Latest activity

Philnick · Oct 21, 2025

Tom R5R7 said:
If the R5 offered 32.5 mpx in APS-C "crop" mode, there would be no need for me to have an R7. At least not for me. But it does not because that would require that the R5 have about 83 megapixels. (1.6^2 * 32.5).

Also, as the flagship APS-C body, it ought to share its design and ruggedness with mid/high end bodies like the R5 series.

Agree as to your first paragraph, disagree about the second. Smaller size and lighter weight is a major selling point for APS-C. Bulking up the camera (and making it substantially more expensive) would turn off a large part of its current user base.

Letting it take a battery grip would let it be better balanced when using heavy lenses, but still let it be smaller when desired. I wouldn't object to giving it a second rear dial in the traditional location next to the display.

Just give it a BSI/Stacked sensor and a sensor shield for while changing lenses if you're taking out the mechanical shutter.

Quack · Oct 21, 2025

m4ndr4ke said:
...
The same with pre capture, only the R5 Mark II and the R1 have real pre capture, all other cameras released so far are a PITA to use it.
...

It's funny how many people say that, and yet, the original method with all the shots in a "group" is so much easier if your pre-capture sequence has only one or two keepers (as mine often do), or if you have no keepers (probably 50% of mine fall into this category). Erase the whole sequence - easy. Choose one or two and save them to their own file - easy. The issue is, as usual, when something new comes along, people can't figure out how to do it right.

LCDVS00 · Oct 21, 2025

David - Sydney said:
My rf70-200/2.8 and rf100-500 would challenge that assertion. Even my rf14-35/4 extends out a little but i prefer it to my ef16-35/4

Is rf70-200/2.8 external focus or external zoom or both of them? I only have 70-200F4.

Philnick · Oct 21, 2025

Anyone else notice the radio silence on the R7/II? I think Canon is at war internally between (I) those who see the R7 as an "any lens telextender" and want it to have a full-size R5 body and (II) those who have used the R7 as their main camera since it came out and just want a BSI/Stacked sensor with the controls left where they are. Two different audiences - and while group I may have more money to spend on each camera, group II represents more users - including me.

I don't want a bigger, heavier camera just so the larger full-frame lenses feel better balanced. Let the R7/II take a battery grip - that would solve that problem without making everyone carry a heavier camera all the time.

For those who want the rear dial in the traditional location next to the rear screen, put one there as well. (That would also take care of the "one control wheel too few" gripe.) But leave the existing controls alone.

Give it a BSI/Stacked sensor for low-light and fast readout.

If you're going to take out the mechanical shutter because you've sped up readout, give us a sensor shield that closes while changing lenses.

Viola! Everyone should be happy and you can stop dithering.

Philnick · Oct 21, 2025

Anyone else notice the radio silence on the R7/II? I think Canon is at war internally between (I) those who see the R7 as an "any lens telextender" and want it to have a full-size R5 body and (II) those who have used the R7 as their main camera since it came out and just want a BSI/Stacked sensor with the controls left where they are. Two different audiences - and while group I may have more money to spend on each camera, group II represents more users - including me.

I don't want a bigger, heavier camera just so the larger full-frame lenses feel better balanced. Let the R7/II take a battery grip - that would solve that problem without making everyone carry a heavier camera all the time.

For those who want the rear dial in the traditional location next to the rear screen, put one there as well. (That would also take care of the "one control wheel too few" gripe.) But leave the existing controls alone.

Give it a BSI/Stacked sensor for low-light and fast readout.

If you're going to take out the mechanical shutter because you've sped up readout, give us a sensor shield that closes while changing lenses.

Viola! Everyone should be happy and you can stop dithering.

Photos.PhilOlenick.com - Been using Canon since 1968 (doing photography since 1958).

David_B · Oct 21, 2025

I can totally see Canon including the Digital Accellerator chip in this camera as part of why there is a price bump. The autofocus capabilities, including learning faces, is going to be a big part of what's different between Canon MILCs and your phone. Are there any patents out there relating to focus tracking of people or even subject learning?

The next big question is at what point will that capability trickle down to the R8? Will it go into the R7? Or R10? At what point will Canon deem it critical for inclusion in the camera to generate revenue?

In 5 years, will that be present in all of Canon's MILC cameras just like IBIS is now?

blackcoffee17 · Oct 21, 2025

m4ndr4ke said:
It could be on top of your desk, for instance...
You know how the lenses react when you open and close the battery or memory card door, while your camera is off, right? They extend and retract a little.

Last week I went for a stroll with a camera, something I haven't done in years. Usually I don't shoot 35, so I decided to take it as main lens, that day.
I didn't put the JJC lens hood on. I barely use this lens, might as well try making it simpler. Plus, the hood is weird anyway.

5 minutes on, I take the RP out of my shoulder bag, and the lens is like this.
It would have extended completely, with a little more time. This is the worst lens I have regarding lens creep.

Later, I get home, put the camera on my desk, remove the SD card, close the battery door, hear a weird noise, and then I realise the lens is trying to extend while the camera is on top of it. I had put the camera face down, without lens hood.
I just said in my language "I had forgotten why I hate this lens...".

Yes, I have other external focusing lenses, the 16, the 28 and the 50, but the 28 is too small to put the camera face down, and I always use lens hoods on the others - they're too small to put face down without hoods anyway.

With the exception of the 16mm, that I actually use for work, I own the 28, 35 and 50 for personal stuff.
I work mainly with the 28-70 and 70-200, two somewhat big lenses, so I usually put my cameras vertically on the table, it's not on purpose.

Seriously, I'm fed up with these weird designs...

There is no justification for these annoying external focus designs that make lenses more fragile and slower to focus. The minuscule size saving is not worth it.

davidespinosa · Oct 21, 2025

candyman said:
This is also because I prefer an internal zoom lens for both the 16-35 and the 70-200. I hope these will become available in the future.

Internal zoom is available for the 70-200 in both black and white:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1858405-REG/canon_6593c002_rf_70_200mm_f_2_8_l.html

EOS 4 Life · Oct 21, 2025

Canon Rumors said:
It's built into the camera.

Not my R5 C.

m4ndr4ke · Oct 21, 2025

ctk said:
OK, that's a fair concern, though I don't know if a camera in a padded bag is enough to ruin the AF mechanism. Hopefully Canon took that into consideration;

It could be on top of your desk, for instance...
You know how the lenses react when you open and close the battery or memory card door, while your camera is off, right? They extend and retract a little.

Last week I went for a stroll with a camera, something I haven't done in years. Usually I don't shoot 35, so I decided to take it as main lens, that day.
I didn't put the JJC lens hood on. I barely use this lens, might as well try making it simpler. Plus, the hood is weird anyway.

5 minutes on, I take the RP out of my shoulder bag, and the lens is like this.
It would have extended completely, with a little more time. This is the worst lens I have regarding lens creep.

Later, I get home, put the camera on my desk, remove the SD card, close the battery door, hear a weird noise, and then I realise the lens is trying to extend while the camera is on top of it. I had put the camera face down, without lens hood.
I just said in my language "I had forgotten why I hate this lens...".

Yes, I have other external focusing lenses, the 16, the 28 and the 50, but the 28 is too small to put the camera face down, and I always use lens hoods on the others - they're too small to put face down without hoods anyway.

With the exception of the 16mm, that I actually use for work, I own the 28, 35 and 50 for personal stuff.
I work mainly with the 28-70 and 70-200, two somewhat big lenses, so I usually put my cameras vertically on the table, it's not on purpose.

Seriously, I'm fed up with these weird designs...

ctk · Oct 21, 2025

For me it's overkill. I'd prefer something like an R8 II with a ~30MP sensor, and if possible the 3.6MP EVF. IBIS, ~10FPS, oversampled no crop 4K etc.

Zadak · Oct 21, 2025

Been saying this for a while now. Canon's playing a very risky game here, a jingoist version of technology

snapshot · Oct 21, 2025

i wonder is an upgrade from R worth it for landscape / portraits?

3 fps -> 40fps
30 Mpix -> 32 Mpix
no ibis -> 6.5 stops ibis
already paid for -> $2800

R takes good pictures, the speed improvement is nice. ibis could help some handheld shots.

AlanF · Oct 21, 2025

EOS 4 Life said:
That depends on the focus distance.
People misunderstand and think that an 800 mm lens will always have more magnification than a 600 mm lens at the same distance.
Most people test the performance of super telephoto lenses far too close.
The weird thing is that I even hear this mistake from experts.
That you want to get close to a subject with a super-telephoto lens.
Super telephoto lenses are designed to focus on faraway subjects unless they have some macro capabilities.

I have done most of the testing of the RF 200-800mm posted on this site, and I do it at distances that are compatible with its use in real life for me - photographing birds. You need a supertelephoto to get well-defined images of a small bird at 20m as well as larger ones at longer distances or birds in flight. I just about always have the lens fully extended at 800mm, because I always get more magnification than at 600mm (I use 400-600mm for fast small birds in flight). The resolution might not be any better at 800mm than 600mm, but more pixels on target pick out small details with less pixellation at the limits of resolution. Also, the eyeAF/bird AF picks up birds at further distances at 800mm than using 600mm.

https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/summary-of-my-rf-200-800mm-testing.43239/

Michael Clark · Oct 21, 2025

roby17269 said:
My experience is that ISO 6400 with the R5 is useable with AI NR. Personally I use AI NR above ISO 800.

Beware that there is a significant penalty in processing time when you use any AI NR, especially if your computer is not powerful.

AI NR is materially better than "classic" NR, but it is not magic and the higher the ISO, the more detail you'll lose (the loss will be less compared to "classic" NR, but still present)

roby17269 said:
Nope I meant 800. I should qualify it with "and when I am taking photos in badly lit environments" which happens frequently when I am taking photos at indoor birthday parties...

Incidentally I had a EF 50 1.4 and absolutely hated it - sold it for a EF 50 1.2 and did not like that one as well... that sort of put me off the 50mm fl, until Canon saw fit to provide a 50mm that I liked, the RF 1.2

My point is in your initial post you blamed needing NR on the ISO setting, when the real culprit was the poor lighting conditions which you only acknowledged in your follow up post in reply to another comment. You can get photos with virtually no noise at high ISO if you are willing to let small specular highlights blow out and use long enough exposure times to allow enough light into the camera.

Michael Clark · Oct 21, 2025

m4ndr4ke said:
Maybe we should check Sony alpha rumors and Nikon rumors

I briefly had the EF 50mm f/1.8 II, then the STM version, and later the 1.4. The reason I got the 1.4 was because the 1.8 had such low resistance to specular highlights in the background it annoyed me.

A few years later I finally upgraded to the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art and never looked back.

Currently, I no longer own any EF lens. Truth is, after I got the 28-70mm f/2, I can barely find the need for a prime lens in that range, at least for work. I "want" a good 50, and now there's the VCM, but I'm yet to really feel the need.

I tend to use my 35mm and 135mm primes far more than my 85mm, and the 50mm even less than the 85mm. So it's not a high priority focal length for me. I shoot with the original EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L a lot. As maligned as that lens is (mostly because of its retrofocus design and two tilt adjustments located in the front of the lens it can be knocked out of optical alignment fairly easily if the hood is not protecting the extended barrel from lateral bumps and bangs) I get photos that are good enough for my purposes out of it. My lens seems to still be in excellent optical alignment, though I've tended to baby it over the years I've had it.

ctk · Oct 21, 2025

m4ndr4ke said:
Of course it is, and that's exactly the point: they could have made all these lenses with internal focus.

With internal focus at least I can put my camera face down in my shoulder bag, or put the lens face down with an attached hood in the right position, knowing I won't find the lens fully extended when I take it out, like with the RF 35mm f/1.8, neither it will damage the motor if I turn my camera on/off/wake it from sleep/change SD card when it's facing down, gets knocked, neither will water enter the lens barrel as easily.

OK, that's a fair concern, though I don't know if a camera in a padded bag is enough to ruin the AF mechanism. Hopefully Canon took that into consideration; I'd wager the focusing elements retract on shutdown.

shawnc said:
No longer a stills-focused camera and Canon wants me to get a refurbed Mk II. Got it.

How is this any less stills focused than the Mk II? Same 40fps with 40% more stills resolution. It's not like the Mk II was some pure stills camera to begin with.

rombe3jr said:
Good points here. It is interesting that some feature improvements, perhaps even just one (the right one for that person) may be sufficient to upgrade (such as the improved EVF). I suppose across a fairly large target market a lot of improvements will make it easier for a lot of people to upgrade. Even if individually, there may have been just a couple of key features that they wanted. For me, the video features are key. And price.

Plus its worth considering that generation updates rarely warrant upgrades. I.e. the MkII wasn't a "must buy" from the MkI and that didn't make it a failure or bad camera. And IMO the step up from Mk2 to Mk3 is much bigger than the step up from Mk1 to Mk2. I had an EOS R and currently have an a7C II. R6's 20-24MP was a non-starter. Now the R6 is interesting to me.

Dragon · Oct 21, 2025

AlanF said:
There are examples in the past where, for example, Sigma EF mount lens would stop working properly when Canon changed their camera firmware. So, Sigma and Tamron introduced docks so that the lens firmware could be upgraded.

The docks were partly needed because Sigma and Tamron had reverse engineered EF protocol and missed some subtle points. A licensing situation is different because there, the protocol should be provided to the licensee. The China case is different for two reasons. Firstly, the manufacturer may choose to not implement the protocol completely and more importantly may decide to bow out of the agreement and continue using the technology anyway. Doing business in China is always a challenge.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics