Latest activity

Rceres · 2026-05-04T23:13:17-0400

It’s always a bit surprising to me how much criticism the Canon EOS R5 Mark II receives. These cameras are remarkable feats of engineering, and every design is a compromise. There’s only so much capability you can fit into an R5-sized body before something has to give. As a general-purpose, “one camera does everything well” tool, the R5 II is outstanding. Having recently upgraded from the Canon EOS 5D (purchased when it first came out), I’ve been very pleased with mine.

That said, I’m not the target customer for an R5 III.

If Canon follows the same path as before, the R5 III will likely be a Pareto refinement, slightly better in every spec, but fundamentally the same kind of camera. And for many users, that’s exactly right. But for some of us, the R5 II is already overbuilt in areas we don’t need (30 fps, advanced video), while still not fully optimized for what we care about most.

Personally, I’d trade some of that versatility for a more specialized tool.

The camera I would buy tomorrow (and which Canon might be able to introduce soon) would look similar to the R5, but with a different set of priorities. In particular:

a meaningful jump in resolution (80+ MP)
a higher-end EVF closer to the Canon EOS R1

To make that work within a similar form factor, I would happily trade:

reduced burst rate (10–12 fps is more than enough)
most or all video features

In other words, a stills-first camera designed for maximum detail, tonality, and rendering. Something aimed at landscape, fine art, studio, real estate, and large-format print work. Photography where ultimate image quality matters more than speed or hybrid capability.

Canon currently has speed-first bodies (R1/R3) and highly capable generalists (R5 II), but no dedicated image-quality-first camera. This would fill that gap.

Call it an R5S, an R4, or something else entirely. I suspect there’s a meaningful audience for a body that prioritizes image quality over versatility.

The R5 II is an outstanding generalist, and I’m sure the R5 III will be even better. I just think there’s room alongside it for a true image quality specialist.

neuroanatomist · 2026-05-04T22:59:01-0400

Canon Japan has a list of lenses for which service has ended:

修理対応期間終了商品｜キヤノン

修理対応期間終了商品の一覧を掲載しているページです。

canon.jp

...and a list of lenses for which service has not yet ended but will at some specified or TBD date:

修理対応期間個人のお客さま向け商品一覧

修理対応期間対象商品の一覧とサポート終了年月を掲載しているページです。

canon.jp

To delete a product you no longer have, log into your MyCanon account, the landing page should show a few products with a View All link at the top right, click that, then click on a product, then click the delete button (trash can icon) at the upper right corner.

Screenshot 2026-05-04 at 10.55.57 PM.png

ronbyram · 2026-05-04T22:36:46-0400

gang, I got notice today that My EF 24-105 F4 and EF 870-200 II are being unsupported at the end of the month. (May/June) Anyone else get notice? Also, I no Longer have these lens and can someone point me on How to drop them from my Canon hardware list? I know it may affect my CPS classification.

ashmadux · 2026-05-04T19:12:44-0400

riker said:
I have been begging and crying for a compact ff for years. Now it's here and I can't decide to be happy or sad.
It's the usual - it's too big, too heavy, too expensive.

- 5X(!) the _current_ price of the R50V, it's basically the price of the R6m3
- only 20% smaller than the R6m3 while the R50V is more than 40%(!) smaller than the R50 despite the R50 already being small
- only 100g lighter than the R6m3
- SONY's 33MP and 60MP ff compact is 40% smaller than the R6V!!!!! What is happening here?!?!

OK, maybe I'm looking at it wrong and this is absolutely a cinema camera since it's doing 7K raw and should be compared to C series only and by no means is this a ff compact for photography, any such capability is just a sideeffect...as in C series.
In that case, I need to wait for R8V maybe?

S9 showed me the promise of small ff than's not a leica or so (also the sigma bf). It's WONDERFUL. I'm not sure why the r8 design is so uninspired/goofy considering how sexy the m62 was, and it has no ibis either.

ashmadux · 2026-05-04T19:04:20-0400

"..ff Canon isn't doing any of their computational tricks, which I hope won't be the case."

Dare to dream.

Personally I'm still baffled at the focal length. At f4. On FF. If this was a crop lens, then i could see it as a walkaround.

But FF? (confused emoji)

scottburgess · 2026-05-04T18:15:16-0400

I'm thinking the 24mm TS-R may not be out until 2027. I don't expect a 180mm-ish macro until late 2026 at the earliest. Canon's strategy seems to have shifted slightly. The smaller photography market has made them more respectful of retailers' lens stocks. The automated manufacturing ramp-up seems to take longer too, as they aren't just designing the lens but also the machine to select matched lens components and build that lens. So even though the 180 macro lens is long gone, we still haven't seen a new R-series lens to replace it. The stock of 50mm and 90mm TS-E lenses is not low enough imho to permit release of their replacements yet; maybe late 2028 or into 2029?

With all the bulk in the schematics, perhaps they'll *finally* build TS-R lenses with a collar so they can be used the way that gawd/Scheimpflug/Carpentier intended? Perhaps they'll take drop-in filters? And record the tilt and shift settings in EXIF data? There may be another year or two of revisions on some before all the final designs are done. I'm guessing the 24mm will show up first because the stock is quite low and it's the most popular focal length TS-E.

foda · 2026-05-04T15:46:25-0400

AlanF said:
Do you think we should complain to Canon that our well-used 200-800s haven't broken in two?

Even though the RF 200-800mm is not an L lens, it is well built and mine has survived a lot of rough handling and inclement weather in the years that I have had it. However, I always retract the lens and tighten the zoom ring when I am not actively photographing.

neuroanatomist · 2026-05-04T15:19:25-0400

OldrockyGN said:
I suspect that many of the posts have not been made with full understanding of my preference for
HandHeld.

Not sure why you would think so, but I really doubt that’s the case. The concepts of signal to noise and lens design don’t depend on whether you are handholding or using a tripod. One of the points about shooting with a long lens in “low light“ is that often happens at light levels that would not normally be considered limiting, but when one needs a 1/2000 s shutter speed for a bird in flight, the amount of light reaching the sensor is low, even though to your eyes there is plenty of light.

Personally, I shoot a variety of subjects, some of which require tripod shooting (e.g., blue hour and astro, because handholding for a 30 s exposure is not really feasible). But most of my bird shooting is handheld, including most of my shooting with the EF 600/4L II (which I typically use with a 1.4x extender, currently the RF 1.4x). The exception to that is winter raptors, where I will sometimes set up in a spot for an hour or two waiting for a snowy owl to take off, and in that case I use a tripod and side-mount gimbal for the 600/4.

Dragon · 2026-05-04T15:15:10-0400

AlanF said:
The 7D with the 100-500mm is pretty close to the R5ii/R5 with the RF 200-800 as the better IQ of the 500 compensates for the theoretical higher resolution of the 800mm, which is not quite as as sharp. I really want a good R7ii.

I think you meant R7 and not 7D in that sentence.

OldrockyGN · 2026-05-04T14:51:56-0400

I suspect that many of the posts have not been made with full understanding of my preference for
HandHeld. Using a lens on a tripod + gimbal (I have both) is simply "not for me". I carry my camera
and whatever lens (without or with an extender) I'm using for the session. I'm walking around, up
and down small hills for at least an hour without ever going back to where ever my 'kit' is - so no
changes ... just aim, frame, focus, shoot. I've tried several different carry methods and now choose
a shoulder sling style with a wide pad. I'm no spring chicken - I'm over 80 - so some methods and/or
places aren't going to happen (no back country on foot, no steep cliffsides, no lying on the ground
or crouching in the mud, etc.) ... but I'm getting some good, sometimes even great, images and
still improving. I still have my R7 + 100-400 but it sits waiting for the call since I got the R5m2
with the 100-500. Birds only (pretty much), and stills only (haven't even experimented with video).
Thanks to ALL of you for bringing me back to the reality that is - instead of wishing for some sort of
equipment change that will make a difference. I'm off to take some pictures of birds. - Jim

AlanF · 2026-05-04T14:15:05-0400

foda said:
Least Bittern photographed while birding in Belize, April, 2026.

R5MkII RF200-800mm

View attachment 229290

Do you think we should complain to Canon that our well-used 200-800s haven't broken in two?

AlanF · 2026-05-04T14:11:46-0400

Dragon said:
Hi Alan. Yes, I understand your point. Hopefully the combination of your comments and mine will help the OP to better understand when it makes sense to use the extender. The alternative is to use a sensor with denser pixels, e.g. R7 on base lens vs R5 with 1.4x extender offers equivalent pixels on the bird and in my experience, the R7 approach (specifically with the 200-800) typically gives slightly better results. Of course, much depends on AF performance and R5 II with extender may well outperform the R7 with bare lens (but I haven't, at least yet, sprung for an R5 II). But then, there will be an R7 II . My real preference would be for an R5s that would provide the wider field of view AND the higher pixel density. 101 MP would be perfect (and you could capture a frame of 12k open gate video for full resolution) .

Absolutely about the R5s, I preferred the 5DSR over the 7Dii and the Nikon D850 over the D500 APS-C, both pairs having similar pixel density. The 7D R7 with the 100-500mm is pretty close to the R5ii/R5 with the RF 200-800 as the better IQ of the 500 compensates for the theoretical higher resolution of the 800mm, which is not quite as as sharp. I really want a good R7ii.

Dragon · 2026-05-04T13:51:19-0400

AlanF said:
@Dragon our posts crossed in the ether! In low light, you are usually in the linear region of the photonstophotos plots. One further point to note, you don't lose DR by increasing the iso by two on using the 1.4x TC although it looks like you would do at first sight. This is because the DR is measured by viewing at a specific enlarged image size, and the larger image is enlarged less to reach it, which compensates its iso being lower down on the chart.

Hi Alan. Yes, I understand your point. Hopefully the combination of your comments and mine will help the OP to better understand when it makes sense to use the extender. The alternative is to use a sensor with denser pixels, e.g. R7 on base lens vs R5 with 1.4x extender offers equivalent pixels on the bird and in my experience, the R7 approach (specifically with the 200-800) typically gives slightly better results. Of course, much depends on AF performance and R5 II with extender may well outperform the R7 with bare lens (but I haven't, at least yet, sprung for an R5 II). But then, there will be an R7 II

. My real preference would be for an R5s that would provide the wider field of view AND the higher pixel density. 101 MP would be perfect (and you could capture a frame of 12k open gate video for full resolution)

.

AlanF · 2026-05-04T13:20:56-0400

C o c k Linnet this afternoon (R5ii + RF 200-800mm).

mimbu · 2026-05-04T13:15:29-0400

P-visie said:
Viltrox has been making AF Z-mount lens since 2021 (according to ChatGPT). The Viltrox website lists 25 Z-mount lenses. I find it hard to believe that Nikon has only just discovered that Viltrox has been making Z-mount lenses without a license agreement. That license agreement must have have included IP protection.

Nikon sued Viltrox immediately after their patents got approved in China. There is no agreement between Nikon and Viltrox, and unlike Sigma or Tamron, the Viltrox lens pages do not state that their lenses are made under license.

As far as Canon goes, they will keep FF RF locked down until they are forced to do otherwise. The only paths to an open RF mount are patent invalidation, patent expiration, or a government body like the EU forcing open platforms.

foda · 2026-05-04T13:14:48-0400

Least Bittern photographed while birding in Belize, April, 2026.

R5MkII RF200-800mm

Del Paso · 2026-05-04T12:56:55-0400

esspy2 said:
Size being similar to the 24-105mm f4L is a turn off but the weather sealing and IS are very appreciated. Now what remains to be seen is balance on an R8. Size wise I was hoping for a 14-35mm f4 size or even the RF 15-30mm size. Weight wise I can hope will not be along the lines of the 24-105mm f4L.

But you certainly know, despite software correction possibilities, that a too small lens can often mean IQ compromises.
You rarely get the butter and the money for the butter, I won't even mention the milkmaid...
Oops, I did.

AlanF · 2026-05-04T12:52:50-0400

Found the thread about iso and extenders

https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/extenders-and-high-iso-with-the-r5.40575/

AlanF · 2026-05-04T12:36:43-0400

@Dragon our posts crossed in the ether! In low light, you are usually in the linear region of the photonstophotos plots. One further point to note, you don't lose DR by increasing the iso by two on using the 1.4x TC although it looks like you would do at first sight. This is because the DR is measured by viewing at a specific enlarged image size, and the larger image is enlarged less to reach it, which compensates its iso being lower down on the chart.

AlanF · 2026-05-04T12:30:40-0400

OldrockyGN said:
On my most recent trip I had, but didn't even use, the 1.4 with the 100-500 ... and found
that I was getting useful/satisfactory results from simply cropping tighter for those shots
where the bird was a small part of the frame. One of the biggest reasons why I didn't
use the 1.4 was because we were almost always "under the canopy" and that extra stop
was better (necessary?).
- Jim in the PNW

One important point about signal to noise and extenders that is not widely known is that if you increase the iso to compensate for the loss of the stop you don't decrease the signal to noise in a cropped image. Supposing you take a picture of a duck, then the S/N in the image of the duck depends on the number of photons hitting the image of the duck, not on the iso number. If you use the same f-number and shutter speed with a 1.4xTC but double the iso to compensate for the loss of brightness, the image of the duck is no noisier. That is because although the number of photons per unit area of the duck is halved by the TC, the area of the duck is doubled, which fully compensates for it. If you don't like maths arguments, think of it in another way. If you don't use the extender, the image is smaller and you have to enlarge it more, which wipes out using a lower iso. By the same reasoning, an f/9 800mm lens puts as many photons on the duck as does an f/4.5 400mm lens. So, the take home message is don't worry about the loss of a stop when using a 1.4x extender as you can just double the iso. I posted a thread on this years ago but can't find it.

Dragon · 2026-05-04T12:21:28-0400

OldrockyGN said:
Neuro/all,
OK, I accept your answers. I guess. I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm saying there is a lot
about lens design that I don't understand. I do understand that the diameter of the lens is
directly related to its "light gathering" (maximum f stop). From the responses so far I
guess there is also a relationship between the length of the lens and the focal length - or
maybe that affects the image quality/usefulness ... I'm saying you -could- make a lens
that is both high focal length and physically short - but you might not like the resulting
image quality? And based upon your reply to my speculation about a mythical 500-800 I
guess I don't understand the relationship of the lower end of the focal length for a zoom -
because I have always thought that the amount of zoom was directly related to the
overall physical length of the lens.
I am not unhappy with my RF 100-500, FAR from it. My 'happiness' with the RF 200-800 is
significantly less (but that's me) due to it is too big to travel with and, again for me, is not
anywhere near as easy to hand hold and get equivalent results. Nor is it as easy to
carry (as in when I'm birding) as the 100-500. I realize these are MY perceptions.
On my most recent trip I had, but didn't even use, the 1.4 with the 100-500 ... and found
that I was getting useful/satisfactory results from simply cropping tighter for those shots
where the bird was a small part of the frame. One of the biggest reasons why I didn't
use the 1.4 was because we were almost always "under the canopy" and that extra stop
was better (necessary?).
- Jim in the PNW

Just a note on whether to choose the extender or not. The number of photons from the bird is going to be essentially the same with or without the extender, but with the extender, you will have more pixels on the bird. If you are working in the linear portion of the DR curve, then the question is whether "smart" software will recover more detail with fewer quieter pixels or more noisier pixels. That is something you have to test empirically with the software you use. If you are in the non-linear portion of the DR curve (e.g. with your R5 II, if you were shooting at ISO 400 with the base lens and ISO 800 with the extender), then you would likely see some advantage with the extender independent of "smart" software. It is important to understand the behavior of the sensor in your specific camera and Photonstophotos.net will give you that information.

OldrockyGN · 2026-05-04T11:51:43-0400

Neuro/all,
OK, I accept your answers. I guess. I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm saying there is a lot
about lens design that I don't understand. I do understand that the diameter of the lens is
directly related to its "light gathering" (maximum f stop). From the responses so far I
guess there is also a relationship between the length of the lens and the focal length - or
maybe that affects the image quality/usefulness ... I'm saying you -could- make a lens
that is both high focal length and physically short - but you might not like the resulting
image quality? And based upon your reply to my speculation about a mythical 500-800 I
guess I don't understand the relationship of the lower end of the focal length for a zoom -
because I have always thought that the amount of zoom was directly related to the
overall physical length of the lens.
I am not unhappy with my RF 100-500, FAR from it. My 'happiness' with the RF 200-800 is
significantly less (but that's me) due to it is too big to travel with and, again for me, is not
anywhere near as easy to hand hold and get equivalent results. Nor is it as easy to
carry (as in when I'm birding) as the 100-500. I realize these are MY perceptions.
On my most recent trip I had, but didn't even use, the 1.4 with the 100-500 ... and found
that I was getting useful/satisfactory results from simply cropping tighter for those shots
where the bird was a small part of the frame. One of the biggest reasons why I didn't
use the 1.4 was because we were almost always "under the canopy" and that extra stop
was better (necessary?).
- Jim in the PNW

esspy2 · 2026-05-04T11:35:45-0400

Size being similar to the 24-105mm f4L is a turn off but the weather sealing and IS are very appreciated. Now what remains to be seen is balance on an R8. Size wise I was hoping for a 14-35mm f4 size or even the RF 15-30mm size. Weight wise I can hope will not be along the lines of the 24-105mm f4L.

mangobutter · 2026-05-04T10:38:34-0400

scyrene said:
I'm genuinely interested to know, what sort of shots would you use this for? I'm not very good with shorter focal lengths so it's a bit mystifying.

all purpose landscape, architecture. basically anywhere i'd use my 16-35, 17-40 etc but with more of an emphasis on a useful range i'd actually use. everyone's use is different though. i use to shoot a lot of UWA but i just can't anymore. when i look at my LR, i find myself often zooming in a bit to get to 20, 21mm or 24mm (if i'm doing ultra wide) then you have 50mm which is pretty standard, portraits, detail shots, object shots etc.

mangobutter · 2026-05-04T10:36:31-0400

neuroanatomist said:
That would be a surprise. Certainly other hybrid-use lenses do so, including the RF 24-105/2.8L Z.

The 24-105/4L is only ~7 mm longer than the 14-35/4L, that doesn't bother me as either is fine to use on an R8 (in my use cases for that camera). Like you, I hope that the 20-50/4L is closer to the weight of the UWA zoom than the standard zoom, and I suspect that will be the case.

I guess we'll know in 10 days.

they'll 100% do computational tricks. for a zoom that goes to 20mm, that's how you'd keep it compact. the fact that this zoom does NOT go to 70mm, tells me that there's an emphasis here on Canon's part to keep the size as compact as possible.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics