I've said it on CR many times. I want R7ii to have stacked CMOS so I don't need to get R5ii. And the current RF lenses&EF+speedbooster I have suits APS-C.

Ozarker said:

Good Lord, my camera is already 7?!

Click to expand...

They grow so fast!

Traveler said:

I don't understand why no one hasn't came up with an iphone-like camera that would fix the issues that a smartphone has – because it also needs to serve as a smartphone.

Unlike all compact cameras, it would use multiple FIXED lenses or some combination of a zoom and fixed. Compact cameras rarely have anything wide because it is hard to make a small zoom that goes from ultra-wide to tele. But a combination of a zoom and fixed ~16mm would work or an array of fixed lenses. Digital zoom between them.

Click to expand...

There was the Light L16, a bizarre camera that had 16 lenses (hence its name), although it had multiple lenses of only 3 focal lengths. The concept was that it'd use computational software to make high quality images of your desired focal length. It cost $65 million to develop and was a complete failure. Not because it didn't sell (well, yes actually) but because it didn't even work. It'd crash, fail, freeze, etc. If you happened to actually get photos, they looked lousy.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY7h6Z95syA

There's been a handful of "cameras with phones attached", notably from Samsung and Nokia. The Samsungs were Galaxy Androids. There's also been a number of phones that were designed to have camera modules attached that provide grip, shutter buttons, etc. The Xiaomi 15 Ultra is a current phone that was designed this way (and with Leica branding). There's been some kickstarter doohickeys and other kludged grips for existing phones, but these aren't quite that same idea.

I don't understand why no one hasn't came up with an iphone-like camera that would fix the issues that a smartphone has – because it also needs to serve as a smartphone.

Unlike all compact cameras, it would use multiple FIXED lenses or some combination of a zoom and fixed. Compact cameras rarely have anything wide because it is hard to make a small zoom that goes from ultra-wide to tele. But a combination of a zoom and fixed ~16mm would work or an array of fixed lenses. Digital zoom between them.

Why I don't use a phone as a camera:
1) Limited physical controls
-> the screen can be smaller that the ones on a phone so there is some room for a dial or at least some buttons next/underneath. The camera can be thicker so there is a room for a shutter button or even a dial.

2) No articulated screen, this is huge for me
–> I know articulated screen adds quite some bulk to it but.. it doesn't need to be iPhone Air

3) Using my phone as a camera drains the battery
-> a dedicated camera would solve that

4) The lenses are always dirty
-> a lens cap or "shutter" mechanism or a sliding lid or anything like that

I don't mind whether it uses internal battery and memory or not. It's fine if the screen resolution is not as high as the one on a phone. I don't need cellular data in etc. Just something that fits my pocket but can do ultra wide to tele (at least 50mm)

It kinda seems to me that some of the companies are paying vague attention to the digicam and compact camera resurgence with a few dipping their toes back into the water. Panasonic sorta reintroduced the TZ-95 (minus the viewfinder) as the TZ-99, Sony started making the RX100 VII again and made the VIIa for the European market, and Canon is producing the G7X III and the ELPH 360HS again. I had an ELPH 360HS, before I knew anything about "real" cameras. Now that I know more, I understand why it sucked. Initially I was surprised they chose that camera to revive, but I remembered that it was a very popular camera for them, so it makes sense.

I have a Nikon J5 with the 6.7-13mm (18-35mm equivalent) and I really like it for its wide angle range and small size. I picked it up before I got my a6700 with Sigma 10-18mm or my RX100 VII, both or which are much better cameras, but I'm keeping the J5 because it goes wider than the RX100 and it's way smaller than the a6700. I read about the DL line only recently, and lament that the line was never realized. Those would have been awesome, and if they had been made would probably be reselling for a massive premium these days. Sucks that Nikon killed the N1 line too, but I understand why. I wish they produced the V4 first though, although the 70-300mm has definite durability issues.

Cell phones killed the compact camera, but I think the revival of interest in them isn't just because of fads from tiktok or whatever. I think people are remembering (and dusting off, if they still have them) the digicams because they were more versatile and more fun to use than the 2 or 3 fixed-focus lenses on their phones. I'm hoping the few revived cameras do well, but I'm not particularly optimistic. For one, they're too expensive. The RX100 VII was already very expensive before the price increases, and now it's way too expensive. It seems almost like the G7X III's best selling point is that it's not as expensive as the RX100. They're also old. I can understand the companies not wanting to spend the money to develop new cameras at the risk of them not selling well, with it being much cheaper just to produce old ones. But that means that they also won't sell as well as new models would, leaving the companies with a false sense of the potential market.

Professional compact should have a APS-C sensor and a good EVF. G-series used to be at least semipro.

Buffer and FPS matching or exceeding R5, body, dimensions, ergonomics, operations and materials of R5; I would not mind paying R6 or higher money for it. I would even sacrifice the pixel count down to 25MP or so to make it faster and less noisy. Let it be a spiritual successor of 7D MKII, which the R7 isn't.

Canon, please learn from your fellow Japanese company, ICOM when it just released the IC-7300 MKII - listen to your customers.

Walrus said:

They are (pics where screen grabs, not even exports, to show lens used), it's just I don't have any medium/long distance shots, because I only used the combination indoor for closeup art nudes details, so the DoF is always razor thin, and it's not easy to show you examples because I have to censor the parts that are actually in focus.
I guess the following belly button, that I can post full size (hope it opens that way when you click and then zoom) and with no censor, show how sharp it felt (it's f11 in this instance), on the very thin focus plane you can see single body hairs, and the texture of the skin

View attachment 226697


This instead is the EF 70-200 f2.8 L classic (non-IS) with the same EF2.0 II extender, again at f11

View attachment 226698

Click to expand...

At f/11 most lenses are sharp unless diffraction has already started to have a noticeable effect. I'd say the biggest difference in "sharpness" between the first and second example above is more due to the amount of light in the scene than anything else. That, and the area of sharpest focus in the second image is in the darker foreground area rather than the most brightly illuminated parts of your subject. The sharpest part of the fabric is definitely right at the foreground terminator line between shadow and light.

In all seriousness...with no snark intended:

Canon has really dropped the ball on this...this being a truly pocketable full-featured (rather small sensor) modern camera.

It is as if the company has lost its courage.

SvO2 said:

I don’t know how canon does things, but microstepping is a thing for stepping motors.

Click to expand...

CNC

Canon Rumors said:

Well, Canon's not really going to appease to a camera that is 7 years old.

IS adds size and cost, and that seems to be against the two big things about this design. This is also f/1.2......

Click to expand...

Good Lord, my camera is already 7?!

Walrus said:

This is what EF 50 1.4 look on Canon R against RF 50 1.8 and Sigma 40 1.4 Art

https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...d-party-lens-manufacturers.43295/#post-987288

And no, it's not sharp

Click to expand...

I was looking at the physical size, but the result is important too. I had a 50/1.4 Canon for several years. It wasn't stellar but it wasn't as soft as the images you've provided. And by f/2, it was very sharp in the middle. 2.8, sharp across the field.

I no longer have the 50/1.4 EF lens, but I do have an EF 50/1.2L. It, too, has its weaknesses, well known as characteristics of the gaussian-derived design. This new one looks like it could be an improvement on the EF 50/1.2L, but the proof is in the actual results.

I don't do a lot of imaging where the 50/1.2 would excel, so I'm not willing to spend huge money on it. But if this 45/1.2 is optically very good, I might give it a go.

Dragon said:

Rain donuts .

Click to expand...

Click said:

Another very nice series, Dragon. Pretty cool with the raindrops.

Click to expand...

Rain donuts .

Another very nice series, Dragon. Pretty cool with the raindrops.

A Whitetail Doe, her fawn and Granny! Taken with my Canon R8 and RF 600mm f11

Hummingbird reflections continued---. This is a Canon new FD 500mm f/8 mirror lens on the M6 II as it has more aggressive focus peaking than the R7. This lens has a better t-stop than the Solid Cat and one of the easiest to focus. MFD is about 13 ft, so workable for my small birds. A dark and rainy day, so all shot at ISO 6400 and pushed at least a stop in post, so effectively 12,800. DXO PhotoLab did the best job of recovering detail and color followed by Topaz for sharpening. The birds were hungry in the cold weather, so lots of opportunity for shots. All handheld at 1/640, so right on the edge of motion blur from both the camera and the birds.

STN12 said:

I've had a hefty sigma 50 1.4 ART for a few years, worked with it on 5D3 and 4, then R6 and R6II, I've never been happier trading a lens than this one: it never matched the image quality of my L lenses fleet, you could easily tell which photos were shot with it, and not in a pleasant way. Finally found a EF 50 1.2 at an irresistible price, it's easily the best 50mm i've ever used: it is plenty sharp at any aperture above 1.6, in any part of the image, it's very three-dimensional even at f4 or 5.6 when shooting group photos. unbelievable. the only downside is, it's an old lens with an old focus motor, it does not support the full burst capabilities of the EOS-R cameras, it's blackout time between shots is a little bit more noticeable than more recent lenses, but that is it. it's half the size of the 50ART, which, I almost forgot, happened to fail me twice, on paid jobs: once, the lens mount screws got loose, luckily I found a hardware store halfway between the wedding ceremony and reception, and fixed it while my assistant covered the aperitivo (hello from italy!). another time, again working at a wedding, one screw got loose and the whole lens group moved inside the barrel. luckily, everything worked anyway, it did focus (thanks mirrorless system!), so I could keep on working. I was checking focus a lot more often than i normally do.

if this 45 is real, its image quality matches the EF 50 1.2, has good 2026 focusing capability, and it's not going to break the bank, i think i'm going to have one permanently mounted to my R6.

Click to expand...

Anche al mio si erano allentate le viti e ballava un po' dopo 6 mesi circa dall'acquisto (nuovo), me l'han sistemato in garanzia anche se era europea e non italiana (per questo motivo non ho potuto portarlo direttamente in assistenza, l'ho dovuto spedire a Galaxiastore, da cui l'avevo comprato, con etichetta prepagata mandata da loro, lo han fatto poi riparare loro e me lo hanno rimandato, turnover totale circa 3 settimane), da lì ha lavorato quasi 10 anni senza mai più un problema. Venduto solo per passare al 40 Art, ma lo ricomprerei domattina, obiettivo splendido.

Evidentemente aveva rogne di progetto il 50mm se ad entrambi si sono mollate le viti, ho tutt'ora altri tre Sigma Art (40 e 105 fissi e 24-105) e non ho mai più avuto mezzo problema.

Sounds like just the lens I am after, I have to say the brand that starts with an "S" has a 200-600 that multiple friends of mine own or have supplied by employers and love. Being F4-5.6 is a big plus over the other brand, really makes it usable for what I do and am hoping for reality in this one, hoping it is indeed arriving. I heavly use an ef version of 400 2.8 (fantastic lens), the potential/hopeful weight savings would also be a plus. I have to say the 200-600 with the incentives along with the weight of their 400 2.8 paired with discounts on the other company's equipment has definitely made switching attractive, but I despise the ergonomics of the company's cameras that begin with "S".

mariosk1gr said:

If only c50 could have IBIS I believe that would a different story! Now this is a c50 without fan but with IBIS! I know you can't have it all with Canon but at least that is something..!

Click to expand...

With the GH5S Panasonic made the same no-IBIS decision, because that's what videographers wanted.

Chickadee

If only c50 could have IBIS I believe that would a different story! Now this is a c50 without fan but with IBIS! I know you can't have it all with Canon but at least that is something..!

miker33 said:

On par with the EF 50mm f/1.2L USM, huh? So sharp in the middle, not so much in the corners. Too bad, was hoping to replace my hefty Sigma 50mm 1.4, which is sharp corner to corner but heavy enough on its own, let alone with the mount adapter.

Click to expand...

I've had a hefty sigma 50 1.4 ART for a few years, worked with it on 5D3 and 4, then R6 and R6II, I've never been happier trading a lens than this one: it never matched the image quality of my L lenses fleet, you could easily tell which photos were shot with it, and not in a pleasant way. Finally found a EF 50 1.2 at an irresistible price, it's easily the best 50mm i've ever used: it is plenty sharp at any aperture above 1.6, in any part of the image, it's very three-dimensional even at f4 or 5.6 when shooting group photos. unbelievable. the only downside is, it's an old lens with an old focus motor, it does not support the full burst capabilities of the EOS-R cameras, it's blackout time between shots is a little bit more noticeable than more recent lenses, but that is it. it's half the size of the 50ART, which, I almost forgot, happened to fail me twice, on paid jobs: once, the lens mount screws got loose, luckily I found a hardware store halfway between the wedding ceremony and reception, and fixed it while my assistant covered the aperitivo (hello from italy!). another time, again working at a wedding, one screw got loose and the whole lens group moved inside the barrel. luckily, everything worked anyway, it did focus (thanks mirrorless system!), so I could keep on working. I was checking focus a lot more often than i normally do.

if this 45 is real, its image quality matches the EF 50 1.2, has good 2026 focusing capability, and it's not going to break the bank, i think i'm going to have one permanently mounted to my R6.

P-visie said:

I’m not one of those “believers”. Yes I would like to have optically corrected lenses, but those have a cost, in price, size and weight. @neuroanatomist frequently challenged those who would state that optical corrections are superior to digital corrections, but AFAIK, no one could deliver the ‘evidence’.

I can only speak from experience of the EF 11-24mm f4 lens, optically corrected, and the RF 10-20mm f4, which relies on digital corrections a.o. to fill the corners of the frame from 10-13mm and correct distortion and vignetting. When you pixel peep at corners, it is hard to tell them apart. Corner image quality of the EF lens was not it’s strong point.
The EF lens weighs 1180 gram and is big, the RF 10-20mm weighs 570 gram and is compact. I frequently left the EF lens at home because of the weight and size (it would not fit into my 40 liter backpack when filled with 2 bodies and 3-4 other lenses and filters). I know which lens I prefer.

Uses cases where optical corrections can be superior:

• Astrophotography where ‘stretching’ the image corners to fill the frame might result in distorted stars. The RF20mm f1.4 VCM shows that digital corrections without distortions are possible (see this thread by @neuroanatomist).
• Stitching panorama’s and focus stacking.
• Severe lens vignetting (3-4 stops) needs a lot ‘burning’ ‘dodging’ to lighten the image corners. This causes noise in the corners of the image. When you need to lift the shadows of the image by 1 -2 stops, you would get 4-6 stops of brightness correction in the corners of the image. This would have a visible negative impact on image quality.

To be exact: It is Adobe Camera RAW that has the lens profiles, not Photoshop (sorry couldn’t resist ).

Click to expand...

I can see how digital vs optical corrections is an issue for some. I guess, for me, it isn't. I mainly do portraits. I like a little vignette sometimes. I never peek at anything. Thank you.