Latest activity

AlanF · Feb 15, 2026

I don't usually see interesting mushrooms but these are colourful, Scarlet Elf Cups. They are supposedly edible, despite their colour.

noname · Feb 15, 2026

If rumors are true for the R7ii, it doesn't need protection from an ibis equipped R10ii. They'll be in totally different segments.
So an R9 basically? Like a 90D. I buy that.

Imho R9 will be the entry-level full frame body positioned below the future R8 MkII.

bluezurich · Feb 15, 2026

I don't do wider than 24 very often and I was torn between this and the RF 16. This won. Laowa has been impressing me for quite some time now. Great choices!

AlanF · Feb 15, 2026

Canada Geese having a go at each other like Canadian CR members.

AlanF · Feb 15, 2026

Egyptian Geese courting in public then consummating.

AlanF · Feb 15, 2026

P-visie said:
Buying the RF 600mm f11 (or the RF 100-500m or RF200-800mm, or EF100-400mm II + 1.4 extender, if you are willing and able to spend the extra $ or €) would make a lot more sense than this contraption. Both f8 and f11 are not very suitable for dawn patrols or low light bird photography, so the one stop “gain” by adapting the RF800mm will not make much difference. And I strongly suspect that the image quality of the combination of speedbooster and 800mm f11 will fall apart on the (rumored) 39mp sensor.

There is no one-stop "gain" using a 0.71x speedbooster. There is no change in the number of photons per duck as the increase in light intensity on the image of the duck by reducing the f-number is exactly offset by the reduction in the area of the image of the duck because of the reduction of the focal length of the lens. It's not the iso but it is the number of photons per duck that determines the S/N in the image of the duck, and this depends on the area of the front element (entrance pupil) of the lens, and TCs and speedboosters don't alter that.

P-visie · Feb 15, 2026

Michael T said:
I would think the RF 24-70mm f2.8 mark ii is next. When introduced both the RF 24-70mm and 70-200 f2.8’s were pumper zooms, which historically had been used on lower priced Canon and Nikkor lenses. Canon introduced the RF 70-200 f2.8 Z a non-pumper. I upgraded to this last week. I see that Nikkor upgraded their Z 24-70 f2.8, moving from pumper to non-pumper in their mark ii version. I would think it just around the corner.

“which historically had been used on lower priced Canon and Nikkor lenses”: like the EF 24-70mm f2.8 L and EF 100-400mm L lenses (both version I and II), like the RF100-500mm L lens? Canon and Nikon use(d) the extending design to keep the size (relatively) compact.

P-visie · Feb 15, 2026

Del Paso said:
I can only guess it wouldn't have happened with a Sony lens! The old Sony bias still present, I presume.

I don’t know. Jordan Drake, who shot the astro pics, is a videographer. The correct lensprofile may not have been available when he shot and processed the pictures and maybe he selected the lensprofile with the nearest focal range. Maybe he was lazy, but as @neuroanatomist posted, manual corrections have their limitations. It is stupid to apply another lenses profile for a lens which requires software corrections and not mention it in the text and video and draw any conclusions from those pictures.

P-visie · Feb 15, 2026

EthenJ said:
I kinda left this thread, but I found EXACTLY what I'm looking for, and it should explain it better without us talking in circles.

This madman disassembled a Meike 0.71X speedbooster and stuck it in his RF 800mm F11! And it works!

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

That. That's it! That is precisely what I want from Canon, exactly that; a 570mm f8. And if this guy can literally glue it onto an 800mm F11, surely Canon can glue their own 0.71X speedbooster in the same spot and sell it without any extra engineering? Like the YouTuber suggests.

It would go *great* with that 39MP R7II.

Buying the RF 600mm f11 (or the RF 100-500m or RF200-800mm, or EF100-400mm II + 1.4 extender, if you are willing and able to spend the extra $ or €) would make a lot more sense than this contraption. Both f8 and f11 are not very suitable for dawn patrols or low light bird photography, so the one stop “gain” by adapting the RF800mm will not make much difference. And I strongly suspect that the image quality of the combination of speedbooster and 800mm f11 will fall apart on the (rumored) 39mp sensor.

Sporgon · Feb 15, 2026

m4ndr4ke said:
A fast 28mm is all that’s left on my wishlist, f/2 or wider, it doesn’t even need a red ring.

I’m currently considering repurchasing the Sigma 28mm f/1.4 Art, it’s been almost two years since I got rid of mine, and there’s no alternative in sight. I no longer have any EF lens, but I still have the adapter, so I’m considering making an exception for this one, and keeping it as long as necessary.

Will 28/1.7 do ? If so you have the perfect excuse to get a Leica Q3

Quack · Feb 15, 2026

Del Paso said:
I think it does matter, many naive readers still believe they are a reliable source. Intellectual honesty would suggest a quick correction, but I doubt this will happen...

There is only one reliable source and that is personal experience. Anyone can start a website. Anyone can be a blogger. Expertise is not a requirement. Not being biased or having an agenda is not a requirement. Even with the best intentions, lenses vary. Experience varies. Needs vary. Clicks, followers, subscribers are usually the goal.

Del Paso · Feb 15, 2026

P-visie said:
I agree. The pinned comment to the review was added by the "Editor-in-chief", so I suspect that Petapixel did not feel "comfortable" with the review.
They should add a comment box at the start of the review to make it clearer that they used an incorrect lens profile.
This is very bad for their credibility (I've corrected my earlier posts).

I can only guess it wouldn't have happened with a Sony lens! The old Sony bias still present, I presume.

Sporgon · Feb 15, 2026

[email protected] said:
Crazy idea: what if Canon killed the R3 and put the R7 II in that form factor?

I could see the R3 model number being used for a high mp beast. I’d have thought that from a marketing position this should be more attractive than introducing a R5S

Michael T · Feb 15, 2026

I would think the RF 24-70mm f2.8 mark ii is next. When introduced both the RF 24-70mm and 70-200 f2.8’s were pumper zooms, which historically had been used on lower priced Canon and Nikkor lenses. Canon introduced the RF 70-200 f2.8 Z a non-pumper. I upgraded to this last week. I see that Nikkor upgraded their Z 24-70 f2.8, moving from pumper to non-pumper in their mark ii version. I would think it just around the corner.

P-visie · Feb 15, 2026

Del Paso said:
I think it does matter, many naive readers still believe they are a reliable source. Intellectual honesty would suggest a quick correction, but I doubt this will happen...

I agree. The pinned comment to the review was added by the "Editor-in-chief", so I suspect that Petapixel did not feel "comfortable" with the review.
They should add a comment box at the start of the review to make it clearer that they used an incorrect lens profile.
This is very bad for their credibility (I've corrected my earlier posts).

YannickDesmet · Feb 15, 2026

Hi guys,

I'm living in Belgium and I would like to sell my Canon C400 camera.
I've started to take notice that this will be very difficult.
Would someone be able to recommend me where I could sell this online?

Asked MPB, but their pricing is off the charts. I think they are crazy.
Also asked where I bough it and they offered me 2500euro (like come on please)

Quack · Feb 15, 2026

[email protected] said:
Crazy idea: what if Canon killed the R3 and put the R7 II in that form factor? I'm not saying this is at all probable. Just noting that it kind of makes sense. The R3 will have a tough time upgrading to a Mark II version without infringing on R1's market. On the other hand, many of us think Canon has short-shrifted us resolution/distance limited shooters. Putting a BSI stacked sensor of around 45mp in an R3 form factor on a crop sensor and juicing the processors to do the sort of pre-baking done in the 1 series cameras could be appealing. Maybe add that expansive viewfinder too. People would expect to pay an extra grand for it. -tig

PS: Whenever I come up with a "brilliant" idea for Canon's product planning they do the opposite. So the R72 will probably come out in m-mount .

My guess is that the camera you are describing is a $3000 tp $3500 camera. All the evidence from the way Canon and Nikon have been reluctant to upgrade or even make a high level crop sensor camera makes me think it is unlikely. Nor will Canon care if the R3 mark II infringes on the R1 sales, as long as the R3 mark II sales are adequate. Either way they sell a profitable camera.

[email protected] · Feb 15, 2026

Crazy idea: what if Canon killed the R3 and put the R7 II in that form factor? I'm not saying this is at all probable. Just noting that it kind of makes sense. The R3 will have a tough time upgrading to a Mark II version without infringing on R1's market. On the other hand, many of us think Canon has short-shrifted us resolution/distance limited shooters. Putting a BSI stacked sensor of around 45mp in an R3 form factor on a crop sensor and juicing the processors to do the sort of pre-baking done in the 1 series cameras could be appealing. Maybe add that expansive viewfinder too. People would expect to pay an extra grand for it. -tig

PS: Whenever I come up with a "brilliant" idea for Canon's product planning they do the opposite. So the R72 will probably come out in m-mount .

Del Paso · Feb 15, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
Does it matter? Either makes them an untrustworthy source.

I think it does matter, many naive readers still believe they are a reliable source. Intellectual honesty would suggest a quick correction, but I doubt this will happen...

neuroanatomist · Feb 15, 2026

Del Paso said:
Was it sabotage or simply stupidity?

Does it matter? Either makes them an untrustworthy source.

Del Paso · Feb 15, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
From the pinned comment:

Not only the wrong profile, but one for a relatively cheap, 2-stop slower non-L lens. Manual distortion correction is linear and barrel only, while a proper profile corrects for the nonlinear nature of most distortion and any mustache components.

Or course the streaking will be present in uncorrected RAWs, as well.

So personally, I’d take all their conclusions with a chunk of salt…one big enough to choke on.

Was it sabotage or simply stupidity?

P-visie · Feb 15, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
From the pinned comment:

Not only the wrong profile, but one for a relatively cheap, 2-stop slower non-L lens. Manual distortion correction is linear and barrel only, while a proper profile corrects for the nonlinear nature of most distortion and any mustache components.

Or course the streaking will be present in uncorrected RAWs, as well.

So personally, I’d take all their conclusions with a chunk of salt…one big enough to choke on.

Thanks, that comment was added after I read the review and watched the video. Very ~~poor performance from~~ stupid by Petapixel. I’ve ordered the lens, so I can do my own testing (hopefully) soon.

Edit: See strikethrough.

neuroanatomist · Feb 15, 2026

P-visie said:
Where did you get the information about the lens profile from?

From the pinned comment:

Hi all! As an explanation for the star streaking results, Jordan used the Canon 16mm profile as a starting point, with additional vignetting and distortion correction added manually. That said, the streaking of stars is still prominent in the uncorrected RAW files.

Not only the wrong profile, but one for a relatively cheap, 2-stop slower non-L lens. Manual distortion correction is linear and barrel only, while a proper profile corrects for the nonlinear nature of most distortion and any mustache components.

Or course the streaking will be present in uncorrected RAWs, as well.

So personally, I’d take all their conclusions with a chunk of salt…one big enough to choke on.