...and focussing only down to -5.5EV.
Same as R7 (APS-C).

MontereyBay said:

The criticism was for the loss of dynamic range from the A9II to the A9III but with a substantial increase in price for the camera.

Click to expand...

My only criticism is that Sony claimed that there was no loss of dynamic range.
Canon has never made such a claim.

Snapster said:

Assuming the photographer actually knows the lens has focus shift in the first place and is aware of the setting you have to change.

Click to expand...

Granted that Canon sent the R6 III and RF 45 f/1.2 out together, I can only assume the cameras came with the correct setting.

Michael Clark said:

In which case B&H is paying the sales tax for you. The state is getting their money.

Click to expand...

Some states have no sales tax at all.

I’m not sure why “partially stacked” sensors or BSI are treated as such a big advantage. Canon has shown that comparable performance is possible even with traditional FSI technology — the R6 Mark III sensor doesn’t seem slower than the A7 V’s.

So why would the R7 Mark II need a stacked sensor at all? Since it’s APS-C, Canon might be able to achieve very fast readout anyway. I know readout speed depends on pixel count, but I’d expect sensor size to matter as well.

Super zoom, 60-600mm range. Preferably with built in 1.4x tc

homebodyMacro2 said:

Where is this stated? I see this very recent article, but it doesn't specify the f-stop: https://www.canonrumors.com/predicting-what-canon-will-launch-in-2026/, nor does this one from November: https://www.canonrumors.com/whats-next-from-canon-8/.

This is the article prior to those, i.e. the thread we're posting in: https://www.canonrumors.com/evolved-canon-rf-300-600mm-f-4-5-6l-is-usm-on-the-horizon-2/, and it states f/4-f/5.6.

Click to expand...

I guess the idea is it would be cheaper (than an f5.6), appealing to more customers. It would be an internal zoom so the balance would remain the same throughout the zoom range, and it would be better optimized for the 1.4x and 2.0x tele extenders. I mean still VERY similar to the 100-500 so I would agree, not enough to distinguish it but maybe they don't feel confident releasing a more expensive zoom.

Tidy Media said:

I guess by a lot of people's standards yeah, although it's a little bit semantics. Personally I wouldn't consider anything over 16mm FF ultra-wide, that's where I feel the use-case between focal lengths on each side becomes more defined. Maybe ultra-ultra-wide is more accurate if we're splitting hairs.

Click to expand...

Conventionally:
<24mm = ultrawide
24-35mm = wide
36-69mm = normal
70-299mm = telephoto
≥300mm = supertelephoto

We can all make up our own definitions, of course.

‘Fast’ is more loosely defined, but generally faster than f/2.8 for primes and f/2.8 or faster for zooms (not counting supertelephoto lenses, where ‘fast’ is anything with a front element diameter ≥100 mm).

Yes I know this is CanonRumors. but what happens in the industry impacts Canon as well. Also I spent almost 3 weeks sick, so finally getting back into things, so I'm allowed to diverge around in topics

MkSprintz said:

It's also apparently looking like an F/5.6 to F/6.3 lens now as per latest information...
instead of F/4, F/4-F/5.6, constant F/5.6.

Click to expand...

Where is this stated? I see this very recent article, but it doesn't specify the f-stop: https://www.canonrumors.com/predicting-what-canon-will-launch-in-2026/, nor does this one from November: https://www.canonrumors.com/whats-next-from-canon-8/.

This is the article prior to those, i.e. the thread we're posting in: https://www.canonrumors.com/evolved-canon-rf-300-600mm-f-4-5-6l-is-usm-on-the-horizon-2/, and it states f/4-f/5.6.

neuroanatomist said:

The RF 20mm f/1.4L VCM is a fast, ultrawide prime.

Click to expand...

I guess by a lot of people's standards yeah, although it's a little bit semantics. Personally I wouldn't consider anything over 16mm FF ultra-wide, that's where I feel the use-case between focal lengths on each side becomes more defined. Maybe ultra-ultra-wide is more accurate if we're splitting hairs.

Maximilian said:

Thank you for showing me that you really only want to look for the mistakes, but not the meaning of an argumentation.

Please tell me your method, how to compare two RAW files with a minimum of PP correction, so that they are almost what one can call "SOOC".
Maybe I can learn from you...
But maybe you are just not willing to think about what I saw with my own eyes and tried to describe here with just a few words instead of a "white paper" 30 pages long, containing all constraints including my blood type

Click to expand...

Open the same raw "image" with several different raw processing applications and you will get several different images from the same raw data. Which of those varied interpretations do you propose to call the SOOC "raw image"?

Raw sensor data is just that. Raw sensor data. It must be processed to create a color image viewable on your screen that is anything more than a white blob. The in camera settings that control how the raw data is processed to create the JPEG preview image you see on the back of the camera can be altered before taking the photo. The result will be changed by the difference in processing instructions, even though the actual raw data will be identical. What you see on a screen anytime you open a "raw" image is one of a near infinite possible valid interpretations of the raw data captured by the sensor.

There's no such thing as a SOOC raw image. There's only an interpretation of the raw data captured by the camera which may be determined by the in camera settings or the default settings of the opening application.

EOS 4 Life said:

I think they are reading way too much into the meaning of the numbers.

1 is top.
5 is midrange.
9 is the theoretical bottom, before we head into the double-digit APS-C camera range.
There are a bunch of numbers in between.
None of this tells us what specific features a camera will have, but we can go back to history for existing model names.

Click to expand...

My whole point is just because single digit numbers exist does not mean Canon MUST make a camera model for that number.

EOS 4 Life said:

Not everyone pays sales tax in the USA.
There is also Payboo on B&H.

Click to expand...

In which case B&H is paying the sales tax for you. The state is getting their money.

Tidy Media said:

The fact that Canon hasn't released a fast ultra-wide prime for their main lens ecosystem when they've had 7 years to do it is nuts to me.

Click to expand...

The RF 20mm f/1.4L VCM is a fast, ultrawide prime.

Tidy Media said:

The fact that Canon hasn't released a fast ultra-wide prime for their main lens ecosystem when they've had 7 years to do it is nuts to me.
I've seriously considered the move to Sony due to Canon's attitude towards rounding out their ecosystem & limiting third-party lenses, especially since gear like this is so helpful for the type of stuff I shoot.
That being said, the VCM primes are phenomenal from the perspective of a hybrid shooter. Extremely interested in this (and I hope they get a move on!)

Click to expand...

Not just 7 years of RF but in the EF lifetime there was only the 14/2.8 (I and II) were the only ultra wide angle primes as far as I know. Not great coma quality though. The Samyang 14/2.8 is a much better option.

stillviking said:

This could be the missing lens in the Canon setup for underwater photography. I'm very interested in knowing what the minimum focus distance is.

Click to expand...

Bokeh underwater isn't really a thing (unless for macro with coloured backgrounds and strobes) so low light is the only benefit I can see of f1.4.
Good ISO performance and denoise algorithms have basically nullified those constraints.

Are you thinking of using it for wide-angle macro eg laowa probes? Maybe the EF8-15/4 would be a current/cheaper option.

The fact that Canon hasn't released a fast ultra-wide prime for their main lens ecosystem when they've had 7 years to do it is nuts to me.
I've seriously considered the move to Sony due to Canon's attitude towards rounding out their ecosystem & limiting third-party lenses, especially since gear like this is so helpful for the type of stuff I shoot.
That being said, the VCM primes are phenomenal from the perspective of a hybrid shooter. Extremely interested in this (and I hope they get a move on!)

neuroanatomist said:

The 20/1.4 VCM is a great lens and I’d almost certainly buy a 14/1.4 or 14/1.8 VCM, should one come along. But personally, I’d take a TS-R 14 over the faster VCM prime, in a heartbeat.

Click to expand...

Let's be more realistic... of course you would get both!

I see them as different beasts - both useful for me in different scenarios so would be tempted by both but unless I win the lottery....

AlanF said:

No, it shows the calculation from scratch using basic trigonometry and geometry. It's used all the time for such tasks, for coding etc etc.

Click to expand...

Yet, we have different answers today.

MkSprintz said:

It's also apparently looking like an F/5.6 to F/6.3 lens now as per latest information...
instead of F/4, F/4-F/5.6, constant F/5.6.

Click to expand...

Yeah, not sure I’d be interested in it at that point. I’d want it faster, if anything. Seems like way too much overlap with the 100-500 at that point - at least for me.

LDS said:

An EVF doesn't require any "hump". I don't see bumps on Fuji compacts, for example. There's really no need today to replicate the SLR form in a compact camera.

Click to expand...

If you keep the screen size constant, a camera has to be taller to accommodate a back-corner EVF than if it had no EVF.