Latest activity

@zajicekpavel · Jun 7, 2026

ISv said:
Eurema (Abaeis) nicippe - Sleepy Sulfur. First one from today, the second taken time ago with my 200-500 f 5.6.
I have never ever seen it with open wings!

View attachment 229966 View attachment 229967

That thin blue edge of the wings is amazing.

@zajicekpavel · Jun 7, 2026

Song Thrush - Turdus philomelos

@zajicekpavel · Jun 7, 2026

I went to take pictures of dragonflies, but it was busy.. I left it alone and went somewhere else

@zajicekpavel · Jun 7, 2026

Common Blue - Polyommatus icarus

Marbled Fritillary - Brenthis daphne

Meadow Brown - Maniola jurtina

my darling is the common blue (I announced it here) Marbled is not so common here and Meadow is now very abundant but extremely shy and it is not easy to photograph one so open-

We love butterflies!

ISv · Jun 7, 2026

Windy, overcast with time to time light rain and sudden sun - just to derail my exposure... A lot of young birds (mostly Common Waxbill).

The "framed one"

!

In love already from the nest...

Java Sparrow

Warbling White-eye

Juvenile and subadult Chestnut Munia

ISv · Jun 7, 2026

Eurema (Abaeis) nicippe - Sleepy Sulfur. First one from today, the second taken time ago with my 200-500 f 5.6.
I have never ever seen it with open wings!

LuckyOne · Jun 7, 2026

In my opinion, 100-400 at f4.5, 401-560 at f6.3 in full frame mode and 561-784 in crop sensor mode on a R5 ii with internal zooming in a dusty environment like Africa is vastly superior to an externally zooming 100-150 at f4.5, 151-253 at f5.0, 254-362 at f5.6, 363-471 at f6.3, 472-500 at f7.1 in full sensor mode with 500-700 in crop sensor mode on the same R5 ii.

I completely understand that we are getting into edge cases with these discussions and that Canon have to address the mainstream rather than the edge cases.

If Sony bring a 200-600 ii GM to the market, rather than the current G, before Canon bring a x00-600 L to market, I will probably switch platforms.

There is a big cost to switch platforms. It appears to me that Canon think that their lack of modern wildlife lenses and the cost of switching platforms means that users are more "captive" than they actually are.

sanj · Jun 7, 2026

blackcoffee17 said:
400mm F8 is too short for wildlife on full frame and too dark on APS-C. Even an updated 400 5.6 would make more sense.

How is 400 f8 too short for wildlife on full-frame?

sanj · Jun 7, 2026

Could this be a 35mm they pair with the new possible retro R8?

josephandrews222 · Jun 6, 2026

Far said:
Actually, with 1.3.0, I started to see some cases of false positive in auto focus eye detect, which I had not seen before with R5 Mark ii. I cannot be sure, but I wonder if anyone else has had such feeling about the camera underperforming in autofocus after the last upgrade? In any case, I hope 1.3.1 resolves any potential issues around focusing if 1.3.0 had caused some other detrimental impacts too.

I am able to make a similar comment.

Specifically, from 'Far':

I too find the camera underperforming in autofocus after the last upgrade (with RF 200-800 attached)

Czardoom · Jun 6, 2026

AlanF said:
I go out birding most days and see a large number of Canons and a sprinkling of Nikons and Sonys, but not a single OM in the past few years. I occasionally saw an Olympus pre-Covid. Canon and Sony have about 70% of worldwide mirrorless sales and OM are now down to only 2-3% from higher when they were Olympus. They are more popular in Japan but have dropped behind Nikon at around the 12% mark or less.

In terms of practicality for birding, the star OM telephoto is the 150-400mm f/4.5 with the 1.25x TC, costing over £6000 here. Given the crop factor of 2, that is equivalent to an 300-800mm f/9, about the same weight as the Canon 200-800m f/9, costing £2000. Further, the OM sensor is only 20.4 Mpx, compared with 45 Mpx on an R5ii, so the R5ii has an effective extra reach of 50%, like having a built in 1.5x TC. The cheaper 32 Mpx R6iii has 32.5 Mpx, which is equivalent to having a 1.26xTC on it compared with the OM. The lighter RF 100-500mm f/7.1 has an equivalent reach of 750mm on the R5ii, compared with the OM. The cheaper M. Zuiko Digital ED 150-600mm f/5.0-6.3 IS costs £2500, weighs more than the 200-800, and is just a rebadged Sigma with a marked-up price.

As good as Olympus used to be, and it was far ahead in the past, OM haven't put in the development and so Canon has leapt ahead in terms of AF, subject identification and tracking. However, your opinion clearly differs, and there are devotees of M4/3.

Clearly, the advantage of the MFT 2x crop factor comes into play if you crop all, or most of your images, as is the case with me. Obviously you understand that if you crop a FF image from the R5 II - or any FF camera - to the size of the MFT image or smaller, than the OM-1's 20 MP sensor totally out-resolves any and all Canon and Nikon FF cameras, and is about the same as the R7. If you have used both the OM 150-400 and the Canon 200-800, then any comparison is a joke. Basically a top-level pro lens with a very good consumer lens. The OM lens is definitely better, in my opinion, than the excellent Rf 100-500, too. The AF subject detection and tracking is definitely on par with the original Canon R5, R6 II, and better than the R7, all of which I have used. Pre-capture is better than any Canon, FPS options are higher, and the stacked sensor has a very fast read-out speed. OM's IBIS is still as good as anything on the market. It is true that OM Systems is basically a niche company now, which is unfortunate. It is difficult, in a world where the internet influencers essentially dominate the marketing opinion of consumers, for them to compete, since we all "know" how FF is the only way to go if you are a "real" photographer.

GMCPhotographics · Jun 6, 2026

Sporgon said:
With the R6 series now being 30mp I’m not sure I want the 5.

I ended up flipping my R5 last month and I swapped it out for a new R6iii, to compliment my R6ii. I’m super happy with both cameras and a lot happier with them than I was with R5. I got slightly more for the R5 than I paid for it, so I can’t complain.

AlanF · Jun 6, 2026

blackcoffee17 said:
400mm F8 is too short for wildlife on full frame and too dark on APS-C. Even an updated 400 5.6 would make more sense.

That is a rather odd comment about f/8 being too dark on an APS-C. I regularly use the RF 100-400mm at f/8 on an R7. Similarly odd is the comment about focal length. The old EF 400mm and EF 100-400mm f/5.6 were used routinely on FF cameras for wild life before they were compatible with extenders and AF, and were very popular lenses. 400mm is only 20% shorter than 500mm, and the 100-500mm f/7.1 is considered a good wild-life lens on a 24 Mpx R6ii, and a 400mm on an R5 has the reach of a 550mm on an R6ii or a 490mm on an R6iii. Also f/7.1 is only 1/3rd stop faster than f/8. I use the RF 200-800mm f/9 a lot as it is longer but can still get a lot done with 400mm and 500mm on my R5ii.

blackcoffee17 · Jun 6, 2026

noname said:
A 400mm f/8 (or somewhat faster) IS STM could cost about half of the 100-500mm's price (600mm f/11 IS STM costs USD 830)

400mm F8 is too short for wildlife on full frame and too dark on APS-C. Even an updated 400 5.6 would make more sense.

Del Paso · Jun 6, 2026

AlanF said:
Le Canon Français - Look at our headline news today about you Alsatian Canon guys.

France's 'patriotic' banquets rile hard left

The feasting phenomenon run by Le Canon Français has become a hot political issue.

www.bbc.co.uk

I am not at all concerned! Not only because I hate such mass-meetings.
This beer-wine-food orgy took place in the Haut-Rhin region, while I live in the Bas-Rhin (High vs. low Rhine). We are by far the better part of Alsace!!!!!!

We don't very much like each other, the Haut-Rhinois are famous for being "über-patriotic", which mustn't be considered a quality.
But please, take my comment with a huge, an enormous, an elephantesque grain of salt...

Click · Jun 6, 2026

Nemorino said:
Common swift
R5m2 + RF 200-800
@ 1/4000s, f/9, iso 6400/8000

Barn swollow
R5m2 + RF200-800 + 1.4TC
@ 1/4000s, f/13, iso 10 000
IQ is not that good but I like the action

They’re not an easy subject to photograph, they’re very fast. Well done.

neuroanatomist · Jun 6, 2026

Bob Howland said:
However, I believe that the size advantage of APS-C lenses disappears at about 150-200mm.

A bit longer. For example, compare the EF-S 55-250mm with the old EF 55-200mm or the 75-300mm cheap zooms. The EF-S lens is smaller.

scyrene · Jun 6, 2026

Bob Howland said:
I own both an R6-2 (24MP) and an R7 (32MP) and use them for different things. As I stated previously, the R7 has the same pixel size as an 83MP FF sensor and provides many more pixels per feather than the R6-2, R6-3 or R5-2 using the same lenses. However, I believe that the size advantage of APS-C lenses disappears at about 150-200mm.

Sure but the comparison made by the OP wasn't with the 6 series but the R5. And as you say, there's not much if any advantage beyond short telephoto lengths. I just want people to be honest and straightforward. Crop cameras offer a price advantage and not much else nowadays (if they ever did).

Bob Howland · Jun 6, 2026

scyrene said:
As I thought, you're labouring under something of an old fallacy (see Neuro's tireless reply above). But even if it's still partially true, you save a hell of a lot more weight by choosing one of the lower tier RF superteles than by trading a FF body for a crop.

I own both an R6-2 (24MP) and an R7 (32MP) and use them for different things. As I stated previously, the R7 has the same pixel size as an 83MP FF sensor and provides many more pixels per feather than the R6-2, R6-3 or R5-2 using the same lenses. However, I believe that the size advantage of APS-C lenses disappears at about 150-200mm.

AlanF · Jun 6, 2026

Del Paso said:
Or did you perhaps mean People Inhibiting Tasty Ardbeg?
If so, I'm an active member of the sect!
Edit: "Imbibing". (I wasn't imbibed when I wrote "inhibiting", no idea why)

Le Canon Français - Look at our headline news today about you Alsatian Canon guys.

France's 'patriotic' banquets rile hard left

The feasting phenomenon run by Le Canon Français has become a hot political issue.

www.bbc.co.uk

AlanF · Jun 6, 2026

Nemorino said:
Common swift
R5m2 + RF 200-800
@ 1/4000s, f/9, iso 6400/8000
View attachment 229948 View attachment 229949 View attachment 229950 View attachment 229951

Barn swollow
R5m2 + RF200-800 + 1.4TC
@ 1/4000s, f/13, iso 10 000
IQ is not that good but I like the action
View attachment 229952 View attachment 229953 View attachment 229954
And a GIF of 20 frames
View attachment 229955

I liked the action!

AlanF · Jun 6, 2026

Nemorino said:
Speckled wood
R5m2 + Laowa RF58mm macro, hand held and of cause manually focused
Uncropped except changing the ratio
View attachment 229962
View attachment 229963

Leptogaster cylindrica (Gemeine Schlankfliege)
Sorry, Alan, no English name!
R5m2 + RF100L
View attachment 229964
and a QHD crop of the same image
View attachment 229965

Striped Slender Robberfly

scyrene · Jun 6, 2026

cruso said:
With the crop camera I would gain the reach so i would Be able to get the smaller and lighter lenses ?

As I thought, you're labouring under something of an old fallacy (see Neuro's tireless reply above). But even if it's still partially true, you save a hell of a lot more weight by choosing one of the lower tier RF superteles than by trading a FF body for a crop.

neuroanatomist · Jun 6, 2026

cruso said:
With the crop camera I would gain the reach so i would Be able to get the smaller and lighter lenses ?

You would be able to get smaller and lighter lenses in focal lengths from ultrawide to short telephoto. For long telephoto lenses, meaning primes or zooms with focal lengths of ≥300mm, there is no size/weight advantage to lenses with smaller image circles. That's because the image circle is not limiting for lens designs at those focal lengths. It's why you don't see long telephoto APS-C lenses, and why long lenses for the m4/3 OM cameras (2x crop) are the same size and weight as comparable lenses for FF sensors.

Bob Howland · Jun 6, 2026

cruso said:
With the crop camera I would gain the reach so i would Be able to get the smaller and lighter lenses ?

Shooting an R7 is functionally equivalent to shooting with an 83MP FF camera and FF lens, then cropping the image in post processing. The advantage of the crop camera is that it doesn't have to deal with all the pixels that would be removed and, therefore, can be faster and cheaper. As you state, the lenses can be smaller and lighter, as shown by Sigma. (Come on guys, show us how small a quality 50-140 f/2.8 OS lens can be made.)

Latest activity

Latest activity

Striped Slender Robberfly​

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics

Striped Slender Robberfly