Latest activity

AlanF · Jun 5, 2026

@zajicekpavel said:
So that it doesn't happen after those amazing rumors... I'll keep the same sensor, make the body smaller, add CF cards, improve reading and cheers... but the question is, would we need anything else? The R7 is just too good

The major drawbacks for the R7 are AF and not having Pre-shooting. It's great for stills, but for action, BIF, DIF etc it's not in the same league as the R5ii etc. If they improved the AF and added Pre-shooting, I'd throw on a lighter telephoto like the RF 100-500mm or the RF 100-400mm and use it rather than the R5ii + RF 200-800mm. I have a feeling Canon might not like that.

AlanF · Jun 5, 2026

riker said:
I just want that 32.5MP sensor in the tiniest possible compact body.

That's no good for the target market of birders who want something they can hold with a telephoto attached.

@zajicekpavel · Jun 5, 2026

riker said:
I just want that 32.5MP sensor in the tiniest possible compact body.

So that it doesn't happen after those amazing rumors... I'll keep the same sensor, make the body smaller, add CF cards, improve reading and cheers... but the question is, would we need anything else? The R7 is just too good

riker · Jun 5, 2026

I just want that 32.5MP sensor in the tiniest possible compact body.

Vas Val · Jun 5, 2026

Alpine swift and Jackdaw

from South Portugal

R7 + RF 100-500mm

Chig · Jun 5, 2026

"Added American football to the list of supported sports for the Action Priority feature. When this feature is enabled, the detection of people will be optimised for individuals wearing American football helmets and shoulder pads."
Has anyone tried using this for the grown up version without the sissy padding and helmets and endless ad breaks: i.e. Rugby Union and Rugby League?

mb66energy · Jun 5, 2026

I think, it's not that easy to produce a global shutter APS-C camera with 24 MPix at 1899 USD/EUR as a follow-up of the current R7 ...
Just kidding ( a little bit) but would be cool combination. Add S&F and keep the auto level feature (by IBIS!) and it would be a true hybrid for me. This & the 20-50!

@zajicekpavel · Jun 5, 2026

Photos:

https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/sigma-17-40-mm-f-1-8-dc-art-canon-rf.45151/#post-1046371

Del Paso · Jun 4, 2026

scyrene said:

Context missing!

AlanF · Jun 4, 2026

Hovercraft said:
Exactly, RF 100-400 is better than it should be, in reasonable light it can be as good as RF 100-500. Even with 1.4 extender. And R7 with RF 100-400 is lighter than micro 4/3. And cheaper. Not a perfect setup, but when price or weight is a priority, it’s a winner. You still get great pictures.

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

Hovercraft · Jun 4, 2026

scyrene said:
They gave us cheap supertelephoto RF lenses, a birder of limited means can do very well with current gear.

Exactly, RF 100-400 is better than it should be, in reasonable light it can be as good as RF 100-500. Even with 1.4 extender. And R7 with RF 100-400 is lighter than micro 4/3. And cheaper. Not a perfect setup, but when price or weight is a priority, it’s a winner. You still get great pictures.

scyrene · Jun 4, 2026

Del Paso said:
filling holes is even nicer!

scyrene · Jun 4, 2026

Tom R5R7 said:
It appears that crop sensor bodies are the redheaded stepchild of multiple brands. Birders of limited means are not amused.

They gave us cheap supertelephoto RF lenses, a birder of limited means can do very well with current gear.

Del Paso · Jun 4, 2026

noname said:
A 400mm f/8 (or somewhat faster) IS STM could cost about half of the 100-300mm's price (600mm f/11 IS STM costs USD 830)

All you have to do is buy the RF 100-400 zoom... Small, sharp, inexpensive!
There's, in my opinion, absolutely no need for an f/8 400mm lens.

noname · Jun 4, 2026

Skyfall said:
If they can make it 50-150 f2.8 it would be even better, the perfect compliment to a wide angle zoom. I dont necerarily know what something like a 400mm prime would actually give that the 100-500 does not have. Maby if they make it f4.5 and very light?

A 400mm f/8 (or somewhat faster) IS STM could cost about half of the 100-500mm's price (600mm f/11 IS STM costs USD 830)

@zajicekpavel · Jun 4, 2026

memory crisis and the competition has nothing better for wildlife... so Canon is in no hurry

Del Paso · Jun 4, 2026

roby17269 said:
It seems to me that the 50 1.2 (I have one and love it) would fail both of your criteria... I am sure that there are other lenses that would fit those criteria better.
The 50 1.2 does not sell in a lot of copies and I couldn't see a new one having massively better IQ, which is its most important characteristic.

And I would not buy a new hypothetical 50 1.2 that would achieve smaller size / lighter weight by compromising with optical design with digital corrections.

Generally speaking, my humble opinion is that there are a number of gaps in the RF lineup to fill before Canon should start looking at mkII versions. Especially not for lenses without glaring issues.
So far they have updated only the 70-200 2.8, but even then the 2 lenses are sufficiently different that you wouldn't call the Z a mkII of the original.

Both the 50mm and the 85mm f/1,2 are optically superb lenses. Neither I believe they could be dramatically "improved" to justify a version "II".
Lighter and smaller doesn't suffice, in my opinion.
There are indeed still too many gaps in the RF lineup that could/should be addressed first, like a longer macro, TS-Es, new big whites, 28mm f/1,4, 35mm f/1,2 or, why not, f/1,0 and so on.
Mk. IIs are nice, but filling holes is even nicer!
My 2 centimes d'Euro...

@zajicekpavel · Jun 4, 2026

@zajicekpavel · Jun 4, 2026

Tom R5R7 · Jun 4, 2026

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

neuroanatomist · Jun 4, 2026

No one should be surprised when Canon gives little love to the 7-series, their red-headed stepchild.

Bob Howland · Jun 4, 2026

Craig,, has there been any more input about the resolution of the R7-2 and/or R7V? One conjecture had it at 7680 pixels horizontal.

Next question, you shoot professional basketball, which is a crowded and chaotic sport, and have mentioned pre-capture as an excuse for upgrading my R6-2 to an R6-3.. Do you use pre-capture most or all of the time when shooting basketball?

AlanF · Jun 4, 2026

Common Terns are always spectacular in flight and fishing (R5ii + RF 200-800mm).

roby17269 · Jun 4, 2026

Rceres said:
If I were deciding which of the original RF lenses to update, I’d use two criteria:

1. Which lens has the most room for improvement?
2. Which lens would sell the most copies?

The iconic RF 50mm f/1.2L immediately comes to mind. Not because the current lens isn’t excellent (I love mine and use it every day), but because it was designed very early in the RF era. Since then Canon has made tremendous progress in autofocus systems, focusing-group design, and lens packaging.

The RF 135mm f/1.8L shows how much Canon’s engineering has evolved. What would a modern RF 50mm f/1.2L II look like if Canon prioritized improved handling and balance while maintaining the same flagship-level image quality.

A slimmer barrel, more modern focusing architecture, and improved packaging could potentially make the lens noticeably easier to handle without sacrificing what made the original iconic.

I suspect a lot of existing RF 50mm f/1.2L owners would upgrade.

Sign me up for the preorder!

It seems to me that the 50 1.2 (I have one and love it) would fail both of your criteria... I am sure that there are other lenses that would fit those criteria better.
The 50 1.2 does not sell in a lot of copies and I couldn't see a new one having massively better IQ, which is its most important characteristic.

And I would not buy a new hypothetical 50 1.2 that would achieve smaller size / lighter weight by compromising with optical design with digital corrections.

Generally speaking, my humble opinion is that there are a number of gaps in the RF lineup to fill before Canon should start looking at mkII versions. Especially not for lenses without glaring issues.
So far they have updated only the 70-200 2.8, but even then the 2 lenses are sufficiently different that you wouldn't call the Z a mkII of the original.

Skyfall · Jun 4, 2026

noname said:
1. The latest rumor is a never-seen-before prime and zoom.
2. A rumor from.last November is about a 300-600mm supertele and a 20/24-70mm f/2.8L Z.
3. My logic would suggest a 70-180mm f/2.8 IS STM and a "cheap" 400mm prime.
4. In the macro department a 50mm 1:1 and 180mm 1:1 are still.missing.
5. Among the first RF lenses the one to be replaced asap (imho) is the 28-70mm f/2 (and a 70-150mm to add to this series).

So I do not see a new 35mm macro to come in the foreseeable future.

If they can make it 50-150 f2.8 it would be even better, the perfect compliment to a wide angle zoom. I dont necerarily know what something like a 400mm prime would actually give that the 100-500 does not have. Maby if they make it f4.5 and very light?

Latest activity

Latest activity

Alpine swift and Jackdaw​

from South Portugal​

​

​

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics

Alpine swift and Jackdaw

from South Portugal