Latest activity

ISv · Apr 26, 2026

ISv said:
WOW!!! That's the FISHERMAN! Did it really swallow that fish?!

Yeah, on the last photo.

Sporgon · Apr 26, 2026

Michael Clark said:
Except all of those cameras that have 67 ISO as measured by DxO, et al also include instructions in the EXIF info to 'push' development by 1/3 stop (or whatever the ratio is needed) when converting from raw to a viewable image. They do this precisely to protect the highlights from overexposure. If you expose +1/3 (or whatever the ratio calls for) to compensate on your own, you'll lose details in the brightest highlights.

Digital sensors have linear response all the way to full saturation, unlike film which rolls off response as most grains absorb enough photons to reach the point where they will be "switched on" when developed thus leaving fewer grains to absorb additional photons. It's perhaps ironic, but film grains are either "on" or " off" when developed, while digital sensors absorb the energy of each photon striking it in a more analog way before analog amplification and ADC.

Take a camera such as the R6 and expose a grey card (or something else like a brick wall that is 18% reflectance) illuminated with full sun (after two hours from sunrise and before two hours from sunset) and shoot the ‘sunny 16’ rule at 100 ISO and 1/100 sec f/16. The resulting converted file will be underexposed. Do it again but use 1/60 and it will be correct.
Try it for yourself.

Michael Clark · Apr 26, 2026

justaCanonuser said:
I already gave up my hope that I could upgrade my R7 before I leave for a birding trip in June. Well I'll survive with the R7 and R5II. My R7 is really a strange package: shooting birds in flight against blue and or overcast skies is quite a challenge - the camera's object recognition quite frequently fails in a mind-boggling way. On the other hand, with a vivid background when the old 7D II would have struggled, the R7 can really shine. Here are two fighting skylarks, they were quite far away, this image is heavily cropped. So they were mere quite small spots on the sensor. I just lifted my lens and took a series of shots w/o hope to get any in-focus hit. But then I found a whole series in focus, this is one of the best. Shot with the EF 600mm f/4.0 III, f = 6.3 and 1/1250 s shutter speed. So, the original R7 is always good for a surprise, either a bad or a really great one.View attachment 229073

It's when you have just enough of those good surprises with a camera like the R7 that the bad surprises are intensely frustrating as you consider what might have been.

Michael Clark · Apr 26, 2026

justaCanonuser said:
I know, I loved to follow his blog for many years. But in real life, the old EF 300mm f/4.0 L IS USM worked quite well even with my 5D4. Interestingly, my old EF 500mm f/4.5 L USM from 1995 worked still surprisingly well with my R7, in contrast to my 300mm, a lens that was introduced in 1997.

EF 300mm f/4 L and EF 400mm f/5.6 L were labeled "L" lenses, but they were a cut below the 300mm f/2.8 and 400mm f/2.8 which existed before the slower versions. The EF 500mm f/4.5 L was a top tier L lens when it was introduced.

The EF 300mm f/2.8 L USM (1987) predated the EF 300mm f/4 L USM (1991) by four years.
The EF 400mm f/2.8 L USM (1991) predated the EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM (1993) by two years.
The EF 500mm f/4.5 L USM (1992) was the fastest 500mm Canon offered until the EF 500mm f/4 L IS USM (1999), seven years after the 500/4.5 was introduced.

iaswn90 · Apr 26, 2026

Its interesting here in the UK the R50V is currently discounted. I think it makes sense with the upcoming R6V.

Michael Clark · Apr 26, 2026

justaCanonuser said:
Yes but this doesn't explain the light dependent behavior, noise (and contrast on the AF sensor) does.

The distribution of photons is not affected by scaling changes. Photons vibrate at the same wavelength and width regardless of the size of the sensor they fall upon. That's why larger sensors collect more light than smaller ones for the same exposure parameters. The narrower baseline allows fewer photons to get through from the each side of the lens.

Michael Clark · Apr 26, 2026

Brown said:
I'd have to presume it is to some degree, given the discord between the build/positioning of the R7 to the 7D series.

Nah. Most of the 7D Mark II bodies still being used are high frame count bodies. They're not going to get any cheaper than the $300-600 they're currently getting at sites like MBP and KEH.

Michael Clark · Apr 26, 2026

Alastair Norcross said:
I had the 7D and 7DII for many years. My R7 is a huge upgrade over both cameras in every way that matters to me.

I'm glad it works for you.

The lack of a way for even a third party to make a usable grip was the thing I couldn't ignore. My right rotator cuff makes it near impossible for me to shoot vertically without a grip with vertical controls.

Michael Clark · Apr 26, 2026

Tom R5R7 said:
My Nikonian friend tells me that she thinks Nikon has basically given up on the crop bodies. Nothing really since the D7500. 7200 really since they went with less pixel density in later models. Birders aren't all that happy, though they're still great cameras.

The D500 was Nikon's last APS-C birding camera. It went out of production in early 2022.

Michael Clark · Apr 26, 2026

dwkdnvr said:
If their financial models indicate that they can’t make a profit on the product, then ultimately it would be yes - write it off.

I actually think the ‘supply chain crunch’ is a very plausible explanation of the situation. The rumored R7II is basically an R5II with an APS-C sensor rather than a FF sensor. You almost certainly aren’t going to save $1k+ on a camera just by switching to APS-C so the R7II was already going to have narrower margins - price increases in RAM and associated electronics could easily squeeze those margins to the point where it just doesn’t make economic sense to proceed at this time.

If this is the case, then it’s highly likely that they aren’t abandoning the project, but instead putting it on hold for 6 or 8 months to see what happens with the supply chain landscape.

The crunch for memory chips is not going away anytime soon. It takes YEARS to ramp up new production capacity. Demand currently is high with the explosion of data center construction and production capacity has not increased in years.

Michael Clark · Apr 26, 2026

Salamander said:
Thanks for that update. I have the Canon R6ii. Do you know where on those websites I can find the iso data?

The difference is typically much greater in Sony sensors, though Canon does it too to a lesser extent. But the raw data is 'pushed' in development to compensate for it. So if you intentionally expose a bit to the right to compensate yourself, you'll then need to pull exposure back by the same amount in raw development to compensate for the 'push' instructions included in the EXIF information. You'll also tend to overexpose the brightest highlights to the point they may be unrecoverable in raw development. Film had more "headroom" between the mid-tones and highlights, while digital has a linear response all the way to full saturation.

Michael Clark · Apr 26, 2026

Sporgon said:
Beware the Sunny 16 rule with digital cameras !
As has been correctly stated, the ‘rule’ is when the subject is lit frontally and evenly in full sunlight, from two hours after sunrise to two hours before, if your shutter speed is the ‘same’ as your iso then f/16 gives the correct exposure.
The problem with this rule and most digital cameras is that their stated iso is not the real iso. So to use the ‘sunny 16’ with a digital camera you have to know what, say 100 iso on your camera really is. This information is available at both dxomark and photonstophotos.
To use a Canon R6 as an example, the camera stating 100 is really 63.
So to use the sunny 16 rule when your R6 is set to 100 iso, on a full sunny front lit day set 1/60th, not 1/100 at f/16 and you’re exposure will be spot on.
On my 5DS the 100 iso setting is really 77.

Except all of those cameras that have 67 ISO as measured by DxO, et al also include instructions in the EXIF info to 'push' development by 1/3 stop (or whatever the ratio is needed) when converting from raw to a viewable image. They do this precisely to protect the highlights from overexposure. If you expose +1/3 (or whatever the ratio calls for) to compensate on your own, you'll lose details in the brightest highlights.

Digital sensors have linear response all the way to full saturation, unlike film which rolls off response as most grains absorb enough photons to reach the point where they will be "switched on" when developed thus leaving fewer grains to absorb additional photons. It's perhaps ironic, but film grains are either "on" or " off" when developed, while digital sensors absorb the energy of each photon striking it in a more analog way before analog amplification and ADC.

erader · Apr 26, 2026

my first camera was the AE-1 in 1980. i am interested in the retro camera but i would use it as a back-up to my R5, not as a novelty. therefore here's what i'd like to see: ibis, 32mp, silver and black, joystick and LP-E6P battery. i don't care about video nor do i care about flippy screen, one card slot is fine. i don't care about lenses and other accessories

blobmonster · Apr 26, 2026

Compact.

Corner evf. Big as possible. Small lcd to compensate.

Option for lcd to be blank always or replace lcd with old style settings only display

Built in flash.

35mm pancake. Even F5.6 if necessary but make it 35 not 28. Or 22mm rf-s f2 or 2.8 would be fine too.

Cheap. No ibis. Basic video.

Keep hotshoe for optical viewfinder (if flat top) or external flash

Uneternal · Apr 26, 2026

Chig said:
What I'd like to see is something innovative based on this concept camera but without the weird mirror system instead have a massive upward facing EVF (or a magnified EVF) instead of just another horrible retro repackaging of a modern camera with crappy ergonomics and nasty sharp edges.
Even better ditch the retro camera entirely and release a high end R7ii this year

Honestly, I thought these concepts were horrible and made a Sigma BF look user-friendly.
However, I think they were Canon's teaser, telling us they work on retro aesthetics without saying so. Model A looked like it was in a more advanced stage with fewer 3D-printed parts. I wonder if some of these elements, like the boxy upper part, might end up in the R8 Mark II design.

neuroanatomist · Apr 26, 2026

I keep hoping for a TS-R 14, but what about a TS-R 14-24mm zoom?

Laowa has a 12-24mm shift lens for Fuji m4/3.

neuroanatomist · Apr 26, 2026

Keithf2.8is said:
Whereas the "flagship APS" R7 is 4 years old and lacking many advanced features(can't even put a grip on it!).

scyrene said:
In the DSLR days, sometimes lower tier models were updated more frequently than higher ones, this is nothing new.

As I’ve stated before, the 7-series historically has been the least frequently updated.

7D – 2009

7DII – 2014

R7 – 2022

The line moved downmarket with the R7. The concept of a ‘flagship APS-C’ isn’t really relevant. Lens sales are very profitable for Canon, they likely want high-end users to buy FF bodies and lenses.

Click · Apr 26, 2026

Nice series. I especially like the second one.

Click · Apr 26, 2026

Lovely photos. Well done, Noreaster.

Noreaster · Apr 26, 2026

These close ups are uncropped. I am probably 4' away. There is a large culvert under railroad tracks and the beavers built a dam in front of it. I was able to climb into the culvert and sit and wait for my friends.

Noreaster · Apr 26, 2026

Palm Warbler and red winged balck bird

Noreaster · Apr 26, 2026

ISv said:
WOW!!! That's the FISHERMAN! Did it really swallow that fish?!

Unfortunately no. I was in my kayak and the current pushed me too close so he dropped it and flew off. I really felt bad about it. Did you notice you can see the chain pickerel's eye?

scyrene · Apr 26, 2026

Keithf2.8is said:
Well, if it is true that the R7 MII won't be released until 2027, it follows the slow release and constant release date changes of the 7D MII. This June will be 4 years since the R7 was released and Canon really needs to update their top of the line APS camera, desperately. And why update the R8 when it's only 3 years old and the R6 MII and R5 MII were just released? Whereas the "flagship APS" R7 is 4 years old and lacking many advanced features(can't even put a grip on it!). Many photographers can't wait to purchase the R7 MII.

In the DSLR days, sometimes lower tier models were updated more frequently than higher ones, this is nothing new.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics