Latest activity

mimbu · Apr 17, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
The discussion was about a switchable separate 1x-1.4x TC (echoing previous discussions about a switchable 1x-1.4x-2x TC that resulted from online misinterpretation of a Canon patent). The desire is for a standalone optic that is added to and mounts behind the lens like the current 1.4x and 2x TCs. The explanation was about why that is not technically feasible without additional optics for use at '1x'.

Then we are talking about completely separate things. At least you're not QUITE as big a moron as I thought you were, you just can't write well.

neuroanatomist · Apr 17, 2026

m4ndr4ke said:
I don’t think it is clear in the article, but this rumour for the Sigma is for an autofocusing lens.

Even so, the blog post lists four other faster-than-f/1 manual focus lenses. Of course, those are for the RF mount...but then the article throws a non-RF 135/1.4 lens into the discussion.

The reason I think the Nikon 58/0.95 lens has relevance is that it's from another household camera name, which those four other lenses —Kipon Ibelux, Brightin Star, Mikaton Zhongyi and Laowa— certainly are not (Laowa at least is common for camera forum dwellers, but the difficulty I had fighting autocorrect to type all four of those manufacturer names into this post box speaks for itself).

m4ndr4ke · Apr 17, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
Probably worth mentioning the Nikon Z 58mm f/0.95 in this context. I don’t think Canon really cares about what Nikon does from a market perspective, but they probably do from a bragging rights perspective.

I don’t think it is clear in the article, but this rumour for the Sigma is for an autofocusing lens.

exquisitefacade · Apr 17, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
Oh, ok. Why are you here? What makes you different from the other trolls who show up here?

If you prefer APS-C for that use case, that's your choice.

@blackcoffee17 nailed this one...halo lenses are just that.

You mean the business model that has enabled Canon to lead the camera market for 23 years and counting?

Canon has done so, quite successfully. For example, what other manufacturer uses every pixel on the sensor for autofocus and has cross-type AF sensitivity like the R1? What other manufacturer offers a 24-105mm f/2.8 general purpose lens? As for in-camera processing, DLO is available in-camera and corrects for even challenging issues like field curvature.

Other manufacturers have developed different innovations, of course. The bottom line is that if you cannot take excellent pictures with any current ILC system, the problem is not the gear.

Troll on, bub.

neuroanatomist · Apr 17, 2026

Kiton said:
I would be very happy happy with a 65mm f2.
and a 28mm f2 and a 85mm f2!!

The RF 28-70/2 gives you the first two in one lens, and the RF 85/2 already exists.

Personally, I view my 28-70/2 as a set of portrait primes in one lens, and the 85/1.2L DS provides what the zoom doesn't for superior bokeh.

Kiton · Apr 17, 2026

I like 65mm for portraits, I have been known to tape a 24-70 or 24-105 at 65mm for a shoot.
I would be very happy happy with a 65mm f2.
OK, broken record alert:
and a 28mm f2 and a 85mm f2!!

neuroanatomist · Apr 17, 2026

Martin868 said:
I think this kind of R&D is total waste of resources for Canon. they are still way behind Sony in general

Oh, ok. Why are you here? What makes you different from the other trolls who show up here?

Martin868 said:
and Fuji for street/travel photography.

If you prefer APS-C for that use case, that's your choice.

Martin868 said:
F1 lenses are exotic products that a tiny number of users could benefit from.

@blackcoffee17 nailed this one...halo lenses are just that.

Martin868 said:
There are much more important and useful things to do. Canon need to change and doing these F1 one would be Canon hanging to the old business model.

You mean the business model that has enabled Canon to lead the camera market for 23 years and counting?

Martin868 said:
Instead invest in new innovative bodies, proper in-camera processing technology and solid general purpose lenses.

Canon has done so, quite successfully. For example, what other manufacturer uses every pixel on the sensor for autofocus and has cross-type AF sensitivity like the R1? What other manufacturer offers a 24-105mm f/2.8 general purpose lens? As for in-camera processing, DLO is available in-camera and corrects for even challenging issues like field curvature.

Other manufacturers have developed different innovations, of course. The bottom line is that if you cannot take excellent pictures with any current ILC system, the problem is not the gear.

Troll on, bub.

neuroanatomist · Apr 17, 2026

Bob Howland said:
I'm not sure if it's relevant but I just did some test shots with an R6-2 at ISO 12800 and f/1.4. That combination's images were almost 2 stops brighter than the actual scene. I couldn't easily read the book titles in the scene but could read them in the image.

IMO, an f/1.0 lens (or faster) is not really about 'more light'. This is not 1975 with Kubrik needing to shoot in candlelight at f/0.7 on film. Those lenses were developed for NASA to shoot the dark side of the moon, but they didn't bring that old Zeiss lens on Artemis II...the fastest lens was a 35/2 and the rest were f/2.8 zooms. Rather, it's about the razor thin DoF you can achieve with such a lens.

blackcoffee17 · Apr 17, 2026

"F1 lenses are exotic products that a tiny number of users could benefit from"

They are also those kind of products that bring people into the system, even if those people will never buy them. Great for marketing.

Martin868 · Apr 17, 2026

Canon Rumors said:
It's time for another Canon 50mm F0.95, who cares about price!

I have a savings account that is almost there for the Canon 7 version 50 F0.95 that I will have converted to M mount. It has been an 18 month process of self control.

I think this kind of R&D is total waste of resources for Canon. they are still way behind Sony in general, and Fuji for street/travel photography. F1 lenses are exotic products that a tiny number of users could benefit from. There are much more important and useful things to do. Canon need to change and doing these F1 one would be Canon hanging to the old business model. Let Sigma do these specialty products. Instead invest in new innovative bodies, proper in-camera processing technology and solid general purpose lenses.

Bob Howland · Apr 17, 2026

I'm not sure if it's relevant but I just did some test shots with an R6-2 at ISO 12800 and f/1.4. That combination's images were almost 2 stops brighter than the actual scene. I couldn't easily read the book titles in the scene but could read them in the image.

neuroanatomist · Apr 17, 2026

mimbu said:
Lenses with built-in TCs are designed to be optically correct at 1x in the first place, with open internal air gaps as part of the prescription. An air gap is just another design variable, and large air gaps are not unusual in supertelephoto optics.

The 1.4x mode is then created by inserting a matched negative afocal converter group into that already-corrected 1x system. That group modifies the ray angles and pupil imaging so the effective focal length and f-number increase, while the final image plane remains at the sensor.

So there is no physical requirement for some separate "1x compensating group" when the TC is out. The 1x state is the native solved state. The 1.4x group is the added perturbation that was specifically designed to work within it.

You are asserting a physics constraint that does not exist.

Did you rephrase what I already stated and illustrated all on your own, or did one of your 'friends' like Claude or Grok help you?

Let me remind you of what you asserted:

mimbu said:
A 1.4x TC built into a lens does not have to be any different to a separate 1.4x TC added to a lens. The lens is simply designed to focus onto the sensor without the 1.4x TC in place, and the 1.4x TC optics are designed so that they don't screw with that.

The discussion was about a switchable separate 1x-1.4x TC (echoing previous discussions about a switchable 1x-1.4x-2x TC that resulted from online misinterpretation of a Canon patent). The desire is for a standalone optic that is added to and mounts behind the lens like the current 1.4x and 2x TCs. The explanation was about why that is not technically feasible without additional optics for use at '1x'.

No one but you is arguing that a built-in switchable TC, which is something that has been done for decades by multiple manufacturers, is technically feasible and requires nothing flipped in when the TC optics are flipped out…that would be obvious even to an idiot.

Either you failed to understand the point of the discussion, or you failed to understand the response. Either way, fail.

neuroanatomist · Apr 17, 2026

Probably worth mentioning the Nikon Z 58mm f/0.95 in this context. I don’t think Canon really cares about what Nikon does from a market perspective, but they probably do from a bragging rights perspective.

AlanF · Apr 17, 2026

candyman said:
That is an interesting statement. Photographers of the past didn't have fancy cameras, but they knew how to take beautiful (award-worthy) photos of sports, wildlife, and other genres. So if it didn't do its job, it's usually the photographer.

It’s as always. Make the most of its strengths and work around its weaknesses.

HMC11 · Apr 17, 2026

Del Paso said:
I'm afraid you could be a bit optimistic about the price.

You are probably right. I can only hope.

Chig · Apr 17, 2026

Exploreshootshare said:
Hehe, that's kind of what I thought. Only, in my imagination the SPAD will be in stills camera in 30 years for the SPAD mount and then I'll go on an extensive kiwi shoot

I'm hoping it'll trickle down to high end photography/video cameras that are about R5 price level in about 10 years

Del Paso · Apr 17, 2026

HMC11 said:
The R7 II is sounding more and more interesting for me. I wonder if the layout of the buttoms and wheels would reflect its positiong and pricing. I am guessing that the layout would be closer to the R6iii and priced not much higher than the R7's launch price (+20%?). This pairing is assuming that the R7 is aming to be a high sales volume camera, so intentionally pricing it to pair with the high-selling R6 series cameras (as a faster readout speed camera for fast-moving objects) may make sense, for me at least. This is complete speculation, of course.

I'm afraid you could be a bit optimistic about the price.

Exploreshootshare · Apr 17, 2026

Chig said:
What a bargain ! Will it work with the new CINE-SERVO 50-1000mm T5.0-8.9 ?
For only just over $100K I'll be able to shoot video of kiwi and owls in the dark without any flash
I need to start buying those Powerball tickets

Hehe, that's kind of what I thought. Only, in my imagination the SPAD will be in stills camera in 30 years for the SPAD mount and then I'll go on an extensive kiwi shoot

HMC11 · Apr 17, 2026

The R7 II is sounding more and more interesting for me. I wonder if the layout of the buttoms and wheels would reflect its positiong and pricing. I am guessing that the layout would be closer to the R6iii and priced not much higher than the R7's launch price (+20%?). This pairing is assuming that the R7 is aming to be a high sales volume camera, so intentionally pricing it to pair with the high-selling R6 series cameras (as a faster readout speed camera for fast-moving objects) may make sense, for me at least. This is complete speculation, of course.

mimbu · Apr 17, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
I'll reply for the benefit of others who may read this thread, in the hope that your cluelessness doesn't engender false hope in others. Spreading misinformation seems to be a pattern for you, among other distasteful habits that you exhibit.

Yes, it does have to be different. A flip-out TC works when the TC is added within the lens. Notice how in the block diagram of the EF 200-400/4 that I posted above, there is a (weak) converging group behind the TC optics. The same is true for any lens with a flip-in TC. Here's the Nikon 600/4 + 1.4x, which has even more optics (but still net weak convergence) behind the TC group.

View attachment 228801

The only way in which your statement would be correct would be for a lens to be designed to take a drop-in TC, like a really fat drop-in filter holder. There would need to be optics behind that big hole in the lens barrel. Moreover, in these expensive lenses the TCs are designed for optimal performance with each lens' optics. For example, the TC group in the Nikkor 600/4 + 1.4x has an SR element (their equivalent of Canon's BR elements aka 'blue goo'), whereas the TC group in the Nikkor 400/2.8 + 1.4x does not.

In other words, each supertele lens would need it's own specific drop-in TC, rather than having a generic drop-in TC for a series of lenses that would have more of a negative optical impact than tailor-made TCs for each lens. So even the kludgy idea you are suggesting (well, that you would have suggested if you actually understood optical design) would not happen. A dedicated TC for each lens...why make a drop-in version at all, then? That would be foolish, something that manufacturers' lens designers are not. That's why both Canon and Nikon have made lenses with flip-in TCs, not completely removable drop-in TCs.

And not separate flip-in TCs...because physics. The nice thing about physics is that it remains true even when people like you don't understand it.

No. Clearly, you don't understand what I posted, or the underlying Canon patent application. More importantly, you don't understand the relevant optical concepts. A lens cannot maintain infinity focus with an extension tube behind the lens, and if all the optical elements of a TC mounted behind the lens were to move out of the optical path, you would have an empty tube behind the lens...i.e., an extension tube.

I will try to simplify with a picture of the Canon patent design that perhaps you can understand. Only one set of 1.4x TC optics flips out of place, though it does so in two pieces to minimize the size of the overall optic. When the rear split 1.4x group ('B') moves out of the optical path, the front 1.4x group ('A') slides further back into position but remains in the optical path. At no time is there an empty tube.

View attachment 228800

This is still not the thing you think is happening, i.e. there is no 1x form for this design or any other. As already stated, an extension tube precludes infinity focus, so a '1x' option in a switchable TC would require reducing optics to flip in when the TC optics flip out.

Lenses with built-in TCs are designed to be optically correct at 1x in the first place, with open internal air gaps as part of the prescription. An air gap is just another design variable, and large air gaps are not unusual in supertelephoto optics.

The 1.4x mode is then created by inserting a matched negative afocal converter group into that already-corrected 1x system. That group modifies the ray angles and pupil imaging so the effective focal length and f-number increase, while the final image plane remains at the sensor.

So there is no physical requirement for some separate "1x compensating group" when the TC is out. The 1x state is the native solved state. The 1.4x group is the added perturbation that was specifically designed to work within it.

You are asserting a physics constraint that does not exist.

DhlcadR6 · Apr 17, 2026

Now it's the chicken or dare game between Fuji, Sony and Canon. Who goes first will lose on the spec war.

Chig · Apr 17, 2026

What a bargain ! Will it work with the new CINE-SERVO 50-1000mm T5.0-8.9 ?
For only just over $100K I'll be able to shoot video of kiwi and owls in the dark without any flash

I need to start buying those Powerball tickets

candyman · Apr 16, 2026

Canis Lupus said:
................Sold the R7 long time ago - didn`t do his job. ..................

That is an interesting statement. Photographers of the past didn't have fancy cameras, but they knew how to take beautiful (award-worthy) photos of sports, wildlife, and other genres. So if it didn't do its job, it's usually the photographer.

Canis Lupus · Apr 16, 2026

R5ii is waiting for her companion. Sold the R7 long time ago - didn`t do his job. Rumors sounds good.

neuroanatomist · Apr 16, 2026

blackcoffee17 said:
What is the point of designing another accelerator? I can't see it reducing cost much, especially because it's already made in volume for another cameras, like the R1/R5. Battery life cannot be an issue if its not for the R5.
Product segmentation can be the only reason.

The R1 accounts for very little 'volume' and while only Canon knows the unit numbers, I suspect the R5II is also not a high-volume camera body. The R7II will be significantly cheaper, and will likely sell in much higher numbers than the R1+R5II. I suspect you can't see it reducing cost much because you don't have the data that Canon has. Product segmentation may be a part of it, but if that was the only reason then it would likely be significantly cheaper to just use software to 'gimp' the existing accelerator to a 'lite' version (and Canon is not above doing so). But for the reasons outlined in the article (did you even read it?), that's not likely. The point is that having an APS-C sensor is more than sufficient differentiation for the R7II compared to any FF camera.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics