, really hard to not believe that, at a minimum, Canon is being deliberately antagonistic.

A company like Sigma is probably established enough that the game between them and Canon is somewhat gentlemanly and thus for whatever set of reasons to them there are now Sigma lenses for the RF crop sensor. But, I doubt other than engineering for 35mm projection across 20mm of air for the flange distance (Sony has 18mm of air) there's not much else left for Sigma to do for FF, other than make Canon happy. In fact, I'm starting to think the primary motivation for Canon's allowance for the Sigma crop lenses is simply to sidestep antitrust, as informed by my own corporate work.

Unless Canon or Sigma is very specific in their statement, history suggests the FF electronic lenses from third parties are de facto blocked, regardless of the legal or financial disincentives being used.

But I think the true disgruntlement here is that Canon has not produced a full line for quality mid-tier offerings for a focal range that matches the EF options over the 1990s and 2000s at equivalent pricing. There are steps in that direction, like the 200-800 which is an excellent compromise lens by all accounts. VCM is kinda-sorta in that direction, tech great but cost meh. More is needed to be done. And that pinch makes people look at Sigma, which is an excellent third party example of what can be done, and go... man, I wish I had some of those options in the middle.

If we just sit here and talk the best of the best, then Canon has delivered on all accounts. And priced accordingly. But if we talk great yet competent at hobbyist levels of abuse and engagement then there are huge holes in the lineup compared to what was before in terms of both cost and capability.

I think there's hope. At 6-8 lenses a year, there's room for mid-tier excellence to come into being at reasonable prices. A perfect example I return to over and over is the 300mm f/4 L (IS and non-IS) — it offered 90% of the base 2.8 performance and 80% of the TC performance in a form and cost that allowed Canon and professionals to easily justify the 2.8 option while meeting the interests and wants of the well heeled hobbyists. More of this is needed. Sigma gives that to Sony and Nikon. Does it matter who gives it to Canon? No. But Canon has only very reluctantly shown an interest in doing that in-house for FF up to this point in RF despite making oodles of cash.

It's valid for Canon enthusiasts to stand up and say that they've noticed and its starting to move from annoying to semi-insulting. It's been almost eight years since the RF mount was released. Mid-tier L was well established at the long end by then for EF.

roby17269 · Apr 2, 2026

John Wilde said:
Canon execs are well practiced in giving vague non-answers, so there is no reason for them to flat out lie.

You either believe that it's Sigma's responsibility that we do not have Sigma's FF AF lenses for RF, or you don't.
Based on public knowledge I have access to, I don't.
I'm happy to be corrected, as long as new facts are unveiled.

roby17269 · Apr 2, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
Exactly my point. "We do not comment publicly on that," is a frequent answer from Canon to many questions.

Hypothetically, Canon tells Sigma they will license the RF mount for FF lenses and they want a percentage of each lens sold. If that percentage is high enough to make selling the lenses unprofitable for Sigma (i.e., higher than the profit margin on the lens at the price Sigma would want to sell it), Sigma would choose not to make them. Canon tells the truth, that Sigma could make the lenses if they want. Sigma doesn't want to.

Ok ok, I was overdramatic. They're not lying, they're obfuscating. Better?

Whichever way Canon is doing it, the end result is that Sigma's recent FF offerings are not available on RF. That's what matters to me and someone else.
I guess it is possible that someone else, not Canon, is actually responsible, but as written, at this point I remain skeptical

Etnaphele · Apr 2, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
Then you didn't actually read the article, or if you did then you're missing the point.

View attachment 228722

Just to forestall a next comment, "mars" is French for "March" and does not mean the article was written by aliens.

Oh yes, but this article is a very far-fetched interpretation of two nothing-burger paragraphs of that interview

March and Mars have exactly the same etymology in romance languages, coming from Mars, the god of war. So I think you are into something!

neuroanatomist · Apr 2, 2026

Etnaphele said:
I read it as an April 1. prank article, I cannot fathom taking any of its content seriously

Then you didn't actually read the article, or if you did then you're missing the point.

Just to forestall a next comment, "mars" is French for "March" and does not mean the article was written by aliens.

DocInfoSci · Apr 2, 2026

John Wilde said:
Canon execs are well practiced in giving vague non-answers, so there is no reason for them to flat out lie.

One of my jobs at a tech company was to deliberately provide versions of a story to various people within the company as products were being developed. The news and competitor rumour mills would be watched and we could identify the leaker. Not 1:1 with your point, but corporate leaks and espionage are interesting things.

DocInfoSci · Apr 2, 2026

AlanF said:
That is not an easy question to answer. Behemoth is an evocative word term for something of monstrous size, power, or appearance. It is not defined by precise quantities but is something that you know to be huge when you see it. It is frequently used to describe large telephoto lenses. A quick search finds that the 300-600 has already been defined as a behemoth by a respected reviewer.

https://uk.pcmag.com/lenses/158089/sigma-300-600mm-f4-dg-os-sports

“After two weeks of lugging the Sigma 300-600mm F4 around for wildlife snaps at a refuge, the zoo, and my backyard, I walked away with some fantastic photos and a seriously sore shoulder. At 18.5 by 6.6 inches (HD) without the hood attached, and 8.8 pounds, the lens is a behemoth. That's big even among its peers.” And the reviewer recommends: "Keep your Chiropractor on Speed Dial"

So, I think that if there were a hypothetical line to be drawn, the Sigma is likely to be on the behemoth side. Though this guy might disagree.

View attachment 228720

This lens is yesteryear tech totally worth playing with if you can find one. Our local London Drugs carried one for giggles for years. I don't know who bought it eventually, but just to demo it (under the very close supervision of the store) the Bigma was a hoot. My in-store photos never looked so awesomely ridiculous! (And justified the time at the gym for that one moment.)

Etnaphele · Apr 2, 2026

roby17269 said:
I am sorry but this new article adds objectively nothing to the previous discussion.
So if the aim was to convince people that Canon is not responsible for the current lack of 3rd party RF FF AF lenses, color me unconvinced yet.

There are a few points that make little sense to me. Firstly about Sigma's capacity. There's no law that says that a manufacturer needs to meet demand. It's typical to start with limited quantities to test the waters. Unless one sells stuff as loss-leaders, every single unit sold is a good thing. If capacity was a crippling issue, how come Canon is fine and yet every new lens they sell goes into the "sorry we can't make enough of these" list?

Also the RF mount may be complex but we have no information about material differences between the RF and RF-S mounts, so that point sounds suspect to me too.

Third about Canon execs not lying. Canon is a corporation. Corporations lie. It happens. Not all the times but sometimes it does. Sure they do it in a very careful way to avoid liabilities, but there simply are a lot of circumstances when honesty is bad for business. It is sad but it is what it is. I accept that.

And maybe they were not lying, but logic is not on their side on this one. Until we know more facts, or until Sigma RF FF AF lenses appear, I remain skeptical.

I read it as an April 1. prank article, I cannot fathom taking any of its content seriously

neuroanatomist · Apr 2, 2026

roby17269 said:
I wonder how many more times you will need to explain that?

Some people just can't see the forest for the trees, or in this case, the picture for the pixels. They'll happily measurebate their little pixels all day, physics be damned.

neuroanatomist · Apr 2, 2026

mmills79 said:
I definetly don't understand

Yes, evidently. The concepts you are fixated on are applicable to pixels, not to pictures. Image noise is inversely proportional to total light gathered. Total light gathered is dependent on the area of the sensor, and independent of pixel size.

The R7 and R10 were released at the same time, according to your mistaken belief the 24 MP R10 has larger pixels so it should have lower noise and thus better dynamic range than the 32 MP R7.

Screenshot 2026-04-02 at 12.53.51 PM.png

It doesn't. The two sensors are the same size, they gather the same total amount of light, and because of that the image noise is the same.

mmills79 said:
I think we agree that for the same chip size, as you increase the number of pixels (or decrease the size of the individual collection sites), for each site as the density increases, the individual site collects less light. So, Canon in increasing pixel count, actually decreased the ability of each site to collect light and decreased the signal to noise (made the noise performance worse) of each site.

Yes. Each photosite collects less light. But there are more photosites, so for the sensor as a whole the same total amount of light is collected. Same image noise.

mmills79 said:
If for example, Canon would conversely chose to go to 24MP, then each indiividual site would be larger and collect even more light than the smaller individual site on a 32MP chip;

Each photosite would collect more light. But there would be fewer photosites, so for the sensor as a whole the same total amount of light is collected. Same image noise.

mmills79 said:
and the signal to noise would increase (noise performance would improve at 24MP over 32MP).

At the level of the individual pixels. Not at the level of the whole sensor.

mmills79 said:
So it is incorrect to say that simply going to a larger format, is the only way to improve noise figure, if that is what you are implying.

I am not implying it, I am stating it explicitly. Going to a larger format is the way to get better noise performance.

No, it's not the only way...fundamental improvements in sensor technology can certainly decrease read noise and thus improve noise performance, at least at low ISOs where that matters. At high ISO, shot noise is the main driver and that's dependent on the amount of light not the read noise of the sensor. But you're not talking about a fundamentally different sensor (BSI doesn't count in this case, as discussed already). So yes, if you compare an sensor from 15 years ago to a sensor from today, there will be be an improvement; on-die ADC, for example, is one such fundamental improvement that has happened.

mmills79 said:
I do also agree that as you increase the size of a photo site by going to a larger chip size or format you should also improve signal to noise but the discussion within a specific chip size and the fundamental underlying physics is the same. Increase site size, better noise performance, decrease cell size, worse noise performance. There are design choices that can be made to make the signal to noise better on an APC-S chip.

No. The whole point is that the size of the pixel is irrelevant. Only the area of the sensor matters.

mmills79 said:
If the rumour is true and Canon has decided to go to newer sensor technology as in BSI, then that technology actually improves each sites ability to collect light. BSI technology moves the collection site higher and closer to the lens actually improving light collection and increasing (making better) the signal to noise

If Canon stays at the original 32MP density and improved the sensor technology by evolving to a BSI sensor, then the noise figure could have actually improved on the new R7 APC-S chip.

As already discussed, that is not true for the pixel sizes relevant here. But if you want to drink the marketing Koolaid, go right ahead.

homebodyMacro2 · Apr 2, 2026

Dragon said:
I agree that CE will be affected for years, but for a different reason than the implied shortage. The continuation of the AI boom is dependent on continued financing and so far a lot of the money is flowing in a loop (or not flowing at all). Nvidia invests in an AI company and then the AI company agrees to buy Nvidia GPUs, but as you say, there is no power to run the beast. They hype causes gullible investors to throw money at the AI company and by association at Nvidia, which has a completely ridiculous market cap. The timeline is too long for investor patience to last, even if there is some magic application out there that could eventually produce enough revenue to fund the monster. When the house of cards collapses, the dot com bust will look like child's play and the ensuing recession will have an effect on CE for years to come. Take pictures and invest wisely.

I wasn't exactly intending to enumerate all the causes of the likely years-long implosion of consumer electronics.

I agree with the description of the AI "boom" as a venture capital scam, see here: https://pivot-to-ai.com/2025/08/23/...e-think-the-ai-bubble-keeps-going-until-2027/

And I think it will indeed keep going into 2027. If it was based on investment fundamentals in any way, it would already be over. It is not gullible investors exactly, but self-interested venture capital scammers (that's their only "innovation": endless fraud) AND plenty of idiots AND people just jumping on the bandwagon because the markets and institutional investors function on FOMO.

The memory and storage supply implosion right now is caused by AI "hyperscalers" (people hoarding chips for datacenters that aren't built and for which there is no profitable use) buying out the entire supply of memory manufacturers - there are only 3 meaningful manufacturers on earth for RAM, which was already a very corrupt cartel. When AI collapses, the likes of Micron will still have no consumer supply, so prices will stay elevated for some time (and they will try to keep them up even when supply increases as there is no competition).

"Crucial" is Micron's consumer business, which they've ended because they're making so much money on datacenter HBM, which is not usable for anything else (similar to crypto mining chips, which were sold to many of the exact same people pushing AI).

Smaller electronics retailers and product lines will be crushed because with DDR5 RAM at 5x price vs. a year ago and fast SSD storage at something like 3x, a lot of consumers simply stop buying certain things entirely. As I said the other day, I'd have bought a 2nd 4TB external SSD the other day, but it has doubled in price. It's something I could use, but will get around until I have absolutely no choice.

Anyways yes, the recession from the AI crash will also further implode consumer demand and buying power, added on top of the tariff nonsense and the monumentally stupid imperial ambitions in the middle east. Everything will be worse for consumers for a long time.

Reference material/comments:
Here's a more recent article on the bubble, the timeline, the years required to rebuild supply lines, and "hyperscalers" buying more chips than they can use purposefully: https://pivot-to-ai.com/2026/03/27/the-ai-bubble-and-the-global-polycrisis/. Ed Zitron has dug into the numbers a lot, and only 1/3rd of claimed data centers are actually being built: https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-ai-industry-is-lying-to-you/.

OpenAI shut down its Sora video slop model the other week; of course, video models are the pinnacle of setting money on fire. They still only make worthless memes, but they cost astronomically more to run than text or still image generators. This is one of the first real cracks in the glass.

I think the "Subprime AI crisis" analogy is a good one (Ed first brought it up in 2024, but his most recent article breaks down a ton of numbers here: https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-subprime-ai-crisis-is-here/).

roby17269 · Apr 2, 2026

P-visie said:
Canon has a patent application for a 400-600mm f2.8-f4 lens (and a Canon RF 300-600mm F2.8-4.5L)
See: https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-patent-application-lets-go-long/

Ah thank you - I tend to forget about patents

Bob Howland · Apr 2, 2026

Regarding Meike, I bought one of their EF-to-RF 0.7x Speed Boosters about a month ago. It was $250 gamble, optically about as good as the Metabones. Both of them work extremely well with my EF Sigma 150-600 Sport zoom, converting it to a 106-426 f/3.5-4.5, including the DOF. The Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 L becomes a very large and heavy 50-140 f/2.

Latest activity

Latest activity

roué​

roué​

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics

roué

roué