Beautiful shots, guys. Keep posting.

Purple Finch taken with my Canon R8 and 600mm f11

daveohig said:

chunky bloaters R5 / R6

Click to expand...

Coming from DSLRs, this made me chuckle.

Old Man FL/FD said:

A ‘retro’ camera is not for me, as I already have a real one. I’ll leave it to the influencers and trend-setters.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I've also never been a fan of the retro designs. They just seem like modern tech combined with retro (lack of) ergonomics. But I have a friend who bought a Zf and loves it. I gave him a grip as a gift so at least the ergonomics are not as bad as they were, but man, it just seems like it makes the camera harder to use. But, to each their own. They seem to sell well.

Michael Clark said:

Except all of those cameras that have 67 ISO as measured by DxO, et al also include instructions in the EXIF info to 'push' development by 1/3 stop (or whatever the ratio is needed) when converting from raw to a viewable image. They do this precisely to protect the highlights from overexposure.

Click to expand...

Are you sure about this ? It’s the first time I’ve heard it stated as a matter of fact.
I’ve only ever read rather woolly statements regarding how it must be to protect highlights, though when you think how much brighter the highlights can be over the rest of the image one third stop seems like naff all.
Have you a reliable source you can share regarding this ?

Michael Clark said:

The distribution of photons is not affected by scaling changes. Photons vibrate at the same wavelength and width regardless of the size of the sensor they fall upon. That's why larger sensors collect more light than smaller ones for the same exposure parameters. The narrower baseline allows fewer photons to get through from the each side of the lens.

Click to expand...

I think we are not talking about the same issue, and I should have been more precise. I should have written that I always compared the 7D cameras with the D5X cameras, beginning with the 5D3 (I had the 5D3 and 4, and the 7D1 and 2). Only this makes sense, and of course the AF sensor of the FF DSLRs were bigger and could collect more photons (I am a physicist, I know what you mean). Comparing the AF systems of DSLRs (shooting with OVF) and ML cameras is like comparing apples with peas. Sorry, Michael, I should have been a bit more precise here. Have always good light

And a few small birds; Wren, Barnswallow and Meadow Pipit.

Then more birds in the salt marshes. Avocet, Bar-tailed Godwit, Blacktailed Godwit, Little Ringed Plover and Male and Female Shelduck.

Celebrating my birthday in Norfolk at Cley Next Sea. As we were leaving the car park we were serenaded by a Whitethroat (Greater if you want). R5ii RF 200-800mm).

I love my R8. I also envy retro design. For me the R8ii should have the following things:

33mp sensor same as R6iii
Longer battery life
Up/down (not to the side!) tilt screen
IBIS
High res, big, clear EVF
Included thumb and hand grip (removable?) to facilitate handling when needed (i.e. so regular RF lenses can still be used without buying 3rd party grips)
Metal body & gorgeous, design - make Nikon ZF / Olympus OM3 jealous!
Exp triangle dials (aperture on lens)
This should be a camera for photography - if video is included keep it basic
Detachable matching lenses made of metal with clicky aperture dials
- 28mm f2.8 pancake with distance scale for zone focus and manual override
- 43mm or thereabouts f1.4 (obviously bigger!) without focus issues of recent 45mm 1.2
All above ip53 weather sealed
Personally not fussed about 2 card slots, never needed more than one!
Keep it small! (Compared to chunky bloaters R5 / R6)

There is no way my bro lol. I was salivating at getting this as a second banger to my R5 II and now this happens lol

ISv said:

WOW!!! That's the FISHERMAN! Did it really swallow that fish?!

Click to expand...

Yeah, on the last photo.

Michael Clark said:

Except all of those cameras that have 67 ISO as measured by DxO, et al also include instructions in the EXIF info to 'push' development by 1/3 stop (or whatever the ratio is needed) when converting from raw to a viewable image. They do this precisely to protect the highlights from overexposure. If you expose +1/3 (or whatever the ratio calls for) to compensate on your own, you'll lose details in the brightest highlights.

Digital sensors have linear response all the way to full saturation, unlike film which rolls off response as most grains absorb enough photons to reach the point where they will be "switched on" when developed thus leaving fewer grains to absorb additional photons. It's perhaps ironic, but film grains are either "on" or " off" when developed, while digital sensors absorb the energy of each photon striking it in a more analog way before analog amplification and ADC.

Click to expand...

Take a camera such as the R6 and expose a grey card (or something else like a brick wall that is 18% reflectance) illuminated with full sun (after two hours from sunrise and before two hours from sunset) and shoot the ‘sunny 16’ rule at 100 ISO and 1/100 sec f/16. The resulting converted file will be underexposed. Do it again but use 1/60 and it will be correct.
Try it for yourself.

justaCanonuser said:

I already gave up my hope that I could upgrade my R7 before I leave for a birding trip in June. Well I'll survive with the R7 and R5II. My R7 is really a strange package: shooting birds in flight against blue and or overcast skies is quite a challenge - the camera's object recognition quite frequently fails in a mind-boggling way. On the other hand, with a vivid background when the old 7D II would have struggled, the R7 can really shine. Here are two fighting skylarks, they were quite far away, this image is heavily cropped. So they were mere quite small spots on the sensor. I just lifted my lens and took a series of shots w/o hope to get any in-focus hit. But then I found a whole series in focus, this is one of the best. Shot with the EF 600mm f/4.0 III, f = 6.3 and 1/1250 s shutter speed. So, the original R7 is always good for a surprise, either a bad or a really great one.View attachment 229073

Click to expand...

It's when you have just enough of those good surprises with a camera like the R7 that the bad surprises are intensely frustrating as you consider what might have been.

justaCanonuser said:

I know, I loved to follow his blog for many years. But in real life, the old EF 300mm f/4.0 L IS USM worked quite well even with my 5D4. Interestingly, my old EF 500mm f/4.5 L USM from 1995 worked still surprisingly well with my R7, in contrast to my 300mm, a lens that was introduced in 1997.

Click to expand...

EF 300mm f/4 L and EF 400mm f/5.6 L were labeled "L" lenses, but they were a cut below the 300mm f/2.8 and 400mm f/2.8 which existed before the slower versions. The EF 500mm f/4.5 L was a top tier L lens when it was introduced.

The EF 300mm f/2.8 L USM (1987) predated the EF 300mm f/4 L USM (1991) by four years.
The EF 400mm f/2.8 L USM (1991) predated the EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM (1993) by two years.
The EF 500mm f/4.5 L USM (1992) was the fastest 500mm Canon offered until the EF 500mm f/4 L IS USM (1999), seven years after the 500/4.5 was introduced.

Its interesting here in the UK the R50V is currently discounted. I think it makes sense with the upcoming R6V.

justaCanonuser said:

Yes but this doesn't explain the light dependent behavior, noise (and contrast on the AF sensor) does.

Click to expand...

The distribution of photons is not affected by scaling changes. Photons vibrate at the same wavelength and width regardless of the size of the sensor they fall upon. That's why larger sensors collect more light than smaller ones for the same exposure parameters. The narrower baseline allows fewer photons to get through from the each side of the lens.

Brown said:

I'd have to presume it is to some degree, given the discord between the build/positioning of the R7 to the 7D series.

Click to expand...

Nah. Most of the 7D Mark II bodies still being used are high frame count bodies. They're not going to get any cheaper than the $300-600 they're currently getting at sites like MBP and KEH.

Alastair Norcross said:

I had the 7D and 7DII for many years. My R7 is a huge upgrade over both cameras in every way that matters to me.

Click to expand...

I'm glad it works for you.

The lack of a way for even a third party to make a usable grip was the thing I couldn't ignore. My right rotator cuff makes it near impossible for me to shoot vertically without a grip with vertical controls.

Tom R5R7 said:

My Nikonian friend tells me that she thinks Nikon has basically given up on the crop bodies. Nothing really since the D7500. 7200 really since they went with less pixel density in later models. Birders aren't all that happy, though they're still great cameras.

Click to expand...

The D500 was Nikon's last APS-C birding camera. It went out of production in early 2022.

dwkdnvr said:

If their financial models indicate that they can’t make a profit on the product, then ultimately it would be yes - write it off.

I actually think the ‘supply chain crunch’ is a very plausible explanation of the situation. The rumored R7II is basically an R5II with an APS-C sensor rather than a FF sensor. You almost certainly aren’t going to save $1k+ on a camera just by switching to APS-C so the R7II was already going to have narrower margins - price increases in RAM and associated electronics could easily squeeze those margins to the point where it just doesn’t make economic sense to proceed at this time.

If this is the case, then it’s highly likely that they aren’t abandoning the project, but instead putting it on hold for 6 or 8 months to see what happens with the supply chain landscape.

Click to expand...

The crunch for memory chips is not going away anytime soon. It takes YEARS to ramp up new production capacity. Demand currently is high with the explosion of data center construction and production capacity has not increased in years.

Salamander said:

Thanks for that update. I have the Canon R6ii. Do you know where on those websites I can find the iso data?

Click to expand...

The difference is typically much greater in Sony sensors, though Canon does it too to a lesser extent. But the raw data is 'pushed' in development to compensate for it. So if you intentionally expose a bit to the right to compensate yourself, you'll then need to pull exposure back by the same amount in raw development to compensate for the 'push' instructions included in the EXIF information. You'll also tend to overexpose the brightest highlights to the point they may be unrecoverable in raw development. Film had more "headroom" between the mid-tones and highlights, while digital has a linear response all the way to full saturation.

Sporgon said:

Beware the Sunny 16 rule with digital cameras !
As has been correctly stated, the ‘rule’ is when the subject is lit frontally and evenly in full sunlight, from two hours after sunrise to two hours before, if your shutter speed is the ‘same’ as your iso then f/16 gives the correct exposure.
The problem with this rule and most digital cameras is that their stated iso is not the real iso. So to use the ‘sunny 16’ with a digital camera you have to know what, say 100 iso on your camera really is. This information is available at both dxomark and photonstophotos.
To use a Canon R6 as an example, the camera stating 100 is really 63.
So to use the sunny 16 rule when your R6 is set to 100 iso, on a full sunny front lit day set 1/60th, not 1/100 at f/16 and you’re exposure will be spot on.
On my 5DS the 100 iso setting is really 77.

Click to expand...

Except all of those cameras that have 67 ISO as measured by DxO, et al also include instructions in the EXIF info to 'push' development by 1/3 stop (or whatever the ratio is needed) when converting from raw to a viewable image. They do this precisely to protect the highlights from overexposure. If you expose +1/3 (or whatever the ratio calls for) to compensate on your own, you'll lose details in the brightest highlights.

Digital sensors have linear response all the way to full saturation, unlike film which rolls off response as most grains absorb enough photons to reach the point where they will be "switched on" when developed thus leaving fewer grains to absorb additional photons. It's perhaps ironic, but film grains are either "on" or " off" when developed, while digital sensors absorb the energy of each photon striking it in a more analog way before analog amplification and ADC.