Latest activity

HMC11 · Apr 17, 2026

The R7 II is sounding more and more interesting for me. I wonder if the layout of the buttoms and wheels would reflect its positiong and pricing. I am guessing that the layout would be closer to the R6iii and priced not much higher than the R7's launch price (+20%?). This pairing is assuming that the R7 is aming to be a high sales volume camera, so intentionally pricing it to pair with the high-selling R6 series cameras (as a faster readout speed camera for fast-moving objects) may make sense, for me at least. This is complete speculation, of course.

mimbu · Apr 17, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
I'll reply for the benefit of others who may read this thread, in the hope that your cluelessness doesn't engender false hope in others. Spreading misinformation seems to be a pattern for you, among other distasteful habits that you exhibit.

Yes, it does have to be different. A flip-out TC works when the TC is added within the lens. Notice how in the block diagram of the EF 200-400/4 that I posted above, there is a (weak) converging group behind the TC optics. The same is true for any lens with a flip-in TC. Here's the Nikon 600/4 + 1.4x, which has even more optics (but still net weak convergence) behind the TC group.

View attachment 228801

The only way in which your statement would be correct would be for a lens to be designed to take a drop-in TC, like a really fat drop-in filter holder. There would need to be optics behind that big hole in the lens barrel. Moreover, in these expensive lenses the TCs are designed for optimal performance with each lens' optics. For example, the TC group in the Nikkor 600/4 + 1.4x has an SR element (their equivalent of Canon's BR elements aka 'blue goo'), whereas the TC group in the Nikkor 400/2.8 + 1.4x does not.

In other words, each supertele lens would need it's own specific drop-in TC, rather than having a generic drop-in TC for a series of lenses that would have more of a negative optical impact than tailor-made TCs for each lens. So even the kludgy idea you are suggesting (well, that you would have suggested if you actually understood optical design) would not happen. A dedicated TC for each lens...why make a drop-in version at all, then? That would be foolish, something that manufacturers' lens designers are not. That's why both Canon and Nikon have made lenses with flip-in TCs, not completely removable drop-in TCs.

And not separate flip-in TCs...because physics. The nice thing about physics is that it remains true even when people like you don't understand it.

No. Clearly, you don't understand what I posted, or the underlying Canon patent application. More importantly, you don't understand the relevant optical concepts. A lens cannot maintain infinity focus with an extension tube behind the lens, and if all the optical elements of a TC mounted behind the lens were to move out of the optical path, you would have an empty tube behind the lens...i.e., an extension tube.

I will try to simplify with a picture of the Canon patent design that perhaps you can understand. Only one set of 1.4x TC optics flips out of place, though it does so in two pieces to minimize the size of the overall optic. When the rear split 1.4x group ('B') moves out of the optical path, the front 1.4x group ('A') slides further back into position but remains in the optical path. At no time is there an empty tube.

View attachment 228800

This is still not the thing you think is happening, i.e. there is no 1x form for this design or any other. As already stated, an extension tube precludes infinity focus, so a '1x' option in a switchable TC would require reducing optics to flip in when the TC optics flip out.

Lenses with built-in TCs are designed to be optically correct at 1x in the first place, with open internal air gaps as part of the prescription. An air gap is just another design variable, and large air gaps are not unusual in supertelephoto optics.

The 1.4x mode is then created by inserting a matched negative afocal converter group into that already-corrected 1x system. That group modifies the ray angles and pupil imaging so the effective focal length and f-number increase, while the final image plane remains at the sensor.

So there is no physical requirement for some separate "1x compensating group" when the TC is out. The 1x state is the native solved state. The 1.4x group is the added perturbation that was specifically designed to work within it.

You are asserting a physics constraint that does not exist.

DhlcadR6 · Apr 17, 2026

Now it's the chicken or dare game between Fuji, Sony and Canon. Who goes first will lose on the spec war.

Chig · Apr 17, 2026

What a bargain ! Will it work with the new CINE-SERVO 50-1000mm T5.0-8.9 ?
For only just over $100K I'll be able to shoot video of kiwi and owls in the dark without any flash

I need to start buying those Powerball tickets

candyman · Apr 16, 2026

Canis Lupus said:
................Sold the R7 long time ago - didn`t do his job. ..................

That is an interesting statement. Photographers of the past didn't have fancy cameras, but they knew how to take beautiful (award-worthy) photos of sports, wildlife, and other genres. So if it didn't do its job, it's usually the photographer.

Canis Lupus · Apr 16, 2026

R5ii is waiting for her companion. Sold the R7 long time ago - didn`t do his job. Rumors sounds good.

neuroanatomist · Apr 16, 2026

blackcoffee17 said:
What is the point of designing another accelerator? I can't see it reducing cost much, especially because it's already made in volume for another cameras, like the R1/R5. Battery life cannot be an issue if its not for the R5.
Product segmentation can be the only reason.

The R1 accounts for very little 'volume' and while only Canon knows the unit numbers, I suspect the R5II is also not a high-volume camera body. The R7II will be significantly cheaper, and will likely sell in much higher numbers than the R1+R5II. I suspect you can't see it reducing cost much because you don't have the data that Canon has. Product segmentation may be a part of it, but if that was the only reason then it would likely be significantly cheaper to just use software to 'gimp' the existing accelerator to a 'lite' version (and Canon is not above doing so). But for the reasons outlined in the article (did you even read it?), that's not likely. The point is that having an APS-C sensor is more than sufficient differentiation for the R7II compared to any FF camera.

blackcoffee17 · Apr 16, 2026

What is the point of designing another accelerator? I can't see it reducing cost much, especially because it's already made in volume for another cameras, like the R1/R5. Battery life cannot be an issue if its not for the R5.
Product segmentation can be the only reason.

Keithf2.8is · Apr 16, 2026

If Canon gets the R7 Mark II right, I can see a lot of R1 and R5 Mark II shooters picking it as a second body or for specific uses. Continuity in performance is a big deal for a lot of shooters.

Add R3 shooters to that list. I use 2 R3's because I like the continuity when switching between 2 cameras in the field, but having an R7 MII with 1.6 crop for specific gigs would be a huge plus. I just really hope the R7 MII has the ability to register a second focus zone.

LSXPhotog · Apr 16, 2026

It's important to note that the "FCC Covered List" restricts DJI as a company from getting approval to register ANY new electronic device within the country. The products we've seen hit the market from DJI in the past 4 months were previously registered and approved before product launch. So the Pocket 4 will not be coming to the United States.

Z-06 · Apr 16, 2026

To me this is a philosophical game changer - If quality and durability and user friendliness go with it, as GoPro seemed to be veering off. GoPro just revived the MFT lens market, if the market responds.

Z-06 · Apr 16, 2026

erader said:
for a size estimate tape two coffee cans together

I was thinking equivalent to 1 gallon buckets in series.

Z-06 · Apr 16, 2026

I am going to put this on my R100 (that I do not own, to spite Richard) and take BIF pictures with it. That is like equivalent of 2,880mm of focal length using the built-in 1.5 Tx. Easily I can zoom to a hummingbird in the next county while sitting in my living room drinking vodka, getting dialysis after selling my kidneys for it. Don't burst my bubble as to why it will be insane or impossible!

mimbu · Apr 16, 2026

Canon Rumors said:
Ultima 25-600mm T4 S35 Broadcast Zoom

See full article...

Whoa. Laowa is such an interesting company. To get 600mm T4 the front element of that lens is probably 165mm in diameter or maybe even bigger. That is a seriously large piece of glass and an interesting indication of where Laowa is going with lens design. I wonder how long before we see them add more fast supertele hybrid/mirrorless lenses to the 200/2 they released not so long ago!

neuroanatomist · Apr 16, 2026

Chig said:
A 200-800mm f/6.3 would have a front entrance pupil of 127mm which is quite a lot larger than the 100-300mm f/2.8's front entrance of 107mm so with L build quality I'd expect a lot higher price than the 100-300 too and definitely not $5K

Ya gotta laugh at the asinine suggestions that some people make around here. I know that it's too much to hope for that people will think before they post. Maybe it's even too much to hope for that people will think, at all.

InternalRevenue · Apr 16, 2026

If that “lite” processor also comes with reduced power draw and heat production, I’m all for it. Even better if they come up with a Sony style solution to combine the two. Heard plenty of complaints about the R5ii’s battery drain and always wondered if the co-processor was responsible.

20Dave · Apr 16, 2026

It would make sense that Canon would do the same thing with the Accelerator processor. A smaller sensor isn't reading as much data, so it wouldn't need as much processing power to keep performance close to the professional EOS R cameras.

Is this true if the R7 II has a higher pixel count than the R1? I would think that amount of data is related to the pixel count, not the actual dimensions of the sensor. Or am I missing something?

Mark M · Apr 16, 2026

Canon have made a wee video. Looks like the R5C gets compatibility support for the newly announced $80K Cine servo 40-1200 lens. Which every R5C owner will be rushing out to buy.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

SatWiz · Apr 16, 2026

Mark M said:
I'm not seeing any mention of the R5C in any of Canon's announcements. Can anyone point me towards a specific mention of the R5C? Curious as to what a new firmware would bring beyond bug fixes.

exactly, I was also keen to understand the updates on my R5C...

Chig · Apr 16, 2026

blackcoffee17 said:
I'd rather see a an L version of the 200-800 with 6.3 aperture and L build quality but $5K.

A 200-800mm f/6.3 would have a front entrance pupil of 127mm which is quite a lot larger than the 100-300mm f/2.8's front entrance of 107mm so with L build quality I'd expect a lot higher price than the 100-300 too and definitely not $5K

Also it would be at least 3kg maybe even 3.5kg

Tomba · Apr 16, 2026

ronbyram said:
Hello gang, first I know canon has these white lenses hoods designed for the RF 100-500 and 70-200 lens. But I dislike these larger white hoods.
But my question is can an older Black EF hood be used instead? Has anyone done this?

I use the lenshood of the RF 50 1.2 on the 100-500. Perfect.
And a JJC copy of the 24-105Z hood on 70-200Z. Just physical protection.

foda · Apr 15, 2026

Noreaster said:
Just because it is a bird in the water doesn't make it a duck

He might just be ducking the issue...

AlanF · Apr 15, 2026

Nemorino said:
Thank You, Alan! I used tracking.

My favorite is Flußseeschwalbe
(river-sea-swollow)

No! The German name of the familiy Charadriidae is "Regenpfeifer" .
In German Lapwings are also Regenpfeifer.
Sames gear:
View attachment 228939
View attachment 228937 View attachment 228938

Great shots again! I went out with my R5ii and 200-800mm at 1120mm for BIF, inspired by yours. It did fast focus very well much to my surprise. The AF at narrow apertures has really improved from that of the R5, where they restricted the the focus area of the 800 f/11 to a central rectangle. I checked that the restriction is indeed not present with the R5ii.