Latest activity

ctk · Oct 31, 2025

I will have to check again to see what lenses are available for RF-S. IIRC it's a pretty complete system. Like @Exploreshootshare said this would leave room for an IBIS equipped R10. Though to be honest, that's kind of what the R7 could become if they don't discontinue it.

candyman · Oct 31, 2025

This pose makes it seem like the robin is intently observing the world. But it's more likely that he's keeping a close eye on the birds of prey.

Canon EOS R5 Mark II
EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM
Shot at 371mm with f/5.6, ISO 8000, 1/640
Manual
Distance: 6 meter
DxO PureRAW 5

Michael Clark · Oct 31, 2025

AJ said:
If your competition has a gas well and you own the pipeline to market, then you have control. You don't shut out that well - you profit from it through transportation fees.

If your pipeline traverses another country and the government of that country seizes it, then what do you have?

Michael Clark · Oct 31, 2025

AJ said:
It seems like the options up for discussion are (1) open mount, or (2) completely closed mount.
But there is a third option: license. Canon could make a profit on each Yuongno, Meike, Samyang, 7artisans, and whatnot, RF lens sold.
Maybe people would buy a third-party lens, get fed up with it, and then buy the Canon equivalent. Canon would profit twice.
I really don't understand why they haven't gone after licensing more, aside a few piddly Sigma RF-S lenses.
In business, there is value in keeping the competition on a short leash. I used to be in the oil and gas business. If your competition has a gas well and you own the pipeline to market, then you have control. You don't shut out that well - you profit from it through transportation fees.

Licensing to Chinese companies is the same thing as making it an open mount. That's because China does not, for the most part, enforce intellectual property laws for IP held by non-Chinese entities. Give one Chinese company the technology and license them to produce 50,000 copies of a lens, and the next thing you know there are 18 Chinese companies pumping out 100,000 copies. Each.

Exploreshootshare · Oct 31, 2025

To me, it makes sense. Make it a real wildlife pro camera and move it up in the line-up. The R10 could be become what essentially is the current R7: An APS-C all-around camera equipped with IBIS.

I´d bet that the R7ii will be compatible with a BG!

Michael Clark · Oct 31, 2025

Quackator said:
And I am still on the fence for a reasonably priced pre-owned 2.8/120-300mm SPORTS.

I had one for a while. It's only one copy, so it's anecdotal. I bought it used from map camera in Japan.

It wasn't a whole lot better from 200-300mm than just using my EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II and cropping.

This was with a Canon 7D Mark II and exhaustive use of the Sigma dock to adjust/test/adjust/test/ad nauseum the lens to the specific camera body at the distances I used it for field sports. And it weighed as much as a bowling ball. I sold it after I stopped doing field sports in 2023.

Admittedly, I either have the sharpest EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II around or I use better technique than anyone else who shoots with that lens whose full resolution files I have access to. I highly doubt it is the latter. It seems to be even slightly sharper now, after Canon replaced the IS unit in 2019, than when it was new in 2010. Maybe the pixel density of the 20 MP APS-C 7D Mark II (about the same pixel density as the 50 MP EOD 5Ds/5Ds R) has something to do with it?

Walrus · Oct 31, 2025

Michael Clark said:
Well, I guess if you consider those shots to be sharp... (maybe it's the resizing?)

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

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

AlanF · Oct 31, 2025

Dragon said:
Swarovski includes the warranty in the pricing .

It's all very odd. They have this very strange business model based on quality, durability and an after sales service for even their cheapest models, and people still buy them. The serious birders must be off their heads as 9/10 here have a pair of their binoculars. Fortunately, we don't have to put up with such nonsense from the camera makers unless we buy their top of the range goods.

Richard CR · Oct 31, 2025

I usually complain about Canon quite a bit in this regard, but I’m going to set my sights on someone else as well this time. But first, we need to complain about Canon. The PowerShot G7X Series The G7X series was a beautiful compact camera and the last of its kind from Canon. Canon now […]

See full article...

davidespinosa · Oct 31, 2025

ICYMI, here's the updated photo of the 45mm f/1.2:

https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-eos-r6-mark-iii-rf-45mm-f-1-2-stm-latest-specifications/

Michael Clark · Oct 31, 2025

DhlcadR6 said:
No mention of Yongnuo? They made their long way from reverse engineer NifftyFiffty to better price-performance ratio 50/85mm f1.8 than Canon/Sony /Nikon.

EF mount was never open officially like Sony E and Fuji X ever did. It was open because it was out more than 10 years. And times were slower back in the days.

Right now Canon needs to bring more affordable zooms. Cheap primes both Canon and Yongnuo provide adequate amount. And RF-S has Sigma covered.

I bought a Yongnuo 35mm f/2 a while back. I used it maybe four times taking a total of less than 100 frames. For a sub $100 lens, the images weren't too bad if stopped down to f/2.8 or narrower, but f/2 was horrible.

Then the aperture quit working. It will not stop down. Period. So now it's a $99 paperweight.

Michael Clark · Oct 31, 2025

speg said:
Is the R10 the best we’re going to get? How does this compare to the R50V? I don’t really need video so it seems silly to get such a video centric unit. But I want something small and compact for traveling with the family. I’ll probably keep the 28mm on it most of the time for ultimate portability.

If all I wanted to use was a 28mm lens, I'd leave the camera bag at home and just use my phone.

Michael Clark · Oct 31, 2025

Has anyone had any compatibility issues with the newer cameras?

I haven't. But then I haven't used any of my Flashpoint/Godox lights with the newer cameras.

Sorry no one who has actually used them with newer bodies hasn't answered you!

But I think things like real lights and modifiers are more things actual photographers would be worried about, rather than what gearhead fanboys who haven't a clue how to actually light a portrait are concerned with.

Exploreshootshare · Oct 31, 2025

Alastair Norcross said:
What I hope for and expect with any lens, especially L lenses, is for the actual images they produce, using whatever corrections they are designed for (optical, digital, or both) to be really good. Since the images from the VCM lenses are not just really good, but actually outstanding, I also think they are a remarkable accomplishment. I own and use four of them (24, 35, 50, 85), so I actually know what I'm talking about (unlike people who tiresomely scream "but digital corrections, but digital corrections" over and over and over, without actually owning and using the lenses). When I bought my 50 F1.4, I thought I might hang onto my RF 50 F1.2, which is a truly wonderful lens. However, I just didn't find myself using it. The results from the VCM version are just as good, no-one notices the 1/3 stop difference between F1.2 and F1.4, and the VCM version is so much smaller and lighter. So I've just sold my F1.2. The latest, which is the 85 F1.4, is my favorite 85 ever. It's just superb. You can, of course, stick your head in the mud, ignore the fact that designing lenses for digital corrections (which the VCM lenses employ to a greater or lesser extent, depending on which lens we're talking about--the 85 probably the least) makes possible not just particular body designs but also the kinds of optical performance that would be hard, if not impossible, to achieve with optical corrections only, and thereby miss out on some fabulous lenses. Your choice.

Well spoken or written

I absolutely agree with you. Not just for the VCM lenses, but for most gear I would just wish people would only complain or criticize after they´ve actually used a lens and not after seeing a bunch of YT videos...

Michael Clark · Oct 31, 2025

DocInfoSci said:
I have. It’s a sad day when that happens. Probably though just a numbers game, and the character of s/he who holds the gear. And the environment is also a factor: wet campsites, animals enclosures, soggy moss, damp gear bags, etc.

How do you know a 5-Series body would have survived in the same environment?

Putting cameras in damp gear bags will kill them all if left in there very long. That's what desiccant packets are for, to keep the interior of your bags (kept closed except when putting gear in or out) dry when in damp environments. Putting damp cameras in gear bags without drying the cameras and lenses first will obviously make the bags damp, and no amount of desiccant bags will dry the bag out with wet cameras in it.

Michael Clark · Oct 31, 2025

Eloniel said:
For this generation, for R6-3 + R7-2 you will probably be at least the price of the R5-2 if not more. Not fair to compare old generation camera 2-bodies scenario with one of the new generation.

Also I guess it depends if your main work is wildlife (2 bodies scenario) or portrait/landscape/event/action and higher end single body scenario.

Event and action are, more often than not, two body scenarios.

Frodo · Oct 31, 2025

The eye of the squirrel seems sharp in both photos, as far as I can make out.

Michael Clark · Oct 31, 2025

Bob Howland said:
And most people don't consider that cropping an image changes the FOV but holds the DOF and exposure constant.

If you crop the image and then display it as the same size as before the crop, the depth of field does change, because you've increased total magnification when you increased the enlargement ratio.

Only if you display the cropped image at the proportionally smaller size (yet still view it from the same distance) does the DoF not change.

Michael Clark · Oct 31, 2025

BFG9000 said:
A 70-200mm f/2.8 is a 70-200mm f/2.8 and will always be a 70-200mm f/2.8, no matter the sensor you put behind it.
The smaller the sensor, the smaller the portion of the circle of projection the camera will use.
In terms of light gathering, a 2.8 lens is and will always be a 2.8, no matter the sensor you attach it on, so at the same settings the exposure will be the same.
Depending on the size of the sensor you will get a narrower or a wider field of view. The bigger the sensor, the wider; the smaller, the narrower.
In terms of ISO noise, at higher ISO an R7 is about 2 stops worse than an R6 at the same settings.

View attachment 226587

Those grid lines are each 1/3 stop apart, not 1 stop. The difference is about 4/3 stops.

Michael Clark · Oct 31, 2025

ShowMeTheEagles said:
If the R5 II and R1 are examples of Canon's ability to ramp up production I suspect the R6III and C50V backlogs will be filled within a few months of release so there doesn't seem to be production capacity problem with a late winter R7II announcement / early spring R7 II release. If the R7 II is going to be a success out of the gate Canon needs to release for spring migration season or I think a lot of people will move on from it.

The R5 Mark II and R1 are presumably much lower volume bodies than the R6 Mark II and R7 Mark II will be.

DocInfoSci · Oct 31, 2025

Michael Clark said:
The move from DSLR to the 2020 and later EOS MILCs were all a pretty big jump. It wasn't just the 6-Series. (The R and RP were a bit more hit or miss how much an improvement they were over the 5D Mark IV or 6D Mark II - it all depended upon one's use case. For example, many shooters preferred the optical viewfinders of the DLSRs to the limited resolution and refresh rate EVFs of the R and RP.)

True! Especially by the time Canon was playing catch-up.

Michael Clark said:
I've never known of anyone who had weather resistance issues with a 6D, 6D Mark II, R6, or R6 Mark II. Are the 6-Series bodies as solid as the 5-Series bodies (DSLR or MILC)?

I have. It’s a sad day when that happens. Probably though just a numbers game, and the character of s/he who holds the gear. And the environment is also a factor: wet campsites, animals enclosures, soggy moss, damp gear bags, etc.

Michael Clark said:
You got slightly better DR from ISO 400-800. You got moderately better DR at ISO 100-200.

Better is better. Enough to notice when photons are scarce. Enough to make someone pay for it.

Michael Clark said:
"Double the pixels." What?!?! 30.4MP (5D Mark IV) is not twice 26.2MP (6D Mark II).

Okay, okay! I stand humbled. Silly of me. The idea stands, but my statement stinks. Truly, enthusiasm swept me up. But I own this slip in the back and forth.

Michael Clark said:
"Better low end detail". What is that? Low end of what?

That DR discussion above…

Michael Clark said:
"Better daylight tolerance." Again, what is that? Are you repeating DR that you already brought up above?

1/4000 vs 1/8000 might seem like a small detail, but it isn’t for some people. It’s an ND filter, or smaller aperture by a stop. Unlike ISO, this is an easy ceiling to hit.

Michael Clark said:
"Better snot resistance." See above. No one has had major issues with 6D bodies and weather resistance.

I’m glad this is your experience! I have my own colleagues. See above.

Michael Clark said:
The 5D Mark IV and 5D Mark III both had a shutter life rating of 150,000. The 6D Mark II had no publicly released shutter rating from Canon.

That is the sales pitch. My Rebel is still going strong, which tickles me pink. But still, they’re making you pay for the sales pitch and not luck.

BTW, really appreciate your thoughts on this. I think my concerns or observations mostly stand within my context, but I’ve read many of your remarks over time and taken away good insights. Ditto for others here. It’s a pleasure to be vocal in the crowd. I’ll try to listen more than rant.

I’m certainly less on the pre-release therapy side and more on the let’s see what reality brings side of the fence now.

Michael Clark · Oct 31, 2025

m4ndr4ke said:
I can’t speak for B&H, they’re irrelevant on this side of the Atlantic, but the EF 50mm f/1.2 doesn’t attach to a Canon mirrorless camera in any different way than the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art does. For the price the canon EF lens costs, if buying new is impossible, better buy a second hand Sigma and send it in for maintenance. You could probably buy two or three of the Sigma lens for the price of one EF 50mm f/1.2.

Jesus
I’ve passed on the RF 50mm f/1.2 for about the same price twice this year, here in Portugal (not imported). Actually cheaper, once.

It's the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 in EF mount (also Nikon F mount) that has been discontinued, not the EF 50mm f/1.2 L.

Michael Clark · Oct 31, 2025

P-visie said:
Canon in the Netherlands has the EF 50mm f1.2 lens in it’s webstore and in stock, as have other large photoshops (for 1699€, incl. VAT, if you are interested ).

I think he meant the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART, which is listed at B&H as 'Discontinued"?

Michael Clark · Oct 31, 2025

scyrene said:
Higher resolution sensors can reveal lens flaws more clearly when viewed 100%. But a higher resolution sensor cannot resolve less detail with the same lens than a lower resolution sensor at the image level (when all other shooting parameters are equal). And if you downscale from a higher MP sensor to match the lower one, the images will be virtually identical - the higher resolution sensor should always be at least as good, and maybe better, as pixel-level noise will be finer. Technically-minded forum users have been explaining these things for many years (I'm simply paraphrasing them).

Depending how the pixel pitch ratios work out, you could theoretically have issues resizing from a higher resolution file to a lower resolution one. But it would likely be more in terms of odd artifacts than increased blur.

Michael Clark · Oct 31, 2025

Philnick said:
Remember that while Canon may make more money on each full-frame body they sell, they sell a lot more APS-C bodies, which means they risk alienating lots of R7 users if they make the R7 II into an R5/R6 with an R7 sensor. You've gotten two generations of the R5 and R6 (with an R6 III coming). Let us have an improved - not enlarged and upscaled - R7 II.

The vast majority of those APS-C bodies Canon made tons of money on were not 7-Series bodies. They were x0D, xx0D/Rebel, and xx00D/Rebel bodies. I'd venture to say they've also sold a ton more R10, R50, and R100 bodies than R7 bodies.

You can claim Canon risks alienating "lots of R7 users" if they go back to the layout of the 7D, 7D mark II, 80D, 90D, etc. How do you know they didn't alienate a LOT MORE potential R7 buyers who took a pass because of the ridiculous R7 control layout? I've heard MANY say they didn't buy the R7 because it was laid out too different from their R6 or R5 bodies. You're the ONLY person I've ever heard say they want the R7 Mark II to continue the divergent layout.

Again, look at history. Canon introduced the EOS R with the goofy little Multi-Function slide bar thingy. A few people liked it. The vast majority who bought an EOS R hated it and wanted Canon to not put one on the next body they would consider buying. Canon decided they could sell more cameras by making the R5 and R6 closer to the traditional 5-Series, 6-Series, and 7-Series layout and eliminated the Multi-Function slide bar from subsequent bodies.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics