Keithf2.8is said:

I strongly believe many pros, and semi-pros, would purchase an R7 MII as soon as it was available. I say this because of all the talk and videos I've seen on how hungry the public is for this R7 MII.

Click to expand...

With respect, I strongly believe that Canon’s market research data is more quantitative, more accurate and more relevant than ‘all the talk and videos’ you’ve seen.

neuroanatomist said:

The line moved downmarket with the R7. The concept of a ‘flagship APS-C’ isn’t really relevant. Lens sales are very profitable for Canon, they likely want high-end users to buy FF bodies and lenses.

Click to expand...

In a way I agree they want us to buy FF bodies, but that isn't reality for many of us or what we're looking for. A robust APS-C body is highly desired to use as a backup and for special gigs. A FF body isn't what I need, I already own 2. I need a more advanced APS-C body, that can take a vertical grip, and the 1.6 crop factor so my 70-200 2.8 becomes a 112-320. Purchasing a 100-300 2.8, even used, is not an option. I strongly believe many pros, and semi-pros, would purchase an R7 MII as soon as it was available. I say this because of all the talk and videos I've seen on how hungry the public is for this R7 MII.

Sporgon said:

When adding the little grip extender to the RP I found it to be one of the most comfortable cameras to hold (without large lenses) that I’ve ever held. The smaller battery and grip size is an important part of that.

Click to expand...

I don't find it particularly comfortable to hold, which is why I use a 1-series for my everyday camera. Instead of the grip extension, I use the RRS modular L-bracket that provides the same form factor on the bottom, which is tolerable for me (whereas without that extension, it would be very uncomfortable to use). Having said that, I don't handhold the R8 much – it's on a tripod or in a shoulder bag and pulled out just to take a couple of shots.

When adding the little grip extender to the RP I found it to be one of the most comfortable cameras to hold (without large lenses) that I’ve ever held. The smaller battery and grip size is an important part of that.
The only reason I sold it and bought an R6 was because I wanted to use manual lenses and the R6 is much better in this regard for a number of reasons.

From a photo standpoint, I would still like to see Canon bring the burst mode over from the R3 to the R1, perhaps with a bit more useful implementation. But it’s kind of perplexing that the R3 can shoot at 195fps with a slower sensor and processor, while the R1 is capped at 40fps. Some of the firearms events I photograph could certainly benefit from additional frames when we are trying catch massive gunpowder plumes exiting a barrel or capturing bullets in midair. I’m actually considering renting a Sony A9III just for these events.

On the video side, Canon made some odd choices over the past few releases. Allowing users to have False Color as an exposure tool is my personal preference. It has been great to see the R1/R5II/R6II and now the R6III ship with it. However, Canon won’t let you use LOG View Assist at the same time on the older models. The R6III, C50, C400, C70, C80 each allow for view assist to be enabled and then you can still toggle false color on/off to check exposure. This is how you film! You check it quickly and turn it off!! It’s a really strange limitation and was something I was sure they would have fixed by now. The only workaround is using an external monitor with a built-in LUT. Obviously, many of us are expecting this firmware to introduce open gate to the R1/R5II because the sensor and processor speeds should, in theory, be very capable of handling. I’m not holding my breath right now. I don’t believe Canon will bring over anything major to either camera this late in their lifecycle…but fingers crossed!

**Most issue with cameras locking up and overheating seem to come from the memory cards. CFExpress Type B cards are finicky, should ideally be formatted inside each camera they are used in, can generate a lot of heat at idle, and aren’t created equal within the same brand or even the same product line. I have a couple cards that only lock up my R5II consistently, but work flawlessly in the C400 or R6III. I suppose that’s why Canon has a recommended list.

AlanF said:

The lesson is: don't touch what you don't know otherwise you might get into a sticky mess!

Click to expand...

Are you quoting from King Charles’s speech to the US Congress later this week?

Canon Rumors said:

You can use a PZ lens like any other lens. It just zooms by wire instead of traditional gears.

Click to expand...

Any more updates on this rumor? Or extra photos of the lens? Thank you!

neuroanatomist said:

Note that reports of Canon 'patents' here and on other sites (e.g., Canon News) are generally of the published application. That happens 18 months after the application is filed, long before it is granted (and the patent claims will likely be modified based on examiner feedback).

Click to expand...

Ah, thanks for the clarification! And good to understand the solid nature of what's being discussed in these situations.

DocInfoSci said:

Plus, patents are usually only granted after extended periods of research, lack of challenges, etc. so most anything new listed as a patent is actually a pending patent.

Click to expand...

Note that reports of Canon 'patents' here and on other sites (e.g., Canon News) are generally of the published application. That happens 18 months after the application is filed, long before it is granted (and the patent claims will likely be modified based on examiner feedback).

Cool shots, Maximilian.

John D P said:

Apparently, the patent for an "L" series lens is rarely released ahead of the lens.

Click to expand...

Patents are a weird game. They are public information, so tip the hand of whomever files them; yet they also protect the specifics of the implementation as described in the patent. If the vendor includes lots of detail they receive very specific protection, but they also give the competition ideas and there's usually more than one way to achieve a mechanical / structural effect. If they include little detail they get some protection but mostly just tell the world what they're up to. Plus, patents are usually only granted after extended periods of research, lack of challenges, etc. so most anything new listed as a patent is actually a pending patent.

Del Paso said:

Mine has been till now 100% reliable. Never freezing, never "error" warnings.
Only battery life could be better and the video/stills switch could be customisable. I never do video and, before using duct tape to cover it, I often inadvertently switched it on video.
But otherwise, I'm extremely satisfied with the R5 II !
Edit: I forgot the stupid and useless info when reviewing the first picture.

Click to expand...

Last month I had a loaner I got from CPS to do a wedding and it locked up twice during the day - frozen on aperture and shutter values I hadn't entered. I had to pull the battery both times as it wouldn't switch off.

Eric84 said:

I know that the body would have to be a little bit bigger, but if they are making a mkII there will have to be some improvements

Click to expand...

More than a little bit bigger, which for some would be a significant negative and not at all an improvement.

Personally, I like that the R8 uses the LP-E17, because it shares that battery with other cameras that I have and often travel with – the PowerShot V1, M6II and my full spectrum M6. Three of those bodies can charge the battery in-camera, meaning I don't even need to bring the wall-wart charger.

amorse said:

Maybe I'm out of the loop, but the R5 mark ii has been the best camera I've ever used. I agree the battery indicator on the top window while the camera is off would be nice, but I can't say the R5 mark ii has let me down really at all.

Click to expand...

After the major update that was expected in February but never arrived, there’s been some disappointment. On the R5 Mark II, IBIS in video can show a ‘jello/jelly’ effect in the corners in some scenarios. The Q menu is still quite limited. Photo and video color pipelines are separate; a more unified and consistent system between Log and Picture Style—like Sony’s Cine Tone—would be really nice.

Note: I don’t like that info notification either.

New features in so called "Pro bodies" within May?
This let me think the RF 20-50mm f/4L IS USM PZ to be ready for remote zooming by using Camera Connect.
A nice selling point aside it likely to be rigid in less than ideal conditions by non extending no matter zooming or focussing.Will the housing been borrowed from the RF 10-20 f/4L?

I like the texture and the colour. Nicely done, ISv.

neuroanatomist said:

The camera would need to be larger.

To sum up several posts (not singling yours out)…why not just make the R8 the R6 but keep the R8 price? Because…no.

Click to expand...

Hehe, yeah, there are so many posts with upgrade wished that basically make the R8 a mini R6. That's why I had list in my post and said a maximum of two upgraded or new features are possible. Canon being Canon they might even just give it a new design be through with it.

I really like your shots, ISv. I think the background looks just right to me. Nicely done!

amorse said:

Maybe I'm out of the loop, but the R5 mark ii has been the best camera I've ever used. I agree the battery indicator on the top window while the camera is off would be nice, but I can't say the R5 mark ii has let me down really at all.

Click to expand...

Mine has been till now 100% reliable. Never freezing, never "error" warnings.
Only battery life could be better and the video/stills switch could be customisable. I never do video and, before using duct tape to cover it, I often inadvertently switched it on video.
But otherwise, I'm extremely satisfied with the R5 II !
Edit: I forgot the stupid and useless info when reviewing the first picture.

I really like the metallic green colour.

safak said:

Let the battery level show on the top LCD when the camera is off—that’s all I want. I don’t really have high expectations from Canon anymore, thanks Canon (r5 mk ii).

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm out of the loop, but the R5 mark ii has been the best camera I've ever used. I agree the battery indicator on the top window while the camera is off would be nice, but I can't say the R5 mark ii has let me down really at all.

Let the battery level show on the top LCD when the camera is off—that’s all I want. I don’t really have high expectations from Canon anymore, thanks Canon (r5 mk ii).

I shoot wildlife and larger birds (eagles, etc). Currently using two R5m2s with the 100-500 and 70-200mm f2.8 Z. The 100-500mm is my workhorse and I really love this lens. But I want to upgrade to faster glass and the extra 100mm of reach. I really want the improved Bokeh and low light advantages of faster glass.

Looking at patents is fun, but unrealistic. Apparently, the patent for an "L" series lens is rarely released ahead of the lens. Canon should update their EF 400mm f2.8 and 600mm f4 lens adapted to the RF mount, soon. Nikon released their 400 2.8 with the teleconverter in 2022, which is very popular due to the increased versatility and convenience. Actually, both Canon & Sony have done nothing to respond. I will be amazed if Canon updates their 400 & 600mm without built in teleconverters.

Yes, I have been envious of Nikon's long glass options, but not their cameras (my opinion). I have considered buying a Nikon long glass setup. I've debated the old EF 200-400 f4 ( released in 2013) with the built in teleconverter, but not in love with 8lb weight. It's actually pretty sad that I'm looking back at a 13 year old lens as an upgrade! I have high hopes Canon is going to wake up and upgrade their long glass options. I've watched the rumored 200-500 f4 (which I would have bought) transform into the 300-600mm fixed 5.6. In my opinion, a proposed $7000 fixed 5.6 lens is a disappointment for the money and a minimal upgrade from the 100-500. I love the versatility of a zoom for wildlife, but I've come to the realization that I need a prime. So, if they release a new RF 400mm f2.8 with a switchable teleconverter (providing 400 & 560mm like the Nikon); I'm going to buy it. If not I'll buy a used RF 400mm 2.8 and do the teleconverter juggle. There I've made a decision. Now, it's Canon's turn to release some lens in the next 6 months! I'm almost 70 years old; it doesn't do me any good if I'm in a nursing home when you finally release the lens I want!!!!

SnowMiku said:

I also wish the R8 II would have the same battery as the R6 II, but the R8 is smaller and market segmentation.

Click to expand...

I know that the body would have to be a little bit bigger, but if they are making a mkII there will have to be some improvements