Latest activity

Michael Clark · Apr 2, 2026

mmills79 said:
I definetly don't understand your discussion. In some cases you seem to agree but in the end you disagree. That is confusing.

I think we agree that for the same chip size, as you increase the number of pixels (or decrease the size of the individual collection sites), for each site as the density increases, the individual site collects less light. So, Canon in increasing pixel count, actually decreased the ability of each site to collect light and decreased the signal to noise (made the noise performance worse) of each site.

That's only the case for what we call "read" noise, or noise produced by the camera's own circuitry. The other component of noise, called Poisson distribution or "shot" noise, is based on the randomness of the distribution of photons in light. Shot noise increases or decreases at the same rate as surface area if the intensity of the overall field of light is the same. (If the light intensity changes with all else being equal, shot noise only increases as the square root of the increase in light, and is why brighter exposure values at low ISO result in much less shot noise than dimmer exposures which use higher ISO to amplify light - and noise - by a higher factor). Read noise is most significant at base ISO. Shot noise is the much larger component of noise at exposure values which require using higher ISO settings.

Michael Clark · Apr 2, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
No, we don't agree on that. For an individual pixel, smaller means more noise, sure. People who measurebate pixels love discussing that. People who take pictures care about image noise. Image noise is fundamentally independent of pixel size, but rather depends on total light gathered, which is determined by the area of the image sensor, not the number of pixels packed into that sensor. Divide a FF sensor into 45 million pixels or 24 million pixels, the total light gathered is the same.

It does affect full well capacity, though. This means a change in analog amplification levels to avoid blowing out highlights, which means other sensels with very little light striking them are also amplified less, which puts them closer to the read noise floor (but not Poisson distribution noise, which is reduced proportional to the area of each sensel). So this is mostly a thing for base ISO. Is it near the difference of an APS-C sensor compared to a FF sensor? No, it is not. But the difference is still there. The same with BSI vs non-BSI sensors. The smaller each sensel is, the higher percentage of that sensel is blocked from incoming light by the circuitry. Gapless lenses in front of the sensor help to refract more of the light towards the parts of the sensel where there is no circuitry, but they're not precise enough to completely redirect all light to areas of each sensel with no circuitry blocking it. Dual Pixel AF sensors have twice as much circuitry as sensors with the same "effective" resolution which are not Dual Pixel AF sensors. Again, is it near as significant with sensels in the 3-4µm neighborhood as with phone sensels in the sub 1µm range? No, but it's still there.

David - Sydney · Apr 2, 2026

mimbu said:
Probably a shell company set up specifically to sell RF versions of the Meike lenses under a different brand. That way when Canon decides to sue the pants off them, there are no assets to go after. That shell company can just be shut down and another one will pop up. This might end up being the way the Chinese brands get their lenses onto RF.

Brand identification/ marketing would be hard if phoenix legal structures were used.
It is possible that these lens would only be available within China where it would be harder for Canon to enforce any copyright/patent infringements.

Entirely likely that they use EF autofocus with RF physical mount.
The lenses don't have to have the fastest or quietest AF motors and still be competitive vs native lenses.
AF Meike lenses are relatively inexpensive eg 35-85mm f1.4-f2 models range from USD135-USD400 on B&H. The price would be cheaper within China.

We are seeing more hardware eg phones that are only available in China where the middle class market is becoming a big enough segment to support volume - especially at the price points vs native lenses.
Xiaomi, Vivo and Oppo all have china-excluding models for instance and these are not low end models.

For perspective, 2% of China's population is about 30m people who have >USD50k personal disposable income ie prosumers.
Add the number of professionals eg wedding photographers then the addressable market is larger.

Canon may also not go for them as it would mean more MILC body sales in China.

mmills79 · Apr 2, 2026

Canon Rumors said:
I have been writing a fair bit about the EOS R7 Mark II in recent weeks, and with good reason. It's good clickbait, and many people who may be interested haven't been following along yet.. That said, I am trying to be as truthful as I possibly can while stoking the rumors. A little hype […]

See full article...

josephandrews222 · Apr 2, 2026

AlanF said:
I do a lot of butterfly and dragonfly photography and much prefer the RF 100-500mm for that, or even the RF 100-400mm (or adapted EF 100-400mm for you), unlike for birds where I prefer the RF 200-800mm. The best shots are when you are close up, and you can get to about 1.2-1.1 meter away with the 100-500mm and 100-400mm, with magnifications of ~0.3x and ~0.4x, respectively. The mfd of the 200-800mm at 800mm is 3.3m and you get much less magnification, and have to zoom out to get closer and boost the magnification. It's relatively infrequent that you can't get close, and some of the keen ones use macro lenses. With the 100-400 and 100-500mm, you can get sufficiently close to dragonflies to resolve the individual lenses on their eyes, and I've never been able to do that with the 200-800mm. Even better is that the RF 100-500 takes the 2xTC well and you can get ~0.6x magnification at 1000mm.

The reminder for the MFDs for various zoom lenses is appropriate.

The reality of the butterfly shot in question here (via the 200-800) is that I left my front door with the hope of imaging birds (and I did!). The acquired image is, sort of, good enough...despite the fact that indeed, I was required to take a step or two back from the subject, in order to acquire focus...at the bush near the corner of our garage.

But the lens, as used, resolved the images for the sensor sufficiently well, I think, for demonstration purposes.

This sort of thing is, in fact, my reality when it comes to photography--'sufficiently well'--and depends on the gear that I have in my hands.

As for as 'the keen ones' and 'macro lenses'...my few attempts at macro photography?

The results (with bugs and insects) indicate I need more practice. Much more...not so keen, apparently.

mawlki · Apr 2, 2026

mawlki said:
I'd applause Canon to indefinitely carpet bomb these leaches thoroughly with funny cluster munitions.

AlanF · Apr 2, 2026

josephandrews222 said:
Here are cropped images acquired the other day with the R5ii + 200-800@800 combination.

The first one (tufted titmouse) was quite far away--the range offered by the 800 was valuable here in the unedited image below:

View attachment 228726

I did edit/pretty up the image for the Northern Mockingbird a bit (I kind like the lighting). The 800 range here is useful because I like to print these at 13x19 and need all the pixels I can get.

View attachment 228727

I like the 200-800 lens. A lot. Your question here has so many dimensions. In a sense, what you are asking (primarily) is...are there particular situations where the extra reach (to 800) is valuable?

For me, the extra reach is valuable (sometimes ).

But I never owned the R5 nor do I own the RF 100-500; there are many comparisons on this site between the 200-800 and 100-500...

Also, I rely on an adapted EF 100-400 II when appropriate (instead of the RF 100-500).

I also own (and use) the very good RF 100-400.

=====

Two butterfly R5ii + 200-800@800 straight out of camera jpegs (but cropped) are here:

https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/butterflies-moths-and-assorted-insects.31073/post-1043157

If/when you purchase the 200-800, you can post your own thoughts and comparisons!

I do a lot of butterfly and dragonfly photography and much prefer the RF 100-500mm for that, or even the RF 100-400mm (or adapted EF 100-400mm for you), unlike for birds where I prefer the RF 200-800mm. The best shots are when you are close up, and you can get to about 1.2-1.1 meter away with the 100-500mm and 100-400mm, with magnifications of ~0.3x and ~0.4x, respectively. The mfd of the 200-800mm at 800mm is 3.3m and you get much less magnification, and have to zoom out to get closer and boost the magnification. It's relatively infrequent that you can't get close, and some of the keen ones use macro lenses. With the 100-400 and 100-500mm, you can get sufficiently close to dragonflies to resolve the individual lenses on their eyes, and I've never been able to do that with the 200-800mm. Even better is that the RF 100-500 takes the 2xTC well and you can get ~0.6x magnification at 1000mm.

Click · Apr 2, 2026

Beautiful shot, foda.

foda · Apr 2, 2026

@ISv No luck yet on the Orange-cheeked Waxbill. But here's a White-rumped Shama I photographed last month on a trip to Vietnam.

R5MkII RF200-800mm

Click · Apr 2, 2026

Lovely shots, josephandrews222.

neuroanatomist · Apr 2, 2026

mimbu said:
Sure, and in terms of market cap, Canon is closer to Leica or Sigma than they are to Sony. Much, MUCH closer. Not entirely sure what the point is, of course.

He was talking about production capacity for cameras and lenses, which is very relevant to the topic at hand. Market cap…isn’t. But thanks for trying, at least you’re spot on about not getting the point.

Del Paso · Apr 2, 2026

AlanF said:
I rely on @Del Paso for his explanation of events the side of the English Channel, but he will call it la Manche. So, it's like minds separated by a dispute over the name of a stretch of water, and our use of French.

Makes me think of the wonderful Jersey lobsters and scallops, fresh from la Manche!

Del Paso · Apr 2, 2026

P-visie said:
Very brave of you to explain this to @Del Paso who confuses MILC’s with MILF’s .

Because I'm not a debauchee!

(Hoping my wife won't read this answer...)

GirlsAreBeautiful · Apr 2, 2026

No 28mm, sad.

mimbu · Apr 2, 2026

Canon Rumors said:
Sigma is closer to Leica than they are to Canon.

Sure, and in terms of market cap, Canon is closer to Leica or Sigma than they are to Sony. Much, MUCH closer. Not entirely sure what the point is, of course.

neuroanatomist · Apr 2, 2026

At the end of the day, it really doesn’t matter. Are there Sigma lenses available for Canon RF full frame cameras? No. Will there be at some point? We don’t know.

josephandrews222 · Apr 2, 2026

Exploreshootshare said:
Great pics!

Btw: What is your experience with the R5(ii) + RF 200-800mm combo? I´d really like to know what your experience is. Maybe compared to the RF 100-500mm? thx in advance!

Here are cropped images acquired the other day with the R5ii + 200-800@800 combination.

The first one (tufted titmouse) was quite far away--the range offered by the 800 was valuable here in the unedited image below:

I did edit/pretty up the image for the Northern Mockingbird a bit (I kind like the lighting). The 800 range here is useful because I like to print these at 13x19 and need all the pixels I can get.

K41A3800 picasa 2 crop-topaz2-denoise ps fix.jpg

I like the 200-800 lens. A lot. Your question here has so many dimensions. In a sense, what you are asking (primarily) is...are there particular situations where the extra reach (to 800) is valuable?

For me, the extra reach is valuable (sometimes

).

But I never owned the R5 nor do I own the RF 100-500; there are many comparisons on this site between the 200-800 and 100-500...

Also, I rely on an adapted EF 100-400 II when appropriate (instead of the RF 100-500).

I also own (and use) the very good RF 100-400.

=====

Two butterfly R5ii + 200-800@800 straight out of camera jpegs (but cropped) are here:

https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/butterflies-moths-and-assorted-insects.31073/post-1043157

If/when you purchase the 200-800, you can post your own thoughts and comparisons!

josephandrews222 · Apr 2, 2026

First large-ish butterfly sighting (for me) in my area of the midwest USA.

R5ii + 200-800 @ 800.

dark morph female Eastern Tiger Swallowtail

cropped straight out of camera jpegs

EDIT:

...and the bottom image photoshopped a bit for additional detail in the darks:

Pixel · Apr 2, 2026

Ron888 said:
Has no one noticed what day it is? lol

Stop. We're grown ups here. Fro can be a jack-ass all he wants with his pranks. That's not happening here.

roby17269 · Apr 2, 2026

DocInfoSci said:
Obviously I'm Team Canon in terms of gear.

BUT

The camera bodies after the R6 and R5 did kill a number of EF lenses from third parties. In some cases, these EF lenses simply confirmed focus and reported lens data, such as the IRIX lenses. I doubt very much that the EF instruction set changed for any technical reason in the R6 II / R5 II / R3 / R1 and so am inclined to believe Canon scuttled those lenses despite being yesteryear tech. It very much would necessitate upgrades to new Canon specific lenses and probably raise the ire of customers against the third parties. Then, RF mount adaptations of EF lenses from various Chinese manufactures "disappeared" along with their support.

It's really, really hard to not believe that, at a minimum, Canon is being deliberately antagonistic.

A company like Sigma is probably established enough that the game between them and Canon is somewhat gentlemanly and thus for whatever set of reasons to them there are now Sigma lenses for the RF crop sensor. But, I doubt other than engineering for 35mm projection across 20mm of air for the flange distance (Sony has 18mm of air) there's not much else left for Sigma to do for FF, other than make Canon happy. In fact, I'm starting to think the primary motivation for Canon's allowance for the Sigma crop lenses is simply to sidestep antitrust, as informed by my own corporate work.

Unless Canon or Sigma is very specific in their statement, history suggests the FF electronic lenses from third parties are de facto blocked, regardless of the legal or financial disincentives being used.

But I think the true disgruntlement here is that Canon has not produced a full line for quality mid-tier offerings for a focal range that matches the EF options over the 1990s and 2000s at equivalent pricing. There are steps in that direction, like the 200-800 which is an excellent compromise lens by all accounts. VCM is kinda-sorta in that direction, tech great but cost meh. More is needed to be done. And that pinch makes people look at Sigma, which is an excellent third party example of what can be done, and go... man, I wish I had some of those options in the middle.

If we just sit here and talk the best of the best, then Canon has delivered on all accounts. And priced accordingly. But if we talk great yet competent at hobbyist levels of abuse and engagement then there are huge holes in the lineup compared to what was before in terms of both cost and capability.

I think there's hope. At 6-8 lenses a year, there's room for mid-tier excellence to come into being at reasonable prices. A perfect example I return to over and over is the 300mm f/4 L (IS and non-IS) — it offered 90% of the base 2.8 performance and 80% of the TC performance in a form and cost that allowed Canon and professionals to easily justify the 2.8 option while meeting the interests and wants of the well heeled hobbyists. More of this is needed. Sigma gives that to Sony and Nikon. Does it matter who gives it to Canon? No. But Canon has only very reluctantly shown an interest in doing that in-house for FF up to this point in RF despite making oodles of cash.

It's valid for Canon enthusiasts to stand up and say that they've noticed and its starting to move from annoying to semi-insulting. It's been almost eight years since the RF mount was released. Mid-tier L was well established at the long end by then for EF.

I agree with most of what you wrote, but for a niggle: I would not agree that

If we just sit here and talk the best of the best, then Canon has delivered on all accounts.

They started great with the 2(3) f/1.2 lenses and the f/2 zoom, they amazed with the R5/6 duo and the 100-300 and a few other great lenses (I am a sucker for the 100-500), but after, from my personal perspective (and no, rumors do not count):

No high res R1 / R3
No new exotics (ideally with built-in TC)
No TS lenses
And the real original sin: no 35 f/1.2

Of course I assume that eventually they will address those exactly or closely enough... but we'd get there faster if (e.g.) we could mount Sigma lenses on RF cameras. And of course these are my personal desires... so just change "all" to "some" or even "most" and we're good

JensR · Apr 2, 2026

John Wilde said:
Canon execs are well practiced in giving vague non-answers, so there is no reason for them to flat out lie.

If the Canon exec wants to deflect blame from Canon that would be a reason, won't it?
And since i had the misfortune to watch several speeches of a certain president in the not so distant past, i know people can lie and even contradict themselves in the same speech without any rhyme or reason.

So not having a reason is no evidence it did not happen.

AlanF · Apr 2, 2026

P-visie said:
Very brave of you to explain this to @Del Paso who confuses MILC’s with MILF’s .

I rely on @Del Paso for his explanation of events the side of the English Channel, but he will call it la Manche. So, it's like minds separated by a dispute over the name of a stretch of water, and our use of French.

AlanF · Apr 2, 2026

roby17269 said:
I wonder how many more times you will need to explain that?

@neuroanatomist, to save your time and put it all in the same quotable space, maybe you could start a thread with it carefully explained, as you do every time anyway. You could then post a link to it.

P-visie · Apr 2, 2026

AlanF said:
I deleted the original post before I had seen you had replied, sorry. Over here, we use the debauched definition: Oxford Dictionary
Definition of roué noun from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary

roué
noun

/ˈruːeɪ/

/ruːˈeɪ/
(old-fashioned)
a man who behaves badly, especially by drinking a lot of alcohol, having many sexual relationships, etc.

Very brave of you to explain this to @Del Paso who confuses MILC’s with MILF’s

.

AlanF · Apr 2, 2026

Del Paso said:
Roue' rather stands for cunning, without scruple, or having "enjoyed" the breaking wheel punishment.

I deleted the original post before I had seen you had replied, sorry. Over here, we use the debauched definition: Oxford Dictionary
Definition of roué noun from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary