Latest activity

dobiewancanobie · Mar 28, 2026

that was what MPB offered me. Thank you I don't need to sell it and I don't want to be robbed. I think their offer on the lens is a bit off as well. Any suggestions for places to sell as the seller not through mpb or others. I just looked on line and the r7 body is selling for 1,139. so 800 isn't that horrible and I am no worried of a flood of r7's when the new one comes out

Bob Howland · Mar 28, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
I know. I think you misunderstood my point, which was ‘technically’ in the sense of a technicality. I wrote in response to a claim that Canon was lying. If Canon sets license terms that effectively make it unprofitable for a 3rd party to make a certain lens, then when the 3rd party doesn’t make that lens, Canon can truthfully say it’s the 3rd party’s choice to not make the lens…and be technically correct.

A distinction without a difference

neuroanatomist · Mar 28, 2026

GMCPhotographics said:
Considering Canon's recent releases of pro / press orientated zooms have both been USM motored lenses, the RF 24-105mm f2.8 L IS USM Z , the RF 70-200mm f2.8 F2.8 L IS USM Z and the RF 100-300mm f2.8 L IS USM come to mind. I suspect that the issue that Canon has with implementing VCM across it's range..

The title of the post is, “Is Ring-Type USM on the Way Out?” The lenses you list use Nano USM, not Ring USM. There’s a significant difference. Most of the VCM lenses have two AF motors, one VCM and one Nano USM.

neuroanatomist · Mar 28, 2026

Martin0815 said:
Please note that all RF and RF-S cameras use the same RF mount, only the image circle of an RF-S (APS-C) lens is smaller than FF. Consequently, 3rd party lens manufacturers face no additional 'technical' difficulty for FF autofocus compared to RF-S (APS-C) autofocus. Actually, there are already several 3rd party autofocus RF-S lenses available, e.g. Sigma 15mm f/1.4 DC, but no FF autofocus.
To me it is clear that Canon either deliberately blocks FF autofocus lenses for RF, or asks high licensing fees, which effectively block any 3rd party, while there is no 'technical' reason.

I know. I think you misunderstood my point, which was ‘technically’ in the sense of a technicality. I wrote in response to a claim that Canon was lying. If Canon sets license terms that effectively make it unprofitable for a 3rd party to make a certain lens, then when the 3rd party doesn’t make that lens, Canon can truthfully say it’s the 3rd party’s choice to not make the lens…and be technically correct.

PinholeR5 · Mar 28, 2026

Michael Clark said:
The 7D Mark Ii was far more than an update to the 7D. For those who used it to shoot night/indoors sports, flicker reduction was REVOLUTIONARY.

There was no comparison between the poor shot-to-shot consistency of the 7D's 19 point AF system and the much more consistent 65-pont AF system which also covered a larger percentage of the frame. Just read Roger Cicala's take on the 7D Mark II:

Compare that with his assessment of the original 7D, even when using single shot AF on a stationary subject using only the center AF point. It was the second most inconsistent camera he tested from the following list: 1Ds Mark III, 5D Mark II, 1D Mark IV, 1D X, 5D Mark III, 7D, 50D, 60D, T4i, T3i. Only the T3i was barely more inconsistent. The 1D X and 5D III had standard deviation of 15 line pairs per image height (lp/ih). The 7D had a standard deviation of 40 lp/ih, the T3i came in at 41. The 50D and 60D scored 34, and the T4i posted a 29.

My own experience when I transitioned from the 50D to the 7D was similar: The 50D missed focus less often and by lesser amounts than the 7D. When looking through the viewfinder and shooting with the 7D, it felt like a more capable camera. It certainly had a more configurable AF system in terms of settings options. But when looking at the results on even a 24" FHD monitor with the entire image on the screen, the results were undeniable.

I loved my 7D!. Never had the 7DII. Moved to the 7D from a T2i, so perhaps that is why I was very happy. I stopped doing sports (thriathlon) and moved into new born / kids photography

That is when I got the 5DIII. Man, that was a nice upgrade. I still regret selling the 5DIII when I moved on to the R5.

John Wilde · Mar 28, 2026

"The death of the retro dream? We'll see. Maybe it'll be saved for PowerShot and not for EOS."

A retro PowerShot would make sense. The low-end is a good target audience for "fashion cameras".

GMCPhotographics · Mar 28, 2026

Considering Canon's recent releases of pro / press orientated zooms have both been USM motored lenses, the RF 24-105mm f2.8 L IS USM Z , the RF 70-200mm f2.8 F2.8 L IS USM Z and the RF 100-300mm f2.8 L IS USM come to mind. I suspect that the issue that Canon has with implementing VCM across it's range, is that it doesn't have the motors available in all sizes yet. With every lens, they have to design an enirely new motor each time and it slows down design and manufacturing time. Where as the ring USM, Canon's pretty much got an available parts bin for anything that an engineer / lens designer could wish for.

Martin0815 · Mar 28, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
...
Why? I honestly don’t get comments like that. Except from trolls, or people with zero business acumen. Why lie when you can just leave it at ‘no comment’ (which was the main answer anyway). It could easily be true that the lack of 3rd party FF autofocus lenses is the choice of the 3rd parties, technically…Canon sets the terms, and if they don’t want such lenses made they just need to set terms to make it undesirable. 3rd parties won’t make the lenses if Canon’s licensing fee makes them unprofitable. It’s not personal, it’s business.

Please note that all RF and RF-S cameras use the same RF mount, only the image circle of an RF-S (APS-C) lens is smaller than FF. Consequently, 3rd party lens manufacturers face no additional 'technical' difficulty for FF autofocus compared to RF-S (APS-C) autofocus. Actually, there are already several 3rd party autofocus RF-S lenses available, e.g. Sigma 15mm f/1.4 DC, but no FF autofocus.
To me it is clear that Canon either deliberately blocks FF autofocus lenses for RF, or asks high licensing fees, which effectively block any 3rd party, while there is no 'technical' reason.