briangus said:

I bought it last year, was a good idea at the time.
View attachment 229743View attachment 229744View attachment 229745View attachment 229746

Click to expand...

Nice! I had fun with a fisheye on my M series, long sold. I might be tempted to get the Laowa RF-S 4.5-10mm for the R7 as it is cheaper. I guess the RF-S might work in crop mode on the R5 etc as only exposure is monitored in manual Av mode for these no-reporting lenses?

I bought it last year, was a good idea at the time.

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.

Click to expand...

I think most appreciate that. I have enjoyed every camera I have had and took what were for me many great photos with all of them. For static photos of birds, my 5DSR with EF lenses was as good in practice as my subsequent R5 and R5ii. And I also got many of my favourite birds in flight shots when I could use the central 9 points for panning and manage the slow fps and small buffer. What the new models do is to expand the range of what I can do easily - like latching on to very rapidly and tracking small birds from the edge to the centre of the image. Nailing dragonflies in flight was much more difficult. Nevertheless I could get shots like these with the 5DSR.


I

When I sold my R7 years ago, I was already fearing it will be hard sell due to Mark II rumors

That being said, from a theoretical/philosophical pov I believe the R8 is more important line.
Imho evolution of photo tech these years should include the transition from crop sensor more towards to full frame. Crop sensor used to be a necessity with it's disadvantages.
Canon STILL not having a proper crop-lens lineup is just +1.
....although not having ff compact body at the very same time is veeery puzzling. (No, we do not count the R6V for multiple reasons.)

Opticallimits reviewed it a few days ago.

blackcoffee17 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

@zajicekpavel said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

TexPhoto said:

View attachment 229722

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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'?

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.
…

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.