Latest activity

Fbimages · Mar 12, 2026

I will take anything better than the genuine Canon batteries if they perform better in the cold. Below -10c the LPE6P are shockingly bad. I had to resort to using a cine camera with a D tap dummy battery to use my R5ii, it's ridiculous.

m4ndr4ke · Mar 12, 2026

emc said:
while my three Patona batteries maintained their full charge capacity (3 bars) over the same period, according to my Canon R6 interface.

Patona and Jupio batteries are not compatible with the battery health indicator, they'll keep three green bars until their end of life.
I haven't tested with other brands, so far.

yeahright · Mar 12, 2026

Will there be a canonrumors headline without a question mark anytime soon?

Malm · Mar 12, 2026

And when will Canon start again to make proper lenses for photographers?
To be honest; I'm sick of these hyped VCM lenses for videographers - so called 'creators'. All I need are just excellent optical lenses without much 'digital correction' and also without this strict size and weight limits as for VCM lenses.
Canon already has an extended line of these light and good video lenses, so what about the very good lenses for photographers?

emc · Mar 12, 2026

I use two Canon LP-E6NH batteries and three PATONA For LP-E6NH batteries, one of which has a USB-C port. I was disappointed to find that my two Canon batteries quickly lost their charge capacity (1 bar out of 3), while my three Patona batteries maintained their full charge capacity (3 bars) over the same period, according to my Canon R6 interface. I rotate my 5 batteries in order. They are all used alternately.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

DocInfoSci · Mar 12, 2026

I always have my family and friends in mind when thinking about cameras and lenses and affordability (whatever that means, it's subjective). More affordable options means more people less financially fortunate also get to play in the sandbox. More affordable with weather resistance means more occasions during which to play. When my friends come along we swap gear, take things for a test, learn from each other, and generally enjoy a good time.

So if Canon's bar of

uses swappable lenses and takes pictures then I'm happy to have that person come along. (OK, I'm happy for them to come along anyhow but they'd be hard to ignore sitting on their stump of sad shame after a while.)

But, at the same time, I'd much prefer if Canon would at least polish the

.

Just so the Sony and Nikon crowd keep quiet. Dignity, after all.

Ian K · Mar 12, 2026

dolina said:
Having experienced the AF mislaignment issue of the 1st batch of the EOS 7D Mark II.... I would not do that.

I pre-ordered the 1st shipment then flew to Bukidnon to photograph a uncaptive Pithecophaga jefferyi.

It didn't focus properly. Found out later that there was an issue in the 1st batch.

Mistake on our case was not to bring a 1D Mark IV as backup to save 1.4kg of weight.

I already have the R7 mark I and an R5 mark II. Thanks for the warning.

DocInfoSci · Mar 12, 2026

It's nice to have primes that approximately double for noticable progressions:

14 -> 24 -> 50 -> 100 -> 200
18 -> 35 -> 85 -> er, 135 I suppose even though it breaks my "doubling" suggestion

Either of those selections would make for a solid portrait kit (subjects can be other than people: animals, things) with a little astro potential for kicks. For those who play with the 35 + 85 combo an 18 would be their version of the 24 in a 50 + 100 kit.

Exploreshootshare · Mar 12, 2026

Richard CR said:
I never really heard anything too bad about the current 35mm's image quality

See full article...

The IQ of the 35mm F1.8 STM is actually really good imo. It produces nice images and renders smoothly. It is the AF which could use a (major) update.

Exploreshootshare · Mar 12, 2026

Canon Rumors said:
I think it's a typo, it must be 28 F1.4

I wanted to write the exact same comment

davidespinosa · Mar 12, 2026

Richard -- WHY would Canon release an 18mm when they already have the 20mm ?
You must have SOME idea, but I couldn't understand it from your post.

Richard-CN · Mar 12, 2026

The VCM library for Canon keeps on expanding, and while we were looking at the 100mm focal length just last week with some interest, we also have an interesting patent (2026-043301) that covers most of Canon's wide-angle VCM lenses, but there's a notable exception. An 18mm f/1.4. An 18mm prime would be a very novel […]

See full article...

eero · Mar 12, 2026

Good to hear. I have slightly different experiences with their older LP-E6NH versions which came bundled with a double-slot charger. Those two batteries die off so fast that I haven't bothered using them anymore in R5 or R6ii. I did some comparing, and a Canon original LP-E6NH lasted approximately twice longer than those Smallrig copies. I am happy to hear their new battery has improved. Or perhaps it was just my copies. I like most of the things they make, the rig parts are very good quality in my opinion.

snapshot · Mar 12, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
Indeed. Here’s another post from Roger Cicala on the topic:

Front Element Lens Protection Revisited

The internet is an interesting resource. Once you've put a reference up, it's there forever. Over time, things may change, but that 10-year-old article doesn't. A few weeks ago someone used some old articles I'd written (1, 2, 3) as a reason why he doesn't use protective UV filters. They claimed...

www.lensrentals.com

I’ve never had a filter get stuck on a lens. I have had stacked filters get stuck together (ND and CPL), and I learned to keep a set of $8 filter wrenches in the bag when I bring filters.

I like Roger's take on it. I have had trouble getting a filter off after a drop, on the other hand the lens filter threads were ok. I also tend to keep the lens cap installed when not aiming the camera. I have tripped walking backward for framing, but my backside took most of the damage. So far no scratches, but i have had some trouble with beach sand in compact zoom cameras.

snapshot · Mar 11, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
And yet…right now on amazon.com (US), the R100 is #7 (and #8) in mirrorless cameras. From Canon, only the R50 (#1 and #2) and the R6II (#5) are selling better.

Another example of Canon knowing the camera market better than all of us posting on Internet forums.

Lots of folks just want to take a picture, and hope it will turn out better than a phone pic. R100 vs T7 with a 17-55 kit zoom either one at bestbuy under $600. sure, maybe not for me. but i might have already bought my last camera (r5iii with 2x faster read-out could get me to buy one more if i am still shooting action when it arrives). i think there is value in a product that will on-board new buyers. i think the r100 hate is all about the lack of a touch screen, not sure how deep into the menus the new user gets and the buttons work fine.

Richard-CN · Mar 11, 2026

@amir_photography said:
In my opinion the R100 is not meant for the us market, as I would assume canon rumors is based in.. I think the camera is meant more towards developing countries, such as India, providing options for people when used camera value doesn't drop significantly, as in the us and Australia. It also gives an affordable option to people who don't know about cameras much in these countries. I do however agree that in 1st world countries there is no reason for canon to sell it.

I have always stated that Canon needs affordable cameras for developing nations or those nations where the cost of living is far lower than that of the United States. However, a lack of a touchscreen on a mirrorless camera is a poor judgment call to make on a entry level camera, if they are attempting to convert people from smartphones - IMO of course, but I'd be surprised if they didn't correct that oversight on the next version.

Quite honestly, if it had a touchscreen, I'd probably like the little thing from an entry-level perspective.

Also, just to head off the "Canon knows best" claim: Canon has made odd decisions in the past, but the momentum of the brand name usually covers that.

Richard-CN · Mar 11, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
And yet…right now on amazon.com (US), the R100 is #7 (and #8) in mirrorless cameras. From Canon, only the R50 (#1 and #2) and the R6II (#5) are selling better.

Another example of Canon knowing the camera market better than all of us posting on Internet forums.

to be fair Canon could create a bar of

and call it a camera, and it would be in the top 10 on amazon.

The R100 doesn't sell that well anywhere else - and it's one of those - it should. The lowest priced DSLR's always sold well in multiple regions, including Japan, not so much these days with the R50 carrying the load.

neuroanatomist · Mar 11, 2026

@amir_photography said:
In my opinion the R100 is not meant for the us market, as I would assume canon rumors is based in.. … I do however agree that in 1st world countries there is no reason for canon to sell it.

And yet…right now on amazon.com (US), the R100 is #7 (and #8) in mirrorless cameras. From Canon, only the R50 (#1 and #2) and the R6II (#5) are selling better.

Another example of Canon knowing the camera market better than all of us posting on Internet forums.

@amir_photography · Mar 11, 2026

In my opinion the R100 is not meant for the us market, as I would assume canon rumors is based in.. I think the camera is meant more towards developing countries, such as India, providing options for people when used camera value doesn't drop significantly, as in the us and Australia. It also gives an affordable option to people who don't know about cameras much in these countries. I do however agree that in 1st world countries there is no reason for canon to sell it.

neuroanatomist · Mar 11, 2026

Hector1970 said:
It's a tricky choice

Indeed. Here’s another post from Roger Cicala on the topic:

Front Element Lens Protection Revisited

The internet is an interesting resource. Once you've put a reference up, it's there forever. Over time, things may change, but that 10-year-old article doesn't. A few weeks ago someone used some old articles I'd written (1, 2, 3) as a reason why he doesn't use protective UV filters. They claimed...

www.lensrentals.com

I’m firmly in the use filters camp, but I’ve always tempered that with the same approach Roger describes. For example, there’s no front filter on my RF 28/2.8. A few months ago when cleaning the filter on my RF 24-105/2.8L Z, the wisdom of my choice was reaffirmed. Replacing the front element would have been much more costly than the $100 for a new B+W 82mm clear filter to replace this one.

I’ve never had a filter get stuck on a lens. I have had stacked filters get stuck together (ND and CPL), and I learned to keep a set of $8 filter wrenches in the bag when I bring filters.

DocInfoSci · Mar 11, 2026

Hector1970 said:
After dropping a few lens with UV Filters and struggling to get the broken ones off I just moved away from them and use the lens hood for protection or leave the filter holder adapter on the lens. Easier to clean the lens than a filter. Also getting UV filters stuck on filter holder adapters when I was too lazy to take the UV filter off made me change. It's a tricky choice

It’s a shame I can’t double emoji the like and laugh. I empathize!

Bent needle nose pliers and other tools accompany me on some trips. Because, you know: life!

SirIssacNewton · Mar 11, 2026

Best of the best! Great pictures

Hector1970 · Mar 11, 2026

DocInfoSci said:
That sucks. Truly. I feel bad for you. Hopefully better days of shooting since!

It also sounds like you didn't have a protective filter in front of your lense. Yes? If so, why?

I know some people get freaked out about filters in front of their lens due to concerns about color neutrality, light transmission, etc. (This might not be you, Exploreshootshare — but for others.) It is possible to get high quality filters for non-bulbous lenses, to such a point that any effect on your image is probably no worse than your human inability to 100% dial in white points, etc. or the reality that you'll probably adjust balances, hues, and tones in post anyhow. If you're an out and about person, it's much more satisfying (and part of the adventure) to toss $50+ filters that are cracked, scratched, etc. than it is to take your lens to Canon for repair — assuming you even have that option for older or grey market lenses. Heck, glue a spider-cracked filter to a printed photo from your adventure as a conversation starter.

And yes, it's possible to have an accident that shatters your filter and scratches your lens — but seriously, your front element would probably have been junked in the crash anyhow. So you might as well protect against general scenarios. And salt spray. And dust grit. And... the chance to use your sleeve for a quick wipe.

But for the true purists with the chutzpah and grit (pun intended), your lens will get an extra .02% of light and a .01% color fidelity by going full commando with your front element. Sealed or not.

Here's a fun article by Roger Cicala at Lens Rentals on the topic of filter quality. It finalized my opinion on the topic, and since then I always slap a very good filter on my lenses. When I have to toss one, I feel no worse than using up tires on my truck after a good set of adventure years.

My Not Quite Complete Protective Filter Article

Well, I've written (with some misgivings because it has a tendency to create rioting in the streets) several articles about protective filters. Articles that say sometimes you shouldn't use protective filters, and others that say sometimes you do need to use protective filters, and most...

www.lensrentals.com

After dropping a few lens with UV Filters and struggling to get the broken ones off I just moved away from them and use the lens hood for protection or leave the filter holder adapter on the lens. Easier to clean the lens than a filter. Also getting UV filters stuck on filter holder adapters when I was too lazy to take the UV filter off made me change. It's a tricky choice

Hector1970 · Mar 11, 2026

My Personal Top 10 would be
1/ Canon 300mm F2.8 II - Just an amazing lens, creates beautiful images
2/ Canon 24mm TS-E II - Superb, great at its job
3/ Canon 70-200mm F2.8 II - Just a workhorse, sharp
4/ Canon 24-70mm F2.8 II - Just superb and reliable, sharp
5/ Canon 200mm F2 L IS - Beautiful Bokeh, unique look, heavy to use
6/ Canon 600mm F4 II - Sharp, beautiful images - just too heavy for me nowadays
7/ Canon 16-35mm F4 - Great Landscape Lens
8/ Canon 100mm F2.8 Macro - Brilliant and a lovely portrait lens
9/ Canon 11-24mm F4 - Wide - can create images nothing else can - nice to be able to use filters on an RF camera
10/ Canon 85mm 1.2 - Great when you get the image in focus, bokeh to die for

Other lens I'd look on favourably
Canon 24-105mm F4 - great all-rounder, Canon TSE 17mm - not the sharpest but can do a great job on tall buildings, Canon 50mm F1.2 - very easy to use
Canon 50mm 1.4 - soft but I loved it , Canon 100-400 II - solid , Canon 17-40mm - good Sigma 14mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art Lens - For Astro

I've enjoyed them all, all still working. 24-70mm and 24-105mm both have had the ribbon inside replaced but repaired well.
I've lost the red ring on the 100mm Macro.
600mm F4II requires so much gear to make it work - large bag, gimbal head, extender, flash extender - brilliant but debatable if its worth it.
In general very robust and reliable.
I'll be slowly switching to RF lens (RF 100-500 is highly recommended) but will be sad to give any of these up. They've served me well. Thany you Canon, you're expensive but very good at what you do.

Frodo · Mar 11, 2026

My SmallRig LP-e6NH worked fine in my R5, but doesn't work at all in my R5ii. The USB-C connection is very handy. Will look to getting P versions to supplement my three Canon LP-E6P s.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics