neuroanatomist said:

You might want to consider what you wrote above more carefully. Fuji’s lens (50-140/2.8 not 45-150) hasn’t been updated in over a decade. No other major manufacturer makes a similar lens for APS-C. So the companies that collectively sell over 85% of ILCs don’t see a market for such a lens and the one niche player that thought there was such a market has let their offering languish.

There’s a logical conclusion that can be drawn from the above facts, even if you’d prefer to ignore it.

Something else to consider is that for manufacturers that offer both APS-C and FF, having their APS-C buyers switch to FF is profitable. While people may not mind ‘abandoning’ an APS-C kit lens with a format switch, I suspect many would be reluctant to do the same with a lens costing $2000 (the old Fuji 50-140/2.8 sells for $1700, a new lens like that from Canon would likely cost more).

Click to expand...

That's why we were talking about Sigma or Tamron or other 3rd party making the lens. A lot of their lenses are ones that camera manufacturers don't or don't want to make themselves. That's why Sigma makes lenses for Canon APS-C cameras now - because Canon doesn't want to.

Even when 3rd party manufacturers make lenses that overlap 1st party lenses, they make less expensive versions. Compare the standard f2.8 zooms. For first party lenses the Nikon 16-55mm f2.8 is $900, the Fuji 16-55mm f2.8 is $1400, and the Sony 16-55mm f2.8 is freaking $1700 (prices not on sale).

Sigma's 18-50mm f2.8 however is $570 and the Tamron 17-70mm is $600. If Sigma or Tamron made a ~45-135mm f2.8 it wouldn't be cheap, but it wouldn't be anywhere near $1700-2000. $800-1200, maybe?

neuroanatomist said:

Even if Canon sold such a lens for less than the Fuji version, say $1500, your suggestion that someone could buy that lens and an R7II for less than the cost of a 70-200/2.8 ($2500) is ludicrous.

Click to expand...

I said

Planterz said:

A high school's photography/journalism department or proud parent could feasibly get the camera and lens to shoot basketball or volleyball games for about the cost of the RF 70-200mm Z (no body).

Click to expand...

The new 70-200mm Z is a $3300 lens ($3100 on sale). But if this completely hypothetical ~45-135mm f2.8 3rd party lens is around $1000 (wild assumption), and the R7 II is around $2000 (again, wild assumption) or so, then the total cost would be about that of the $3300 70-200mm Z lens. I never said "less than".

This is exciting news... it'll be interesting to see where Canon goes with the R3 II.

I'll hold-off on my Hasselblad 2Dx II purchase... would prefer a high resolution (100MP is preferred) Canon with a built-in grip! Yes, I currently have a R5 II and have added a grip.

The R5 can occupy the under 100MP range, while the R3 occupies the 100MP and up range.

Michael Clark said:

Why didn't you just say that? It was less than clear that is what you meant with what seems to be intentionally vague:

View attachment 227282

Click to expand...

I did. Here's the original context, which you've ignored twice now.

Bob Howland said:

Sigma needs to add a small 50-135 or 140 f/2.8

Click to expand...

Planterz said:

Sony users have long lamented the lack of a ~45-135mm f2.8 APS-C lens to match the common 70-200m f2.8 telephoto zoom. I think once upon a time Sigma was rumored to be working on one, but clearly that never came to be. Fuji has a 50-140mm f2.8, but they're the only APS-C maker to do so. Now that there's potentially 4 mounts (X, E, Z, RF-S), maybe it'll finally make sense for Sigma or whomever to make one.

Click to expand...

Planterz said:

If indeed the R7 II is more "entry-pro"/enthusiast level, a 70-200mm equivalent f2.8 APS-C makes a lot of sense to me. A high school's photography/journalism department or proud parent could feasibly get the camera and lens to shoot basketball or volleyball games for about the cost of the RF 70-200mm Z (no body).

Click to expand...

I'm not going to make excuses on your behalf if you're going to misread things out of context.

Planterz said:

That'd be ~45-135mm for Sony/Nikon/Fuji with a 1.5x crop or ~42-125mm on Canon's 1.6x crop. Fuji has one, the 45-150mm f2.8, but it's old and heavy, as has already been mentioned. Neither Sony, Nikon, nor Canon have made one.

Click to expand...

You might want to consider what you wrote above more carefully. Fuji’s lens (50-140/2.8 not 45-150) hasn’t been updated in over a decade. No other major manufacturer makes a similar lens for APS-C. So the companies that collectively sell over 85% of ILCs don’t see a market for such a lens and the one niche player that thought there was such a market has let their offering languish.

There’s a logical conclusion that can be drawn from the above facts, even if you’d prefer to ignore it.

Something else to consider is that for manufacturers that offer both APS-C and FF, having their APS-C buyers switch to FF is profitable. While people may not mind ‘abandoning’ an APS-C kit lens with a format switch, I suspect many would be reluctant to do the same with a lens costing $2000 (the old Fuji 50-140/2.8 sells for $1700, a new lens like that from Canon would likely cost more).

Even if Canon sold such a lens for less than the Fuji version, say $1500, your suggestion that someone could buy that lens and an R7II for less than the cost of a 70-200/2.8 ($2500) is ludicrous.

Del Paso said:

The best of 2026?
R3 II & RF 14mm TSE & RF 35mm f/1,2

Click to expand...

Add the RF 300-600L

The best of 2026?
R3 II & RF 14mm TSE & RF 35mm f/1,2

AlanF said:

Thank you. I was, in fact, a strong chess player in my youth, which was useful training for playing with pigeons. Though I now prefer to photo them. Here is one looking out of a clock taken on my R7 in a beautiful town in Tuscany this summer.

View attachment 227193

Click to expand...

Why does the shadow cast by the "little" hour hand look like a ground squirrel?

Planterz said:

For anyone who wants to continue this discussion, we were/are talking about a lens with a ~42-135mm zoom range with an f2.8 aperture.

Click to expand...

Why didn't you just say that? It was less than clear that is what you meant with what seems to be intentionally vague:

Planterz said:

I said a 70-200mm equivalent f2.8 APS-C, not a 70-200mm f2.8 equivalent APS-C.

Click to expand...

Philnick said:

We are, after all, in a discussion thread about an anticipated APS-C body - and many of us -perhaps most - see the R7 as their main camera, not merely a telextender for their full-frame setup.

Click to expand...

The R7 Mark II, if it turns out to be the camera many here think it might be, is probably not the best choice from among Canon's current or near future APS-C offerings for a generalist camera.

The current R7 or R10 (or R20 if that is the name of what replaces the R10 in the presumably near future) would continue to be a better body for a generalist using it as their only camera that what many think the R7 Mark II will be. The specifications in the rumor at the top of this thread might be interpreted by some to point in that direction. Personally, I'll believe it if and when Canon announces such a camera.

It's no different than the comparisons between the 7D Mark II and the 80D/90D.

The 80D/90D were better all around cameras for non-professional generalists (i.e. those not shooting hundred to thousands of frames per day several days per week every week of the year) using it as their main body. The 80D/90D had better DR at low ISO. The 80D and 90D only had shutter life ratings of 100,000 and 120,000 actuations, respectively. The 80D/90D had polycarbonate bodies.

The 7D Mark II was a better tool for specific use cases like birding or sports. The 7D Mark II had a shutter life rating of 200,000 actuations. The 7D Mark II had a more sophisticated and better performing AF system than the 80D/90D, particularly when using AI Servo with targets like birds in flight or fast moving athletes. It had a magnesium alloy body and was "the most thoroughly weather-sealed camera I’ve ever run across" at the time Roger Cicala took a 7D Mark II apart.

Even further back, the original 7D was the more logical successor to the 50D, while the 60D was a downgrade from the 50D in several ways. (The 50D and 7D both had AFMA, the 60D did not. That's a big difference when using fast and long telephoto lenses as many 7D users did. The 50D and 7D had magnesium alloy bodies, the 60D was a polycarbonate body. Etc. )

For what it's worth, the R7 is more of an 80D/90D type of camera than it is a 7D Mark II type of camera. It remains to be seen which way the R7 Mark II will lean.

I shoot both, but rarely did I find the need to use tilt for controlling DOF. I just stop down and am happy with the results. Since I use a tripod anyways and actually prefer long exposures, this has worked out for me.

I use shift function way, way, way more often, mainly because I stitch a lot.

The only time I really do use tilt is for product shots in studio, but that's usually with 90TS and 135TS. As far as I'm concerned, I'd be perfectly fine not having tilt functionality on 17, 24 and 50 TS lenses.

Michael Clark said:

There's very little difference in size, weight, and cost between a 70-200/2.8 with a FF image circle and a 70-200/2.8 with an APS-C image circle. The front group, which is where a significant portion of the money is spent, has to be the same size either way to allow 200mm f/2.8. The most expensive piece of glass in most 70-200mm f/2.8 is an aspherical high index (UD in Canon speak) element which is usually the second or third element in the front group.

To be f/2.8 "equivalent" for APS-C , it would need to be an f/1.8 lens, rather than f/2.8. That makes it even more expensive than a FF 70-200/2.8.

Click to expand...

Yeah. I know. I knew this before I was "corrected" by Chunk, and you just repeated what he said. Neither of you are reading what I said, and you're ignoring the context in which it was said.

Planterz said:

I said a 70-200mm equivalent f2.8 APS-C, not a 70-200mm f2.8 equivalent APS-C.

Click to expand...

We were discussing an APS-C lens to match the zoom range of the commonly used 70-200mm f2.8. That'd be ~45-135mm for Sony/Nikon/Fuji with a 1.5x crop or ~42-125mm on Canon's 1.6x crop. Fuji has one, the 45-150mm f2.8, but it's old and heavy, as has already been mentioned. Neither Sony, Nikon, nor Canon have made one.

A 42-125mm lens would give APS-C Canon users the 70-200mm equivalent range, and f2.8 would give them the same shutter speeds. It'd be smaller and lighter and presumably cheaper than a 70-200mm f2.8.

I said nothing about having an equivalent depth of field or any other sort of equivalence. Let me copy/paste it for you one more time.

Planterz said:

I said a 70-200mm equivalent f2.8 APS-C, not a 70-200mm f2.8 equivalent APS-C.

Click to expand...

I suppose I should have used the word "effective" instead, but I seriously doubt it that would prevented the inevitable flood of people arguing equivalence for several pages even though nobody postulated a theoretical and extremely unlikely 42-125mm f1.8 APS-C lens.

For anyone who wants to continue this discussion, we were/are talking about a lens with a ~42-135mm zoom range with an f2.8 aperture. This range on an APS-C camera would roughly effectively match the zoom range and field of view of the commonly used 70-200mm lenses used by professionals for indoor sports, weddings, events, and other things. The f2.8 aperture would let you shoot at the same shutter speeds, albeit with less shallow depth of field, which everybody understands and doesn't need to be argued further. It should be lighter and cheaper than a 70-200mm f2.8, which on a Canon APS-C camera would give an effective 112-320mm full frame field of view, but might be too long/narrow, especially if the situation calls for the 70-200mm field of view.

Philnick said:

Total amount of light gathered is relevant to what? Exposure and signal to noise ratio both depend only on the intensity of light hitting each photosite and the exposure time. What does total amount of light gathered across the whole sensor affect? Answer: Nothing, unless you're trying to use your camera to sunbathe.

Click to expand...

Correct answer: The ratio of signal to Poisson distribution noise. (a/k/a "shot" noise) Light has random distribution within a field from a point source. The randomness increases as the square root of the intensity. So the more photons you collect, the more uniform (thus, less random) the intensity of the field is.

scyrene said:

Mistakes won't show more easily on higher MP sensors if you view the image at the same magnification. It's only if you insist on viewing at 100% or cropping more on the higher pixel sensor that eg diffraction or camera shake will be more clearly resolved.

Click to expand...

What many pixel peepers fail to realize is that viewing at 100% from a 22MP sensor is a much lower enlargement ratio than viewing at 100% from a 50MP sensor.

On a standard FHD 24" monitor with 96ppi, at 100% you're looking at a piece of something like a 60x40 inch enlargement for the 22MP image. On the same monitor at 100% you're looking at a piece of something like a 90x60 inch enlargement for the 50 MP image. The more you enlarge, the more you magnify everything, including blur and noise.

Maximilian said:

Thanks for the examples, Alan!
I was looking at RAWs SOOC with Canons original DPP.
And there the results were not as good as yours look here.

Click to expand...

There's no such thing as "RAWs SOOC". The data is highly processed to give you the image you see on your screen. If you haven't modified any adjustments after opening the images, then whatever default settings are selected when DPP opens raw files can have an effect. You may even be looking at the JPEG preview image attached to the raw file if you have some of your default display settings in DPP set to "fast" rather than "high quality".

Not to mention that Digital Photo Professional has been on version 4 since around 2012. I'm surprised the "original" version of DPP even supports those two cameras, as version 3 certainly does not.

masterpix said:

If there is R3 with 50MP sensor, than the R5III will have to have something much bigger than that so it will contonue to be "different" from it. The R1 will be the "fastest" thing around with lower resolution (as the 1D were) the R5 will be the "camera with the most MP" and the R3 will be somewhere in the middle while it features new things that later will come to the R1 (2) and the R5 (3).

Click to expand...

Will it? The z9 and z8 are essentially the same except for the body and both still do well and have people that think one is much better than the other.

R6mkiii did move up in resolution though and if R3 is also getting a big bump maybe the R5 series will bump up to 60-80mp next

Philnick said:

What cameras and lenses were used here? Since no camera you list has more than 24MP, for all we know the degraded left-hand image was an APS-C crop from from the center of a 24MP full-frame image - and is thus barely more than 9MP, not to mention the lower resolving power of a shorter lens - particularly if it's shot at a smaller aperture incurring more shot noise? Hardly fair. Doesn't "spark joy" to see such a post.

Click to expand...

Not to mention the possibility of differences in processing pipeline. AI NR could get the left example a lot closer to the right example than what is shown.

Michael Clark said:

It's actually the larger influence of Poisson distribution (i.e. statistical fluctuations) due to the reduced amount of light allowed into the camera, which is what requires those higher ISOs, that causes the increased noise. If you shoot at high ISO but let enough light into the camera to fully saturate the highlights there's a lot less noise than if you still don't get enough light to saturate anything in the frame, even with the higher analog amplification due to the higher ISO.

Click to expand...

The iso doesn't affect the amount of light let into to the camera - it's the same amount at all isos, and there is the same noise (Poisson) distribution if you keep the aperture and speed constant and fiddle with the iso up and down. The iso just sets the ceiling for the amplification in the read out, it doesn't increase the amplification. If you fully saturate the highlights, you will bleach them.

Planterz said:

I said a 70-200mm equivalent f2.8 APS-C, not a 70-200mm f2.8 equivalent APS-C.

Click to expand...

There's very little difference in size, weight, and cost between a 70-200/2.8 with a FF image circle and a 70-200/2.8 with an APS-C image circle. The front group, which is where a significant portion of the money is spent, has to be the same size either way to allow 200mm f/2.8. The most expensive piece of glass in most 70-200mm f/2.8 is an aspherical high index (UD in Canon speak) element which is usually the second or third element in the front group.

To be f/2.8 "equivalent" for APS-C , it would need to be an f/1.8 lens, rather than f/2.8. That makes it even more expensive than a FF 70-200/2.8.

Bob Howland said:

Based on my experience with a 7D vs 5D3 and R7 vs R6-2, I think it's been this way since about 2012. My maximum auto ISO for the APS-C cameras is 6400 and for the FF cameras, 12800.

Click to expand...

The 2009 7D should be compared to the 2008 5D Mark II.

The 2014 7D Mark II is the one that should be compared to either the 2012 5D Mark III or the 2016 5D Mark IV. The 7D Mark II was released almost at the end of 2014 while the 5D Mark III and 5D Mark IV were released early in 2012 and mid-year 2016, respectively, so the 7D Mark II release date was closer to the 5D Mark IV than to the 5D Mark III.

I never shot beyond ISO 3200 with the 7D. I'll go ISO 5000 or if desperately needed ISO 6400 with the 7D Mark II. But if the light is that dim I'm usually swapping my 70-200/2.8 from the 7D to the 5D Mark III to use with the 5D Mark IV as my "wide" body in a two-body setup. Either that or forgetting f/2.8 zooms altogether and going with fast primes, typically 35/2, 85/1.8, and 135/2

bendilts said:

This 2-3 month old alligator had his picture taken a few feet from his loudly-hissing mother in the Everglades, from on board an airboat.

View attachment 227280

Click to expand...

I love the interplay of light and shadow.

Michael Clark said:

What makes you think 40MP would upset any more 7D DSLR fans than 32MP would. Either way there will be complainers.

If they make it 40MP there will be those who moan, "They should have left it at 32MP and improved the high ISO/low light performance!"

If they leave it at 32 MP others will cry, "They didn't increase the resolution at all!"

Click to expand...

I'd say that it's pointless to argue about theoretical specs before we even know what they are, or assume that Canon hasn't improved both noise performance and resolution. I guess that's the point of these forums though.

bendilts said:

This guy was also trying to have lunch in the Everglades but may have bitten off more than he can chew
View attachment 227279

Click to expand...

Perfect timing.

johnrowlandphoto said:

I'm in if two wishes come true. Put it in a R6 body I need bigger buttons and please add the voice note. As a news photographer it is so helpful to add an ID or "this was a two run double in the sixth". When you are sending pictures on deadline it is so helpful.

Click to expand...

Canon has never put that capability in anything other than 1-Series bodies. I highly doubt they ever will.

Maybe if their competitors begin to give it to lower tier bodies it may eventually happen?

SHAMwow said:

I hope it is 40mp just to see another wave of upset 7D DSLR fans. I want to see a post in 2030 of someon explaining why they're still waiting to switch over to mirrorless.

Click to expand...

What makes you think 40MP would upset any more 7D DSLR fans than 32MP would? Either way there will be complainers.

If they make it 40MP there will be those who moan, "They should have left it at 32MP and improved the high ISO/low light performance!"

If they leave it at 32 MP others will cry, "They didn't increase the resolution at all!"

AlanF said:

... the noise is primarily due to statistical fluctuations in the number of photons at high iso.

Click to expand...

It's actually the larger influence of Poisson distribution (i.e. statistical fluctuations) due to the reduced amount of light allowed into the camera, which is what requires those higher ISOs, that causes the increased noise. If you shoot at high ISO but let enough light into the camera to fully saturate the highlights there's a lot less noise than if you still don't get enough light to saturate anything in the frame, even with the higher analog amplification due to the higher ISO.