Sorry, i maybe missed it in review, but was the issue with IBIS wobble on wide angle fixed? Or what was meant is that it is only fixable by digital IS, which is not possible to use without IBIS? Is it the same on R5?

GirlsAreBeautiful said:

I am afraid of this as well. Do you think DGO will simply not be able to be implemented as I wish because the speed will not be enough?

Click to expand...

I have how had a massive tutorial session with ChatGPT to answer this. The conclusion is: "Canon DGO is restricted to Cine EOS because it is architecturally incompatible with high-speed, high-resolution stills capture. It is not a feature being withheld; it is a feature whose physics conflict directly with the performance envelope stills cameras must satisfy."
And:

Why no manufacturer ships DGO in stills bodies​

It is not that it “does not work”.


It is that to make it work you would need to give up:

• burst rate,
• readout speed,
• power envelope,
• thermal envelope,
• AF responsiveness,
• electronic shutter usability.

That is a commercial non-starter for stills cameras.

Jowe-79 said:

I have the R7 and I'm happy with it... But here there are opinions that it is crap that at ISO 800 is unusable that if rolling shutter... Let's see rolling shutter for very fast objects fine, but I take photos with electronics and no ghosts or deformations come out...

Is the R7 so bad?? Let's see if you compare it with the r5 mark ii because I'm not surprised... it's logical it's worth 5 times more...

Click to expand...

As always, it depends what you use it for. I am primarily a macro photography. For that it is an excellent camera. I bought it three years ago, did a lot of research, and it was clearly the best camera for me at that time. And I have been very happy with it. But the quality and features of cameras are improving at a fast pace. At this moment I would probably not buy the R7 anymore. But there is a good chance that the R7 mark ii will again be the best camera for my type of photography. (And with all the lenses I bought, switching brands is not really an option at this stage anyhow.)

GirlsAreBeautiful said:

Well sure, I could underexpose sunny pictures by 3 stops, or use that option for highlights that Canon has, I would prefer an improvement in technology that sacrifices other features like burst rate though, that's the point I was trying to make which is obviously personal

Click to expand...

I’ve only looked on my phone at the picture on which you didn’t like the highlights on the faces; assuming you shoot in raw have you had a look at the raw file with no tonal response applied ? If so you might be surprised at where the highlights actually sit, and it’s the applied tonal curve in the highlights that you don’t like. Just a thought !

Sporgon said:

To be honest if you are having concerns over the dynamic range of these latest FF cameras I would suggest you reevaluate your technique !
The modern sensors can typically hold highlight detail about 3.2 stops over mid tone, which is a lot more than people think, and when you then consider the extensive latitude in the lowlights of the modern sensors you have a huge range to work with if you maximise highlights in the exposure.

Click to expand...

Well sure, I could underexpose sunny pictures by 3 stops, or use that option for highlights that Canon has, I would prefer an improvement in technology that sacrifices other features like burst rate though, that's the point I was trying to make which is obviously personal

To be honest if you are having concerns over the dynamic range of these latest FF cameras I would suggest you reevaluate your technique !
The modern sensors can typically hold highlight detail about 3.2 stops over mid tone, which is a lot more than people think, and when you then consider the extensive latitude in the lowlights of the modern sensors you have a huge range to work with if you maximise highlights in the exposure.

Beautiful. Well done, Alan.

I am afraid of this as well. Do you think DGO will simply not be able to be implemented as I wish because the speed will not be enough?

Sun very low in the sky this time of year, just right for lighting a high flying Red Kite, (R5ii + 200-800).

GirlsAreBeautiful said:

Ending thoughts... Canon has managed to catch two birds with one stone: make me very happy with the purchase and at the same time having me wait for the next model. I will buy the Mark III near launch if it can deliver both substantial improvements in DR and any improvement in eye focus. If it's only one of the two things I'll wait a bit, if there is neither I'll skip.

Click to expand...

You won't get a substantial improvement in DR of the R5ii, it's at the upper range of mirrorless already, and the big leap for Canon in increasing DR was on going from the 5DIII to the 5DIV. You waited many years between buying the 5DIII and R5ii, and I fear you will now have another very long wait.

You are totally right, I don't think digital will be able to match the overexposure capabilities of film, and I get that I could just underexpose sunny days by 3 stops and the recover in post and be happy with it but I am not sure I want to do it. DGO seems like an achiavable compromise in the short term, 100/800 ISO would be a perfect split, it exactly covers shooting on a sunny day in which you would aim for f.8 / 1/400s / 100 ISO (sunny 16 rule) + 800 ISO (+3 for the shadows).

I've just carefully re-read this article with the emphasis on "multi-media" and it's possible that Canon want the R3ii to be in the same price point that the current R3 is currently sitting in, ie snugly between a R1 and R5. If this is the case, then Canon might opt for a non stacked high density 45-50mp sensor and limit the ES fps to 20. Effectively making a big buffer 1 series R5 with a focus on everything but sports.
A cheaper R1, but with R5 mk1 image quality (maybe even superior) but with a huge buffer and top rugged build and pro battery.

Awesome! Great shot, foda.

Nemorino said:

Less colourfull but with perfect camouflage: short-toed treecreeper

R5m2 + RF 200-800
@ 1/4000s, f/9, iso 16 000
View attachment 227331View attachment 227332View attachment 227333

Click to expand...

Short toes and looooong toenails

Nemorino said:

Less colourfull but with perfect camouflage: short-toed treecreeper

R5m2 + RF 200-800
@ 1/4000s, f/9, iso 16 000
View attachment 227331View attachment 227332View attachment 227333

Click to expand...

Interesting bird to capture!

foda said:

Bronzy Inca seen while birding at La Florida, Bosque de Las Aves, at km 18, Colombia, November, 2025.

R5MkII RF200-800mm

View attachment 227336

Click to expand...

Another great shot Norman!

Jowe-79 said:

I have the R7 and I'm happy with it... But here there are opinions that it is crap that at ISO 800 is unusable that if rolling shutter... Let's see rolling shutter for very fast objects fine, but I take photos with electronics and no ghosts or deformations come out...

Is the R7 so bad?? Let's see if you compare it with the r5 mark ii because I'm not surprised... it's logical it's worth 5 times more...

Click to expand...

I really cannot keep answering the trolls who claim that the R7 is crap at iso 800 etc. It's absolutely fine at isos 10x higher than that, and if you enough photographic skill you can work around its problems. The trolls are either pure trolls or incompetent. The R7 is a good enough piece of kit.

Bronzy Inca seen while birding at La Florida, Bosque de Las Aves, at km 18, Colombia, November, 2025.

R5MkII RF200-800mm

Less colourfull but with perfect camouflage: short-toed treecreeper

R5m2 + RF 200-800
@ 1/4000s, f/9, iso 16 000

I don’t think digital will ever match large grained negative film for dynamic range (or rather latitude) in the highlights as when the silver nitrate crystals in film are exposed to light they effectively become less sensitive to light as the exposure continues. This characteristic allows for quite remarkable highlight range in films like Portra 400 / 800 for instance. It’s almost impossible to over expose it !
However, when it comes to dynamic range in the lowlights / deep shadows digital blows film out of the water as the latter has virtually no latitude at all.

I have the R7 and I'm happy with it... But here there are opinions that it is crap that at ISO 800 is unusable that if rolling shutter... Let's see rolling shutter for very fast objects fine, but I take photos with electronics and no ghosts or deformations come out...

Is the R7 so bad?? Let's see if you compare it with the r5 mark ii because I'm not surprised... it's logical it's worth 5 times more...

Very colourful. Nicely done, AUGS.

rbr said:

A lot more than buyers for a $20k+ 1200mm lens, yet Canon makes and sells that.

Click to expand...

I can only guess that for NASA, FBI, CIA etc... price has only a very relative importance.
Canon certainly wouldn't release such a lens without knowing a real demand exists.