I predict colorful Canon IXUS/Powershot ultra compact cameras. That is what gen-z wants. The only thing that is really needed as far as upgrades go for the demographic that buys them is connectivity. It may seem odd, but that is the question that arises the most often apart from "how does the photos look?" when I sell these things. Connecting the camera via USB to the computer or putting a memory card into a card reader is something foreign to many of them that needs to be explained.

eero said:

My trusted compact setup is M6ii + EF-M 22mm. Pocketable and highly recommended even though it is starting to get old. Depending on the situation I also use EF-M 32mm or 18-150mm. Both decent lenses, especially the 32mm. Very light k

Click to expand...

Your 'trusted compact' isn't yours alone.

It is mine, too, although when mass and volume really count, I substitute the M200 for the M6ii...and at times the 22 is replaced by another rather small lens--the 15-45 IS.

Relatively speaking...for both the M200 and any M-series camera, there's a relatively 'big' sensor inside a small package--a very small package in the case of the M200.

blackcoffee17 said:

Why is so hard to release a decent, small compact with modern sensor and processing that doesn't cost $1K+? Canon used to release a bunch of these yearly.

Click to expand...

Now...I don't traffic in bitcoin, and I also thought that Apple's retail stores in upscale shopping malls were doomed to fail...so when it comes to high finance I generally follow the advice of Clint Eastwood in one of his Dirty Harry movies: "A man's got to know his limitations."

But, Canon really missed an opportunity to truly dominate the small camera market, a market that they once did rule.

Truly dominate...in several ways.

In this area, Canon lost its nerve--and in a do-over post here on CR, I think The Joker (in The Dark Knight) was speaking to Canon here:


Maybe Canon has now found some courage?

I look forward to their next product releases...

Michael Clark said:

I was really lusting after an AE-1. But I found a used Konica FS-1 at a great price that was well less than half what a new AE-1 would cost. This allowed me to buy a zoom lens to complement the 40mm Hexanon prime that the camera had on it. The same Camera World location in Charlotte, NC had a used Kiron 28-210mm f/3.8-5.6 with a non-functional zoom lock knob that they sold me for a great price a couple pf weeks later. For a "super zoom" in the mid-1980s it was a pretty decent lens.

The FS-1 was one of the few bodies back then that had a shutter priority mode, just like the AE-1, instead of only aperture priority or manual. Though I didn't realize it at the time, the vertically travelling electronically controlled shutter was another advantage over the horizontally travelling cloth shutter curtains of the AE-1. And the built-in film winder was ahead of everyone back then, even if it was only something like 1 or 1.5 fps.

Click to expand...

I enjoyed my FS-1 and FT-1, and found them both quick to adjust while shooting. I really liked the FT-1's more rounded contours. Yep. They were 1 fps. And the shutter/advance mech didn't freak out and open the blades while advancing the film like my T-3n and T-4 did.

In the mirror box, both had an unpainted metal strip right below the shutter blades. This caused a flare on the film during very bright days. Unbelievable that two generations had this issue. Some flat black paint solved it.

Can canon just make a direct competitor to the Sony RX100 VII already? A compact with the same 24-200 range would be an automatic buy for me.

Exploreshootshare said:

Something small and compact would be great. Currently, I use the R8 with the 50mm F1.4 living on it.

Click to expand...

My trusted compact setup is M6ii + EF-M 22mm. Pocketable and highly recommended even though it is starting to get old. Depending on the situation I also use EF-M 32mm or 18-150mm. Both decent lenses, especially the 32mm. Very light kit.

New PowerShots Coming in 2026? ​

G1-X IV or bust!​

If there isn't a well-updated G1-X IV, then who cares? All the rest are toy cameras for TikTokers.

The G1-X series was a an advanced semi-pro camera in a small package with a larger APS-C sensor that delivered competitive IQ images, and had DSLR-competitive technical specs and flexibility as a back up camera but was small and light enough to be packed with your main gear without weighing you down. Canon abandoned that segment and filled it with point-and-shoots and TikTok video cameras. After waiting and waiting for years, I just bought the only reasonable replacement currently available: an R8.

Distinctly Average said:

I would definitely get myself into trouble in Aus. Last time I visited relatives in Adelaide I had a few encounters so to speak. I am just too fascinated by them.

Click to expand...

Out of the roughly 3000 snake bites a year here, only 1-2 (4?) deaths per year despite the different types of venomous snakes.
Good anti-venoms and first aid knowledge reduces the risk but I think that deliberately taking shots is the wild is a bit much... even for me.

I'm still waiting to shoot a blue-ringed or blue-lined octopus though. Very cute
I hate blue bottles with a passion though... very painful.

David - Sydney said:

The only snakes or spiders I would shoot in Australia would be in a zoo (or dead)!
Sharks are no problem though

Click to expand...

I would definitely get myself into trouble in Aus. Last time I visited relatives in Adelaide I had a few encounters so to speak. I am just too fascinated by them.


Fortunately I live in the UK where the air quality will do more harm than the fauna.
Here are a couple of old shots of our only venomous snake. Nobody has died from a bit from on in decades. They are quite placid and just flee from people. The second shot was taken with the EF-S 60 many years ago. I have plenty of newer ones but these are all I have on my phone..




People get quite nervous around hornets too but they are another species here that I find are approachable if you take care and heed their warnings.



The only little buggers I detest here are midges and horse flies. Both are the spawn of satan.

Exploreshootshare said:

Ooooh I can agree with that statement, the zoom mechanism of the EF 16-35mm F4 isn't sealed. Mine fell head over (the tripod fell down) into the beach sand... costly repair to get sand because through the zoom mechanism it got to "everywhere" inside the lens although it was really deep down in the sand. Just enough to reach the zoom mechanism...

Fortuneatly, it was at the very end of my trip to New Zealand (night 30 of 31). It just ruined my shots from one night

Click to expand...

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.

jim said:

The MP-E is heavy but also not the easiest to 'focus'. I find the long throw challenging when my subjects are very small and you have to gues what is the appropriate magnification. This is not going to happened, but I wish it had power focusing, using a rocker. That way my hands stay in position and I can rock back/forth and tweak to focus/magnification. I seem to remember something like this from Minolta...

Click to expand...

Yes, MP-E is difficult. For me the biggest problem is being able to find the angle that can accommodate the MT-24EX flash heads followed by trying to find the bloody target at all in higher magnifications. Usually I end up pulling it back for low mag and then trying to increase mag back up while keeping the target in sight. The focus aids are nice, but the delay affects them as well.

neuroanatomist said:

The EF 16-35/4 isn’t a true internal zoom lens. Technically, it’s an external zoom where the zoom mechanism moves entirely behind the front filter threads. The zoom mechanism is not weather sealed, and a front filter on the lens is required for water/dust resistance.

The RF 14-35/4 has a weather sealed zoom mechanism, and does not require a front filter for water/dust resistance.

Click to expand...

Ooooh I can agree with that statement, the zoom mechanism of the EF 16-35mm F4 isn't sealed. Mine fell head over (the tripod fell down) into the beach sand... costly repair to get sand because through the zoom mechanism it got to "everywhere" inside the lens although it was really deep down in the sand. Just enough to reach the zoom mechanism...

Fortuneatly, it was at the very end of my trip to New Zealand (night 30 of 31). It just ruined my shots from one night

liv_img said:

I will be happy with a small and modern Powershot G5 Mark III, made with the current technology, to have in my pocket to complement my EOS R5.

Click to expand...

Yes. If it is the size of a G7 X I will buy it for sure.

Stig Nygaard said:

I'm guessing you mean G5 X Mark III? (I always forget the X myself when talking about that series)

And in that case, I 200% agree

(There might also once have been a "just G5" series, but I hardly remember?)

Click to expand...

I, too, would much prefer a g5x replacement over a g7x, but the "new market" may not agree in that members of that market likely come from the smartphone era and have no idea of what to do with an EVF.

Of course, all of them will have 1.4" DPAF sensors, which is a good thing. That will limit the zoom length of any "super zoom".

liv_img said:

I will be happy with a small and modern Powershot G5 Mark III, made with the current technology, to have in my pocket to complement my EOS R5.

Click to expand...

I'm guessing you mean G5 X Mark III? (I always forget the X myself when talking about that series)

And in that case, I 200% agree

(There might also once have been a "just G5" series, but I hardly remember?)

The “new technology” Canon has spoken about could be anything and as the definition of “new” can be ambiguous. New for a compact, or new for the entire industry?

Click to expand...

Or maybe they just mean that they are not just restarting or increasing production of an old model like G7X Mark III or SX740 HS. It was very unclear, and if something also could have been lost in translation...

There was a direct mention of a brand new PowerShot G7 Series camera, what won't be called a “Mark IV”. All that was mentioned is that it would have a fast constant aperture lens.

Click to expand...

Well, if it has a builtin (popup?) EVF, that sounds like it would be an instant buy for me

"Super Zoom" is a broad term. It could be a 740hs replacement or a G3x replacement. Personally, I would prefer the latter. I have a P1000, and it is an interesting and useful camera (after you figure out its idiosyncrasies), but it is HUGE and in no way could be called a "compact" camera. A G3x zoom range with the V1 sensor and aggressive electronic lens correction could be close to the same size as the G3x and that would be pretty cool.

Michael Clark said:

If your thing is reproducing the corners of flat test charts almost as well as the center of flat test charts, then the EF 135mm f/2 L is not your lens.

If, on the other hand, your intent is to create photos of a three dimensional world that has sharp rendering of your subjects and smooth rendering of the foreground and background with color and contrast that are sublime, then there's still no lens that can touch the EF 135mm f/2 L.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't get it, what are you actually saying?
Are you trying to say, that my statement of the Sigma 135/1.8 being superior is false, and the Canon is rendering subjects sharper and has smoother foreground and background than the Sigma, despite such a destroying test result for example?

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Is that what you want to say?

I like content like this. Makes my morning while I prep. Thanks!

"I have never been so cold, and I'm Canadian"

Wow, as a fellow Canuck from BC who has spent meaningful time way, way up north... that sets the bar.

I will be happy with a small and modern Powershot G5 Mark III, made with the current technology, to have in my pocket to complement my EOS R5.

Michael Clark said:

Meh. People sometimes act like they think anything not 'fully weather sealed' is an open truss design.

Every EF lens I've ever seen has weather and dust resistance to one degree or another. Unless you can immerse it in water for more than a few seconds without worry, it's not truly "weather sealed". It's just slightly more weather resistant than without the filter. Even without a filter on the front, there's still a good bit of resistance to dust and water getting in through those very narrow clearances between the inner and outer barrels. And as Roger Cicala has said many times: "Weather sealing still means, 'the warranty doesn’t cover water damage.'" That's why he prefers calling most cameras and lenses "weather resistant" rather than "weather sealed".

I've occasionally used an EF 17-40mm f/4 L in rainy conditions shooting field sports without a filter on the front without ever having any issue with water getting in. And it's the one lens I use without a hood, because the hood is so comically wide as to be practically useless. If it rains more than a drizzle I do put plastic OP/TECH covers over cameras and lenses. But they're not "weather sealed" either, and nothing is covering the front of the lens.

Click to expand...

My 24-70 f/4 with its zoom barrel has survived torrential west coast rain, quantities of reindeer snot and mud, and other such nuisance. For years. I use a high quality UV filter on the front.

I think that all progress is progress, so bravo Canon by making an even more sealed lens, but with appropriate respect and post-event care a solid EF lens is more than capable in the elements.

I also have the 16-35 f/4 lens. With an appropriate front filter I don’t even blink getting it outdoors in all kinds of conditions. And hey, its barrel doesn’t move unlike my still very reliable 24-70.

And yes: the warranty doesn’t cover water. Enjoy your equipment responsibly. Or at least yell with enthusiasm as you swing your lens up in the sky while stepping over fallen Sony and Nikon photographers as you head unto the breach!

Del Paso said:

To be honest, the only Konica I was tempted to buy was the Hexar RF with interchangeable lenses. Yet, I resisted (being broke...)

Click to expand...

I was really lusting after an AE-1. But I found a used Konica FS-1 at a great price that was well less than half what a new AE-1 would cost. This allowed me to buy a zoom lens to complement the 40mm Hexanon prime that the camera had on it. The same Camera World location in Charlotte, NC had a used Kiron 28-210mm f/3.8-5.6 with a non-functional zoom lock knob that they sold me for a great price a couple pf weeks later. For a "super zoom" in the mid-1980s it was a pretty decent lens.

The FS-1 was one of the few bodies back then that had a shutter priority mode, just like the AE-1, instead of only aperture priority or manual. Though I didn't realize it at the time, the vertically travelling electronically controlled shutter was another advantage over the horizontally travelling cloth shutter curtains of the AE-1. And the built-in film winder was ahead of everyone back then, even if it was only something like 1 or 1.5 fps.

Why is so hard to release a decent, small compact with modern sensor and processing that doesn't cost $1K+? Canon used to release a bunch of these yearly.

Michael Clark said:

But what percentage of total ILC sales (both units or revenue) are FF mirrorless or MF mirrorless? What percentage are formats smaller than FF, either MILCs or DSLRs? There are far more APS-C and smaller format ILCs being sold than FF + MF being sold.

Click to expand...

APS-C and m4/3 were ~63% of ILC unit sales (and only ~44% of revenue) in 2025. The relative proportions have been shifting over the past few years – 6-7 years ago, around 90% of the ILC market was APS-C. 2-3 years ago it was ~75%. So buyers are continuing to shift from APS-C to FF (MF doesn't sell enough units to matter, really). Revenues shifted faster at first but pace of that has slowed down a bit, both probably due in large part to Canon's launch of relatively affordable FF MILCs like the RP and R8, and both Canon and Sony keeping in their 'current' catalog old models like the RP and a7III.

Oh im curious what comes maybe a new hs740 with raw and a big sensor, or a V3 or a new G5.
I cant wait