cruso said:

With the crop camera I would gain the reach so i would Be able to get the smaller and lighter lenses ?

Click to expand...

Shooting an R7 is functionally equivalent to shooting with an 83MP FF camera and FF lens, then cropping the image in post processing. The advantage of the crop camera is that it doesn't have to deal with all the pixels that would be removed and, therefore, can be faster and cheaper. As you state, the lenses can be smaller and lighter, as shown by Sigma. (Come on guys, show us how small a quality 50-140 f/2.8 OS lens can be made.)

Speckled wood
R5m2 + Laowa RF58mm macro, hand held and of cause manually focused
Uncropped except changing the ratio



Leptogaster cylindrica (Gemeine Schlankfliege)
Sorry, Alan, no English name!
R5m2 + RF100L

and a QHD crop of the same image

R5m2 + 200-800 + 1.4 TC
@ 1/4000s, f/13, 1120mm

@ 1/4000s, f/11, 840mm

r5m2 + 200-800
@ 1/4000, f/9, 800mm

With the crop camera I would gain the reach so i would Be able to get the smaller and lighter lenses ?

Common swift
R5m2 + RF 200-800
@ 1/4000s, f/9, iso 6400/8000


Barn swollow
R5m2 + RF200-800 + 1.4TC
@ 1/4000s, f/13, iso 10 000
IQ is not that good but I like the action

And a GIF of 20 frames

cruso said:

I have Been a canon supporter for 44 years and my passion is doing wildlife, And In my option they seem to be more interested in Video than stills nowadays ? I have the r5 camera at the moment and some big prime lenses but are now getting increasing to heavy for me nowadays so I for one was looking forward to the r7mk2

Click to expand...

Would the difference in weight between the two bodies really make that much difference? I would think you'd be better off getting lighter lenses if it's an issue.

I have Been a canon supporter for 44 years and my passion is doing wildlife, And In my option they seem to be more interested in Video than stills nowadays ? I have the r5 camera at the moment and some big prime lenses but are now getting increasing to heavy for me nowadays so I for one was looking forward to the r7mk2

Actually, with 1.3.0, I started to see some cases of false positive in auto focus eye detect, which I had not seen before with R5 Mark ii. I cannot be sure, but I wonder if anyone else has had such feeling about the camera underperforming in autofocus after the last upgrade? In any case, I hope 1.3.1 resolves any potential issues around focusing if 1.3.0 had caused some other detrimental impacts too.

Any news about the RF-S 15-70/4.0 which was rumoured to be released as the kit lens for the R7 ii? Haven't heard anything about this lens since it became known that the R7 ii was delayed to 2027...

LuckyOne said:

You are right. The bare Sony 100-400 f4.5 GM lens is priced at around USD 4,300.

A Canon 100-400 f4.5 L lens with a built in 1.4X converter would probably cost $5,000 for a bare lens because of Canon’s self defined superiority plus an additional $1,000 for the internal teleconverter.

My hoped for price point of $4,750 is more likely to be around $6,000.

It will be interesting to see what Canon brings to the market in the next 6 months and how it competes with Sony.

I love my Canon gear but there is a point of no return for wildlife photographers that is approaching rapidly.

The day after I potentially dump my Canon equipment, I am absolutely certain that Canon will offer an amazing 200-600 f4.5 to f5.6-f6.3 L lens.

Click to expand...

I don't see that a 100-400+1.4x is different enough from the existing 100-500 to make sense. "Self defined superiority" hmm. Or charging what the market will bear?

Interesting list and good to know. Thx. Especially that the 100mm F2.8 L Macro IS USM will be serviced until 2032. I´m currently looking for a used copy (or that Sigma 105mm macro...don´t know yet) to take with me to the North Sea.

I didn´t know Canon released several TS lenses. I thought there were only two TS lenses. But hell, a TS 135mm? That kind sounds crazy to me. What use cases are there for this lens? In my (obviously narrow) mind, I always thought TS lenses are specially for architecture or waterfalls and such things. But nobody would pick a 135mm lens for that. Also, has anybody in this forum ever used or own a TS-E50mm F2.8L Macro? I´d really love to find out about these lenses, just because I´m curious.

Czardoom said:

Which is why OM Systems OM-1 mark II is my birding camera of choice. What Canon, Nikon and Sony do are of no interest.

Click to expand...

I go out birding most days and see a large number of Canons and a sprinkling of Nikons and Sonys, but not a single OM in the past few years. I occasionally saw an Olympus pre-Covid. Canon and Sony have about 70% of worldwide mirrorless sales and OM are now down to only 2-3% from higher when they were Olympus. They are more popular in Japan but have dropped behind Nikon at around the 12% mark or less.

In terms of practicality for birding, the star OM telephoto is the 150-400mm f/4.5 with the 1.25x TC, costing over £6000 here. Given the crop factor of 2, that is equivalent to an 300-800mm f/9, about the same weight as the Canon 200-800m f/9, costing £2000. Further, the OM sensor is only 20.4 Mpx, compared with 45 Mpx on an R5ii, so the R5ii has an effective extra reach of 50%, like having a built in 1.5x TC. The cheaper 32 Mpx R6iii has 32.5 Mpx, which is equivalent to having a 1.26xTC on it compared with the OM. The lighter RF 100-500mm f/7.1 has an equivalent reach of 750mm on the R5ii, compared with the OM. The cheaper M. Zuiko Digital ED 150-600mm f/5.0-6.3 IS costs £2500, weighs more than the 200-800, and is just a rebadged Sigma with a marked-up price.

As good as Olympus used to be, and it was far ahead in the past, OM haven't put in the development and so Canon has leapt ahead in terms of AF, subject identification and tracking. However, your opinion clearly differs, and there are devotees of M4/3.

Put an upgraded APS-C sensor in an R6 mark iii body and slap an r7 mark ii badge on it please.

LuckyOne said:

You are right. The bare Sony 100-400 f4.5 GM lens is priced at around USD 4,300.

A Canon 100-400 f4.5 L lens with a built in 1.4X converter would probably cost $5,000 for a bare lens because of Canon’s self defined superiority plus an additional $1,000 for the internal teleconverter.

My hoped for price point of $4,750 is more likely to be around $6,000.

Click to expand...

I do like your optimism
The Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS USM with built-in extender launched in 2013 with msrp price of $11,799
You can use that lens now with adapter. Current occasion prices are around $4,000

riker said:

Sure. With a free thai massage coupon to make it more realistic.

Click to expand...

You are right. The bare Sony 100-400 f4.5 GM lens is priced at around USD 4,300.

A Canon 100-400 f4.5 L lens with a built in 1.4X converter would probably cost $5,000 for a bare lens because of Canon’s self defined superiority plus an additional $1,000 for the internal teleconverter.

My hoped for price point of $4,750 is more likely to be around $6,000.

It will be interesting to see what Canon brings to the market in the next 6 months and how it competes with Sony.

I love my Canon gear but there is a point of no return for wildlife photographers that is approaching rapidly.

The day after I potentially dump my Canon equipment, I am absolutely certain that Canon will offer an amazing 200-600 f4.5 to f5.6-f6.3 L lens.

scyrene said:

I'm always a little bemused because I've never sought Canon's input on anything after purchasing. It wouldn't even occur to me that they could or would solve a problem.

Click to expand...

I have had some excellent post-sales service from Canon. I've been helped several times by sales reps and technicians that wet beyond what I thought was reasonable to help resolve an issue.

Tom R5R7 said:

It appears that crop sensor bodies are the redheaded stepchild of multiple brands. Birders of limited means are not amused.

Click to expand...

Which is why OM Systems OM-1 mark II is my birding camera of choice. What Canon, Nikon and Sony do are of no interest.

Really good quality images and tiny - I don't think you'll be disappointed.

I sold my R5 just as it was announced that the R7II was not coming out until 2027! The R7II would be a perfect match to a 70-200 F2.8Z as well as being a great second camera to the R5II. Now I am stuck with 1 camera until 2/27.

charly1d said:

As a retired rugby player (I retired in the 1990s), I see more testosterone in any American football game than in any rugby league in the world.
As for your specific question, I haven't made the leap to playing without a mirror yet.

Click to expand...

Well they need no endurance so can be super pumped up for the very short bursts of game time between ad breaks whereas try keeping that up for 80 minutes of continuous action

Any dates on Canon cinema lenses like CN-E EF 50mm?

AlanF said:

The R7 plus RF 100-400mm is a winning combination, and for perched birds is pretty close to the R5ii + RF 100-500mm. It's also great for dragonflies and butterflies etc. I've posted dozens of shots on CR of birds and insects taken side by side by my wife with the R7 + RF 100-400mm and by me with the R5ii/R5 + R 100-500mm, and it's pretty difficult to distinguish between them. Here are some shots from yesterday. https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/dragonflies-and-damselflies.35543/page-148#post-1046336

Click to expand...

It also has the benefit of being half the weight, it thought about it while chasing swallows with the 100-500

the US link for the firmware is something like:

Zadak said:

You have the RF 35 f1.4L, what do you mean?

Click to expand...

they're always gonna whine