EOSR7MkII said:

Meaning that the following durations should be safe for exposure to the full-intensity sun:
(largely independent of focal length)

f/1.2	f/1.8	f/2.8	f/4	f/5.6	f/8	f/11
≤1 s	≤2 s	≤5 s	≤10 s	≤20 s	≤40 s	≤75 s

Click to expand...

The focal length of the lens is a crucial factor and times will not be largely independent of focal length! Briefly, the temperature reached by a pixel heated by light will depend on the rate of heating and the rate of loss of heat. The rate of heating will vary as the light intensity. The rate of loss of heat is primarily by conduction of the heat to the surrounding pixels and the rest of the sensor, and will depend on the temperature difference between the pixel and the surroundings (Newton's law of cooling). Suppose you double the focal length of the lens at the same f-number, then the rate of heating of the pixel is the same as the light intensity is the same, but it will be spread over 4x the area. Accordingly, the rate of loss of heat at the centre of the image will be lower as there will be a larger number of heated pixels surrounding the centre and they will be of similar temperature to the central pixels and so there will be lower lateral conduction conduction of heat away. Accordingly, the pixels in the image will heat up faster and reach a higher temperature as the focal length increases at constant f-number. (And this is why telephoto lenses can even damage shutters, both the total amount of light hitting the shutter and the rate of loss by conduction are crucial).

EOSR7MkII said:

More pixels on the bird/mammal/... is always welcome, if it doesn't negatively impact IQ compared to its predecessor. Sure, a 24MP R1 will have vastly superior low-light and noise performance, but for the rest of us who cannot afford that and/or extremely expensive fast telephoto primes, a higher-resolution R7 is "good enough". It seems that Canon shares that view.

Click to expand...

We shall see, more pixels isn't good if there's more noise tbh

Zadak said:

Why in the name of God do you even need 40MP on an APS-C? It's already 'cropped' in, the pixel density is quite high and for what?

Click to expand...

More pixels on the bird/mammal/... is always welcome, if it doesn't negatively impact IQ compared to its predecessor. Sure, a 24MP R1 will have vastly superior low-light and noise performance, but for the rest of us who cannot afford that and/or extremely expensive fast telephoto primes, a higher-resolution R7 is "good enough". It seems that Canon shares that view.

EOSR7MkII said:

I could imagine that Canon, through the use of backside illumination, has kept the actual sensitive photosite area constant or near constant compared to the R7's, offsetting the effects of increasing the resolution to 40MP (which on its own would decreases the linear size by 15%). This would allow to maintain or improve the dynamic range through advances in sensor technology since the R7 (which, iirc, uses the sensor technology from the 90D, so from almost 7 years ago? Please correct me if I am wrong!), even despite stacking.

I doubt they would release a camera to the market that has worse low-light performance than the predecessor, especially since this new model is aimed to shift up-market a bit, also increasing buyers' expectations regarding image quality (and the target audience being wildlife photographers).

Click to expand...

Why in the name of God do you even need 40MP on an APS-C? It's already 'cropped' in, the pixel density is quite high and for what?

I could imagine that Canon, through the use of backside illumination, has kept the actual sensitive photosite area constant or near constant compared to the R7's, offsetting the effects of increasing the resolution to 40MP (which on its own would decreases the linear size by 15%). This would allow to maintain or improve the dynamic range through advances in sensor technology since the R7 (which, iirc, uses the sensor technology from the 90D, so from almost 7 years ago? Please correct me if I am wrong!), even despite stacking.

I doubt they would release a camera to the market that has worse low-light performance than the predecessor, especially since this new model is aimed to shift up-market a bit, also increasing buyers' expectations regarding image quality (and the target audience being wildlife photographers).

Zadak said:

Should be a stacked 32MP max if anything. Even a stacked 24MP should be a lot, at least it would increase the physical size of the pixels

Click to expand...

24 MP stacked would be technologically a sweet spot, I agree.

zardoz said:

Surely the #1 requested feature for the R7 II is a battery grip, though?

Click to expand...

I guess if Canon returns to the traditional ergonomics in a bit beefier body, what we all hope for, a battery grip should be available again.

Should be a stacked 32MP max if anything. Even a stacked 24MP should be a lot, at least it would increase the physical size of the pixels

AlanF said:

Now we can see the image, is it the full image reduced in size by a factor of 2 or is it a crop? If it is cropped then the spots are only a pixel or two wide, and, if reduced, of similar size. The image of the sun on an R7 sensor from a 50mm lens would be about 150 pixels wide, which you would expect to burn a much wider area of the sensor than you are seeing.

Click to expand...

Thank you for pointing this out! It is the full image, and unless it got reduced to half resolution upon uploading it, it should have the full resolution. I've attached cropped images of the two spots below once more, shown zoomed in, so the individual pixels are visible. I am relieved that this makes it unlikely that I caused the damage, not having touched the sensor even once (using a rocket blower very carefully has been enough to remove any dust so far). I will try my luck with a warranty claim!

This also means that I can add the first set of values to this collection thread:

NO sun damage at f/1.8, 10 s stationary exposure, slightly hazy weather, afternoon (sun intensity: ~20% of full mid-day intensity)
This can be re-scaled to: f/1.8, 2 s of mid-day sun exposure. Given the formula from the first post, this is enough to calculate a first set of limits!

Meaning that the following durations should be safe for exposure to the full-intensity sun:
(largely independent of focal length)
Out of an abundance of caution, maybe divide those numbers by a factor of 2 especially when actually using a zoom lens, until we have more experience reports in. Once those reports come in, these numbers might increase!

EDIT: Use the values found in Table 7 here instead!

AlanF said:

No, I have no experience. It's quite possible you will not get a single piece of data requested here for your research, and most unlikely you well get enough data to analyse quantitatively.

Click to expand...

Single data points already are enough to provide (better) upper limits to what is safe or (initial) lower limits to what is unsafe, so even 2-3 more reports would be great to get closer to the actual limit (which I assume is a bit higher). Still hopeful...

The Gray-breasted Mountain-Toucan inhabits the high Andean cloud forest from Colombia to Peru. I photographed this individual while birding at Hacienda El Bosque, Colombia, November, 2025. I particularly like this image because of the imminent action and because it displays all aspects of this species' plumage.

R5 RF200-800mm

I'm freaking out with all these amazing lenses to choose from. Getting back into Photography, I sold all my EF lenses along with my 5D Mark III. I purchased the new R6 Mark III along with the RF 24-70 2.8L and the RF 100 2.8L. I absolutely need the RF 70-200 2.8 L Z version. I'm having anxiety trying my best to wait till spring. Might be impossible.

Received mine on launch day. Thank you Adorama. Coming from a 5D Mark III, I have a lot to learn. I also got the RF 24-70 2.8L and the RF 100 2.8L as well. I am trying my best to hold off on the RF 70-200 2.8L Z!!!! Thank God the weather in Chicago is horrible. I want and need this lens. But I have to slow down. Bought my first Macbook Pro along with every other accessory. 1TB CFExpress B, 4tb Sandisk extreme pro external HD, cases, high speed cables, additional batteries, etc.... After being away from shooting for close to 5 years, I now remember how expensive and addicting this hobby is. Congrats to all R6 Mark III owners.

David - Sydney said:

I would expect better yield rates over 5 years but my point on yields in general is that it is multiplied at each additional step in the process compared to FSI.
I’m not an expert so perhaps I have used ‘bonded’ incorrectly. The circuitry from the front side needs to be connected through the substrate to the thinned back side. With PCBs it is using VIA (Latin for ‘through’ (vertical interconnect access) for double sided boards

Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct about yields being impacted by additional process steps. In the case of BSI, the BIG ONE is the back lapping of the wafer followed by the cutting and handling of a 300mm wafer of silicon now only a tiny fraction of the thickness of a human hair. There are no vias required because the lapped backside is actually the photosensitive surface and is already internally connected to the circuitry on the "front" side. The "front" side (now the back side) still needs to be connected to the outside world, and I have not seen any description of that process, but clearly, the circuitry needs to be electrically connected to and possibly through (that would involve vias in the substrate) the support substrate that that the thinned chip is attached to. All these processes are VERY proprietary and there is very little public data with regards to the details.

Bob Howland said:

Sigma needs to add a small 50-135 or 140 f/2.8

Click to expand...

Sony users have long lamented the lack of a ~45-135mm f2.8 APS-C lens to match the common 70-200m f2.8 telephoto zoom. I think once upon a time Sigma was rumored to be working on one, but clearly that never came to be. Fuji has a 50-140mm f2.8, but they're the only APS-C maker to do so. Now that there's potentially 4 mounts (X, E, Z, RF-S), maybe it'll finally make sense for Sigma or whomever to make one.

Richard CR said:

I thought about the yield rates - BUT. the R3 (canon's first I believe BSI "in theory" was 4 years ago. so assume what? working on BSI in the fab since 2020? so 5-6 years? if they haven't gotten yields up on what is a known process by now, someone would have been fired. Also my understanding is that there is no bonding outside of a strengthing substrate post thinning of the wafer. so vias etc aren't done unless you are making a stacked sensor. and for that, Canon actualyh bought out an entire company for via tech.

Click to expand...

I would expect better yield rates over 5 years but my point on yields in general is that it is multiplied at each additional step in the process compared to FSI.
I’m not an expert so perhaps I have used ‘bonded’ incorrectly. The circuitry from the front side needs to be connected through the substrate to the thinned back side. With PCBs it is using VIA (Latin for ‘through’ (vertical interconnect access) for double sided boards

EOSR7MkII said:

Sure! I attached the image. Taken with the lens cover mounted (i.e., complete darkness) and at ISO 100 (30 second long exposure). Does that image help decide whether it is sun damage or caused by something else?

Click to expand...

Now we can see the image, is it the full image reduced in size by a factor of 2 or is it a crop? If it is cropped then the spots are only a pixel or two wide, and, if reduced, of similar size. The image of the sun on an R7 sensor from a 50mm lens would be about 150 pixels wide, which you would expect to burn a much wider area of the sensor than you are seeing.

Maximilian said:

... if...
But the VCM is already really, really good. So, how much more is possible? That's my question...

Click to expand...

I think it's almost purely about the f/1.2.

mimbu said:

Sony makes BSI sensors for almost the entire camera market, as well as for a significant portion of the phones that are sold. Yet Canon can't manage to make them for their own cameras? That doesn't seem reasonable. If they can't, then they aren't investing what they should be.

Click to expand...

Clearly, you know how to run Canon's business better than they do. Maybe you should apply for the CEO job. There is an old saying "don't should on me" and methinks it applies here .

Dragon said:

Just because Canon can make a few stacked sensors for high end cameras does not mean they have the fab capacity to make BSI sensors for "everything". Also, note that stacked sensors typically involve silicon from outside foundries for the computational and memory layers (and this is true for Sony as well as Canon). Both "simple" BSI and stacked sensors are more an advanced packaging issue than a fab issue and if you have been following the capacity woes of TSMC, you will know that advanced packaging is in seriously short supply around the world. Canon is about volume, so committing volume designs to limited capacity processes is not likely to happen.

Click to expand...

Sony makes BSI sensors for almost the entire camera market, as well as for a significant portion of the phones that are sold. Yet Canon can't manage to make them for their own cameras? That doesn't seem reasonable. If they can't, then they aren't investing what they should be.

Richard CR said:

Not necessarily. All we know is there is some low-pass filtering, but we don't know the reason why it's there. it does not necessairly mean it's NR.

Click to expand...

Photons To Photos clearly shows in the chart (the triangles) that it is using NR on those low ISOs. When it changes to using circles, the NR is no longer there. You can see it's the low ISOs that use NR that "outperform" the R6 II which does not use NR on those same ISOs.

Amazing photos, all of them.

Great shots, Glenn.

Happy Holidays!

David the street guy said:

I’ve been looking for that very card, and I don’t really understand why, since it seems to be one of the fastest card on the market, I can’t find it in stores, but only on Amazon (I’m in Québec).

I see plenty of really slower cards for higher prices, thaugh. Any reason for that?

Click to expand...

I use Prograde cards (and a Prograde reader), they are nearly as fast with a 3400 MB/s read speed.

candyman said:

But the price? Wow, it's almost doubled. It's currently for sale for around €555 (including 21% VAT).

Click to expand...

I bought them in March 2025 when they were in the 'Deal Zone' and I paid $594 the pair of 1 TB cards linked above that are currently sell for $627, and it was probably about that list price (maybe it was a little higher) when I bought them 'on sale'.

David the street guy said:

I’ve been looking for that very card, and I don’t really understand why, since it seems to be one of the fastest card on the market, I can’t find it in stores, but only on Amazon (I’m in Québec).

I see plenty of really slower cards for higher prices, thaugh. Any reason for that?

Click to expand...

My search today surprised me. I see this memory card is still for sale from several suppliers (I live in the Netherlands). But the price? Wow, it's almost doubled. It's currently for sale for around €555 (including 21% VAT). I've bought the card twice (so I have two). They were for €289 and €279 (including 21% VAT). Apparently, there's high demand and a shortage. I bought one in June and the other in August this year.

Edit: I just found a sales point where the price of the card is €384 (incl. 21% VAT) - this is not a camera shop. I don't see a difference but the difference in price surprises me.