Latest activity

ThomasTH · May 28, 2026

I really like the composition and colours.

Eric84 · May 28, 2026

blackcoffee17 said:
20-70 just after the 20-50? That's the least likely.

But that 20-50 is a F4-lens.
The 20-70 has been rumored to have a VCM-motor, and not more than F2.8. Maybe even F2.
So it will be a "completely" different lens in my opinion

Michael Clark · May 28, 2026

@zajicekpavel said:
So, won't they use the R6M3 sensor? They're stuffing it into everything now

R6 Mark III is Full frame.
R7 is APS-C.

Cropped to APS-C dimensions, the R6 Mark III sensor would only be 12.7 MP.

Michael Clark · May 28, 2026

TexPhoto said:
View attachment 229722

The Shriners around here do it just a little bit differently!

@zajicekpavel · May 28, 2026

SnowMiku said:
I would have thought that 90D/M6 ii sensor would be getting a bit too old for an R7 ii in 2027, it will be around 8 years old by then. I think they will make a new faster sensor with less rolling shutter.

So, won't they use the R6M3 sensor? They're stuffing it into everything now

JensR · May 27, 2026

AlanF said:
The 5DSR was not an entry level DSLR but an expensive 5 series, and an excellent one at that. It had pretty good AF through the viewfinder.

It was expensive, and it still has the same good AF. You probably missed my ;-) (winking face smily).

ISv · May 27, 2026

Click said:
Perhaps he is a fan of Nikon.

Sarcasm? Here is one from today (same botanical garden). I haven't seen it before: probably it did hear there is a guy with a Nikon gear who is frequent in that botanical garden and came to see that Nikon - obviously looking at me (and I'm behind of the camera as usually). Black cat but still a cat

!

ISv · May 27, 2026

One more from today. I wish it looked at me at least once! I actually was taking photos of that Nepenthes sp. when the Golden-dust gecko appeared from nowhere...

neuroanatomist · May 27, 2026

MkSprintz said:
Very few manufacturers make 1200mm lenses in an F/5.6 focal length. An EF version I can only imagine had to be the size of a small bazooka.

That doesn't answer my question. You stated that most 1200mm prime lenses are f/8. List the lenses to which you are referring. I listed the only three 1200mm primes of which I am aware, one is f/5.6, one is f/8 and one is f/11. Where are all these other 1200mm lenses that are 'typically f/8'?

Rceres · May 27, 2026

JensR said:
…

I just resent the idea that old cameras are garbage as soon as newer ones turn up. People made great photos 100, 50, 20 10 years ago, with whatever cameras they had.

I do realise that newer cameras have superior AF and fps capabilities, but i have seen good wildlife photos taken with those "EFs APS-C Kameras", so they were not entirely bad.

But let's be entirely honest here:

Nobody needs an R8 Mark II because he/she can not get the "shot" with the R8 Mark I.
Same for R6 III, R6 II and R6. Yes there are differences. But all those cameras are capable.
…

Love this post.

Arguably one of the greatest portrait photographs ever made, Afghan Girl by Steve McCurry, was shot on Kodachrome 64 using a Nikon FM2 and a 105mm f/2.5 prime. My own favorite photographs were taken either on a Canon A-1 with FD primes or later on a 5D classic with the EF 50mm f/1.4 and 100mm f/2. Today I shoot an R5 II with a mix of EF and RF glass, including the RF 50mm f/1.2 and 135mm f/1.8.

The modern gear is objectively amazing. But nobody needs these cameras or lenses to make amazing photographs.

Camera equipment, especially at the enthusiast and professional level, is an aspirational and emotional investment. The best cameras and lenses don’t create the art, they inspire us, help us see differently, and make it easier to reliably translate what we see and feel into a final image.

That’s why Canon’s halo products matter so much. Lenses like the EF 200mm f/1.8L, cameras like the R1, or hypothetical future products like a true high-resolution RF body are important not because most photographers “need” them, but because they communicate a vision of what photography can be.

Those products shape aspiration. And aspiration is a huge part of why people invest in systems in the first place.

Just my two cents.

MkSprintz · May 27, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
When you say most typically being f/8, to which lenses are you referring? Canon has an RF 1200mm f/8, they had EF 1200mm f/5.6, and Nikon had a 1200mm f/11.

Sounds like you took an online class about how to sound smart on the Internet. Might want to see about getting your money back.

Very few manufacturers make 1200mm lenses in an F/5.6 focal length. An EF version I can only imagine had to be the size of a small bazooka.

Michael Clark · May 27, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
The ‘magic drainpipe’ was a good lens for its day, but that day has long passed. The EF 70-200/2.8L non-IS that succeeded it delivered better IQ, and today the IQ of the latter is surpassed even by RF consumer / non-L zooms, and more so by modern L-series zooms.

It's all relative. The Magic Drainpipe blew away what any previous 80-200mm or similar f/2.8 lens could do optically. It was the first zoom lens to seriously challenge the idea that no large aperture zoom could be as good as even a modest prime. That was revolutionary in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

In the years since we have seen constantly improving quality of zoom lenses, but it has been more of a series of continuous incremental improvements. I do not think we've seen as large of a jump from what had been previously available to what a new lens could do since the EF 80-200mm f/2.8 appeared on the scene. The only thing that even comes close is the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM compared to the EF 70-200mmf/2.8 L IS in 2010, and that was not the same level of improvement that we saw with the Magic Drainpipe compared to what else was out there in 1987.

Michael Clark · May 27, 2026

"The Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L was released in 1989 and this was Canon's professional telephoto zoom for the photojournalists and sports shooters of the day."

Most PJs and sports shooters in the late 1980s and early 1990s were still shooting with primes. "Zoom" was still a dirty word which meant lower optical image quality to that crowd.

The USM Primes Canon offered between 1987 and into the very early 1990s, especially the EF 300mm f/2.8 L USM (1987) and the EOS 1 body (1989), are what convinced the vast majority of PJs and sports shooters to switch from Nikon, where their screw drive AF with the motor in the camera body was hopelessly slow for longer and wide aperture lenses with heavy focus groups, to Canon EOS. In the mid 1980s well over 75% of professionals using the 135 format used Nikon as their principal system (apart from China and the Soviet Bloc). By 1993 Canon had taken over the majority of that market and held it for 25+ years until 2020 when Sony decided to practically give their cameras to the AP for a fraction of retail price. Canon declined to offer similar discounts to keep the AP as a Canon shop. By the time Nikon began introducing their first Silent Wave lenses in 1995, the same year Canon introduced the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM, it was already all over but the crying.

Czardoom · May 27, 2026

Keithf2.8is said:
It sure would be nice if Canon would update the RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1 being that it came out in September 2020. And big disappointment about the R7 Mark II, but the good news is I'm not out $2000-ish bucks!! If it has the same setbacks at the 7D MII, then it won't be released until the end of 2027.

There is no reason to update a 6 year old lens. it is, for all intents and purposes, a new lens. 10 years from now it will still be totally fine, with no reason to upgrade. Don't confuse camera tech, which is still improving (though very slowly now, and is quite mature), with lens tech, which has been mature for decades.

Michael Clark · May 27, 2026

Canon Rumors said:
The end has come for another classic Canon EF lens. According to asobinet and various retailers, Canon has discontinued the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM III. While it may still be available new in a box from retailers, production has ended and whatever is left in stock in Canon warehouses and at dealers is it. […]

See full article...

"The AFD focus motor was Canon's first autofocus motor when EF launched in 1987. The follow-up was in 1995 with the EF 70-200 f/2.8L USM and they have used various ultrasonic motors ever since."

It was 1995 before the very first 70-200/2.8 got a USM motor, but the EF 300mm f/2.8 L USM was introduced in 1987 as Canon's first lens with an UltraSonic AF motor. The EF 200mm f/1.8 L USM followed in 1988 and the EF 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5 USM appeared in 1990. Various other shorter focal length zoom and prime lenses as well as Super Telephoto primes also got USM in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Michael Clark · May 27, 2026

Canon Rumors said:
The end has come for another classic Canon EF lens. According to asobinet and various retailers, Canon has discontinued the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM III. While it may still be available new in a box from retailers, production has ended and whatever is left in stock in Canon warehouses and at dealers is it. […]

See full article...

"Every 70-200mm f/2.8 lens out there is top shelf."

Every Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 might have been, but there were more than a few clunky and/or not up to snuff in optical terms third party 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses on the market.

One example of the former was the 2008 Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di Macro with that clunky push pull ring to engage/disengage manual focus and glacially slow AF. Tamron did join the *top shelf* club with their 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD in 2012. It was much better optically as well as much faster and accurate with autofocus.

One example of the latter was the 2005 Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM. Its 1999 predecessor was even worse, and the 2007 and 2011 follow ups weren't much better. Sigma didn't really enter into the *top shelf* telephoto zoom lens space until their Global Vision series debuted with the | Sports series. The first 70-200mm f/2.8 | Sports did not appear in Sigma's lineup until 2018!

neuroanatomist · May 27, 2026

MkSprintz said:
A 1200mm fixed prime commands a pretty hefty price, with most typically being F/8.

When you say most typically being f/8, to which lenses are you referring? Canon has an RF 1200mm f/8, they had EF 1200mm f/5.6, and Nikon had a 1200mm f/11.

Sounds like you took an online class about how to sound smart on the Internet. Might want to see about getting your money back.

MkSprintz · May 27, 2026

Michael Clark said:
Do you realistically think Canon would EVER price any f/5.6 lens at $90,000? Far more than ANY f/2.8 lens they ever publicly offered in the EF series?

Oh... wait! The EF 1200mm f/5.6 L was priced at $90,000 upon release in 1993. That's equivalent to $207,000 and change in 2026.

A 1200mm fixed prime commands a pretty hefty price, with most typically being F/8. An F/5.6 1200mm prime would command a premium price.

AlanF · May 27, 2026

JensR said:
In fact I tried that with a 5DsR and a Sigma 60-600 lens, but the results were less than stellar to say the least. That entry level DSLR had no flippy screen either... ;-)

I wrote the above as answer to the comment of "No more unreliable and slow AF with 9 focus points in EFs APS-C cameras". The dual pixel AF part was meant to the other part of the comment about video features in the old cameras (which were not spectacular, true, but more than enough for me.)

I just resent the idea that old cameras are garbage as soon as newer ones turn up. People made great photos 100, 50, 20 10 years ago, with whatever cameras they had.

I do realise that newer cameras have superior AF and fps capabilities, but i have seen good wildlife photos taken with those "EFs APS-C Kameras", so they were not entirely bad.

But let's be entirely honest here:

Nobody needs an R8 Mark II because he/she can not get the "shot" with the R8 Mark I.
Same for R6 III, R6 II and R6. Yes there are differences. But all those cameras are capable.

I have an R, R10, R7 and R6 II, but i still sometimes use my 5DsR or 80D just for fun when out in Nature.

And sometimes, when i am all alone and noone is watching, i even get out my old and (t)rusty 5D Mark II and shoot a few portraits or fashion / cosplay shots in my small studio. And yes, i often only use one of those nine AF points...

The 5DSR was not an entry level DSLR but an expensive 5 series, and an excellent one at that. It had pretty good AF through the viewfinder.

Michael Clark · May 27, 2026

MkSprintz said:
As for a potential 300-600 F/5.6 do you realistically think they're going to price a product like that as much as an F/4 lens? If they're going to give it F/4 pricing they'd best make it an F/4 lens rather than F/5.6 to justify such a move. That lens would be a volume lens sales wise and $6500 is fairly reasonable as far as expectations go.

Do you realistically think Canon would EVER price any f/5.6 lens at $90,000? Far more than ANY f/2.8 lens they ever publicly offered in the EF series?

Oh... wait! The EF 1200mm f/5.6 L was priced at $90,000 upon release in 1993. That's equivalent to $207,000 and change in 2026.

ShawnMoore · May 27, 2026

I sure would love it if that “retro” that they’re talking about would be some sort RF rangefinder.

JensR · May 27, 2026

AlanF said:
Did you ever use rear screen live view AF while hand holding one of those with a telephoto lens for action shots?

In fact I tried that with a 5DsR and a Sigma 60-600 lens, but the results were less than stellar to say the least. That entry level DSLR had no flippy screen either... ;-)

I wrote the above as answer to the comment of "No more unreliable and slow AF with 9 focus points in EFs APS-C cameras". The dual pixel AF part was meant to the other part of the comment about video features in the old cameras (which were not spectacular, true, but more than enough for me.)

I just resent the idea that old cameras are garbage as soon as newer ones turn up. People made great photos 100, 50, 20 10 years ago, with whatever cameras they had.

I do realise that newer cameras have superior AF and fps capabilities, but i have seen good wildlife photos taken with those "EFs APS-C Kameras", so they were not entirely bad.

But let's be entirely honest here:

Nobody needs an R8 Mark II because he/she can not get the "shot" with the R8 Mark I.
Same for R6 III, R6 II and R6. Yes there are differences. But all those cameras are capable.

I have an R, R10, R7 and R6 II, but i still sometimes use my 5DsR or 80D just for fun when out in Nature.

And sometimes, when i am all alone and noone is watching, i even get out my old and (t)rusty 5D Mark II and shoot a few portraits or fashion / cosplay shots in my small studio. And yes, i often only use one of those nine AF points...

Steve_FR · May 27, 2026

EOS 4 Life said:
I think IBIS and Cinema OS would be a bad mix.
I think the R6 V is almost perfect for the market it is targeted at.
People seem to always want more, no matter what Canon releases.

I agree and I appreciate that they are keeping the Cinema (C) line without ibis - and I do think the R6V is a fantastic deal. There is no way to make everyone happy. It is a but weird to remove the shutter from a non-cinema camera. We have the R6III for a true photo and video hybrid - I just love the smaller format body.

Steve_FR · May 27, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
Well, it's your lucky day! Your wish for a proper successor to the R6II is granted!

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1928858-REG/canon_eos_r6_mark_iii.html

(In fact, it was granted last year.)

Oops. I meant EOS M6II …

AlanF · May 27, 2026

JensR said:
There were a lot of EF-s bodies with better AF, the 7D, 7D II, 70D, 750D, 760D, 80D, 77D, 800D, 90D, and most of them had Dual Pixel AF in live-view

Did you ever use rear screen live view AF while hand holding one of those with a telephoto lens for action shots?

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics