MikeGalos said:

One other difference is that given the same sensor resolution you lose about one f/stop before diffraction becomes a problem because the photo site in an APS-C sensor of the same sensor resolution is that much smaller. Going in the other direction, keeping the photo sites the same size and not hitting diffraction losses earlier is going to cut overall sensor resolution.

Note I didn't say where diffraction becomes a problem since that depends on what the photographer considers acceptable loss of sharpness but given the same photographer, you lose about one stop by going APS-C. If diffraction bothers you at f/11 on full frame then you'll find it bothers you at f/8 on APS-C.

Click to expand...

With higher resolution sensors, this difference between FF and APS-C is getting slimer with each new generation of camera and in a few years we probably won't compare FF and APS-C on diffraction.

The DLA of the R7 is around f/5.0, on the A7RVI it's f/5.6.

bloblom said:

Don't sweat, you'd be hard pressed to find any difference between APS-C and FF under proper lighting.

Click to expand...

One other difference is that given the same sensor resolution you lose about one f/stop before diffraction becomes a problem because the photo site in an APS-C sensor of the same sensor resolution is that much smaller. Going in the other direction, keeping the photo sites the same size and not hitting diffraction losses earlier is going to cut overall sensor resolution.

Note I didn't say where diffraction becomes a problem since that depends on what the photographer considers acceptable loss of sharpness but given the same photographer, you lose about one stop by going APS-C. If diffraction bothers you at f/16 on full frame then you'll find it bothers you at f/11 on APS-C. If diffraction bothers you at f/8 on full frame then you'll find it bothers you at f/5.6 on APS-C.

@zajicekpavel said:

RF 100-500L is on my wish list... is it worth more than 200-800 for R7?

Click to expand...

It's $1000 / 1000€ more expensive new, but you can have it second hand for about 2500€ so not much more than the 200-800.

If you're talking about performance, you get an equivalent 160-800 with dual USM AF, great stabilization, three stabilizer modes, one dedicated to panning/birds in flight. All in a much lighter, smaller and more robust lens body.
The 200-800 is heavy, bulky, hard to balance when zoomed out and all around inferior. 800mm is quite soft on it so you're better off cropping from 700. On the R7 I can only imagine this being worse.
1280mm FF equivalent is far too much anyway, atmospheric disturbances will ruin the vast majority of your images.

The R7 paired with the 100-500 is already a bargain compared to FF equivalent kits and can absolutely produce award winning images. In fact, many people have won photography awards with this exact kit.

bloblom said:

Don't sweat, you'd be hard pressed to find any difference between APS-C and FF under proper lighting.
Full frame merely raises the ceiling of what you can theoretically achieve in terms of image quality by giving you a bit more flexibility, that's it. I take much better pictures with my R7 + RF 100-500L than the R5 Mark II + 200-800 I was lent. Possibly because I know my setup much better and know how to go around its weaknesses, but also because I simply have a superior lens.

Depth of field is a much more compelling argument in favor of FF for portrait photographers than dynamic range is for birders.

Click to expand...

RF 100-500L is on my wish list... is it worth more than 200-800 for R7?

@zajicekpavel said:

In my opinion, you are mixing apples and pears. The comparison with rain and area is wrong. The same amount of water falls on the area. That's the principle of the rain gauge, gentlemen

I really don't know what you're talking about here. I know the R7 takes nice pictures of animals. And that's why I bought it.

26. 5. 2026 14:34:37 by Pavel Zajíček

adobe.ly

Here you have a squirrel, for example.

Do you see her fine whiskers? Are those the buckets of water?

Click to expand...

Don't sweat, you'd be hard pressed to find any difference between APS-C and FF under proper lighting.
Full frame merely raises the ceiling of what you can theoretically achieve in terms of image quality by giving you a bit more flexibility, that's it. I take much better pictures with my R7 + RF 100-500L than the R5 Mark II + 200-800 I was lent. Possibly because I know my setup much better and know how to go around its weaknesses, but also because I simply have a superior lens.

Depth of field is a much more compelling argument in favor of FF for portrait photographers than dynamic range is for birders.

AlanF said:

The 5DSR was not an entry level DSLR but an expensive 5 series, and an excellent one at that. It had pretty good AF through the viewfinder.

Click to expand...

When I go back to the raw files from the 5DS I had I’m always blown away by the colours it was an ideal studio camera / fashion camera and paired with the right glass and at base ISOs it was stellar.

If Canon see the f1.4L VCM lenses as mainly video focused then I can see a gap plugged by a RF1.4L 65mm VCM or alternatively a f1.4 100mm VCM although that would likely be bigger & heavier than the rest of the set.
I could easily see a RF2.8L 24-70mm VCM similar to the newly announced lens.

AlanF said:

Back in 2015 in Cyprus, I took a live-view shot of the moon hand holding a 7Dii with a 300mm f/2.8 ii with a Canon 2xTC + 3rd party 3xTC at 1800mm - but I did rest the lens on a tree branch!


View attachment 229747

Click to expand...

Not half bad for an f/18 on a 20MP APS-c sensor. And no (to me) visible motion blur!

justaCanonuser said:

I disagree: for tele lens birding/wildlife photography the R7 is within Canon's current eco system still the camera that provides the highest resolution in the center of an image, and that allows for more "reach" (if there is enough light available so noise doesn't kick in too much). With the same pixel pitch, a FF camera would have about 80 MP. Wildlife photography is of course a special branch of photography, but I guess most buyers of the R7 do use it for tele photography and possess also a FF camera for other settings (like me). So, I am overall happy with my R7 for that purpose, despite its shortcomings. Okay, if Canon would come up with an 80 MP FF camera, then one could activate the crop mode in typical birding settings. Such a camera would maybe kill the high res APS line. But the question whether an 80-100 MP FF camera really makes sense in real life photography, was discussed here already extensively - I don't want to open THAT can of worms.

Yepp, that's for me more a "minus" than a "plus", despite the fact that I don't care much about RF-S lenses. But this may also be a hint that Canon realized at least that R7 users have also FF cameras anyway.

Click to expand...

I like to think even with an 80+ MP FF R5 - style camera (which would probably cost 5-6 K Euro, Dollar, Pounds) there could be a place for APS-c sports- and wildlife-capable cameras, for instance for new or young photographers and as backup to the high MP camera. If the rumours of 39-40MP R7 II are true (who knows nowadays...) one would need 100 MP FF for the same pixel density in an APS-c crop. Even a 2.5 K$ R7II would be more in the price bracket of an R6 line model which sells more units than the higher end R5 line models.

So i too think APS-c has a future (and i suppose a lot of the cameras Canon sells are APS-c still today).

justaCanonuser said:

Actually, I did use LV with dual pixel AF e.g. of my 7DII in (not very frequent) cases when I had my old EF 500mm f/4.5 attached with a 2x TC, because the AF sensor then stopped working @ f = 9.0. But of course that was always on a tripod. Btw AF was quite slow back then with this particular combo, so it was only useable for quite steady settings.

Click to expand...

Back in 2015 in Cyprus, I took a live-view shot of the moon hand holding a 7Dii with a 300mm f/2.8 ii with a Canon 2xTC + 3rd party 3xTC at 1800mm - but I did rest the lens on a tree branch!

justaCanonuser said:

Depends on what you want to mainly shoot with that lens: the f/4.0 is a very good landscape and short sports tele zoom; the f/2.8 shines when you shoot people, including portrait (that's why reporters love this lens), and it is of course the better choice if you want to use it with extenders. But I do not want to teach you, you surely know exactly for which purposes you want such a lens.

Btw the f/4.0 L IS USM is not only quite compact & light (like the non-IS version), feels very nice in the hands, in particular turning the zoom ring feels so light and smooth, it is a real fun to use that lens. The f/2.8 L IS USM II that I have feels extremely solid, too, but it is much more massive.

Click to expand...

Yeah — for me it was my kid for a long time (now in university), and during that time we bought a farm and live in a rural community. (I know, weird for a tech guy.) As such, I've gravitated towards domesticated animals (e.g., ducks, horses, hounds); wild animals (e.g., eagles, deer, elk); and people or my own experience in that context (my avatar pic is from a rodeo), such as portraits around barns, warehouses, shops, etc.

For me the 70-200 f/4 original on an R6 with DLO is very satisfactory in terms of quality, especially for animals that aren't shy or things like cowboys riding a bucking bull. IS doesn't help much beyond what the R6 is providing for these contexts. That stated, I am on the Pacific Northwest, so things like humidity and rain are an issue. The lens has some internal sealing, so it's always fine (no fogging, etc.) but I don't bring it out much in the winter or spring. The IS versions are sealed better, so they remain attractive in that regard. I also powerlift, so the larger lenses are more a packing inconvenience than anything else.

But, I also have followed the guiding principle of expanding capability before replacing capability. It's tough for me to upgrade from 70-200 to 70-200 unless the advantage is overwhelming. I still have my ultra-telephoto capability to establish, for example, and since I won't justify $10k+ on a lens (I'm not making money in most cases) and I like primes (for the zen, not pragmatics) I'm waiting for that mythical 500 f/5.6 unicorn to show up. It's why my sig has all of those lenses: each provides a capability or interesting feature that I actually use in a situation that I'd otherwise miss emotionally for my day-to-day or month-to-month prosumer amusement. It's also why I'm not an RF person yet — the gains are there, but for the cash most of the time those gains (to me) are not overwhelming vs. my late-EF editions combined with DLO.

But I really appreciate everyone's input and experience, because my friends and local stores don't carry everything so I can't always test things out before buying. And renting is a real inconvenience for where I am.

EOS 4 Life said:

Also, the R5 C.

Click to expand...

Love the R5C. When you think of a hybrid camera, do you consider hybrid as being one body that does good video and photos seamlessly in one operating system? R5C feels like two completely different cameras sharing one body hardware, with that short reboot cycle between operating systems. So, I’m not sure how hybrid is defined in that case comparing the R5II and the R5C. Both are technically hybrid (R5 line, R6 line).

riker said:

Imho evolution of photo tech these years should include the transition from crop sensor more towards to full frame.

Click to expand...

I disagree: for tele lens birding/wildlife photography the R7 is within Canon's current eco system still the camera that provides the highest resolution in the center of an image, and that allows for more "reach" (if there is enough light available so noise doesn't kick in too much). With the same pixel pitch, a FF camera would have about 80 MP. Wildlife photography is of course a special branch of photography, but I guess most buyers of the R7 do use it for tele photography and possess also a FF camera for other settings (like me). So, I am overall happy with my R7 for that purpose, despite its shortcomings. Okay, if Canon would come up with an 80 MP FF camera, then one could activate the crop mode in typical birding settings. Such a camera would maybe kill the high res APS line. But the question whether an 80-100 MP FF camera really makes sense in real life photography, was discussed here already extensively - I don't want to open THAT can of worms.

riker said:

Canon STILL not having a proper crop-lens lineup is just +1.

Click to expand...

Yepp, that's for me more a "minus" than a "plus", despite the fact that I don't care much about RF-S lenses. But this may also be a hint that Canon realized at least that R7 users have also FF cameras anyway.

AlanF said:

The 5DSR was not an entry level DSLR but an expensive 5 series, and an excellent one at that. It had pretty good AF through the viewfinder.

Click to expand...

Do you know Ming Thein's great review of that camera that he postet in 2015? As a Nikon photographer he was particularly floored by the fact that a digital camera can produce pleasant colors just out of the box. Based on my wife's extended Nikon gear, I immediately understood what he meant. My wife was extremely frustrated by Nikon's color rendition back then, but when anyone tried to address that problem in Nikon forums he ended up in a better knower's shizzle storm. You still can read Ming Thein's highly influential blog that started the internet fame of Canon's really great color science (= satisfying results in many settings w/o massive post-editing):


(in the first version of my post, I got the wrong link to Thein's "review in progress" blog post, but this one brings his conclusions)

AlanF said:

The 5DSR was not an entry level DSLR but an expensive 5 series, and an excellent one at that. It had pretty good AF through the viewfinder.

Click to expand...

The 5D series did start to take off as very good action tool with the 5D3, with which I had a surprisingly high in-focus hit rate with birds in flight (with an old club of an EF 500mm f/4.5 lens). This particular camera kept me with Canon, I loved it, despite its shortcomings (not the biggest DR and critical shadow noise).

AlanF said:

Did you ever use rear screen live view AF while hand holding one of those with a telephoto lens for action shots?

Click to expand...

Actually, I did use LV with dual pixel AF e.g. of my 7DII in (not very frequent) cases when I had my old EF 500mm f/4.5 attached with a 2x TC, because the AF sensor then stopped working @ f = 9.0. But of course that was always on a tripod. Btw AF was quite slow back then with this particular combo, so it was only useable for quite steady settings.

Eric84 said:

Since the 45mm has so poor IQ, at least without correction (and the corners even if corrected) - I really hope for a jump in price for better optical performance Saw Photo Feaver comparison on the 45mm vs 50 f1.8 about a week ago - and there was no competition. The RF 50 f1.8 had way better performance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98OlSjp7Lbg

Click to expand...

The world runs on emotions, not performance. I own both: The 50 1.8 is close to zero emotions but worth being used. the 45 1.2 is nothing but emotions and the very most relevant argument: This little girl has married my camera's bayonet.
If you are scared about the extreme corners - crop them out and you will end with the very same effective field of view given by the nifty fifty.

BTW: The 45 is well prepared for filter use (non extending), not so the nifty fifty.

Steve_FR said:

We have the R6III for a true photo and video hybrid

Click to expand...

Also, the R5 C.

TexPhoto said:

I'll add that we RF 7-14mm shooters, (or EF 8-15mm) never called our lenses "dual fisheye lens shooters". It's a zoom lens, with lots of great options.

Click to expand...

Exactly! Besides the two obvious focal length choices at the wide and the long end, 8mm (APS-C) would be used by professional 360° producers to maximise final resolution. Furthermore, about 9mm could come handy when recording video in 16:9.

briangus said:

I bought it last year, was a good idea at the time.
View attachment 229743View attachment 229744View attachment 229745View attachment 229746

Click to expand...

Nice! I had fun with a fisheye on my M series, long sold. I might be tempted to get the Laowa RF-S 4.5-10mm for the R7 as it is cheaper. I guess the RF-S might work in crop mode on the R5 etc as only exposure is monitored in manual Av mode for these no-reporting lenses?

I bought it last year, was a good idea at the time.

JensR said:

I just resent the idea that old cameras are garbage as soon as newer ones turn up. People made great photos 100, 50, 20 10 years ago, with whatever cameras they had.

Click to expand...

I think most appreciate that. I have enjoyed every camera I have had and took what were for me many great photos with all of them. For static photos of birds, my 5DSR with EF lenses was as good in practice as my subsequent R5 and R5ii. And I also got many of my favourite birds in flight shots when I could use the central 9 points for panning and manage the slow fps and small buffer. What the new models do is to expand the range of what I can do easily - like latching on to very rapidly and tracking small birds from the edge to the centre of the image. Nailing dragonflies in flight was much more difficult. Nevertheless I could get shots like these with the 5DSR.


I

When I sold my R7 years ago, I was already fearing it will be hard sell due to Mark II rumors

That being said, from a theoretical/philosophical pov I believe the R8 is more important line.
Imho evolution of photo tech these years should include the transition from crop sensor more towards to full frame. Crop sensor used to be a necessity with it's disadvantages.
Canon STILL not having a proper crop-lens lineup is just +1.
....although not having ff compact body at the very same time is veeery puzzling. (No, we do not count the R6V for multiple reasons.)

Opticallimits reviewed it a few days ago.

ThomasTH said:

I really like the composition and colours.

Click to expand...

I really would like it was looking at me...