I don’t care about video, but give me faster sensor readout speeds and an R5 Mark II body and I’ll be happy.

Malm said:

Canon already has an extended line of these light and good video lenses, so what about the very good lenses for photographers?

Click to expand...

Should Canon also eliminate the video features from their cameras? The market reality is that ‘content creation’ is the fastest-growing segment.

Sounds like what you want are EF lenses. They remain widely available.

Why have 18mm when you have 20mm?

Why have 28mm when you have 24mm?

Like these are so close to eachother, just crop in a 24mm shot to be 28mm?

Move a few steps back for 18mm?

What is the use-case other than pure video and a slight difference in what they produce?

I will take anything better than the genuine Canon batteries if they perform better in the cold. Below -10c the LPE6P are shockingly bad. I had to resort to using a cine camera with a D tap dummy battery to use my R5ii, it's ridiculous.

emc said:

while my three Patona batteries maintained their full charge capacity (3 bars) over the same period, according to my Canon R6 interface.

Click to expand...

Patona and Jupio batteries are not compatible with the battery health indicator, they'll keep three green bars until their end of life.
I haven't tested with other brands, so far.

Will there be a canonrumors headline without a question mark anytime soon?

And when will Canon start again to make proper lenses for photographers?
To be honest; I'm sick of these hyped VCM lenses for videographers - so called 'creators'. All I need are just excellent optical lenses without much 'digital correction' and also without this strict size and weight limits as for VCM lenses.
Canon already has an extended line of these light and good video lenses, so what about the very good lenses for photographers?

I use two Canon LP-E6NH batteries and three PATONA For LP-E6NH batteries, one of which has a USB-C port. I was disappointed to find that my two Canon batteries quickly lost their charge capacity (1 bar out of 3), while my three Patona batteries maintained their full charge capacity (3 bars) over the same period, according to my Canon R6 interface. I rotate my 5 batteries in order. They are all used alternately.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

I always have my family and friends in mind when thinking about cameras and lenses and affordability (whatever that means, it's subjective). More affordable options means more people less financially fortunate also get to play in the sandbox. More affordable with weather resistance means more occasions during which to play. When my friends come along we swap gear, take things for a test, learn from each other, and generally enjoy a good time.

So if Canon's bar of uses swappable lenses and takes pictures then I'm happy to have that person come along. (OK, I'm happy for them to come along anyhow but they'd be hard to ignore sitting on their stump of sad shame after a while.)

But, at the same time, I'd much prefer if Canon would at least polish the . Just so the Sony and Nikon crowd keep quiet. Dignity, after all.

dolina said:

Having experienced the AF mislaignment issue of the 1st batch of the EOS 7D Mark II.... I would not do that.

I pre-ordered the 1st shipment then flew to Bukidnon to photograph a uncaptive Pithecophaga jefferyi.

It didn't focus properly. Found out later that there was an issue in the 1st batch.

Mistake on our case was not to bring a 1D Mark IV as backup to save 1.4kg of weight.

Click to expand...

I already have the R7 mark I and an R5 mark II. Thanks for the warning.

It's nice to have primes that approximately double for noticable progressions:

14 -> 24 -> 50 -> 100 -> 200
18 -> 35 -> 85 -> er, 135 I suppose even though it breaks my "doubling" suggestion

Either of those selections would make for a solid portrait kit (subjects can be other than people: animals, things) with a little astro potential for kicks. For those who play with the 35 + 85 combo an 18 would be their version of the 24 in a 50 + 100 kit.

Richard CR said:

I never really heard anything too bad about the current 35mm's image quality

See full article...

Click to expand...

The IQ of the 35mm F1.8 STM is actually really good imo. It produces nice images and renders smoothly. It is the AF which could use a (major) update.

Canon Rumors said:

I think it's a typo, it must be 28 F1.4

Click to expand...

I wanted to write the exact same comment

Richard -- WHY would Canon release an 18mm when they already have the 20mm ?
You must have SOME idea, but I couldn't understand it from your post.

Good to hear. I have slightly different experiences with their older LP-E6NH versions which came bundled with a double-slot charger. Those two batteries die off so fast that I haven't bothered using them anymore in R5 or R6ii. I did some comparing, and a Canon original LP-E6NH lasted approximately twice longer than those Smallrig copies. I am happy to hear their new battery has improved. Or perhaps it was just my copies. I like most of the things they make, the rig parts are very good quality in my opinion.

neuroanatomist said:

Indeed. Here’s another post from Roger Cicala on the topic:

Front Element Lens Protection Revisited

The internet is an interesting resource. Once you've put a reference up, it's there forever. Over time, things may change, but that 10-year-old article doesn't. A few weeks ago someone used some old articles I'd written (1, 2, 3) as a reason why he doesn't use protective UV filters. They claimed...

www.lensrentals.com

I’ve never had a filter get stuck on a lens. I have had stacked filters get stuck together (ND and CPL), and I learned to keep a set of $8 filter wrenches in the bag when I bring filters.

Click to expand...

I like Roger's take on it. I have had trouble getting a filter off after a drop, on the other hand the lens filter threads were ok. I also tend to keep the lens cap installed when not aiming the camera. I have tripped walking backward for framing, but my backside took most of the damage. So far no scratches, but i have had some trouble with beach sand in compact zoom cameras.

neuroanatomist said:

And yet…right now on amazon.com (US), the R100 is #7 (and #8) in mirrorless cameras. From Canon, only the R50 (#1 and #2) and the R6II (#5) are selling better.

Another example of Canon knowing the camera market better than all of us posting on Internet forums.

Click to expand...

Lots of folks just want to take a picture, and hope it will turn out better than a phone pic. R100 vs T7 with a 17-55 kit zoom either one at bestbuy under $600. sure, maybe not for me. but i might have already bought my last camera (r5iii with 2x faster read-out could get me to buy one more if i am still shooting action when it arrives). i think there is value in a product that will on-board new buyers. i think the r100 hate is all about the lack of a touch screen, not sure how deep into the menus the new user gets and the buttons work fine.

@amir_photography said:

In my opinion the R100 is not meant for the us market, as I would assume canon rumors is based in.. I think the camera is meant more towards developing countries, such as India, providing options for people when used camera value doesn't drop significantly, as in the us and Australia. It also gives an affordable option to people who don't know about cameras much in these countries. I do however agree that in 1st world countries there is no reason for canon to sell it.

Click to expand...

I have always stated that Canon needs affordable cameras for developing nations or those nations where the cost of living is far lower than that of the United States. However, a lack of a touchscreen on a mirrorless camera is a poor judgment call to make on a entry level camera, if they are attempting to convert people from smartphones - IMO of course, but I'd be surprised if they didn't correct that oversight on the next version.

Quite honestly, if it had a touchscreen, I'd probably like the little thing from an entry-level perspective.

Also, just to head off the "Canon knows best" claim: Canon has made odd decisions in the past, but the momentum of the brand name usually covers that.

neuroanatomist said:

And yet…right now on amazon.com (US), the R100 is #7 (and #8) in mirrorless cameras. From Canon, only the R50 (#1 and #2) and the R6II (#5) are selling better.

Another example of Canon knowing the camera market better than all of us posting on Internet forums.

Click to expand...

to be fair Canon could create a bar of and call it a camera, and it would be in the top 10 on amazon.

The R100 doesn't sell that well anywhere else - and it's one of those - it should. The lowest priced DSLR's always sold well in multiple regions, including Japan, not so much these days with the R50 carrying the load.

@amir_photography said:

In my opinion the R100 is not meant for the us market, as I would assume canon rumors is based in.. … I do however agree that in 1st world countries there is no reason for canon to sell it.

Click to expand...

And yet…right now on amazon.com (US), the R100 is #7 (and #8) in mirrorless cameras. From Canon, only the R50 (#1 and #2) and the R6II (#5) are selling better.

Another example of Canon knowing the camera market better than all of us posting on Internet forums.

In my opinion the R100 is not meant for the us market, as I would assume canon rumors is based in.. I think the camera is meant more towards developing countries, such as India, providing options for people when used camera value doesn't drop significantly, as in the us and Australia. It also gives an affordable option to people who don't know about cameras much in these countries. I do however agree that in 1st world countries there is no reason for canon to sell it.

Hector1970 said:

It's a tricky choice

Click to expand...

Indeed. Here’s another post from Roger Cicala on the topic:


I’m firmly in the use filters camp, but I’ve always tempered that with the same approach Roger describes. For example, there’s no front filter on my RF 28/2.8. A few months ago when cleaning the filter on my RF 24-105/2.8L Z, the wisdom of my choice was reaffirmed. Replacing the front element would have been much more costly than the $100 for a new B+W 82mm clear filter to replace this one.



I’ve never had a filter get stuck on a lens. I have had stacked filters get stuck together (ND and CPL), and I learned to keep a set of $8 filter wrenches in the bag when I bring filters.

Hector1970 said:

After dropping a few lens with UV Filters and struggling to get the broken ones off I just moved away from them and use the lens hood for protection or leave the filter holder adapter on the lens. Easier to clean the lens than a filter. Also getting UV filters stuck on filter holder adapters when I was too lazy to take the UV filter off made me change. It's a tricky choice

Click to expand...

It’s a shame I can’t double emoji the like and laugh. I empathize!

Bent needle nose pliers and other tools accompany me on some trips. Because, you know: life!

Best of the best! Great pictures