Latest activity

JensR · Dec 31, 2025

Planterz said:
For anyone who wants to continue this discussion, we were/are talking about a lens with a ~42-135mm zoom range with an f2.8 aperture. This range on an APS-C camera would roughly effectively match the zoom range and field of view of the commonly used 70-200mm lenses used by professionals for indoor sports, weddings, events, and other things. The f2.8 aperture would let you shoot at the same shutter speeds, albeit with less shallow depth of field, which everybody understands and doesn't need to be argued further. It should be lighter and cheaper than a 70-200mm f2.8, which on a Canon APS-C camera would give an effective 112-320mm full frame field of view, but might be too long/narrow, especially if the situation calls for the 70-200mm field of view.

That was something i was looking for trying to achieve a "lightweight" documentary photokit. But the Sigma offerings for EF mount were either optically not top notch or like the 2012 released 50-150F/2.8 EX DC OS HSM with 1340gr / 3 lbs and 200mm / 8 inches long pretty much the same size and weight as a regular 70-200 from Canon. Two years ago after much testing i bought a used G9 and a G70 as a second body, a Lumix 12-35 F/2.8 and a Pana-Leica 35-100 F/2.8 as well as a 15 / F1.7 and a 42.5 F/1.7. The low light performance of the G9 is quite good, at least on par with the 80D, it has IBIS and the lenses are stabilised and it is a small and light kit compared to my Sigma EF 70-200 F/2.8 Sport and my EF 24-70 F/2.8 on my EOS R, R6II or 5DsR together with the Sigma EF 24-35mm F/2.0 ART and the 85 F/1.4 ART.

My usual "walk around kit" for 2 or 3 hour trips in nature is my trusty Sigma EF 60-600 with either an R7 or the R6 II depending on weather, light and mood and an EOS R with the RF 24-105 F/4 L in a slingbag, so my definition of "light and small" may not be universal.......

Click · Dec 31, 2025

I really like the little ball of feathers on the first one. So cute! Very nice series, shire guy.

EricN · Dec 31, 2025

neuroanatomist said:
Not the first post on the subject (though a link to a LensRentals blog post that was provided by @AlanF going on 9 years ago is still relevant), but just a reminder of why I use protective filters on almost all of my lenses.

I started to clean front of my RF 24-105/2.8 Z, and noticed this on the B+W 82mm UV filter that I had on it:

View attachment 227285

I'm sure replacing the front element would have been much more costly than the $100 for a new B+W 82mm clear filter to replace the one above.

Incidentally, a couple of years ago I wrote a long post about B+W's 'new' filter mounts (Basic, Master and T-Pro) and packaging (leather pouches announced for their 75th anniversary). That post seems to have disappeared. I'm sticking with the Master line. It has the same spec as the prior XS-Pro while the T-Pro mount is very slightly thinner, but I find the XS-Pro to be more than thin enough, and I'll pass on the titanium-colored coating instead of the black coating on the same brass; I also prefer the knurling on the Master over the smooth T-Pro edges.

Despite their announcement in 2022 that, "From now on, all B+W filters will be delivered in high-quality cases made of genuine leather," they've changed the packaging inside the box yet again. For those keeping track, it was a plastic box with a foam insert for many years, then a brief flirtation with a fabric bag before the switch to a leather pouch in 2022, and now they are using a lightweight metal alloy box (aluminum-looking but a magnet sticks) with a foam insert.

View attachment 227287

I hadn't brought any during the clothe period. Personally I did prefer the plastic cases to the leather although I suppose leather is better environmentally.
The metal should be better as far as recycling goes, correct?

The other year a protective filter cracked when my rf 85 1.2 fell, but the lens itself was fine. I don't know if the front element would have broken without that filter.

Somewhat off topic:
I've been using filters to reduce contrast. In many situations, it can help to produce more accurate colors, but other situations, the autofocus can't adjust or their is a blinding from the very bright areas into the adjacent darks.

roby17269 · Dec 31, 2025

Mark flyer said:
Are u being sarcastic? In my experience, a 45-60mp takes almost identical pics to a 24mp camera in the same price range.

In my experience they are almost identical only if you look at them on a small-ish screen without zooming in

axtstern · Dec 31, 2025

Glenn01 said:
I hope too that they will do something about that rubber eyecup! The current was just disintegrates in a couple of months.

Yes, with Canon EOS since the EOS 650 (no D) , you could always replace the eyecup by pinching it with 2 Fingers, never needed this function because the rubber was sturdy but often lost the eyecup when handling the camera a bit rough.

Now I have the R7 and Eyecup is desintegrating by just looking at it. Of cause now it is fixed in a way that you need a very fine screwdriver to replace it in the field. However the two Chinese "Edelschrott" mailorder companies sell a replacement (With screwdriver and screws) for 10 Euro or less. I chose the extended eyecup which is a lot harder than the one from Canon but which did not fail in 12 month and does not complain when the teeth of the zipper of the camera bag touch it.

Ozarker · Dec 31, 2025

koenkooi said:
Speaking of regional differences, that was an excellent opportunity to use “bless your heart.” It’s in my top 3 of English colloquialisms

Yes! "Worthless as tits on a boar hog."

Glenn01 · Dec 31, 2025

I hope too that they will do something about that rubber eyecup! The current was just disintegrates in a couple of months.

AlanF · Dec 31, 2025

neuroanatomist said:
Excluding a camera about which we know nothing including if it will even exist, it seems a basic choice between resolution and speed. Sounds a lot like the choice between the Sony a1 and a9III.

More likely, Canon expect their professional users to know what they need and buy that.

It hopes the wealthy enthusiasts will buy the lot!

roby17269 · Dec 31, 2025

GMCPhotographics said:
That's maybe your prediction, but that's not what the artical reports. It's looking a lot like a super-pro version of the R5 linage.

The article reports rumors. There is no guarantee that its contents will prove true. We're all speculating here.

GMCPhotographics said:
The R1 is sports dedicated camera. It can easily shoot most things and it's very versatile. But the designers have honed and forged it for a life of profressional sports photographers. But this is a small niche in the professional world of photography, but it's the niche that grabs the headlines and it's where Canon likes to place it's top tier camera. If those photographers like a non extended 70-200/f2.8....then we get the new Z lens option. If those photographers don't want 45mp, but prefer 24mp...then that's what gets delivered, regardless of the wants / hopes / needs of any other type of photographer. It's been like this for years and years. Even pre digital...rememerber those days?

For years, (pre mirrorless) a pair of 5D series camera bodies were the staple of working pro photographers. They just worked, had the right level of build , durability and features. They were do it all cameras. Canon split this line into the 5D and 6D cameras, with the 5D going up in price and the 6D being a more budget friendly option (considering most pros buy a pair of these). In the mirrorless world, Canon pushed this envelope even further. The R5ii is a far more porfessional camera than it's 5DIII forebare, with a higher price tag to suit. I suspect that the near miss with the EOS R (many considered it to be an immature project camera), Canon threw everything the had at the R5 and it's the first camera in living memory where Canon poured so much tech and ability into it.
As a consequence, the R5 has become the pinaccle of versatility with the cropablity of it's 45mp sensor. You can do top tier landscapes, wild life...pretty much anything that you can throw at it. You see a lot of profressional wildlife, landscape, portraiture, wedding, events...all using a R5 or R5ii. It's THAT versatile.
Since the stacked sensor in the 5D mkII, it's easily THE most versatile camera Canon have ever made. The 45mp is actually overkill for many photographers, it seems to be the standard that we have all gotten used to. Which is why the R6 range is so popular, it's a slightly less extreme R5.

Which means that from a product and development point of view, Canon really have only one play with the R3II. Essentially making a R5II in a sports pro body, like the 1Ds series used to be, and make it a dev tray / play pen for fancy things like global shutter options. If Canon had put a stacked sensor in the R6iii, then it would seriously rob sales of the R5ii. An R3ii would never rob sales of a R5 series...more likely sell a few more R5ii's as a backup to the R3ii. The R5 range is the camera that Canon makes it's super profit from and it's the camera they will endeavour to protect it's market. A 50mp R3ii won't rob sales from the R1 either, because those photographers are not interested in post production or crop-ability. They need speed and a fast workflow. Shoot....get it right in frame....send to agency.

I don't think a R3ii will be a particaulrly big seller, and in some repects it's a halo camera, so it doesn't need to sell well. Both the R6 and R5 sell in far more profitable quantaties.

We have amazing choices and options in the Canon range as we enter 2026!

I do hope you realize that all of the above are your opinions... you may be right or you may be wrong. Canon does not seem to heed the wisdom that pours out of CR forums... otherwise I'd have had my 35 1.2 years ago

EricN · Dec 31, 2025

ISv said:
Somehow this Carpenter bee looks to me as a Darth Vader with wings...View attachment 227289 View attachment 227290

JOIN ME; TOGETHER WE CAN POLLINATE THE GARDEN!!

NOOOO YOU'RE NOT MY BEE!!

EricN · Dec 31, 2025

Maximilian said:
I like both, the second one, too - somehow.
Look at the proboscis, a really nice arch

For me, it is good to see a photo like the second because it's the reality that often a butterfly is partially obscured by the surrounding plant life.
What I want to say is there is an emotional value which I think we've all experienced. It might be the feeling of anticipating to see it fly to the next flower.

JohanCruyff · Dec 31, 2025

In the comments about the pictures, Richard Butler wrote he calculated a focal lenght of 84.5mm, based on the angle of view.

https://www.dpreview.com/samples/0768116798/canon-rf-85mm-f1p4-l-vcm-sample-gallery#viewComments

Other 85mm lenses could look more 90mm-ish at infinity due to focus breathing.

shire_guy · Dec 30, 2025

Veriegated Fairy-wren

Nankeen Night Heron

Figbird (Green)

Figbird (female)

Click · Dec 30, 2025

That's a very nice shot,ISv. We have a clear view of the bird. I really like it.

ISv · Dec 30, 2025

Many times the conditions are not right and most importantly the birds are not collaborating...
This is from today.

ISv · Dec 30, 2025

becceric said:
Reading your description and looking at the first photo, I saw Darth Vader with very large ears.

I wish I had time to decrease the speed, then, maybe the wings would appear as they should: he was actually taking off on the first frame!

becceric · Dec 30, 2025

ISv said:
Somehow this Carpenter bee looks to me as a Darth Vader with wings...View attachment 227289 View attachment 227290

Reading your description and looking at the first photo, I saw Darth Vader with very large ears.

neuroanatomist · Dec 30, 2025

Copland said:
In practical terms, within the Canon system you seem to need the R5 II for high resolution, ~~the R3 II for speed, resolution, and ruggedness,~~ and the R1 for speed and ruggedness ~~personal status~~ and the few technical features only it offers. That’s absurd.

Excluding a camera about which we know nothing including if it will even exist, it seems a basic choice between resolution and speed. Sounds a lot like the choice between the Sony a1 and a9III.

Copland said:
Does Canon seriously expect its professional users to have this entire lineup in their kit?

More likely, Canon expect their professional users to know what they need and buy that.

scyrene · Dec 30, 2025

Copland said:
The big problem with Canon is still that all bodies involve compromises. None of them can truly do everything. Even now. And I find that very unfortunate—and honestly a bit weak—for a manufacturer like Canon.

Does any other manufacturer do that? In any field? A body that did everything would have at least one compromise: price. It would cost a lot more.

Copland said:
In practical terms, within the Canon system you seem to need the R5 II for high resolution, the R3 II for speed, resolution, and ruggedness, and the R1 for personal status and the few technical features only it offers.

If this rumour is in any way accurate, then you won't need the R5II for resolution, will you? So it's still a two-way choice (the same choice that has been there since the 1Dx/5D3 days).

Xopher78 · Dec 30, 2025

I think it’ll be a shame if the R3 is a mish-mash of the R1 and R5 that it will inevitably be… I’d love a professional APS-H camera to supersede the R7 or 7DII, like the original 1D. 24MP would be just fine.

Toamelicious · Dec 30, 2025

AccipiterQ said:
It's important to note that for this review, and for subsequent updates, I will do my best to shoot as much footage as possible in the XF-AVC S YCC422 10 bit flavor of the h.264 codec, in Intra frame compression

Why not use h.265? I don't shoot a ton of video, so this may be a silly question, but does h.264 offer any advantage?

I think H.264 is easier on the processor for playback and generally more compatible with possibly older devices.
H.265 does better compression, resulting in smaller files, but also more load on the CPU.

danfaz · Dec 30, 2025

AlanF said:
The Eurasian Kingfisher is much smaller and faster than the Belted, and rather difficult to get good shots in flight.

Well, then even more props to Nemorino, and I'm doubly hosed!

AlanF · Dec 30, 2025

danfaz said:
Very nice shots! There are a couple of Belted Kingfishers in my area, but I just can't ever get close enough to them.

The Eurasian Kingfisher is much smaller and faster than the Belted, and rather difficult to get good shots in flight.

Copland · Dec 30, 2025

For me personally, it would be a moderate disappointment if a new R3 line with significantly higher resolution were to appear in the near future.
About a year ago, I switched from my R3 bodies to the R1. There were a few small reasons for that (age/wear, minor functional improvements, viewfinder, dual CFexpress slots, app compatibility), but it wasn’t really necessary. Economically, certainly not. At the time, I could have bought four new R3 bodies for the price of two new R1s.

Pure speed or the even more robust body were not my main reasons for switching. I got along extremely well with the R3s; they were, in fact, the best cameras I had ever owned up to that point. And over 35+ years with Canon, I’ve had pretty much everything that was state of the art at the time. Still, the manufacturer’s “best” camera always has a certain appeal.

That’s also why I was disappointed that the R1 again came with only 24 MP and was not a step up in that regard. But okay, it is what it is.

In principle, I’d be fine with Canon continuing the R3 line. But in that case, the R1 series should clearly remain the highlight, with everything else always following behind.

Even as someone who switched from the R5 to the R5 II, I would be extremely annoyed if a 50 MP R3 were to appear shortly afterward. Not every R5 user can deploy that camera without compromises.

The big problem with Canon is still that all bodies involve compromises. None of them can truly do everything. Even now. And I find that very unfortunate—and honestly a bit weak—for a manufacturer like Canon.

I would really wish for Canon to offer a single body that combines high resolution, speed, and all state-of-the-art features in one camera. Price is “irrelevant,” as long as it’s appropriate for “the best of the best.”
The price of the R1 certainly suggests that… ;-)

In practical terms, within the Canon system you seem to need the R5 II for high resolution, the R3 II for speed, resolution, and ruggedness, and the R1 for personal status and the few technical features only it offers. That’s absurd.
Does Canon seriously expect its professional users to have this entire lineup in their kit?

AlanF · Dec 30, 2025

GMCPhotographics said:
AlanF, yes i'm very aware of those figures. However, we all make a choice of where on that scale we choose to buy into the MP density scale. For me, I prefer the lower noise in my final images and post production file handling of the R6ii and I'm not seeing a massive amount over extra fine detail in my images from my R5. It's there but nit as much as I was expecting.

If we are talking about printing to the same size equivelence, then why isn't the R7 more popular?

The R7 is very popular with me and with other birders here like @Dragon as we do squeeze out extra detail compared with cropping FF to the same image sensor size with the same lens on both. Equivalence is for when you blow up the whole of the sensor to the same output size, using a shorter focal length lens for the smaller sensor.

According to the optyczne site you referred to, the R5 resolves up to 28% more detail in good light with a wide lens. Whether or not you see or need this extra resolution depends on what you are photographing. If it's a jumbo jet you don't have the fine detail to resolve. If it's a bird too far away that the feather detail is not resolved by both the R5 and R6ii then you won't see much difference in resolution. If the bird is so close that both can fully resolve the details on the feathers, then it doesn't make much difference. If you have a coke bottle for a lens and it is in deep shade, then you won't see much difference. But, if there is a bird that is in the range of distances where it is just beyond the resolution of the R6ii but enters the resolution of the R5 that can see its feathers, then it does make a difference. It's roughly equivalent to having a 640mm lens vs a 500mm lens. And, if the image is such that I have to crop the FF image, which is usuaI for me, and I want to squeeze out another 20% or so, I grab the R7.