Latest activity

Nemorino · May 8, 2026

A lot will like this

7
Added ability to assign Pre-continuous Shooting to customisable shooting buttons.

yankiefrankie · May 8, 2026

I would have been excited for this lens if it were a 2.8. I briefly owned a Sony A7C and the Tamron 20-40mm 2.8, and that lens was awesome (though I hated the camera). It’s small and light at 365g and, in my opinion, the best one-lens solution for ultimate compactness. I did wish it was a bit longer. If Canon offered something similar in a 2.8, but slightly larger and heavier to accommodate 40-50mm, I’d buy it right away. With this upcoming Canon f4 version, I’d still need to bring something faster, and it’s still going to be larger and heavier than the Tamron.

sturm3n · May 8, 2026

The “DOWNLOAD EOS R5 MARK II FIRMWARE v1.3.0 →” button in the article simply links back to CanonRumors.com.

As for whether it’s legal or not, I suggest archiving the download page and download itself with the Internet Archive Wayback Machine. They are experts in this stuff, and will handle it properly.

koenkooi · May 8, 2026

Yana_a said:
Can I have M-RAW or M-cRAW?

You do realize that both of those aren't actually RAW, right? Have you tried the HEIF option on recent Canon bodies? That gives you better-than-JPEG quality and bit depth, but smaller file sizes. S/M-RAW setting on older bodies resulted in a debayered TIFF, so it had none of the benefits of RAW, like lossless white balance adjustment. It is the equivalent of adding an aftermarket 'TURBO' or 'HEMI' badge to your car, its only use is to make the owner feel better, not actually give better performance or have that feature.

</pet peeve>

roby17269 · May 8, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
Perhaps. My chief complaint about the RF 100-300/2.8 is its length, and some rough measurements on Nikon’s published image of their new lens suggest it’s at least 2-4 cm longer than the RF lens. No idea of the internal design, but Canon didn't leave room at the back for a drop-in filter slot, so Nikon's lens needing to be a little longer to accommodate the 1.4x flipping in seems reasonable. As it is, the R1 + 100-300/2.8 is a very tight squeeze in bags that are of a size reasonable for me to carry around and into venues, so a lens that's >2 cm longer would mean a bag I wouldn't want to carry, or having the body and lens separate in the bag (which I definitely don't want).

For my use cases with the lens, it's either indoors in relatively poor light (by far my most frequent use case) or outdoors in somewhat better light, meaning I either don’t need the 1.4x on the lens or I do. In the 3 years that I've had the lens, I've never put on or taken off the 1.4x TC while using the lens during an event, so I don't believe that I would benefit from a switchable 1.4x.

Makes sense, I suspected it was something to do with ergonomics.

neuroanatomist said:
To be clear, this is for my own needs. In general, I think it’s great that Nikon is putting switchable TCs in their lenses. I’m encouraged that Canon has filed patents on a 600/4 + 1.4x (and a 400/2.8 + 1.4x and 300/2.8 + 1.4x) last year, and the earlier (2022) filing of patents for a similar 600/4 + 1.4x (and a 400/4 DO + 1.4x) suggests they’re serious about it.

Fingers crossed those patents do indeed materialize

robholding · May 8, 2026

Lukas Haupt said:
You can turn off and edit all those screens. I am shooting real estate a lot and basicly I have one screen with histogram and big level (you can actually choose small or big one) and clean one. So pushing INFO btn I am quickly switching between those.

OMG! Thank you! That was so much easier than I thought. I’d been trying for ages but just couldn’t see it for looking. After I used AI to give me step-by-step instructions, I was finally able to sort it!
I've set up that INFO button toggle now. Having the big level and a clean view is going to make shooting real estate so much smoother. Thanks for the heads up.

fox40phil · May 8, 2026

Exploreshootshare said:
A new remote? That tiny little detail in this rumor is what might actually interest me Does anybody use the Canon BR-E1 with the Canon R5? I´d love to hear about your experience. I´m getting tired of using "camera connect" as a remote and I am actively searching for BT option. It would be great if I can find one with a timer or a small display that shows the time in bulb mode. I am open for any suggestions

I want one to start Video recording on distance! It’s a mess with the App… especially if you are on a bike… and „far“ away.
A timer for starting recording would be awesome!! And also a stop time!

Del Paso · May 8, 2026

ISv said:
Which meaning of MILC: "Multi-dimensional In-depth Long-term Case studies (MILC)" ?

It's getting increasingly difficult knowing what all these abbreviations stand for.
Sometimes even embarrassing...

Del Paso · May 8, 2026

AlanF said:
You mean these?

View attachment 229363

Exactly, you see them everywhere, chasing ducks, coots, moorhens. Sometimes even swans.

Yana_a · May 8, 2026

Can I have M-RAW or M-cRAW?

Michael Clark · May 8, 2026

GMCPhotographics said:
Is that an assumotion on your part or a documented fact? I thought it was a linear scale not a log scale.
Is a MFT score of 1.0 just the current top value on the chart. 1.1 is another value thats just over the current scale and would require a longer chart that goes over 1.0. There are sensors (on other camera brands) that are already resolving detail over 1.1 on a MFT 50 lpm chart.
If you check out this site here:

Test Canon EOS R7 - Rozdzielczość - Test aparatu

Test aparatu Canon EOS R7 - Rozdzielczość ...

www.optyczne.pl

The X-H2 is scoring a sensor resolution value of 106 (1.06) and the GH6 gets a score of 111 (1.11). Both are over the nominal 1.0 top value on a lot of lens MFT charts.

Anything that scores more than 1.0 on a real MTF test is creating more than was in the test chart, possibly by using computational photography. It's impossible to show more detail than the test chart has which one is attempting to reproduce. At 1.0 it is impossible to distinguish between the test chart and the test image.

Michael Clark · May 8, 2026

Rceres said:
It’s always a bit surprising to me how much criticism the Canon EOS R5 Mark II receives. These cameras are remarkable feats of engineering, and every design is a compromise. There’s only so much capability you can fit into an R5-sized body before something has to give. As a general-purpose, “one camera does everything well” tool, the R5 II is outstanding. Having recently upgraded from the Canon EOS 5D (purchased when it first came out), I’ve been very pleased with mine.

That said, I’m not the target customer for an R5 III.

If Canon follows the same path as before, the R5 III will likely be a Pareto refinement, slightly better in every spec, but fundamentally the same kind of camera. And for many users, that’s exactly right. But for some of us, the R5 II is already overbuilt in areas we don’t need (30 fps, advanced video), while still not fully optimized for what we care about most.

Personally, I’d trade some of that versatility for a more specialized tool.

The camera I would buy tomorrow (and which Canon might be able to introduce soon) would look similar to the R5, but with a different set of priorities. In particular:

a meaningful jump in resolution (80+ MP)

a higher-end EVF closer to the Canon EOS R1

To make that work within a similar form factor, I would happily trade:

reduced burst rate (10–12 fps is more than enough)

most or all video features

In other words, a stills-first camera designed for maximum detail, tonality, and rendering. Something aimed at landscape, fine art, studio, real estate, and large-format print work. Photography where ultimate image quality matters more than speed or hybrid capability.

Canon currently has speed-first bodies (R1/R3) and highly capable generalists (R5 II), but no dedicated image-quality-first camera. This would fill that gap.

Call it an R5S, an R4, or something else entirely. I suspect there’s a meaningful audience for a body that prioritizes image quality over versatility.

The R5 II is an outstanding generalist, and I’m sure the R5 III will be even better. I just think there’s room alongside it for a true image quality specialist.

A higher end EVF depends upon higher video performance capability of both the sensor and the processor.

DhlcadR6 · May 8, 2026

muentzer said:
No one here is talking about a 24-50. What makes you think that?

I guess it was a typo from Craig that's corrected. I can't find it in the article now.

@zajicekpavel · May 7, 2026

A cut-up cola bottle instead of a lens sounds like a good idea. Has anyone tried it? : )

ISv · May 7, 2026

Del Paso said:
And I recently discovered the difference between MILC and M**F . The rascals who made fun of me will understand the pointe.
We never stop learning...

Which meaning of MILC: "Multi-dimensional In-depth Long-term Case studies (MILC)"

?

neuroanatomist · May 7, 2026

roby17269 said:
Agreed on the 600 (and same for the 400 for me - I love 400 2.8 lenses), but for the 100-300 isn't it early to say? After all the Nikon 120-300 + TC is an unknown quantity at this time

Perhaps. My chief complaint about the RF 100-300/2.8 is its length, and some rough measurements on Nikon’s published image of their new lens suggest it’s at least 2-4 cm longer than the RF lens. No idea of the internal design, but Canon didn't leave room at the back for a drop-in filter slot, so Nikon's lens needing to be a little longer to accommodate the 1.4x flipping in seems reasonable. As it is, the R1 + 100-300/2.8 is a very tight squeeze in bags that are of a size reasonable for me to carry around and into venues, so a lens that's >2 cm longer would mean a bag I wouldn't want to carry, or having the body and lens separate in the bag (which I definitely don't want).

For my use cases with the lens, it's either indoors in relatively poor light (by far my most frequent use case) or outdoors in somewhat better light, meaning I either don’t need the 1.4x on the lens or I do. In the 3 years that I've had the lens, I've never put on or taken off the 1.4x TC while using the lens during an event, so I don't believe that I would benefit from a switchable 1.4x.

To be clear, this is for my own needs. In general, I think it’s great that Nikon is putting switchable TCs in their lenses. I’m encouraged that Canon has filed patents on a 600/4 + 1.4x (and a 400/2.8 + 1.4x and 300/2.8 + 1.4x) last year, and the earlier (2022) filing of patents for a similar 600/4 + 1.4x (and a 400/4 DO + 1.4x) suggests they’re serious about it.

roby17269 · May 7, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
For me, the exotics are a mixed bag. I hope Canon matches Nikon’s 600/4 + TC, but I prefer the 100-300/2.8 over the new Nikon.

Agreed on the 600 (and same for the 400 for me - I love 400 2.8 lenses), but for the 100-300 isn't it early to say? After all the Nikon 120-300 + TC is an unknown quantity at this time

neuroanatomist · May 7, 2026

Skux said:
Is there some kind of accessory mounted to the lens in the preview video? Maybe a cinegear-style attachment for the power zoom?

It’s the guy’s finger.

Skux · May 7, 2026

Is there some kind of accessory mounted to the lens in the preview video? Maybe a cinegear-style attachment for the power zoom?

AlanF · May 7, 2026

GMCPhotographics said:
Is that an assumotion on your part or a documented fact? I thought it was a linear scale not a log scale.
Is a MFT score of 1.0 just the current top value on the chart. 1.1 is another value thats just over the current scale and would require a longer chart that goes over 1.0. There are sensors (on other camera brands) that are already resolving detail over 1.1 on a MFT 50 lpm chart.
If you check out this site here:

Test Canon EOS R7 - Rozdzielczość - Test aparatu

Test aparatu Canon EOS R7 - Rozdzielczość ...

www.optyczne.pl

The X-H2 is scoring a sensor resolution value of 106 (1.06) and the GH6 gets a score of 111 (1.11). Both are over the nominal 1.0 top value on a lot of lens MFT charts.

MTF as on the Canon charts etc is on a scale of 0 to 1, by definition. An MTF of 1.0 is as @Michael Clark states for a perfect lens, ie one that has 0 aberrations and a huge aperture. 0 is when the lens cap is on or it is the end of a coke bottle. Similarly, the MTF of a sensor is from 0 to 1. You may be confusing it with other measurements that are reported, perhaps resolution in line pairs per mm.

AlanF · May 7, 2026

Del Paso said:
Are you also faced with an invasion of Nile geese in England?
In France and Germany, they have taken possession of most ponds and small lakes in urban environment, chasing "native" species.

You mean these?

neuroanatomist · May 7, 2026

roby17269 said:
Seen that on DPReview. Sounds like an interesting (and expensive) lens
Still preferring Nikon's current approach and selection for exotics compared to Canon's. Waiting to see Canon's next move in that space.

For me, the exotics are a mixed bag. I hope Canon matches Nikon’s 600/4 + TC, but I prefer the 100-300/2.8 over the new Nikon.

TexPhoto · May 7, 2026

Can we just pause to remember the Canon 22-55mm.

Del Paso · May 7, 2026

Click said:
We could send you some more Canada goose to help you out, they’re capable of bringing down an A320.

What? Aggressive Canadians?
I can't believe it!

roby17269 · May 7, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
Seems Nikon is launching a 120-300/2.8 + 1.4x TC.

Seen that on DPReview. Sounds like an interesting (and expensive) lens
Still preferring Nikon's current approach and selection for exotics compared to Canon's. Waiting to see Canon's next move in that space.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics