Philnick said:

I notice from the gear list in your signature that you don't actually have any mirrorless camera at all, just DSLRs.

I suggest that you get some actual experience with a Canon mirrorless camera before you start telling those of us using them that it would be great for Canon to change the next model of the camera we're used to to make it more like some old DSLR you're used to.

If you look at the back panel of the R5 and R6 series cameras, you'll see their joysticks are in essentially the same position as the nested dial and joystick of the R7. Only on your 5D and 7D series DSLRs is the joystick lower down on the back. (And on the oversized R1 and R3 models that have permanent battery grips - so it can be reached when the camera is held in portrait orientation.)

So if you intend to use the joystick on any of the Canon mirrorless bodies that don't have a permanent battery grip you'll be reaching your thumb to the same place as the R7 combo.

I have no objection to Canon putting a third control dial in the traditional location onto an R7/II - just leave the one by the viewfinder alone. You do know that you can set any of the controls on an EOS camera to do whatever you want (or nothing) - right?

Click to expand...

I notice that you joined Canon Rumors at almost the exact same time another very active member here was banned. I also noticed that you both like to use the same word to describe cameras which you think Canon should not/would not bring to market based on your own anecdotal experience.

Philnick said:

I notice from the gear list in your signature that you don't actually have any mirrorless camera at all, just DSLRs.

I suggest that you get some actual experience with a Canon mirrorless camera before you start telling those of us using them that it would be great for Canon to change the next model of the camera we're used to to make it more like some old DSLR you're used to.

If you look at the back panel of the R5 and R6 series cameras, you'll see their joysticks are in essentially the same position as the nested dial and joystick of the R7. Only on your 5D and 7D series DSLRs is the joystick lower down on the back. (And on the oversized R1 and R3 models that have permanent battery grips - so it can be reached when the camera is held in portrait orientation.)

So if you intend to use the joystick on any of the Canon mirrorless bodies that don't have a permanent battery grip you'll be reaching your thumb to the same place as the R7 combo.

I have no objection to Canon putting a third control dial in the traditional location onto an R7/II - just leave the one by the viewfinder alone. You do know that you can set any of the controls on an EOS camera to do whatever you want (or nothing) - right?

Click to expand...

When is the last time I've updated the gear signature for my account? I have no idea how long it's been. Not to mention that just because I don't own certain cameras does not mean I have not shot with them. Some more than once. However, I'm not free to publicly post or share most of what I've done with cameras I do not own.

As to your assertion that the Joystick & Quick Control Dial on the R5 and R6 is in the same position as the abomination on the R7: That is categorically untrue. The joystick may be in a similar location, but the dial around it on the R7 means the thumb must curve over the dial to get to the joystick, instead of lying flat on the diagonal area of the rubber (?) material below right of the joystick. The Quick Control Dial is, of course, in a totally different position also much more accessible with one's thumb, and closer to the left edge so that arching the thumb a bit to not press the Set button when undesired is not a problem.

The EOS R5 Mark II and R6 Mark II



The EOS R7

Maximilian said:

Call it Double-Gauss design BASED, if that makes you feel better.
And about the propper notation:
Start complaining at wikipedia first:

Double-Gauss lens - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You'll find there:
Double-Gauss
Double Gauss
double Gauss

And you'll find there numerous lens designs all claimed to be Double-Gauss (or Double Gauss, or double Gauss).
So if you'd ask me about consideration, this RF 45 could be closer to a Taylor&Hobson.
And "your" reference of the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM has two elements more than than the "classic Double-Gauss" (or Double Gauss, or double Gauss).
So it's an evolution as well, closer to a "Zeiss Planar" design.

In the end:
If you'd use German it would have been even better and more precise:

Gaußsches Doppelobjektiv

Gaußsches Doppelobjektiv – Wikipedia

de.wikipedia.org

as for the meaning of a symmetrical mirroring of a basic Gauß lens.
(as this German person Carl Friedrich Gauß is correctly spelled with a German "ß", called "Eszett" or "scharfes S", but in the past as well with an "ss", so welcome to maximum confusion).

Enough "know-it-all"?

And in the end th inventor of the Double-Gauss design (or Double Gauss, or double Gauss) was Alvan Clark, acording to wikipedia. Is he a relative of yours?

Click to expand...

Since when is Wikipedia an authoritative source for anything? It's crowd sourced. It's not peer reviewed.

I'm sure you guys have already full mouth of this leucistic House sparrow but at 70+ I have no idea when I will see something like it again (if at all - huh, most probably not!). So, I'm going there once of a week and take what I can... On other hand there are not much birds around that I have no photos of (right now may be two but on a places that you shoot to document, not for really good photo...).
BTW: sometimes I really want to grab and clean little bit the bird but you know....

Tirmite said:

"I was totally impressed with the Canon RF 85mm f/1.4L VCM when I DIVED into ..." ‍

Cameras may be your area of expertise. English apparently is NOT.

Dived? How about "..when I dove into..." ?

Click to expand...

Feel better? Do you have a worldwide grip on the English language now? You don't understand regional variations?

I get it. You were a hall monitor in school. Right? You can stop now. We've graduated. Grading is through.

P-visie said:

Doing the same things as the other manufacturers is not a very sound business strategy in the long term.

You want to use the lens for astrophotography, so you probably want it to be optically corrected, rather than rely on digital corrections. That means it will be big, heavy and expensive (optimistic guess between 3500 and 4500 USD/ €) and is not likely to sell in huge numbers. I.e. it would not have a significant impact on Canon’s marketshare, revenue and profit. Even if a few customers leave Canon for greener pastures elsewhere.

The list of lenses that Canon MUST make to avoid imminent doom, according to some users of this forum, is a very long list: tilt shift lenses, the (rumored) Sony f2 trinity, a light 300mm f2.8, Nikon’s “affordable” PF telelenses, “real” RF big white 400, 600, 800 and 1200mm lenses, “real” L-lenses instead of the VCM primes, RF big whites with built in converters, a whole list of Sigma and Tamron lenses, and I’ve probably missed a few.

How Canon should make these lenses and remain in business in a market that was shrinking until a few years ago and since then has not been growing very much, is usually lacking in these “Canon must make my dreamlens or they are doomed” posts.

Edit: Leaving aside why these posters think their knowledge of the camera market is better than that of the company that has been the market leader for a long time. A company still doing well after the collapse of the camera market and managing the transition from the EF and EF-M mount to the RF mount.

Click to expand...

I keep struggling with why the VCM series is not real L? One commentor has called them blasphemous. I don't understand the hate. Is it the digital correctionns?

Eloniel said:

If Sony release one they will have to do it.

Click to expand...

Nope

camedia said:

to launch a 14f2 over 8 years after Sigma launched its 14 1.8 would be pretty disappointing. it would also be many years after Sony launched their 14 1.8 which is quite small. So it has to at least match or else it is shameful and adds more evidence to why a closed system restricts photographers from innovation (even pretty old innovation that's already been around for years!)

I do aurora and I hate how limited the options for UWA fast are compared to Sony. Canon should do better!

Click to expand...

Does f/1.8 make any difference at all vs f/2? At 14mm? If it does, can it be seen? How much longer or shorter are the exposures vs each other?

Klendothir said:

Canon Europe just started sending out “Mark the date : 06.11.2025 07:00 - CET” emails…

Click to expand...

So it's not going to be announced until June.
(Being silly. That's the way people in the USA read that date.)

DocInfoSci said:

And I keep hearing that Canon doesn’t review forums like this, but I simply can’t imagine that they aren’t keeping an eye on it in an unofficial way. Imagine one of the few big ticket rumor sites focused on their products covering the pending release of the next generation for one of their most popular camera lines—and not a single Canon engineer or product owner trolling to note the temperature. There are a lot of things that my company doesn’t officially do, but I guarantee you that we quietly keep an eye on things so that we can remain competitive in our industry. Prior customers matter, especially when they’re likely to purchase again.

Click to expand...

The Canon lawyers and marketing may troll somewhat to minimise leaks under NDA!

I would like to believe that their engineers read the forum but we can't assume it or that they would act on it. We tend to be civil and write considered comments though. There is also DPR and Petapixel when they want fanboi criticisms and reviewers of course. Canon would have a much better understanding of their customer's needs that we would have.

Canon did react quickly for the R5's perceived overheating storm-in-a-teacup in 3 video modes even though 8k raw internal had never been done before in a hybrid body and still isn't available from any other hybrid body (not A1 or Z8/Z9). It may have also created the need for the R5c.

For us to ruminate on patents and potential feature sets is great but Canon has locked in their R&D and manufacturing resources a long time before we get a chance to comment or guess why they have some strange strategies.

They killed off the M line when it still seemed profitable but didn't repackage all the decent M lenses to RF for some unknown reason. I get that they went all-in for R mount but they brought back a largely unchanged powershot elph and they still have no issues selling lower end DLSRs.

Clearly Canon's strategy is for hybrid lenses now with a strong focus on Z zooms and VCM primes vs a missing RF35/1.2 or version 2 of existing RF lenses after 7 years or replacement EF niches. Locking out Sigma and Tamron from full frame RF lenses is the current topic du jour with imminent doom for Canon

Walrus said:

I take one of your considerations, and expand it; I see, in general, too much concern of what's considered "pro" and what's not.
I have an R6 and fast glass because I mainly shoot weddings in dark environments, so I need good high iso performance and bright lenses.
But I also occasionally do corporate headshots, this is an example of my work:

View attachment 226648

If my main and only job was doing volume studio headshots like that, my setup would simply be R100 and RF-S 18-150, the cheapest possible with eye-AF, because I would be shooting iso 100 and f8/f11 all the time, and so no other extra bells and whistles would be needed to achieve the quality I need, and certainly I wouldn't feel any less "pro" then a sport professional working with two or three R1's and tens of thousands of dollars in L glass.
It's not the camera, the DR, the ISO, the widest f-stop, the red ring, that makes you "pro"; what makes you pro is getting money from photography, regardless of what you carry in your photo bag.

So I wouldn't focus on "what is R6 III giving to us non-pro photographer", but simply "what is R6 III giving to me, for what I need to do", and if you feel it doesn't give you what you expect, just don't buy it, look other Canon bodies that fullfill your needs, or look to other manufacturers if they offer you better gear for your passion

Click to expand...

I wish that guy was my boss

David - Sydney said:

Many (including myself) on the forum aren't "pro" by your definition but a lot are prosumers. Whether we are good or not is in the eye of the beholder but you are welcome to look at my flickr page in my signature.

My choice was the R5 because I do a lot of heavy cropping at times as I can't change lenses underwater.
I haven't upgraded to the R5ii because:
- Extra USD1100 cost to modify my underwater housing as well as the incremental cost of the new body
- R5 is working fine although I have found some issues like 12 bit stills when using electronic shutter vs 14 bit for mechanical and inability to modify between 1 and 20fps for ES.
- Slight DR decrease could be an issue as I do milky way and underwater stuff in poor conditions even if I don't go above ISO6400.

14 bit stills, adjustable ES speeds, ES triggering strobes, eye controlled AF (if it works for me), better AF tracking including priority subject would still be an improvement for stills for me sometimes.

Have you considered upgrading from R6 to R5

There has been no evidence that I am aware of that Canon reads the comments in this forum.
Feedback should be sent to Canon via their formal support pages

Click to expand...

I’m starting to think that the R5 or an R3 class is starting to be more my style. I try to balance being pragmatic as I have other life interests as well, but maybe this is also the excuse I’ve been looking forward to justify.

And I keep hearing that Canon doesn’t review forums like this, but I simply can’t imagine that they aren’t keeping an eye on it in an unofficial way. Imagine one of the few big ticket rumor sites focused on their products covering the pending release of the next generation for one of their most popular camera lines—and not a single Canon engineer or product owner trolling to note the temperature. There are a lot of things that my company doesn’t officially do, but I guarantee you that we quietly keep an eye on things so that we can remain competitive in our industry. Prior customers matter, especially when they’re likely to purchase again.

David - Sydney said:

There are a bunch of advantages for stills from AF performance to rolling shutter (for stills like panning fast subjects) to EVF to flash sync using ES etc. "Paper losses" don't necessarily equate to real life issues.
Hybrid video is essential for all new releases even if users don't use it eg me for my R5.
Video features follow stills performance anyway eg if full sensor speed with stills then video at the same speed is the same (slightly cropped from 3:2)
Only a few users will notice the 2/3 stop difference. Those will be critical of this change but Canon believes that the other improvements outweigh that decrease.
Sensor tech hasn't fundamentally changed for some time now - probably since gapless pixel lenses (microlenses) were implemented.
Backside has change from FSI to BSI to stacked so complexity/cost has increased. The next iteration will be to maximise the well size on the front with all additional circuitry on the back.

Canon can release darker lenses due to full sensor AF and much better high ISO performance vs EF/DLSR days.
I think that Canon has done a great job for low end RF glass. RF100-400 as well as the lenses you mention for teles.
Canon is missing some mid level teles like 300/4 500/5.6 which Sony, Nikon and Sigma seem to have good options
Canon has the pointy end well covered except for a RF200-500/4 or 500mm prime.
Canon is missing niche lenses that were in EF eg fisheye zoom, long macro, tilt/shift etc and we can point to gaps that Sony/Sigma have like UWA primes eg 14mm.

Click to expand...

All very good points. I’ll chew on this.

Beautiful shots, Dragon.

DocInfoSci said:

I don’t get paid for my photography, so in that sense I’m not pro. But I’m very good at it and have done it for a very long time, and in that sense I’m capable of appreciating and consuming features that are less common to the overall line. I’m certainly sensitive enough to feel losses in capability.

Click to expand...

Many (including myself) on the forum aren't "pro" by your definition but a lot are prosumers. Whether we are good or not is in the eye of the beholder but you are welcome to look at my flickr page in my signature.

My choice was the R5 because I do a lot of heavy cropping at times as I can't change lenses underwater.
I haven't upgraded to the R5ii because:
- Extra USD1100 cost to modify my underwater housing as well as the incremental cost of the new body
- R5 is working fine although I have found some issues like 12 bit stills when using electronic shutter vs 14 bit for mechanical and inability to modify between 1 and 20fps for ES.
- Slight DR decrease could be an issue as I do milky way and underwater stuff in poor conditions even if I don't go above ISO6400.

14 bit stills, adjustable ES speeds, ES triggering strobes, eye controlled AF (if it works for me), better AF tracking including priority subject would still be an improvement for stills for me sometimes.

Have you considered upgrading from R6 to R5

DocInfoSci said:

That’s a bit of the feeling I get from other people who have echoed similar sentiments on this forum, but who seemed to be on the rare side in terms of voice. I sometimes get the sense that other people dismiss these concerns because they can afford to out spend them using other tiers or have different use cases that don’t expose the potential pain to them. But if we don’t mention our concerns, then Canon can safely assume business as usual. I’m one customer who’s saying I’m not comfortable at this point with their direction for this particular product line—and I don’t think I’m the only one. I’m truly hoping they surprise me in a good way.

Click to expand...

There has been no evidence that I am aware of that Canon reads the comments in this forum.
Feedback should be sent to Canon via their formal support pages

DocInfoSci said:

I hear you on the 2/3rds, but it's still a potential downgrade for on the stills side -- if the lower ISO value quality depends on the total reach and that works the same for both generations of sensor. If the lower quality remains the same then it's just a number so whatever, but until evaluations hit it's a real concern as someone wondering about the new specs if the potential is a loss of capability. On paper it's a loss.

Click to expand...

There are a bunch of advantages for stills from AF performance to rolling shutter (for stills like panning fast subjects) to EVF to flash sync using ES etc. "Paper losses" don't necessarily equate to real life issues.
Hybrid video is essential for all new releases even if users don't use it eg me for my R5.
Video features follow stills performance anyway eg if full sensor speed with stills then video at the same speed is the same (slightly cropped from 3:2)
Only a few users will notice the 2/3 stop difference. Those will be critical of this change but Canon believes that the other improvements outweigh that decrease.
Sensor tech hasn't fundamentally changed for some time now - probably since gapless pixel lenses (microlenses) were implemented.
Circuitry has changed from FSI to BSI to stacked so complexity/cost has increased. The next iteration will be to maximise the well size on the front with all additional circuitry on the back.

DocInfoSci said:

For the lenses I think it's more important to consider non-L offerings, like the RF 600 f/11, 800 f/11, long zooms starting at 5.6, etc. Sure, many of us are fortunate to have a collection of fast glass, but it's all specialized and above-and-beyond purchases for non-paid amusement. If you're a pro photographer and the purchase is justified then these worries don't apply to you, but for the rest of us it's material. Quite a few of the general purpose modern lenses on shelf feature darker glass than prior equivalents so demand more sensor sensitivity if shooting the same times of day in the same degrees of shade as prior sensor or glass offerings for comparable tiers. On paper, it's a loss that's been creeping on the lens side for a while and now manifests potentially on the sensor side. And anyhow fast glass isn't always the answer -- depth of field matters in cases as well.

Click to expand...

Canon can release darker lenses due to full sensor AF and much better high ISO performance vs EF/DLSR days.
I think that Canon has done a great job for low end RF glass. RF100-400 as well as the lenses you mention for teles.
Canon is missing some mid level teles like 300/4 500/5.6 which Sony, Nikon and Sigma seem to have good options
Canon has the pointy end well covered except for a RF200-500/4 or 500mm prime.
Canon is missing niche lenses that were in EF eg fisheye zoom, long macro, tilt/shift etc and we can point to gaps that Sony/Sigma have like UWA primes eg 14mm.

AlanF said:

Perkin Elmer ground the Hubble mirror, and screwed it up. They had to send up a corrective lenses.

Hubble's Mirror Flaw - NASA Science

Launched on April 24, 1990, NASA’s flagship Great Observatory has far surpassed its original mission goals. Hubble has more than doubled its 15-year life

science.nasa.gov

Click to expand...

Thanks so much for the link.

That the Hubble was imperfect...I remembered.

I did not know why, and did not know that Perkin-Elmer was involved.

=====

As part of my graduate studies, I utilized IR spectroscopy on a regular basis.

The existing device (1980) in our lab was very old...and its innards were very much analog. I cannot find anything online that looks like what I remember...they were wide and tall and heavy.

Our lab had two of them. Finally, they both broke down at the same time.

About 1981 or 1982, we replaced them with a single Perkin-Elmer IR spectrometer, a new design...all electronic.

PE had trouble with these, and their service personnel were in the dark as far as repairs were concerned.

It turns out, across town, that my wife was employed in a chemistry lab at that same time, and they too had these new PE IR spectrometers in her labs.

And the devices in her labs were also problematic.

Her repairman was the same guy that worked on ours (Rodney), the recollection of whom causes both my wife and I to smile.

Remember, this was 45 or so years ago.

And you know how Rodney attempted (often successfully) to repair these electronic IR spectrometers, in both of our labs?

He literally swapped circuit boards...in-and-out...one at a time.

The way you put a graphics card into a PC!

=====

My camera at that time?

A Polaroid and a Minolta, I think.

More fun with mirrors. This time with the R5 and a Tamron BBAR 500mm. This lens has an MFD around 6 ft, and it stays sharp up close, so in many ways the best of the mirrors for this kind of work.

This is a 100% crop. (no scaling)





This shows the focus challenge when up close with mirror. Only about half the bird is in focus.





The last two are at about 15-18 ft in the brush. Focus is easier at this distance

I'm still hoping to see a build in tele converter. I think it was the best move Nikon ever made for wildlife photography...

Walrus said:

I take one of your considerations, and expand it; I see, in general, too much concern of what's considered "pro" and what's not.
I have an R6 and fast glass because I mainly shoot weddings in dark environments, so I need good high iso performance and bright lenses.
But I also occasionally do corporate headshots, this is an example of my work:

View attachment 226648

If my main and only job was doing volume studio headshots like that, my setup would simply be R100 and RF-S 18-150, the cheapest possible with eye-AF, because I would be shooting iso 100 and f8/f11 all the time, and so no other extra bells and whistles would be needed to achieve the quality I need, and certainly I wouldn't feel any less "pro" then a sport professional working with two or three R1's and tens of thousands of dollars in L glass.
It's not the camera, the DR, the ISO, the widest f-stop, the red ring, that makes you "pro"; what makes you pro is getting money from photography, regardless of what you carry in your photo bag.

So I wouldn't focus on "what is R6 III giving to us non-pro photographer", but simply "what is R6 III giving to me, for what I need to do", and if you feel it doesn't give you what you expect, just don't buy it, look other Canon bodies that fullfill your needs, or look to other manufacturers if they offer you better gear for your passion

Click to expand...

Thanks! I agree with your sentiment. And thanks for sharing some of your work. Very nice!

And I also take pro to generally mean “one gets paid for work,“ and pro features to me are things that ease getting paid for work. That could be device robustness, reliable service by the vendor, or features less common to the overall range of cameras that can contribute to better outcomes. These all have value. The R6 series falls in the latter for sure.

I don’t get paid for my photography, so in that sense I’m not pro. But I’m very good at it and have done it for a very long time, and in that sense I’m capable of appreciating and consuming features that are less common to the overall line. I’m certainly sensitive enough to feel losses in capability.

That’s a bit of the feeling I get from other people who have echoed similar sentiments on this forum, but who seemed to be on the rare side in terms of voice. I sometimes get the sense that other people dismiss these concerns because they can afford to out spend them using other tiers or have different use cases that don’t expose the potential pain to them. But if we don’t mention our concerns, then Canon can safely assume business as usual. I’m one customer who’s saying I’m not comfortable at this point with their direction for this particular product line—and I don’t think I’m the only one. I’m truly hoping they surprise me in a good way.

Perkin Elmer ground the Hubble mirror, and screwed it up. They had to send up corrective lenses.

DocInfoSci said:

OK, so I was probably a little harsh with the middle finger. But it's still no longer a "thanks for keeping with us non-pro still shooters" message. Maybe that's just a sign of the times, though.

Click to expand...

I take one of your considerations, and expand it; I see, in general, too much concern of what's considered "pro" and what's not.
I have an R6 and fast glass because I mainly shoot weddings in dark environments, so I need good high iso performance and bright lenses.
But I also occasionally do corporate headshots, this is an example of my work:



If my main and only job was doing volume studio headshots like that, my setup would simply be R100 and RF-S 18-150, the cheapest possible with eye-AF, because I would be shooting iso 100 and f8/f11 all the time, and so no other extra bells and whistles would be needed to achieve the quality I need, and certainly I wouldn't feel any less "pro" then a sport professional working with two or three R1's and tens of thousands of dollars in L glass.
It's not the camera, the DR, the ISO, the widest f-stop, the red ring, that makes you "pro"; what makes you pro is getting money from photography, regardless of what you carry in your photo bag.

So I wouldn't focus on "what is R6 III giving to us non-pro photographer", but simply "what is R6 III giving to me, for what I need to do", and if you feel it doesn't give you what you expect, just don't buy it, look other Canon bodies that fullfill your needs, or look to other manufacturers if they offer you better gear for your passion

Jeepers...Perkin-Elmer! I had no idea...


My own experience with Perkin-Elmer is here:


...a reason to check on and read CR--the surprises!

=====

Nice (dark) background for this female Northern Cardinal--R5II + 200-800 @ 800; 1/500; ISO 3200; some Topaz fiddling

-pekr- said:

Slicker, right? What I can see is extremly boring rounded Canon camera design, we've seen for thousand times already. I like more sharp / boxy designs. Still waiting for some "retro" M6 II / V50 like designs with possibly external EVF.

Click to expand...

M
R3/r1 sexies being the exception, the last good looking design was the now classic R5. R62 in comparison was a joke, that I really didn't like.

No real reason to change it since the body sold so well, so good luck there.

R50v form factor is set up well for an m62 replacement, but wow that thing feels super cheap...i was surprised actually. M62 and m50 design still hasnt been beat imho. Great cams.