Del Paso said:

Are you sure the RF 100 macro with SAC and X 1,4 wasn't the "never seen before macro lens"?

Click to expand...

That was another "never sean before macro lens"
I think first one was a 1/2 macro for hair from the late 60s

Del Paso said:

I'd suggest that you start comparing Canon, Sony and Nikon price lists.
Sorry, but similar products are usually priced similarly.

Click to expand...

Even as the third-party companies favored by aquatic mammals are attempting to increase quality, they are also increasing prices closer to Canon, Nikon and that other company.

Mogster said:

Longish macro zoom… 200mm range?

The never before seen macro lens rumoured last year hasn’t appeared yet.

Click to expand...

Are you sure the RF 100 macro with SAC and X 1,4 wasn't the "never seen before macro lens"?

becceric said:

After a futile hummingbird photo session (they went to the neighbor's feeder for their portraits), I was bringing equipment in and noticed two different butterflies on our Eastern Nine Bark.
They say the best camera is the one you have on you, so I used the R5 and EF 600mm f/4 III + 1.4tc. It felt like I was using a bazooka to shoot them!

Swallowtail
View attachment 230005

White Admiral
View attachment 230006

Click to expand...

One of that (many) cases when the common name is the same for two or more different species. This is the American White Admiral (Limenites arthemis). The Eurasian White Admiral (Limenites camilla) is different looking on upper and the undersides.

“new and unseen technology”

Click to expand...

To be announced less than 6 months after the ufo "Disclosure" movie?

A Longtailed Tit catching a fly (R5ii + RF 200-800mm).

My Grey Wagtail got expunged in the failed back up (R5ii + RF 100-500mm)!

Saw my first European Stonechat on vacation in Portugal and managed to creep quite close.
R6 classic + RF100-400

Also finally managed to get a decent shot of a Eurasian Kingfisher after figuring out where on the damn river their territory was.
R6 classic + RF800/11

Red kite R10 + RF100-400

Tried my hand at barn swallows as well today!
R6 classic, RF800/11

noname said:

The never-seen-before primes predicted for 2026 will be big whites with TCs.
The never-seen-before zoom predicted for 2026 will be.......(?)

Click to expand...

Longish macro zoom… 200mm range?

The never before seen macro lens rumoured last year hasn’t appeared yet.

I'm renting an RF 400mm 2.8 for my up coming brown bear trip in July. I know there will be alot of good used RF 400mm 2.8 lenses hit the market as people upgrade. I debating how much I really want the built in teleconverter or how much I'm willing to pay for it. Truth is I really do want it! I would prefer a simple reliable 1.4 switchable teleconverter versus a complex 1.4 & 2.0 setup. Will have to see what they release.

The price is going to be interesting. The current Canon RF 400mm 2.8 is $13,400 new. The Sony 400mm 2.8 is $13,000. The Nikon 400mm with a built in teleconverter was $14,700, but is now $12,700 (B&H prices). I would be really annoyed if I bought the Nikon lens for $14,700 and it just devalued $2,000.

I prefer zooms for wildlife, but 400mm at the wider apertures is really nice for low light and bokeh. I was seriously considering the 300-600mm f4-5.6, but I'm not interested in a fixed 5.6 for the projected price. The original article mentioned that the Canon EF 200-400mm f4 with 1.4 teleconverter didn't sell well. That surprised me for 2013. I considered this lens, but not in love with the 8lb wt for the price. Maybe Canon is having second thoughts about the 300-600mm. I have the 100-500mm f4.5-7; it's actually a great lens. But not in love with the teleconverter situation, external zoom, or 7.1`on the long end. An updated f4.0-5.6 100-500mm or a 180/200-600mm would probably sell better then a 300-600mm.

I'm sure a 500mm 5.6 prime for $4000, similar to Nikon's small affordable prime lens, would make a lot of people happy. A 700mm f6.3 would also be great.

Personally, I enjoy the snark. There’s usually a good point to yours. Thanks for all of the rumours!

I'd never be able to afford one but if these new Big Whites do come with both the 1.4 & 2.0 TC's built-in then they'd be essentially zoom lenses (to an extent). Even if they only came with the built-in 1.4TC that's still be good to see.

400mm f2.8 / 560mm f4 / 800 f5.6
600mm f4 / 840mm f5.6 / 1200mm f8

Lovely Jubbly

Del Paso said:

Thanks a lot! Even I understood your explanation.
You demonstrated the the French proverb: "Ce qui se concoit bien, s'enonce clairement".
OK for the malt!

Click to expand...

Merci beaucoup!

Might have an interests in a 500 mm f5.6, but not sure of the new 400 mm f2.8. I currently own the RF 400 mm f2.8 lens and not sure built-in TC is with the upgrade cost. From a portability perspective a 400 mm f4 DO with a built-in TC would have been ideal.

The never-seen-before primes predicted for 2026 will be big whites with TCs.
The never-seen-before zoom predicted for 2026 will be.......(?)

AlanF said:

Resolution is the ability to separate two parallel lines next to each other or separate two dots next to each other. That's why when you read the charts for the resolution of a lens it's given as line pairs per mm (LP/mm) or line widths per picture height (LW/PH) or for printers dots per inch (dpi). It is a linear measurement - measurements along a line in units of length. Area depends on length squared, measured in square mm or square inches etc. The total number of pixels is measured by the number of pixels in an area, not along a line of distance. When you double the number of pixels in a sensor, say from 22 Mpx to 44 Mpx, you don't double the resolution, you increase it by the square root of 2, ie by 41%. To double the resolution, you would have to increase the number of pixels in the sensor 4x to 84 Mpx. The same is true if you double the number of pixels in an image by doubling the focal length of a lens - although you increase the number of pixels by 4x, the distance between two parallel lines or two adjacent points is increased by only a factor of 2, the square root of the number of pixels. So, resolution varies as the square root of the number in an image.

That's now two beers or glasses of peaty malt whisky you owe me. It will soon be worth my while driving to Alsace to claim them.

Click to expand...

Thanks a lot! Even I understood your explanation.
You demonstrated the the French proverb: "Ce qui se concoit bien, s'enonce clairement".
OK for the malt!

There was a server issue on the site, a few days of main page and forum posts got nuked. That thread was just reposted.

Is it just me or did yesterday's story about the 400m & 600mm and TC's get pulled along with the thread.

Czardoom said:

Clearly, the advantage of the MFT 2x crop factor comes into play if you crop all, or most of your images, as is the case with me. Obviously you understand that if you crop a FF image from the R5 II - or any FF camera - to the size of the MFT image or smaller, than the OM-1's 20 MP sensor totally out-resolves any and all Canon and Nikon FF cameras, and is about the same as the R7. If you have used both the OM 150-400 and the Canon 200-800, then any comparison is a joke. Basically a top-level pro lens with a very good consumer lens. The OM lens is definitely better, in my opinion, than the excellent Rf 100-500, too. The AF subject detection and tracking is definitely on par with the original Canon R5, R6 II, and better than the R7, all of which I have used. Pre-capture is better than any Canon, FPS options are higher, and the stacked sensor has a very fast read-out speed. OM's IBIS is still as good as anything on the market. It is true that OM Systems is basically a niche company now, which is unfortunate. It is difficult, in a world where the internet influencers essentially dominate the marketing opinion of consumers, for them to compete, since we all "know" how FF is the only way to go if you are a "real" photographer.

Click to expand...

It sound like someone has an inferiority complex?

After a futile hummingbird photo session (they went to the neighbor's feeder for their portraits), I was bringing equipment in and noticed two different butterflies on our Eastern Nine Bark.
They say the best camera is the one you have on you, so I used the R5 and EF 600mm f/4 III + 1.4tc. It felt like I was using a bazooka to shoot them!

Swallowtail


White Admiral

Like the others, I have not noticed any overexposing tendency on the R5 or R1.

Del Paso said:

I am definitely neither a scientist, nor a mathematician, since I studied literature. So, could you please elaborate why "it's not the number of pixels on the subject that counts, but the square root of the number", as I don't understand the distinction.

Click to expand...

Resolution is the ability to separate two parallel lines next to each other or separate two dots next to each other. That's why when you read the charts for the resolution of a lens it's given as line pairs per mm (LP/mm) or line widths per picture height (LW/PH) or for printers dots per inch (dpi). It is a linear measurement - measurements along a line in units of length. Area depends on length squared, measured in square mm or square inches etc. The total number of pixels is measured by the number of pixels in an area, not along a line of distance. When you double the number of pixels in a sensor, say from 22 Mpx to 44 Mpx, you don't double the resolution, you increase it by the square root of 2, ie by 41%. To double the resolution, you would have to increase the number of pixels in the sensor 4x to 84 Mpx. The same is true if you double the number of pixels in an image by doubling the focal length of a lens - although you increase the number of pixels by 4x, the distance between two parallel lines or two adjacent points is increased by only a factor of 2, the square root of the number of pixels. So, resolution varies as the square root of the number in an image.

That's now two beers or glasses of peaty malt whisky you owe me. It will soon be worth my while driving to Alsace to claim them.

AlanF said:

It's not the number of pixels on the subject that counts for resolution, it's the square root of the number. My speciality is shooting small birds in the wild, and I've posted thousands of images of them over the years on Canonrumors. And why shouldn't I compare it with the 45 Mpx R5/R5ii - it's what I shoot with. And for years before that the 50 Mpx 5DSR. I crop all the time, and it's the high resolution sensors that let me do so.

Click to expand...

I am definitely neither a scientist, nor a mathematician, since I studied literature. So, could you please elaborate why "it's not the number of pixels on the subject that counts, but the square root of the number", as I don't understand the distinction.