Latest activity

BlancRay · Feb 21, 2026

Canon Rumors said:
The latest round of announcements from Canon brought us a couple of cool lenses in the RF 14 F1.4 L VCM and RF 7-14 F2.8-3.5 L Fisheye Zoom. Both lenses have been the topic of lots of discussion and from what we have heard from a few retailers, they have been well received as far […]

See full article...

I am desperately waiting for a new macro lens, something to replace the beloved MPE-65 or at least a longer (200mm ?) macro lens... It seems that macro people have been forgotten in Canon strategy...

Exploreshootshare · Feb 21, 2026

Canon Rumors said:
It won't be an L.

Maybe even more intriguing

Could Canon maybe reuse the lens housing of the 15-30mm F4.5-6.3 or something similar? Or won't that work because of the constant aperture?

P-visie · Feb 21, 2026

Dr_Flash said:
totally with you on that, hearing it even for 25 years .I would never switch overall. But, I'm not talking whole camera market, I just focus on wildlife photography as I focus on the super tele lenses. This niche market was dominated by Canon for a very very long time, similar to Sports using the same equipment. After Sony came in with great AF in their mirrorless (toy) cameras but not super great lenses - still a significant number switched. With the Z9 and the 400 2.8 with TC in 2021, Nikon had an OKisch AF and the best Lens on the market. More switched, even in not so easy times after COVID. Since then Nikon pushed a lot for high quality "mid" price range super tele (600mm 5.6, 800mm 6.3) and updated their camera software far more than Canon. So you see definitely more effort from them, as they know they have to win over customers.

As I said before, I'm not looking forward to have Canon and Nikon in my bag. I would love to see more effort from Canon to keep me as a local customer also for my wildlife photography. If Canon come to the conclusion, we don't need this niche anymore, we found e.g. video content creators as our new focus customer group - bad for me, but as you said, they probably continue to dominate for at least a couple more years the overall market - as once Kodak did

Do you have data to backup your claims?

Nikon’s results do not support your claims:

Their marketshare has not increased since FY2022.
Their sales prediction for lenses and bodies is down: “Nikon has decreased its projected camera sales for this fiscal year from 950,000 to 900,000 units and decreased expected lens sales from 1.4 million to 1.3 million.”
Nikon attributes the loss in Q3 of FY2025 to “decline in average selling prices due to changes in the product mix” - which does not support selling a lot of 3000-5000$ tele lenses.

See: https://petapixel.com/2026/02/06/nikon-posts-big-losses-and-cuts-projections/

SnowMiku · Feb 21, 2026

With the higher end APS-C lenses they can start with releasing all of the EF-M lenses on the RF mount.

snapshot · Feb 21, 2026

Canon Rumors said:
A " hold my beer” moment would be built-in 1.4 and 2x in the 600 at least. There would be no need to ever make another big white 800 or 1200. That would be a good thing from a business standpoint.

i think this concept works for shorter tele also. start with 200 F1.4 for example! i forget where, but i read somebody claim that built in tele converters are less reliable than external ones. i havent any experience with lenses with built in converters -- are they a problem?

bluezurich · Feb 20, 2026

P-visie said:
If Canon brings out a RF 600mm f4 + 1.4x lens, that would leave only a long RF macro lens on my RF lens wishlist.

For Macro alone, Venus Laowa has an amazing 180 4.5 1.5, but I know, some folx want AF for other things as well (oh and macro too lol)

Slappy_G · Feb 20, 2026

EthenJ said:
Okay, so I've been thinking about what this array might look like. One thought is:

View attachment 228022

Reading that as an array of 3x3 pixels would be normal: RGGB.

Alternatively, it's possible that Canon is doing something funky like sampling adjacent pixels or using the autofocus individually diodes in "low resolution" mode, to hit that massive ISO gain figure.

...I don't really know about this stuff, I'm just spitballing. But it's an interesting idea.

It's an interesting idea, but heterogenous color layouts like this will almost certainly lead to color aliasing and moire effects. This would be a pretty bad solution, while admittedly academically interesting. I think whoever is claiming multiple "native" resolutions just doesn't understand what they are saying. We have had downscaled Raws and crops for decades now. That's likely all this was.

screenshooter · Feb 20, 2026

Sporgon said:
Yes, a poor choice of word on my account. Interpolation is ‘creating’, but it’s creating directly around the same data that has already been captured. I was referring to adding unrecorded data / AI generation rather than correcting distortion and of course this has been an easily accessible post processing option to correct for at least fifteen years or so.
A case in point; a couple of years ago an acquaintance of mine was unfortunate enough to have a malignant tumour develop behind one of his eyes. His eye and part of his skull was removed and the surgeons took a lump of his thigh and stitched it over the poor guy’s face, they must have known he wasn’t going to last long. You can imagine what it looked like. Anyway, his wife had taken a picture of him on her iPhone, and it had tried to generate the outline of an eye over the patch. Quite horrible, and the sort of computational photography that we don’t want in proper cameras.

While I 100% agree with what you are saying, what concerns me is that it is reasonable to assume the next generation of camera bodies will use AI based interpolation instead of convolution to retain and/or enhance sharpness for lens corrections… no I don't think thats the same as what you said about the camera adding an eye, but I dont know how I feel about AI enhancing sharpness.. noise, sure.. you can train an neural network to understand/compensate for a noise profile.. thats simple and understandable.. but enhancing sharpness is, IMO, creating data that originally wasnt recorded by the sensor.

I know I’m way off topic now..

neuroanatomist · Feb 20, 2026

Dr_Flash said:
But, I'm not talking whole camera market, I just focus on wildlife photography as I focus on the super tele lenses.

Oh, well ok then. A niche market.

Dr_Flash said:
…as once Kodak did

Right, because not making a couple of mid-range lenses for a niche market for which Canon already offers multiple relatively inexpensive and very expensive primes, as well as inexpensive and mid-range zooms, is totally analogous to the film to digital paradigm shift.

Quack · Feb 20, 2026

ShowMeTheEagles said:
No way the R3 is going to have all those features and cannibalize the bodies above and below it. I'm really dubious of any R3 II though.

Assuming the R3 II ever comes into being, it will be a high-end camera at least as expansive as the R5 II, so Canon will not care one bit if it "cannibalizes" R5 II sales. It can't in actuality, if one means that Canon will lose money. Nor do I think Canon worries if R3 II sales take away from R1 sales. It's all camera sales and money in Canon's pockets, so as long as it''s a Canon being sold, there is no cannibalization. Why people keep thinking this is a "thing' is beyond me. What it means in reality is that at least some people will buy an extra camera that they might not have before.

Dr_Flash · Feb 20, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
Yeah, everyone was deserting Canon for Nikon. Then Sony. Now, apparently, Nikon again. Been hearing it for 15 years. Meanwhile, Canon continues to dominate the market. But maybe this time, this time maybe @Dr_Flash is right...

View attachment 228038

...but probably not.

totally with you on that, hearing it even for 25 years

.I would never switch overall. But, I'm not talking whole camera market, I just focus on wildlife photography as I focus on the super tele lenses. This niche market was dominated by Canon for a very very long time, similar to Sports using the same equipment. After Sony came in with great AF in their mirrorless (toy) cameras but not super great lenses - still a significant number switched. With the Z9 and the 400 2.8 with TC in 2021, Nikon had an OKisch AF and the best Lens on the market. More switched, even in not so easy times after COVID. Since then Nikon pushed a lot for high quality "mid" price range super tele (600mm 5.6, 800mm 6.3) and updated their camera software far more than Canon. So you see definitely more effort from them, as they know they have to win over customers.

As I said before, I'm not looking forward to have Canon and Nikon in my bag. I would love to see more effort from Canon to keep me as a local customer also for my wildlife photography. If Canon come to the conclusion, we don't need this niche anymore, we found e.g. video content creators as our new focus customer group - bad for me, but as you said, they probably continue to dominate for at least a couple more years the overall market - as once Kodak did

neuroanatomist · Feb 20, 2026

DocInfoSci said:
Capturing photos. Isn't that what the sensor is all about?

I agree. I just paid for them, so I want them used. I mean, it's not like my sensor is oval or anything like that.

Of course it is! Hyperbole is a useful tool when it comes to writing and stressing a point.

Per the Oxford dictionary:
Noun: exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

I disagree. A more accurate analogy would be if only the centre tread is used, which is a real world scenario and equivalent in terms of whether a full product sees use. And yeah, I'd be miffed about that too (including my incompetence of the moment for not setting or inflating the tire correctly).

I think that misses my point.

I didn't complain about the potential losses from stretching, warping, etc. In fact, I said that I shamelessly use DLO and image editors. My point was I just prefer that all of the sensor be activated to provide pixels for the stretching etc.

I acknowledged that in the end the final product is what matters most. "Better is better."

Obviously Canon's opinion is that no one is going to miss those extra pixels when the final image is produced. Anyhow, Canon is also pursuing more pixels in its sensors anyhow -- perhaps in a more tacit acknowledgement of the corner cutting than what people realized.

In the end, hey -- if you're OK with not using your full sensor while you enjoy a sweet image then rest with a peaceful mind. I'm also resting with a peaceful mind, but in the context of the question implied by CR I'm simply stating I want to use everything in my system, not just 99%. But regardless of my wants, Canon is getting the job done -- so Bravo to Canon.

All fair points, and choice is good.

The EF 11-24/4 uses the whole sensor, and the RF 10-20/4 needs correction to fill the corners. I've owned both and I use the 10-20/4 far more often than I used the 11-24/4 because it's trivial to include the former in the bag with several other lenses whereas including the latter (twice the weight and much larger) meant taking out another lens (usually one of my TS-Es).

Comparing the new 14/1.4 VCM with the Sigma 14/1.4 Art (also a mirrorless lens) yields a similar conclusion – the Sigma lens is twice the weight and much larger.

Choice is good, and I know which lenses I prefer.

neuroanatomist · Feb 20, 2026

scyrene said:
A tale as old as time. For Nikon's sake, I hope you're right! They need the custom.

Yeah, everyone was deserting Canon for Nikon. Then Sony. Now, apparently, Nikon again. Been hearing it for 15 years. Meanwhile, Canon continues to dominate the market. But maybe this time, this time maybe @Dr_Flash is right...

...but probably not.

Dr_Flash · Feb 20, 2026

Del Paso said:
And I thought Canon had already lost every single wildlife photographer, you must be the last survivor!

it definitely changed a lot, I wonder if this is Canon strategy or just Sony and Nikon prioritize this niche more? Let's see and wait, at least a little bit longer

- It is definitely a good thing that we have now 3 major competitors fighting for our money

.

Sporgon · Feb 20, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
How do you define 'created'? As @screenshooter correctly states, distortion correction involves interpolation and that's still 'creating' data in my opinion. The color and intensity values assigned to interpolated pixels are not 'original data' (but as has been pointed out, color is interpolated anyway since each pixel has a spectrally restricted color mask in front of it). The difference is that interpolation is a mathematically straightforward way to create those values, compared to extrapolation or AI-based generation.

Part of the problem here is that some people don't understand the difference between interpolation and extrapolation/AI, and/or they read somewhere that 'corners are filled by AI' and believed it.

Yes, a poor choice of word on my account. Interpolation is ‘creating’, but it’s creating directly around the same data that has already been captured. I was referring to adding unrecorded data / AI generation rather than correcting distortion and of course this has been an easily accessible post processing option to correct for at least fifteen years or so.
A case in point; a couple of years ago an acquaintance of mine was unfortunate enough to have a malignant tumour develop behind one of his eyes. His eye and part of his skull was removed and the surgeons took a lump of his thigh and stitched it over the poor guy’s face, they must have known he wasn’t going to last long. You can imagine what it looked like. Anyway, his wife had taken a picture of him on her iPhone, and it had tried to generate the outline of an eye over the patch. Quite horrible, and the sort of computational photography that we don’t want in proper cameras.

Del Paso · Feb 20, 2026

Dr_Flash said:
Canon you are on the clock until early summer... A real RF 400mm 2.8 replacement with build in TC is long overdue and I'm really loosing hope. As soon as Nikon will release the Z9 II, even more wildlife photographers will leave Canon, including me...

And I thought Canon had already lost every single wildlife photographer, you must be the last survivor!

Bob Howland · Feb 20, 2026

Concerning "New Higher-End RF-S Lenses", I wonder if Canon might not let Sigma do that for them. but then I don't know how much Sigma is paying Canon in licensing fees. If Sigma introduces a 50-140 f/2.8 DC OS C, I'll almost certainly buy it. I'm pretty sure Richard will too.

scyrene · Feb 20, 2026

Dr_Flash said:
I would predict, that many people will go for Nikon

A tale as old as time. For Nikon's sake, I hope you're right! They need the custom.

Dr_Flash · Feb 20, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
Be sure to stamp your foot a little bit, it will make the threat more effective and ensure that Canon responds to your demand in a timely manner.

I'm sure Canon can differentiate between a threat and a customer voice. Spending my money with other companies isn't a threat, it's a business decision as much as Canon has to decide if they want to invest now on new big white prime lenses with certain features. I bought the EF 200-400 4.0 with build in TC, as I thought and still think it is an amazing idea. Unfortunately, not Canon continued to implement it but Nikon did. So far, Nikon is a bit behind in AF capabilities but I would expect this will change with the next generation Z9. Canon needed quite some time to get a competitive mirrorless wildlife Cam into the market - they finally did with the R5 II but the big white lenses don't cut it, especially with such a price tag. I would like to replace my EF lenses for lighter RF lenses. Mid 2026, I would predict, that many people will go for Nikon in a comparison a R5 II + RF 400.28 vs Nikon Z9 II with the Z 400mm 2.8 with build in TC (if Nikon manage to get this Cam out and if Canon is not refreshing its big white 400mm and 600mm primes). Just my opinion, no threat, not happy if I have to change to Nikon but in my opinion Canon will not convince me and others with its current offering.

stillviking · Feb 20, 2026

RF 24-70 2.8 LZ (II) and RF 300-600 5.6 L?? Damnnn!! That's all I dream for!!

john1970 · Feb 20, 2026

Maybe interested in the 300-600 mm f5.6, but I already have the 100-300 mm f2.8 which is more flexible with 1.4x and 2x TCs. Potentially interested in a 2nd generation 400 mm f2.8, but it really depends on what it brings to the table. Either lighter weight or built-in TC at the same weight would be very nice. No rush on my part.

xmarijan · Feb 20, 2026

I am kind of going to repeat what I already wrote recently about RF-S lenses. Last year there was a rumor that we are going to get two power zoom and one fast prime RF-S lenses. In the meantime 14-30mm power zoom was released. Therefore next two RF-S lenses are probably:

1. Additional power zoom RF-S lens
2. Fast RF-S prime, maybe 32mm f/1.4

They would be nice companions to R50V and at least one will be released before summer. A constant aperture f/2.8 zoom is also in the works but we will have yo wait a little bit more.

Elektrochopper · Feb 20, 2026

Sony will soon have a complete trinity of f2 zooms (16-28, 28-70, 50-150) while Canon ist stuck with a rather heavy 28-70/2 alone.
They need to do something about this!

WarrenJ · Feb 20, 2026

I played around with the 800mm DO for a bit. It's fun, but I just had no practical use for it. If all you needed was 600 or 800mm, these lenses would be a good (cheap) way to get there. For almost the same, or a tiny bit more (?), I picked up an EF 100-400 IS ii and EF 2x teleconverter. This combo is far more useful when traveling. Yes, I would rather have the RF 100-500, but this combo gets me most of the way there for half the price.

WarrenJ · Feb 20, 2026

It's not going anywhere and, for what most people are paid to photograph professionally, it doesn't matter at all unless you don't like the result that the automatic correction produces. I'd prefer that RAW files continue to be imported without a lens profile applied and then I can choose whether or not I want to apply it, though I understand why applying it would be the default behavior.

As others have correctly pointed out, there are many decisions being made by the camera that are completely out of our control. Honestly, it was like that even back in the days of film: did you make the film stock yourself? Was every batch perfectly consistent? There have always been variables that are outside of our control and it seems like this may be another one of them.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics