I wonder if Canon will make more affordable large aperture lenses like the amazing RF 45mm f/1.2 ?
Maybe a 80mm f/1.2 or a 30mm f/1.2 ?
Perhaps a zoom: 24-65mm f/2 or 30-80mm f/2 ?

neuroanatomist said:

Probably not. Is there a trigger specifically for the MFS?

Click to expand...

Probably not.

neuroanatomist said:

I guess math is hard for some people.

Click to expand...

So are reasonable and logical expectations by the looks of it. Even Jan Wegener has heard the R7ii will in all likelihood stay around the current 32.5 Megapixels.

Caught flack when I said it wasn't being released this Spring, ironically enough that turned out to be quite true.

While we're not getting an official announcement anytime soon for both the R7ii and R8ii, it's looking like October at the earliest. We should get some more solid confirmation of basic specs for both the R7ii and R8ii anytime between June-July-August.

Would expect the R8ii retro will likely be announced officially in October for a winter sales release, and the R7ii's official announcement will probably occur sometime in mid 2027 or fall 2027. Fall 2027 is most likely.

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.

ISv said:

I like the shots and I like the shore birds (often they are pretty difficult to ID) but you badly messed the order (and probably the ID's):
the first shot is the Verigina rail (actually Virginia rail !). After that are four photos what I think is the Greater Yellow legs -"GYL", (not absolutely sure for the fourth one): the base of the bill is/or has some yellow/orange, in the Lesser Yellow legs (LYL) the bill should be all dark; the feathered part of the bill is separated from the nostrils (according some authorities - like Richard Chandler, it's reaching the nostrils in LYL); the joints of the legs are too swollen for LIL (good visible when the legs are strait!). The last five photos are all the Least Sandpiper: yellow legs, North America (and some more differences from the other two yellow-legged "stints/peeps" in the world). I don't see ANY Spotted Sandpiper!

Click to expand...

I did not take the time to list them in the correct order. the missing spotted

Uneternal said:

The exact same amount of light hits the sensor; it doesn't collect less light, it doesn't lose light.

Click to expand...

The exact same amount of light per unit area hits both the full frame and APS-C crop portion of the sensor. But the APS-C area of the sensor (whether it's a FF camera in crop mode or an APS-C sensor in a different camera) is smaller than the area of the FF sensor and the smaller area collects less total light.

There's a reason I used the analogy of rain falling on two containers, one with a larger opening than the other. It's the same analogy used by many websites that explain these concepts. Most people can easily understand that with the same rate of rain falling on the two containers, the larger container will collect more water than the smaller container. In the same way, with the same flux of light falling on two different sized sensors, the larger one will collect more light than the smaller one. You are arguing that the smaller container will collect the same amount of water as the larger container, and that's simply wrong.

Uneternal said:

It is simply less efficient in measuring light. That's my point.

Click to expand...

Your point is incorrect. Consider the case of the R5 using the full sensor vs. in crop mode. How are the exact same pixels less efficient in measuring light? Sorry, that's ridiculous. The pixels are the same, there are just fewer of them in the smaller area used in crop mode. The smaller area collects less total light.

Uneternal said:

Saying you lose light is incorrect because the projected image of the lens doesn't magically turn darker just cause you change the sensor size. It's a simple thing that many people fail to understand. You're just taking a smaller area from the projected image; it's the same as cropping in post.

Click to expand...

The smaller sensor area collects less light. Rain in cup vs. rain in a bucket. It's that simple.

The R5 has a pixel size of 4.4 µm. For simplicity, let's say that a full frame lens mounted on the R5 is delivering 1000 photons per 4.4 µm during a 1/60 s exposure at f/2.8. The 45 million pixels will thus collect a total of 45 billion photons. If the R5 is used in crop mode for the same scene with the same exposure setting, the 'brightness' of the image will be identical, but the image will be smaller (17.3 MP) and a total of 17.3 billion photons will be collected during the exposure. Smaller sensor area, less light collected. Period.

Uneternal said:

You contradict yourself. In your first paragraph, you talk about bucket sizes. Then you say pixel size is irrelevant. Please pick one, you can't have both.

Click to expand...

You fail to understand. The larger container ('bucket') is the FF sensor, the smaller container ('cup') is the APS-C sensor.

You seem fixated on pixels, that's fine. To extend the analogy, imagine that you take some 0.5 cm diameter test tubes and tape them together in an array the size of a 16 cm cup, and take a smaller number of those 0.5 cm diameter test tubes and tape them together in an array the size of a smaller 10 cm cup. Now put those two arrays out in a steady rain for a few minutes. Which of those two arrays will collect more water – the set of ~920 test tubes in the larger array, or the set of ~340 test tubes in the smaller array? You are saying they will collect the same amount of water, and that's wrong.



The correct answer is that the larger array of those same-sized test tubes (on the left) will collect more total light than the smaller array (on the right).

Uneternal said:

Not at all what I said, I said the crop has the same noise as an APS-C camera.

Click to expand...

APS-C crop mode on an FF sensor will have the same noise as an APS-C sensor. In that case, the areas used to capture the image are identical. That's the whole point. Image noise is inversely proportional to sensor area. Same size sensor, same noise.

Uneternal said:

The PDR chart normalizes the data to a standard print size, so you can't really compare high-res to low-res because they basically scale it down, which merges pixels. To get a better idea of sensor-pixel performance, you might wanna look at real-world pictures, where the R3 has roughly a stop of noise advantage, if we ignore the higher resolution of the R5. Thus, proving the point that smaller pixels are less efficient in measuring light.

Click to expand...

You can compare images however you want, for your own purposes. There is an accepted methodology in the field, which is what I follow and adhere to in my explanation of these concepts.

A single smaller pixel collects less light than a single larger pixel. If you want to compare images at the level of single pixels, you go ahead. I term those who do so measurebators. Have fun at that.

When you take a few million pixels and use them to make a picture, the size of the pixels doesn't make a meaningful difference in the noise or the amount of light collected.

Which of these two identically-sized 'bucket' arrays of test tubes will collect more water – the one with the larger test tubes (left) or the one with the smaller test tubes (right)?



The correct answer is that the two arrays will collect practically the same amount of rain water. Just like a 45 MP and a 24 MP full frame sensor will collect the same amount of light and have the same image noise.

Del Paso said:

Don't you worry!
You've got so many other bitingly sharp "things" in Australia...

Click to expand...

blue ringed octopus at night are so cute… just make sure you wear a full wetsuit and gloves!

1 fatal snake bite per year, 6 fatal shark attacks per year this decade.
zero fatal spider bites since 1979
Horses is deadliest at 220/year then cows at 90/year
1200 road deaths per year!

That said, I pulled the pin and bought the rf20/1.4 new after getting 28% off RRP. Just in time before a Uluru workshop in a couple of weeks. With permission to shoot at night should be awesome!

A White Trillium in our backyard a couple of days ago. It's obviously spent, but looking at it I keep thinking of galaxies in uniquely color space.

Dragon said:

I like the first one. Looks like a dragon

Click to expand...

Thanks! My thought too.

becceric said:

A couple of ferns in the bog.
View attachment 229706

View attachment 229707

Click to expand...

I like the first one. Looks like a dragon

A couple of ferns in the bog.

A few more hummers. First two R7 with 200-800. The last one is technically terrible (Nikon P1000 @ ISO 1600), but it was a cute scene.

Uneternal said:

The exact same amount of light hits the sensor; it doesn't collect less light, it doesn't lose light. It is simply less efficient in measuring light.

Click to expand...

Uneternal said:

Not at all what I said, I said the crop has the same noise as an APS-C camera.

Click to expand...

Aha ... So by your logic, the crop suddenly becomes less efficient in measuring light, but the same amount of photons hit the cropped area of the sensor as the entire sensor ... Brilliant.

At the bog we usually hunt down Pink Lady Slippers in June. We found about 15 of these this past weekend. As far as we are concerned, a bumper crop.

Another angle. You can see some small holes in the blossom.


This one is starting to lose its shape.

I rarely see Painted Trilliums here, but at a local Pitch Pine Bog my wife and I came across around a dozen scattered about at various stages of bloom.
Most were not accessible, and I was not pleased with the few shot I got on Friday.
So Saturday, we dashed off again but could only find a half dozen, most excessively withered. One however was standing proud

Here is a crop of the blossom.

Uneternal said:

The exact same amount of light hits the sensor; it doesn't collect less light, it doesn't lose light. It is simply less efficient in measuring light. That's my point. Saying you lose light is incorrect because the projected image of the lens doesn't magically turn darker just cause you change the sensor size. It's a simple thing that many people fail to understand. You're just taking a smaller area from the projected image; it's the same as cropping in post.

You contradict yourself. In your first paragraph, you talk about bucket sizes. Then you say pixel size is irrelevant. Please pick one, you can't have both.


Not at all what I said, I said the crop has the same noise as an APS-C camera.

The PDR chart normalizes the data to a standard print size, so you can't really compare high-res to low-res because they basically scale it down, which merges pixels. To get a better idea of sensor-pixel performance, you might wanna look at real-world pictures, where the R3 has roughly a stop of noise advantage, if we ignore the higher resolution of the R5. Thus, proving the point that smaller pixels are less efficient in measuring light.

View attachment 229696
View attachment 229697

Click to expand...

@neuroanatomist is correct in stating that a smaller sensor collects less light, and he is not contradicting himself about pixel size being irrelevant for overall sensor area but being different for individual pixels. I leave it to him to explain. Basically, you are confusing photons per unit area to total photons which requires multiplying photons per unit area by the area.

A smaller sensor will collect less light.

Click to expand...

The exact same amount of light hits the sensor; it doesn't collect less light, it doesn't lose light. It is simply less efficient in measuring light. That's my point. Saying you lose light is incorrect because the projected image of the lens doesn't magically turn darker just cause you change the sensor size. It's a simple thing that many people fail to understand. You're just taking a smaller area from the projected image; it's the same as cropping in post.

No, pixel size is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

You contradict yourself. In your first paragraph, you talk about bucket sizes. Then you say pixel size is irrelevant. Please pick one, you can't have both.

If what you say is true, then an APS-C crop from the R5 sensor would have the same noise floor, and thus the same dynamic range, as the full frame image. It doesn't.

Click to expand...

Not at all what I said, I said the crop has the same noise as an APS-C camera.

Likewise, if smaller pixels mean more noise as you suggest above, then larger pixels will have less noise, and an image from a similar-generation camera with smaller pixels and the same size sensor will have more noise and thus less dynamic range. It doesn't.

Click to expand...

The PDR chart normalizes the data to a standard print size, so you can't really compare high-res to low-res because they basically scale it down, which merges pixels. To get a better idea of sensor-pixel performance, you might wanna look at real-world pictures, where the R3 has roughly a stop of noise advantage, if we ignore the higher resolution of the R5. Thus, proving the point that smaller pixels are less efficient in measuring light.

I had the 80-200 EF and was not happy with it.It was soft on the edges at 80mm.The first 70-200/F2:8 was a 100% better!

Beautiful flower. Thanks for sharing, ISv.

Very nice series, antonn.

R1 + RF600/4, photo at twilight

Kokio (Kokia cookei) - extinct in the nature. In botanical garden on Oahu.

One of my former favourite dragonfly spots is denuded of them again this year. A family of Pied Wagtails was there with two fledglings. They are very skilful insect predators. The fledglings were very young with wide gapes. (R5ii + RF 200-800mm).

AlanF said:

You had a good physics teacher. A rudimentary grasp of units or "dimensional analysis" goes a long way in understanding and not making elementary mistakes.

Click to expand...

Yes, he was a good teacher and a very nice guy. He also taught us that an answer without a unit was not a correct answer.

MkSprintz said:

Do you really think Canon is going to dramatically up the MPX of the R7 to 39mpx in the R7ii

Click to expand...

The 7DII was 20 MP. The R50 and R10 are 24 MP. The 32 MP R7 is a 60% increase over the 7DII and a 25% increase over the R50/R10.

But a 39 MP R7II, which is an increase of 22% over the R7, is ‘dramatic’?

I guess math is hard for some people.

P-visie said:

I would not call the clickbait video’s from the ‘Ordinary Filmmaker’ a reputable source. A while ago he made a video comparing Canon’s marketshare for digital camera’s (which includes DSLR’s, at the time Canon sold about a million DSLR’s per year) with Canon’s MILC marketshare and made a lot of fuss about Canon’s spectacular loss of marketshare (Yet Another Prediction of Doom for Canon).
When I was 13, our physics teacher taught us that we should pay attention to unit’s when making comparisons. Apparently a concept that he has not grasped.

Click to expand...

You had a good physics teacher. A rudimentary grasp of units or "dimensional analysis" goes a long way in understanding and not making elementary mistakes.