zapper said:

He said "f/6.3 equivalent", wh... But f/4 on APS-C is a stop slower than I want.

Click to expand...

yes

As long as it comes in different colours

Could be exciting. I am currently thinking about getting a good PS camera since many years again, because for street shooting such a camera is more stealthy in these times of people getting paranoid about being catched in an image (but having no problems to take images and videos with their own smartphones of everyone and posting them immediately on social media). I'd love to have a G5X III with better AF than the II, since I prefer to have an integrated EVF. Or, a G1X like camera with a bigger sensor and EVF that's not too bulky would also be very attractive. The V1 is too much a vlogging camera that offers not enough control for those focused more on stills photography.

Give me an 1 sensor with dual pixel and latest af tech with a 20/24-×× lens and dedicated uw housing and i'm set. Don't care too much about apperture, for low light use aps-c or full frame Fingers crossed!

Male Violet-tailed Sylph seen while birding at Parque Nacional Natural Tatamá, Colombia, November, 2025.

R5MkII RF200-800mm

EricN said:

If you put colored eggs in your kids basket, it would be true for them. Not everyone has to view reality the same way - especially with linguistic terms.

Click to expand...

What kids?

The 1 in type sensor that Canon used was from Sony. I hope they create their own 1 in type sensor this time around. I used the V1 mainly as a point and shoot. I would GX7 version with longer reach, higher aperture, and small profile. Make it reach 200mm like the RX100 VII.

justaCanonuser said:

You nailed it. In fact, when I am out a whole day for birding, in particular my R5 II consumes 3 full batteries minimum - okay, when nothing happens I use the waiting time to pre-select images I want to keep, and the nearly 6 Million dots EVF drains the battery quite fast, too.

Click to expand...

That's the beauty of the LP-E19 in the R1 & R3, can shoot most of the day with one battery and at worst only need a 2nd battery (I've actually got four batteries, 2 genuine Canon and two copies, but thats another story).

EOS 4 Life said:

It is really important when comparing cameras with non-standard image sensor sizes.
It was really just intended for focal lengths.
The arguments start to come in when we apply depth of field.
Depth of field is not always important.
In fact, sometimes having more in focus can be an advantage.

Click to expand...

I think this debate is simply about comapring DOF between APS-C and FF. It requires a larger aperture on APS-C to match the DOF of the equivalent field of view of FF. So if you have an APS-C 50/1.8 * it will never have the same DOF as a FF 80/1.2 for the same field of view - it would have to be a 50/0.75. That is where I think this discussion should have been targetted.
Most people using APS-C are doing so for reach (birding and other wildlife for example) or generally cheaper than FF and won't be concerned about DOF.
*or FF 50/1.8 of course

Still hoping for a good zoom range like 20 or 30x like the hs740 but with a bigger sensor, and most of all with raw and not only jpeg.
And maybe with an evf.

Still hoping for a compact camera that can replace my Sony hx60, i love this little camera its my daily camera.

fox40phil said:

4.0 is really sad…. Back in the days I wanted this EF 17-55 2.8 soo Hard…
This plus IS would be a premium Apsc lens! They could do it!

But Canon better release something for Wildlife along the R7ii!

Click to expand...

Well,l I'll just have to keep my 17-55 and use the adapter. Not heading in the direction of smaller and lighter though.

Uneternal said:

Canon is like the people who show up late to your motto party, and their costume is a hat.

They're again too late to the compact-camera-trend party, and as always, they'll deliver the bare minimum instead of anything revolutionary.

Click to expand...

Well, 2024 is the latest year for which there are market data but Canon was wearing #2 on their compact camera party hat, about 8% behind Sony.

1. Sony … 470,000 units
2. Canon … 430,000 units
3. Fujifilm … 130,000 units
4. Ricoh … 60,000 units

Incidentally, 8% is the same margin by which #2 Sony was behind #1 Canon in mirrorless ILC sales that year.

Party on!

Canon is like the people who show up late to your motto party, and their costume is a hat.

They're again too late to the compact-camera-trend party, and as always, they'll deliver the bare minimum instead of anything revolutionary.
I bet it's gonna be a lukewarm G7XIII upgrade with a Digic X processor, and I bet they've been testing how much they can charge with this G7X graphite special edition. So it's gonna cost at least $1,299.

Personally, I would've preferred to see the sensor of the Powershot V1 getting used again with the lens of the G1X Mark II. But I guess stinginess is the new black. So we gotta pay more for less.

To me this is quite simple: I want a G1X like camera, nice to hold, good buttons that can be setup to do different things, 24-100 mm equivalent lens. It doesn't need to have F2.8 to big and heavy . I want 1 inch sensor so the camera wont be so big, 24 mp is fine. It can have a little Video stuff to I guess, I frankly don't care, but others do so ok

And Canon for heavens sake it MUST HAVE an EVF!

A sensor for the 'flagship' that's smaller than the 1.4-type sensor in the V1 makes sense. The 1.4-type sensor is a 3:2 aspect ratio version of a m4/3 sensor, with the same 2x crop as m4/3. That means any PowerShot with that sensor and some 'reach' would need a pretty darn big and probably really slow lens to get there.

You can edit EXIF with ExifTool. It's command line, though there's a GUI version for Windows (not Mac). Once installed, you would enter:

ExifTool -model="My Camera" FILE

Click to expand...

...where My Camera is Canon R5II or whatever you want to call it, and FILE is the RAW file/path. On the Mac in Terminal, you can just drag-and-drop the file into the Terminal window after the command.

However, that may not accomplish what you want. There is also a Canon Model ID field, and I'm not sure you can (or should) edit that. For example, I edited the Model of an R1 file, and in the full EXIF dump it shows the edited name for Camera Model Name. But Canon Model ID still shows Canon EOS R1, and that's what shows up in DxO as well. Like the LensID, the Model ID is an integer field that ExifTool and RAW editors (at least DxO) convert to a camera name. Looking a a few RAW files, the modelIDs are

• R1 = 2147484821
• R3 = 2147484752
• R8 = 2147484807

If you're set on this, dig into ExifTool, the documentation and forums have lots of information.

Note that I'm far from an expert here, but this is fresh in my mind since I went through this yesterday and today for a lens + extender combo where I was trying to spoof DxO to use a specific module/profile. It turned out that the Lens Model and LensID were irrelevant for that, I just needed to change the focal length and aperture and DxO made the guess I wanted for the module to use.

The point is that the way different image editors parse the EXIF metadata is not straightforward. But...good luck!

Smiling Eddie said:

How do I change the camera body details that populate the EXIF data?
Mine currently displays R5m2. How can I change it to R5 II or R5-II etc?

Click to expand...

I'd be really surprised if this was possible in-camera, as it defeats automatic recognition of the camera model by various post-processing software that may depend on it (e.g. Canon DPP and Lightroom might apply camera-specific profiles based on this value).

However, you might be able to change this value (at your own risk) on your computer in the JPG or CR3 files using ExifTool.
Have a look here and here (search for the string "model").

Thank you both - you've been most helpful.
The results I'm getting are sometimes so good I have to check to confirm I didn't have a tripod with me, but I was wondering whether I could tinker and get it even better.

Smiling Eddie said:

Ah! So I've misunderstood the error message - thanks for that.
All my lenses are RF with IS, so I wasn't seeing a difference.
Does IBIS engage regardless of which lens I use and whether I've switched IS off at the lens?

Click to expand...

Yes, for lenses with IS the switch on the lens controls all IS, there is no way to separate the Lens IS and the IBIS functions, it's both or none.

IBIS works if the switch of the lens is on. If not, no IBIS with lenses with IS. IS and IBIS are allways working together.
Glad if I could help!

Nemorino said:

Have You tested the lens with TC on a DSLR? Might be a software problem EF/RF as the RF TC works without problems. And it is unlikely both EF-TC fail at the same time.

Click to expand...

I have no DSLR on which to test it. The idea of removing the R-series body from the equation is a good one, though. I did try the EF extenders with 600/4 II on my EOS M6II, which I believe uses the standard EF communication protocol. Same result – bare lens is fine, extenders are F00. So while I agree that it's unlikely they both failed, I do think that's what happened.

I will meet up with someone who has an EF 1.4xIII at some point. In the meantime, as I suggested above I can use the RF 1.4x with the modified adapter, which is what I did yesterday morning.

My idea above that I could edit the EXIF and at least get DxO to use the lens profile for the 600/4II + EF 1.4xIII turned out to be possible with a fair bit of digging. Through some trial and error, it turned out that there is no need to change the Lens Model or Lens ID number in the EXIF, all that's needed is to set the Focal Length to 840.0 mm and set the Aperture to 5.6, then DxO correctly 'guesses' that the combo is the 600/4 II + EF 1.4xIII. (Took a bit longer to get there since Exiftool reports "Sorry, Aperture is not writable," because the real name of that field is fnumber.)

So, does it matter? The lens profile (albeit with the 'wrong' extender) corrects a very small amount of vignetting and barrel distortion (easier to see when dynamically flipping between the images rather than the static images below), but the lens-specific sharpening does make a noticeable difference. Could have gotten there by doing that manually, I suppose. The file with the original EXIF is on top, bottom panels are after changing the focal length and aperture in the EXIF metadata.



So at this point, it's mainly academic. I have a functional combination of 600/4 + 1.4x extender, and a working lens profile for easy RAW conversions. I could buy a used EF 1.4xIII (B&H has a 9+ copy for $300), but I don't really see much point.

I'll stick with using the RF 1.4x on the EF lens, and hope that Canon comes through with a new RF 600/4 with a switchable 1.4x soon. Canon, are you listening?!?

I will probably call Canon and inquire at some point, I think they still service the EF III extenders so I'll at least check repair costs to see if it's worth doing that before selling them, which would be an alternative to using them for juggling practice.

Ah! So I've misunderstood the error message - thanks for that.
All my lenses are RF with IS, so I wasn't seeing a difference.
Does IBIS engage regardless of which lens I use and whether I've switched IS off at the lens?

If the lens itself has IS the function is greyed out. You can turn it of with the switch of the lens. If the lens has no IS You can enable the IBIS in the menu.