Latest activity

MkSprintz · May 25, 2026

Mr. Warbucks said:
I would like to obtain some reactions on the following. I have been following R7ii intensely, and was obviously very disappointed with the news of postponement

But, it also opened the blinkers a bit and am looking now also at other brands

My workflow is birding, sport of children next to the pitch and occasional ski action of the kids. Weight on shoulders is an issue, hence the cotton carrier is helpful. I hate backpacks. My neck and shoulder muscles hurt, not my back itself

The rumored specs move the R7ii above €2000 (or $). In that price range why not buying the OM-1 II with the brand new 50-200 f2.8 IS Pro. With mc14. Tests show the mc14 does not or very very little impact the quality. Super light . Cropfactor 2. Is that not a lot better than r7 plus 100-500L? Obviously the 100-400 is an option, it is a less quality (from 200 onwards f8) but approx a pound lighter, probably 400 gr with the R7ii

When you remove the MC, excellent reach for ski and football kids. It becomes versatile. The mC20 is probably too much of a quality stretch, however, for hobby in rare case it yields 800 mm in FF equivalence, at f5.6.

I am also looking at a6700 plus 70-350, but got advice that the expansion options may be limited if you want to grow the gear with that small body.

I was really all in for the R7ii but ……

Any feedback please?

Thank you

The rumored specs aren't true, you're not getting any version of the Digic Accelerator chip in the R7ii and expect when and if it's announced to still be a 32mpx camera not 39mpx.

Unless Canon developed a new APS-C sensor, that strongly points to an R7ii likely re-using the sensor from the R7.

With that said it's also not going to be more than $2000.

AlanF · May 25, 2026

Mr. Warbucks said:
The rumored specs move the R7ii above €2000 (or $). In that price range why not buying the OM-1 II with the brand new 50-200 f2.8 IS Pro. With mc14. Tests show the mc14 does not or very very little impact the quality. Super light . Cropfactor 2. Is that not a lot better than r7 plus 100-500L? Obviously the 100-400 is an option, it is a less quality (from 200 onwards f8) but approx a pound lighter, probably 400 gr with the R7ii

Any feedback please?

Thank you

Cropfactor 2. Is that not a lot better than r7 plus 100-500L? No it isn't!! The sensor of the OM-1 II is only 20 Mpx, pixel size 3.34µ, but the R7 32 Mpx, pixel size 3.20µ. The R7 has greater reach than the OM-1 II with a lens of the same focal length. In fact, a 280mm lens on it has the reach of only 270mm on an R7.
Edit: to clarify. A 270mm lens on an R7 would have the same reach as a 280mm on an OM-1 II. A 100-500mm on the R7 would have nearly twice the reach of a 280mm on the OM-1 II

Far · May 25, 2026

I correct myself - my touch and drag AF setting was on. I turned it off and see if the freezing happens again.

Far · May 25, 2026

Sorry to report that I have faced the freezing too (3 times since yesterday evening) and I am not using touch and drag. Even the off switch doesn’t work when it happens and I should take the battery out when it happens. I’ll update you if I can relate it to any active features, but it’s so disruptive for street photography that I am thinking about tricky ways of downgrading till they solve the issue.

Mr. Warbucks · May 25, 2026

I would like to obtain some reactions on the following. I have been following R7ii intensely, and was obviously very disappointed with the news of postponement

But, it also opened the blinkers a bit and am looking now also at other brands

My workflow is birding, sport of children next to the pitch and occasional ski action of the kids. Weight on shoulders is an issue, hence the cotton carrier is helpful. I hate backpacks. My neck and shoulder muscles hurt, not my back itself

The rumored specs move the R7ii above €2000 (or $). In that price range why not buying the OM-1 II with the brand new 50-200 f2.8 IS Pro. With mc14. Tests show the mc14 does not or very very little impact the quality. Super light . Cropfactor 2. Is that not a lot better than r7 plus 100-500L? Obviously the 100-400 is an option, it is a less quality (from 200 onwards f8) but approx a pound lighter, probably 400 gr with the R7ii

When you remove the MC, excellent reach for ski and football kids. It becomes versatile. The mC20 is probably too much of a quality stretch, however, for hobby in rare case it yields 800 mm in FF equivalence, at f5.6.

I am also looking at a6700 plus 70-350, but got advice that the expansion options may be limited if you want to grow the gear with that small body.

I was really all in for the R7ii but ……

Any feedback please?

Thank you

SonicStudios · May 25, 2026

Ahhhh, patients, all eyes and BIG WHITE new lens are probably set on the World Cup

foda · May 25, 2026

It appears that this lens is not happening any time soon, if at all. I'm wondering why those who are waiting on this lens are not buying the Canon EF 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x. It's a superb lens and prices for used lenses are a fraction of what it originally sold for (so much for "big whites" holding their value).

foda · May 25, 2026

Collared Laughingthrush photographed while birding in Vietnam, March, 2026.

R5MkII RF200-800mm

neuroanatomist · May 25, 2026

Uneternal said:
Can you explain how you get the idea that you lose light on APS-C? It's the same as if you have a full-frame picture in Photoshop and you take a 1.6 crop out of it. Where did you lose a stop of light?

Put a small cup and a large bucket out in the rain, in a fixed amount of time which vessel will collect more water? A smaller sensor will collect less light. It's that simple.

Uneternal said:
And how would the field of view add more noise?

It doesn't.

Uneternal said:
You're right that ISO 3200 looks like ISO ~8000 on full frame, but that's not because you lose light nor because of FOV. The only thing adding more noise is the fact that APS-C sensor pixels are way smaller and thus less effective in determining brightness values. At the same resolution, APS-C sensor pixels are 1.6x smaller and thus about 2.56x (1.6 squared) less effective in capturing a brightness value. Multiply the ISO by that factor, and you get exactly that equivalent ISO: 8192.

No, pixel size is irrelevant. Sensor size determines total light gathered, image noise is inversely proportional to total light gathered.

Uneternal said:
Take a crop from a high megapixel camera like the R5, and you get roughly the same noise as an 18 megapixel APS-C camera delivers.

Dynamic range is primarily determined by the noise floor. 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.

Screenshot 2026-05-25 at 12.02.43 AM.png

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.

Screenshot 2026-05-25 at 12.03.07 AM.png

Same size pixels, smaller sensor area = more noise and less DR. Smaller pixels, same sensor area = same noise and same DR.

One key point for all of the above is that you actually have to compare the resulting images at the same output size. You mentioned cropping an image in Photoshop, which is conceptually similar to using crop mode on a FF camera but not identical. To actually compare, you'd need to first crop the image, then resize it to the same dimensions as the original. You don't 'lose light' in Photoshop when doing that, but if you were using a negative and an enlarger, you would get a dimmer image after enlargement. It's the same underlying basis as the circle of confusion for depth of field (which is why, for example, an APS-C sensor will actually have a slightly shallower DoF than a FF sensor at the same subject distance).

ISv · May 25, 2026

Few from the weekend.

homebodyMacro2 · May 24, 2026

Exploreshootshare said:
I was never really interested in the 70-200mm lenses and I couldn't quite figure out what appealed to a lot of people. The EF mkiii was still really heavy so I figured I´d just get the EF 100-400mm ii which was only 200gr heavier but had double the reach. In 2021, I ordered the RF 100-500mm and it was backordered by several months. So as a "temporary" lens (hint: I still own it ) I got the RF 70-200mm F4 L and man was I impressed! Love the range, perfect for landscapes, catches a lot of details, lightweight (this one is really is) and super flexible. After that, I gave the RF 70-200mm F2.8 and EF 70-200mm F2.8 iii both a try. I didn't like the placement of the control on the RF version and the long throw. Furthermore, it is better than the F4 but not 1.500 $ dollars better imo. The EF version is still pretty heavy (also using an adapter alongside of it) so I didn't keep it.

I am really curious about the RF 70-200mm F2.8 L Z and one day (once my kid/ kids go to school) I'll probably get one for all those events and sports. In September, I am shooting a 50th birthday party and I will borrow the lens for a couple of days. So excited about it.

Hard to go wrong with the 70-200Z! It's so good in its native range, and it's unreasonably good up to 400mm considering that a 2x extender is generally tough on image quality. I tried the original RF 70-200 f/2.8 briefly, and the zoom throw SUCKS in comparison to the Z. For fast moving wildlife, such as that dragonfly picture I shared above, that smooth zoom throw is very useful. I'm perfectly happy with a small amount of fixed length increase to have an internal zoom. If you have a want or need for it (and the budget), I highly recommend the Z.

Exploreshootshare said:
Lovely shots! I especially like the first one!

Thanks! I recently got a Godox AD800 flash unit, which was key to getting that first shot. It's the only way to get enough light for that type of shot, and it gives that nice isolation of the subject even in daylight. I love photographing my local butterflies! That shot just won a competition on DPReview, quite happy with it.

Uneternal · May 24, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
Ahhh, yes…the free lunch that comes with a smaller sensor. Truly magical. The reality is that you’re losing over a stop of light with APS-C compared to full frame. Along with the smaller FoV (effective increase in focal length), you get 1.3-stops more noise. So, for example, ISO 3200 on APS-C looks like ISO 8000 on FF.

Can you explain how you get the idea that you lose light on APS-C? It's the same as if you have a full-frame picture in Photoshop and you take a 1.6 crop out of it. Where did you lose a stop of light? And how would the field of view add more noise?

You're right that ISO 3200 looks like ISO ~8000 on full frame, but that's not because you lose light nor because of FOV. The only thing adding more noise is the fact that APS-C sensor pixels are way smaller and thus less effective in determining brightness values. At the same resolution, APS-C sensor pixels are 1.6x smaller and thus about 2.56x (1.6 squared) less effective in capturing a brightness value. Multiply the ISO by that factor, and you get exactly that equivalent ISO: 8192.

Take a crop from a high megapixel camera like the R5, and you get roughly the same noise as an 18 megapixel APS-C camera delivers. Compare a newer APS-C like R10 to an old 5D, and you roughly have the same noise. Because light is not a factor, it's the sensor pixel efficiency.

Old Man FL/FD · May 24, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
When I hear ‘rendering’ I hear Paul Simon singing about nice, bright colors and the greens of summer…"mama don't take my Kodachrome away..."

Skux · May 24, 2026

My first 70-200 was the compact RF version and I was blown away by the images it made. I'll never need to use a prime lens in that focal range, the zoom does everything I need.

neuroanatomist · May 24, 2026

notsure said:
…but the rendering on the drainpipe beats all other canon 70-200, for my taste at least.

When I hear ‘rendering’ I hear Paul Simon singing about nice, bright colors and the greens of summer…complete with the crackle and pop of a vinyl record or the background hiss of a cassette tape.

But if you prefer it, keeping it is the right choice.

notsure · May 24, 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.

and yet i sold off the RF 70-200 2.8, which was my first upgrade for those focal ranges, and kept the drainpipe. newer lenses my have gotten better sharpness wide open and less CA, but the rendering on the drainpipe beats all other canon 70-200, for my taste at least. the 24-105 2.8z somewhat reminds me of it.

neuroanatomist · May 24, 2026

notsure said:
sold off around half of my RF zooms, mostly for lack of use or because i was unhappy with performance. never selling my 80-200. and really appreciate how the newer 70-200 Z's look very similar to it

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.

john1970 · May 24, 2026

Earlier today I purchased a couple of things at my local camera shop and I asked the manager about retro digital cameras like the Nikon retro series. He made the comment that if we sell two a month we are lucky. IMO that does not seem to be a very large market coming from a major retailer in the Northeastern United States.

notsure · May 24, 2026

sold off around half of my RF zooms, mostly for lack of use or because i was unhappy with performance. never selling my 80-200. and really appreciate how the newer 70-200 Z's look very similar to it

DocInfoSci · May 24, 2026

justaCanonuser said:
I recommend you to upgrade to an EF 70-200mm f/4.0 IS version, if you can get a good used copy. It is much sharper than the non IS version. Same story like with the f/2.8 non-IS and IS versions back then. I have the f/4.0 IS version and still like it...

Thanks! Yes, I've seen that with my own eyes. I do intend to, although I've been wondering if a 2.8 makes more sense. Appreciate the input.

AlanF · May 24, 2026

The Banded Demoiselles have started flying (R5ii + RF 100-500mm).

Exploreshootshare · May 24, 2026

homebodyMacro2 said:
I made a little tribute/showcase to the 70-200Z the other day in a separate thread: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/what’s-coming-next-from-canon.45141/page-6#post-1045676

Can't recommend it enough! Here's a sample of the images from the other thread. The quick zoom throw is great, the 0.6x magnification with a 2x extender is great, and all of these shots are with a 2x on:
View attachment 229671
View attachment 229672
View attachment 229673
View attachment 229674
View attachment 229675

Lovely shots! I especially like the first one!

Del Paso · May 24, 2026

roby17269 said:
Wow that's way too much weight for me! I bring maybe a second lens (usually 35 1.4) and a Mini 5 Pro drone with me and I am already overly loaded

Thanks It is rare nowadays that my daughter collaborates... These were taken with the 100-500 or the 85 1.2

You're lucky! My son flees as soon as he sees a camera!

scyrene · May 24, 2026

Sporgon said:
You’re not compensating for something are you ?

For my distance to the birds, yes!

justaCanonuser · May 24, 2026

When Fukushima happened, I decided to support Canon and purchased the f/2.8 L IS USM II version. I still love this lens, despite it is much bigger and heavier than the compact RF version. Works perfectly with either my R5 II and R7, and takes all TCs.

Btw the Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm VF II, same age than mine, had already two dead AF drives, my lens works w/o any trouble. We now decided to replace the Nikkor by a used one instead of letting the old one again be repaired (my wife still likes to use her SLRs and DSLRs). Checking MPB, I realized that you get a good used copy of this once highly praised Nikkor lens for a much lower price than a Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM II from about the same production year. I am pretty sure this is driven by the superior quality of Canon L gear. Nikon's quality degraded extremely since their glorious times, we had to learn with our Nikon gear the hard way.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics