Latest activity

Zahnete · Apr 19, 2026

My solution to this problem was to switch to the Sony A1 II.

swingman · Apr 19, 2026

So the R7-2 is pushed back again. canon can’t bear to bring top of the range crop sensor body. I don’t think we will see a new crop sensor body in 2026.

dwkdnvr · Apr 19, 2026

padam said:
I doubt it, I expect them to fully compete with a Nikon Zr and Sony ZV-E1, sell in big numbers to incentivise switching to Canon for video.
The cinema OS is a big differentiator. Without that, high ISO and dynamic range is not as good (like R5 vs R5C).
I also wouldn't rule out an LP-E17 battery to keep it compact (with heavy limitations, at least a stills-based operating system draws less power...)

Possibly - I won't claim to understand the video market all that well. That would likely be something like a $2300 body / $2600 kit which is in line with those competitors. Some of my thinking is influenced by the R7II rumors - the rumored 39MP stacked sensor seems to really only make sense if it's also intended for an 8k S35 video cam but it would seem likely that if falls into a very similar price category given that I expect the R7II to be in the $2500 range. So, I thought that something based on the existing R8 would slot in between the R7V (i.e.'Canon FX30++') based on the R7II and the R50V, and leave significant differentiation up to the C50.
But maybe I have it backwards and the R7II / R7V pair may come in lower than I expect and the R7V would be the middle model between an R8V and R50V.

neuroanatomist · Apr 19, 2026

P-visie said:
The Sigma lens starts at 28mm, not 24mm.
See: https://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/a024_28_105_28/

Thanks and that was also going to be my comment. For me, 24mm is a much more useful starting point than 28mm because I use my 'walkaround' lens indoors as well as outdoors.

Skyfall · Apr 19, 2026

Fingers crossed that any of them comes with a 50-150 f2.8, or similar! Would be a perfect match for any wideangle

AlanF · Apr 19, 2026

I don't know how many are familiar with this, the courting ritual of the Great Crested Grebe. It needs a movie or as here an animated gif to appreciate it. (R5ii 800mm).

Exploreshootshare · Apr 19, 2026

Del Paso said:
I learnt it the hard way...
The best lens for waterfalls, unless you are at a real distance from them, is a TS lens. Most of my Val di Sole waterfall pictures were horrible, just pyramidal...
Another reason for waiting impatiently for the 14mm TS-E, which won't be a lightweight lens...
Do you hear me Canon (sorry, I miss Pam so much) ?

Uhhhhh, a TS lens for waterfall pics would be an absolute dream! But if I go down that road...I'll end up with 20 more (niche) lenses. Could've used a TS lens at the sveribach falls in the Black Forest.

P-visie · Apr 19, 2026

Dragon said:
Given the current price of lenses, any small increment of cost to add video to the camera body isn't going to change the price of your photography experience by enough to matter. When you want to shoot video for long periods, there is some additional cost (and size) and Canon addresses that with the Cinema line and the V series cameras. The incremental cost of short video shooting capability is almost totally in software that already exists, so it makes perfect sense to include it.

Moving video to a separate camera model would make a “photo” model more expensive. Separate SKU to plan, sell, put into the supply chain, service, more testing, etc.
See: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/9...-camera-makers-are-going-to-keep-adding-video

Del Paso · Apr 19, 2026

Exploreshootshare said:
I haven't regretted it so far. But if I expect shots which I´d like to print and hang, I mostly chose an L lens. For books, general viewing and small prints my non L are perfectly capable.

I honestly have no idea what my general weight limit is or how heavy everything really is. I usually put my packed backpack on my shoulders, walk around for a couple hundred of meters and decide if I´m good to go or if I have to dumb something.

I usually carry one camera, two lenses, some filters and if needed a tripod e.g. for waterfalls. If the lenses are light, I might carry three. I once carried my 14-35mm, 24-105mm and 100-500mm and a tripod in what turned out to be a long hike in 100°F with some passages having no shade at all. Never again!

With the R8 and RF 35mm F1.8/ RF 16mm F2.8 as well as the 14-35mm F4 and RF 50mm F1.4 I can even use a very light joby "tripod" and save weight. It is kind of nice when there is a trickle or something along the way.

I learnt it the hard way...
The best lens for waterfalls, unless you are at a real distance from them, is a TS lens. Most of my Val di Sole waterfall pictures were horrible, just pyramidal...
Another reason for waiting impatiently for the 14mm TS-E, which won't be a lightweight lens...

Do you hear me Canon (sorry, I miss Pam so much) ?

dwkdnvr · Apr 19, 2026

padam said:
Re-using the same old sensor probably costs more at this point, 4k120p is par for the course, and an R8 V won't have a bulge for active cooling to justify a lower price tag compared to the C50. That's what I expect, but either way, there are a handful of options with or without EVF.
Yes all well-segmented, but on the other hand, quite well-priced.
Addig flexiblity would mean users complaining about pricing, not realising how much this actually costs for the manufacturer.

I thought about this as well. Unfortunately, I doubt Canon will use the R6III sensor in the R8V since it would put it too close to the C50. Instead I suspect they'll re-play the R50V scenario where they added a heavy crop 4k60 and the R8V will get a heavy crop 4k120 mode (maybe even 1:1)just to be able to hit the check-mark. This assumes they're positioning the R8V adjacent to the R8 the same way the R50V is positioned, though - making it a sub-$2k kit or roughly 2x the cost of the R50V.

Dragon · Apr 19, 2026

Any Name said:
It would be a excellent opportunity to (sort of) split the R8-line into a 'more video oriented' branch (the 'R8 V') and a 'more photograph oriented' branch (the 'R8 Mark II'). Being at the low-end of the full-frame range, it would be a logical point to test the waters for such an approach.

Disclaimer: video is just not my thing, so I'd rather not to pay for all this unused (by me at least) functionality.

Given the current price of lenses, any small increment of cost to add video to the camera body isn't going to change the price of your photography experience by enough to matter. When you want to shoot video for long periods, there is some additional cost (and size) and Canon addresses that with the Cinema line and the V series cameras. The incremental cost of short video shooting capability is almost totally in software that already exists, so it makes perfect sense to include it.

dwkdnvr · Apr 19, 2026

Canon Rumors said:
I love how that camera got panned by 0-day reviewers, and then real people bought it and love it.

Well, to be a bit fair to the reviewers the 18-40 wasn't available for the initial release and reviews, and if the only small lens Panasonic was offering was the 28/8 body cap the concept does seem a bit half-baked. The S9 didn't really find it's niche until folks could put a kit together with the 18-40 and a small prime like the Sigma 45/2.

And from that perspective I get it since I'm looking at the R50V and mentally trying to make it work in the same basic role. Is the RF-S 14-30 + RF 28 'enough' to make it work? OR (relevant to this thread) is a slightly larger R8V + 20-50 + 16/28/50 more sensible (albeit at probably 2x or more the cost)

Exploreshootshare · Apr 19, 2026

Del Paso said:
Whenever I went for "lighter, even if not as good as the L", I ended regretting it pretty fast That lens quickly went the "MPN" way...

I haven't regretted it so far. But if I expect shots which I´d like to print and hang, I mostly chose an L lens. For books, general viewing and small prints my non L are perfectly capable.

Del Paso said:
Anyway, for longer hikes, I usually carry about 11kg. of photo gear, food, clothing and water. So, whether a lens weighs 900 instead of 600gr. I don't care much.

I honestly have no idea what my general weight limit is or how heavy everything really is. I usually put my packed backpack on my shoulders, walk around for a couple hundred of meters and decide if I´m good to go or if I have to dumb something.

Del Paso said:
Sure, I pay lots of attention to weight, but I consider 5 lenses and 2 FF bodies still within my acceptable limit, when carried in a backpack, of course. When using only one body, I carry it on a very wide strap (PeakDesign), 2 or 300 gr. for a better lens are ok.
Sure, I still dream of a tack-sharp 15-500mm TS-E L macro weighing less than 1 kg.

I usually carry one camera, two lenses, some filters and if needed a tripod e.g. for waterfalls. If the lenses are light, I might carry three. I once carried my 14-35mm, 24-105mm and 100-500mm and a tripod in what turned out to be a long hike in 100°F with some passages having no shade at all. Never again!

With the R8 and RF 35mm F1.8/ RF 16mm F2.8 as well as the 14-35mm F4 and RF 50mm F1.4 I can even use a very light joby "tripod" and save weight. It is kind of nice when there is a trickle or something along the way.

Any Name · Apr 19, 2026

blackcoffee17 said:
This again.. Tell me how removing some video features would make the camera cheaper. The sensor still need to have fast readout to support 30FPS (the current R8), dual pixel AF, the EVF, etc. If they separate the R8 line into 2, that just means extra development and R&D cost and sales split between 2 models = higher cost per model. Removing some video codecs won't make the camera cheaper. Making an R8V only makes sense because of different ergonomics and the EVF can be dropped.

And yet, here we are, with the article already adjusted to the (at this moment) suggested/perceived split of the current R8 into an R8V and R8 Mark II. Go figure.
Probably a split by Canon due to wildly different reasons than mine, but we'll see what we end up with eventually.

BTW: 'Photographing' at 30 FPS is just making very short films and hoping that one particular frame has the approximate image you'd want.
Not my kind of picture taking and I'd gladly take a much lower max FPS if that means slower/cheaper onboard buffer RAM, less cooling (as someone else mentioned), etc. etc.

Celts88 · Apr 19, 2026

ISv said:
Hmmm... Me thinks the adult is just feeding very young kid. Or that's just nasty kid...

The photo may give the impression they're on the sand but they were actually off the ground and going at it for nearly 1 minute.

Del Paso · Apr 19, 2026

Exploreshootshare said:
I might wait. But would a RF 20-70mm F2.8 L VCM really be lighter than the RF 24-70mm F2.8 L IS USM? The latter comes in at nearly 900gr... not helping with the weight...

I do love most of Canons L offering, but sometimes I choose convenience over maximum IQ. I got some really nice shots with the RF 16mm and RF 35mm while hiking and on that day I chose them cause of weight. I really don't wanna carry a 900gr L lens during a 10 mile hike or something...

Whenever I went for "lighter, even if not as good as the L", I ended regretting it pretty fast That lens quickly went the "MPB" way...
Anyway, for longer hikes, I usually carry about 11kg. of photo gear, food, clothing and water. So, whether a lens weighs 900 instead of 600gr. I don't care much.
Sure, I pay lots of attention to weight, but I consider 5 lenses and 2 FF bodies still within my acceptable limit, when carried in a backpack, of course. When using only one body, I carry it on a very wide strap (PeakDesign), 2 or 300 gr. for a better lens are ok.
Sure, I still dream of a tack-sharp 15-500mm TS-E L macro weighing less than 1 kg.

Edit: I replaced MPN with MPB, of course...

roby17269 · Apr 19, 2026

David - Sydney said:
There is the example of R5 and R5c where it is clear that additional video features (cinema menus, 8k60 etc) and cooling for longer recording times is specific to video at an extra cost. Even if Canon removed IBIS in the R5c. If Canon released the R5 and R5c at the same time then there would have been no reason for reviewers to find fault.

It is possible that less cooling is required if the higher end video features are not enabled so there could be a cost reduction there.
Example is the additional heatsink etc for cLog on the 5Div which was then embedded with a USD100 price increase if I recall correctly.

The Magic Lantern project showed what the 5Diii video (and stills features) was capable of if the engineers allowed it but there were caveats with over heating being one of those issues.

These are niche use cases as I agree in general that EVFs and video features ago hand-in-hand and any cost differences for codecs and firmware development/maintenance etc would be small at best.

DPReview has posted an article about this:
DPR Article

A couple of considerations:

R5 and R5C are physically different cameras: the R5 is not a "less video" version of the R5C
The increased cost of the R5C is mostly due to physical differences (cooling) and the fact that Canon sells less R5C cameras than R5 ones
If they made a video-less version of a camera with only software changes, it will cost more because it will require dedicated support / fw and will sell in lower numbers. A video-less version of a camera with physical differences (e.g. remove internal cooling) would cost even more since the manufactoring will be different as well
If you were right, how do you explain monochrome versions of existing cameras costing more? Those are the same as their color-enabled siblings, they just remove the bayer filter and remove some options from the firmware (color simulations)

JensR · Apr 19, 2026

Exploreshootshare said:
Oh my, I feel so foolish :/ sry about that one

Don't be, Nikon has that for instance on the Z9, they call it protective shield. The Z9 / Z8 have no mechanical shutter.

Exploreshootshare · Apr 19, 2026

I might wait. But would a RF 20-70mm F2.8 L VCM really be lighter than the RF 24-70mm F2.8 L IS USM? The latter comes in at nearly 900gr... not helping with the weight...

I do love most of Canons L offering, but sometimes I choose convenience over maximum IQ. I got some really nice shots with the RF 16mm and RF 35mm while hiking and on that day I chose them cause of weight. I really don't wanna carry a 900gr L lens during a 10 mile hike or something...

Exploreshootshare · Apr 19, 2026

m4ndr4ke said:
That's not a protective curtain, that's the real shutter, and it's a lot more delicate than the sensor itself. I disable that functionality on every camera.

Oh my, I feel so foolish :/ sry about that one

Old Man FL/FD · Apr 19, 2026

Uneternal said:
Not happening.
1) Adapting old lenses is a niche market.
2) Not profitable for Canon even if they sold these adapters for $99. They want to sell cameras and lenses.

Alas, that’s the scenario.

The many third-party EF to RF adapter manufacturers cannot do this, because unlike an ‘extension tube’ with pass-through electrical contacts, this adapter requires a full knowledge of the R/RF electrical interface specification, which is already a point of contention (AF, FF, etc.) with third party lens manufacturers.

Also, Canon needs the retro camera menu to support this smart adapter.

Let’s see how this retro camera and attendant influencers plays out.

Exploreshootshare · Apr 19, 2026

The new article doesn't state that the R8ii will come as a retro camera. Is this information dead now? Or do we simply don't know? Not being a retro camera makes it more interesting.

I always figured Canon will keep the current 24 mp for the R8ii. It gives them a little more differentiation towards the R6iii and R5ii and actually lines up quite nicely from 24mp - 33mp - 45mp. Reusing the same sensor will provide lower costs as well. Furthermore, I don't really see a need for new sensor as it renders beautifully. On a 14inch mbp screen it really is hard to tell the difference to the R5 sensor.

Personally, I'd wish for Canon to keep it at 24mp. Having a combination of 24 and 45mp is awesome. The 24mp files download amazingly fast compared to the 45mp files from the R5. Plus, for school work I usually shot jpeg and shoot hundreds (sometimes over 1000) of frames a day, so the difference in transfer time can really be felt. But, that is just me.

Click · Apr 19, 2026

ISv said:
Back to DxO PL. Long story -short: more than an year my PL8 stopped working, I upgraded to PL9 and it was the same - they didn't recognize my credentials (!?). It was with my old computer (Windows 10). My new computer is Windows 11 and voila - at once I'm a legitimate owner. The problem is that I can download only PL9 - the previous editions are not available in DxO store for downloading (I like the simplicity of PL6 and PL8 since I don't always need all of the new features of PL9)! Anyway: the noise reduction and the control of the colors are day and night in comparison with the Windows Photos program (not a surprise!). Today it was good day to take photos in low light (overcast and windy and most importantly - finally no rain!!!) and to see what the last edition of PL9 can do! I missed the fraction of second when the Japanese White-eye landed on the flowers of the Jade vine - it could be a nice photo...

You've got some nice photos there.

Click · Apr 19, 2026

Dragon said:
My hummingbirds are back. They bugged out at the end of January after correctly guessing that February was going to be a bit nasty. R7 + RF 200-800.

Lovely shot.

Uneternal · Apr 19, 2026

Old Man FL/FD said:
However, consider this – if this adapter came to fruition, Canon could have bragging rights by saying: “Every lens we (Canon) have sold since 1959; R, FL, FD, EF and RF can be mounted to a R-series camera with all its native capability intact.”

That would be pretty good marketing.

Not happening.
1) Adapting old lenses is a niche market.
2) Not profitable for Canon even if they sold these adapters for $99. They want to sell cameras and lenses.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics