We'll see who's right - in about a year, I expect, so we're hardly in the last few months of development.

In the meantime, I've "upgraded" my R7 to avoid low light noise - my principal desire in the next version - by supplying it with reasonably fast lenses.

Eloniel said:

Just received my R5 MK2, it has the v1.03 firmware should I update it to v1.11 or there is a major drawback that should prevent me from updating?

Click to expand...

Like Del Paso mentionned, I haven't had a single issue since upgrading.
I would recommend using the app to do it : somehow I couldn't the 1st time and ended up bricking it, but after receiving it back from repairs the app worked and the update went fine.

Eloniel said:

Just received my R5 MK2, it has the v1.03 firmware should I update it to v1.11 or there is a major drawback that should prevent me from updating?

Click to expand...

I have updated my 2 R5 II cameras. No issues at all , after 3 weeks and thousands of pictures. Everything worked perfectly for me. Yet, since I take mostly landscape or architecture pictures, I cannot speak of AF's behaviour under difficult conditions.

Just received my R5 MK2, it has the v1.03 firmware should I update it to v1.11 or there is a major drawback that should prevent me from updating?

Walrus said:

I have no proof to that, but I'm ready to bet that there are more prosumers then pros with an R5 in the bag, and more pros then prosumers with a R6 in the bag.

(most of) Serious (and non-serious) prosumers usually like the latest tech because of the passion, have money to buy it because they have another job and so they don't have to "justify" the price and the amortisation, and in the context of those two cameras, rarely care about R5 files being huge, they actually enjoy higher resolutions.

Meanwhile (most of) pros buy tech they need and not tech they want, they invest money in new gear only if new stuff is getting them more money by doing new or better things and so being able to rise prices towards customers, and in the context of those two cameras, many appreciate a smaller file if they don't need to print in big sizes, and a much lower price while retaining 95% of the "pro" features of the R5 like ibis, double card slot, LP-E6 batteries and a proper grip to house two of them, joystick, back dial so total 3 physical dials on the body, etc. And they probably appreciate (I surely do) having the double card slots taking the same card shape, and not two different ones.

I come back to what I was saying in previous post, Canon makes its marketing segmentation choices, surely trying to steer various category of shooters towards certain body and lenses, to maximise their profits, but it's not Canon that decides what's pro, prosumer or amateur for you, but YOU decide in which category falls FOR YOU each item they sell. Prosumers or plain simple (rich) amateurs can buy R1 (and they do, trust me), and pros can buy RP's or even (not exaggerating with R100) a R10, which I also had and it's a war machine, it handles like a mini R6.
If you do exclusively studio headshots, R10 (or R50; R100 s*cks, we all agree ahahah) it's much more then anything you would ever need.

I'd stop "psychoanalysing" Canon marketing choices, who cares if R6 III is tailored by them, in their opinion, for pros, prosumers or amateurs? If it's not for you, in ypur opinion, whatever is the shooting category you feel you're in, just look elsewhere, in Canon or outside Canon

Click to expand...

Again lots of conjectures, statements without proofs and many "I believes".

MSH411 said:

I'm very hopeful that the R7 MkII does mirror the body style and layout of the R6 MKII and the other higher end bodies. The layout and design of the R7 along with the rolling shutter has kept me away from adding one. Shooting with it was awkward, the layout was uncomfortable as well as the size of the body to small. Muscle memory from my other R bodies simply caused this body to be ineffective. The nested joystick on the R7 in my opinion was a PITA.

I know that some may say it falls on me but I would respectfully disagree. Here's a crazy idea, standardize the buttons functionality across the R lineup so that people that use the gear can work across different bodies without having to learn a different layout. If rumors are true regarding the R7 MkII I will finally get to add the APS-C I wanted to my gear, if the layout remains the same and it's still has challenges with excessive rolling shutter I'll stick with what I own.

Click to expand...

Not making anything up. You said you want a big full-frame camera with the R7's sensor.

Still not getting any response to my proposals of compromises (change the D-pad by the rear screen into a third traditional control dial and add battery grip compatibility). Have you even thought about them? Your turn.

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.

Why not instead lobby Canon to put an 83mp sensor into the R5 III so you can have 32.5mp in crop mode on that body with no need to learn inconsistent control layouts? Then you wouldn't need to carry two cameras.

PS I've used Canon since the 35mm FT-QL SLR in 1968, and APS-C DSLRs since then - see the history in my signature. I found the ever-increasing size of Canon's DSLRs with every upgrade led me to use them mainly on vacation until the R7 came out, taking the form factor back to the size and weight of the FT-QL, leading me to use it much more often.

Philnick said:

And you wonder why Canon has kept delaying the R7 II. This internecine dispute is a large part of it.

Click to expand...

You have posted that theory before and I have explained that these fundamental design decisions are not taken in the last few months of the development. I strongly suspect that the you continue to spread your theory because you hope that Canon will not change the size and control layout. Hope = deferred disappointment.

I have used Canon full frame and APS-C camera side by side since the original 5D was released in 2003 until 2020 when I got the R5. I did not buy the R7 because I did not like the size, layout of the controls, viewfinder and lack of a grip. If the R7 Mk II mirrors the size and controls of the R5 Mk II, it is very likely that I will buy one. And, it is anecdotal evidence, I know several photographers that have the same opinion and buying intention.

DocInfoSci said:

The extender approach for the RF lenses has been a bummer for me.

Click to expand...

Apart from the 100-500 and the extending 70-200, it's basically no different to how extenders worked for EF, is it?

DocInfoSci said:

they also went above and beyond for people who'd like this kind of device but don't need this kind of device as a general statement. It really, in my mind, came off as a generous thank you (love letter?) for all those who didn't jump ship at the 6D tier, or came quickly back, while Canon lagged in the mirrorless arena.

Click to expand...

Apologies if I'm misconstruing what you say but I don't see it that way at all. They had a limited choice of sensor for the R6, they went with one that wasn't too old but that wasn't a new development.

Ozarker said:

When considering the end result, why? As far as I can tell nearly all lenses need some type of corrections or Photoshop wouldn't have all those profiles.

Click to expand...

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 ).

DocInfoSci said:

In the Canon context, this combo made performant camera capabilities at the 35mm level a reasonable stretch for the prosumer -- the pain from lesser capabilities really didn't apply to most people. Naturally it became Canon's best seller, probably because people doing non-paid camera things are more populous than people who get paid to do camera things. And this spoke to them.

Click to expand...

I have no proof to that, but I'm ready to bet that there are more prosumers then pros with an R5 in the bag, and more pros then prosumers with a R6 in the bag.

(most of) Serious (and non-serious) prosumers usually like the latest tech because of the passion, have money to buy it because they have another job and so they don't have to "justify" the price and the amortisation, and in the context of those two cameras, rarely care about R5 files being huge, they actually enjoy higher resolutions.

Meanwhile (most of) pros buy tech they need and not tech they want, they invest money in new gear only if new stuff is getting them more money by doing new or better things and so being able to rise prices towards customers, and in the context of those two cameras, many appreciate a smaller file if they don't need to print in big sizes, and a much lower price while retaining 95% of the "pro" features of the R5 like ibis, double card slot, LP-E6 batteries and a proper grip to house two of them, joystick, back dial so total 3 physical dials on the body, etc. And they probably appreciate (I surely do) having the double card slots taking the same card shape, and not two different ones.

I come back to what I was saying in previous post, Canon makes its marketing segmentation choices, surely trying to steer various category of shooters towards certain body and lenses, to maximise their profits, but it's not Canon that decides what's pro, prosumer or amateur for you, but YOU decide in which category falls FOR YOU each item they sell. Prosumers or plain simple (rich) amateurs can buy R1 (and they do, trust me), and pros can buy RP's or even (not exaggerating with R100) a R10, which I also had and it's a war machine, it handles like a mini R6.
If you do exclusively studio headshots, R10 (or R50; R100 s*cks, we all agree ahahah) it's much more then anything you would ever need.

I'd stop "psychoanalysing" Canon marketing choices, who cares if R6 III is tailored by them, in their opinion, for pros, prosumers or amateurs? If it's not for you, in ypur opinion, whatever is the shooting category you feel you're in, just look elsewhere, in Canon or outside Canon

DocInfoSci said:

I want the 2015 R6 spirit to live on in 2025. Whether or not I stick with the R6 is immaterial, this is what I want Canon to be known for. Not the 6D.

Click to expand...

I'm really curious to understand how this new release would be anything like a 6D; not even the R8 is as limited as that was.

Virtually every one of the rumoured specs are improvements over the previous R6 in terms of photography, though a couple are more video focused. Personally, the improved EVF, AF, resolution and battery life over my R6.1 are plenty to make the switch tempting.

As for ISO, if you've been shooting long enough, I think you've seen that Canon arbitrarily sets the upper limits; there's no reason to think this would be a downgrade in the ranges that people actually use.

You full-framers feel entitled to change the APS-C model to make it into just one more copy of your cameras.

How about our muscle memory? There are more of us APS-C users than of you, BTW. I've proposed a few things to mollify you (see post #165 in this thread, half an hour ago) but I get silence in response. No! You want it to be made big and heavy like your cameras. That's not the mission of APS-C.

Letting it take a battery grip would solve the "too light!" complaint for those who want it heavy. Adding a third control dial in the traditional location should mollify you, but you say "No! Kill off the dial by the viewfinder!" I say slide your thumb on the screen instead of using the joystick (which is vestigial on mirrorless) - more accurate and avoids conflict with that control dial.

Grow up and show some consideration for those of us who actually use the R7 and like it. Stop demanding that we adapt to your cameras' control layout.

And you wonder why Canon has kept delaying the R7 II. This internecine dispute is a large part of it.

scyrene said:

Some headline apertures ratios are narrower* on RF lenses than what came before, but again this issue has been blown out of proportion by forum chatter. The best example is the RF 100-500, which is no narrower than the EF 100-400 which it replaced, it just adds more focal length and so the maximum aperture at the long end is a narrower f-stop. The only objective deficiency of that newer lens is the weird extender compatibility restriction.

Click to expand...

The extender approach for the RF lenses has been a bummer for me. I'm also still a fan of always-on manual focus with the AF in perpetual servo when I'm in the countryside, and between the two my EF lenses continue to dominate my trips. The sharpness and faster AF simply haven't been sufficient game changers for me to outweigh the loss of functionality for the (incidentally) mechanical focus capability and extender compatibility. Given Canon's subtle movement back to equivalent capabilities I think that they're well aware, but have simply sought to solve other complaints first. AF is fast and amazing, but not perfect and susceptible to poor choices when branches and long grass become involved. Canon will get there with the 3rd or 4th generation RF lenses, no doubt.

scyrene said:

*Better high ISO capabilities is one reason for this, as you say, but as has been discussed on these forums in the past, (probably) the main reason Canon brought out RF lenses with narrower maximum apertures is that the mirrorless system allows autofocus in much dimmer light, so they were no longer arbitrarily restricted to f/5.6. I'm sure we would have seen such lenses in the EF era otherwise - it's not a drift towards darkness, it's an opening up of more possibilities in lens design.

Click to expand...

I'll be pedantic, but I feel that given contrast focus was available long before the R showed up it's actually the EVF that made this broadly reasonable. I do like my EVF! But I hear your point.

scyrene said:

I don't know if any camera release is ever done as a thank you to existing customers. They just want to sell as many as possible - to whomever they deem most likely to part with some money.

Click to expand...

I've founded a few successful companies, and have lead significant segments of (continue to lead) a few large ones. I think that both can be true. But why I worded my claim this way:

Prior to the R, the primary general purpose 35mm DSLRs for Canon were the 5D and 6D series, right? The 5D was configured in a way that it best assured things got done for people who needed to do it—whatever that was—and priced it accordingly. The 6D was configured to be technically eligible: For a much lower price, one got a 35mm sensor with OK light sensitivity, half the shutter ceiling, and passable weather sealing. Thus it was in one shade or another for years. The X0D series was actually competitive unless you had to have the 35mm.

Eventually the R came out as Canon faffed about figuring out what it wanted to be in the mirrorless world. But nothing to really change the status quo for the average Joe or Jane.

Then Canon releases the R5 and R6—the R5 was clearly spec'd as the camera that gets it done for general cases for those who need to do it—and priced accordingly... but the R6? Canon lifts the sensor and much of the tech out of the then-flagship 1D series and drops it in, matches the shutter to the R5, doubles the ISO of the R5, smokes the DR, and puts in real (for the time) moisture/dust sealing. And then for whatever reason while the R existed sells it for a fraction of the cost of the R5 and within inflation reach of the 6D II. There was no need to do any of that -- the 6D series had set the pace, and people were already buying it; ditto for the RP. In the Canon context, this combo made performant camera capabilities at the 35mm level a reasonable stretch for the prosumer -- the pain from lesser capabilities really didn't apply to most people. Naturally it became Canon's best seller, probably because people doing non-paid camera things are more populous than people who get paid to do camera things. And this spoke to them.

Yes, Canon was wise to take this approach to sell more cameras. But yes, they also went above and beyond for people who'd like this kind of device but don't need this kind of device as a general statement. It really, in my mind, came off as a generous thank you (love letter?) for all those who didn't jump ship at the 6D tier, or came quickly back, while Canon lagged in the mirrorless arena.

Of course, all of this is known to the forum here -- but it bears repeating when the term "love letter" gets used and we're debating "what next for the R6 series" in the context of prosumers. I totally agree with the earlier remarks about the VCM and hybrid videos being an essential for modern sales and interests (just thinking of my own kid...) but the move with the paper specs for the R6 III also feels more 6D-ish and less R6-ish in the I and II contexts.

I want the 2015 R6 spirit to live on in 2025. Whether or not I stick with the R6 is immaterial, this is what I want Canon to be known for. Not the 6D.

I really like the first one. Great shot! Well done, Alan.

scyrene said:

Some headline apertures ratios are narrower* on RF lenses than what came before, but again this issue has been blown out of proportion by forum chatter. The best example is the RF 100-500, which is no narrower than the EF 100-400 which it replaced, it just adds more focal length and so the maximum aperture at the long end is a narrower f-stop. The only objective deficiency of that newer lens is the weird extender compatibility restriction.

Click to expand...

The 100-500 is F6.3 at 400mm. But i agree most people on internet comparing it to other 100-400 lenses that stop at 400mm. Same situation with the RF 100-400 - most people compare it to other professional 100-400 lenses, while in fact it's a cheap 70-300 replacement with added 100mm.

Blackheaded Gull (R5ii/200-800mm).

P-visie said:

It is the belief that optically corrected lenses are better than digitally corrected lenses.

Click to expand...

When considering the end result, why? As far as I can tell nearly all lenses need some type of corrections or Photoshop wouldn't have all those profiles.

SvO2 said:

Heavy though

Click to expand...

Just a little and with the adapter is even more front heavy; that's why I'm looking forward to this new 45 f1.2 if it is any good

DocInfoSci said:

Quite a few of the general purpose modern lenses on shelf feature darker glass than prior equivalents so demand more sensor sensitivity if shooting the same times of day in the same degrees of shade as prior sensor or glass offerings for comparable tiers.

Click to expand...

Some headline apertures ratios are narrower* on RF lenses than what came before, but again this issue has been blown out of proportion by forum chatter. The best example is the RF 100-500, which is no narrower than the EF 100-400 which it replaced, it just adds more focal length and so the maximum aperture at the long end is a narrower f-stop. The only objective deficiency of that newer lens is the weird extender compatibility restriction.

*Better high ISO capabilities is one reason for this, as you say, but as has been discussed on these forums in the past, (probably) the main reason Canon brought out RF lenses with narrower maximum apertures is that the mirrorless system allows autofocus in much dimmer light, so they were no longer arbitrarily restricted to f/5.6. I'm sure we would have seen such lenses in the EF era otherwise - it's not a drift towards darkness, it's an opening up of more possibilities in lens design.

DocInfoSci said:

OK, so I was probably a little harsh with the middle finger. But it's still no longer a "thanks for keeping with us non-pro still shooters" message. Maybe that's just a sign of the times, though.

Click to expand...

I don't know if any camera release is ever done as a thank you to existing customers. They just want to sell as many as possible - to whomever they deem most likely to part with some money.

My 40 Art's AF seems accurate enough, but it's definitely slower and noisier than most Canon USM lenses I've used.

Ridiculously sharp even wide open despite being one of the cheapest lenses I own. Heavy though

GMCPhotographics said:

My experiance with 3rd party lenses is that they are often very sharp, comparitively so. It's the rest of the hardware is often the dissapointment. The AF and / or IS systems are weaker on 3rd party. AF is less consistent and less accurate. The build and durability is poorer and often there's a difference in contrast, colours and rendering. Flare suppression on Canon L series is usally top drawer, 3rd party is a but of a crap shoot with flare and ghosting.

Click to expand...

The AF of the latest Art/Sports Sigma lenses (15mm f/1.4 fisheye, 35mm f/1.2 II, 135mm f/1.4, 200mm f/2, for example) is instantaneous and the weather sealing and build quality is top notch. The lens coatings are excellent as well and the behaviour of the lenses is just like a pro grade first party lens.

m4ndr4ke said:

That ended when Canon launched the RF mount, back in 2018 lol. We all know Canon's EF lenses work a lot better on mirrorless cameras than they did on DSLRs. Generally speaking, the same happened with third party glass from reputable brands. It's time to stop relying on outdated information, that is misleading at this point - it's been 7 years.

Click to expand...

I can guarantee my 40 Art, 105 Art and 24-105 Art are as good as any Canon RF (yes, RF, non EF) when comparing consistency and accuracy; they're also so well integrated in my Canon body (and surely Sigma paid licence for this, getting in return full access to AF algorithms and in body corrections) then when I connect them to my R6 (and same was on my 6D that lived with me for almost 10 years) the camera recognise them by the name, and they enjoy corrections for vignette, distortion, chromatic aberrations and diffraction for jpeg and video, and even real time on lcd and evf on the ML cameras. Only the DLO is not available for the Sigma's, otherwise Canon bodies treat them as proper Canon lenses.

(internet picture)


About durability, no problems whatsoever, and about build quality, well, I guess many have never taken into their hand an Art lens from the last 10 years (but also many top tier Tamron's, and now Chinese are getting also there), their build is as robust, if not more, then any current RF L lens to date.

"It's time to stop relying on outdated information"

YES, definitely

Last year I bought almost immediately the RF 28-70 STM, and if the 45 f1.2 is any good I'll be surely ordering as soon as I see trusted reviews (and I'll ditch the 40 Art which is probably the sharpest lens on the market, period), so I'm not a Canon hater by design, I enjoy Canon since 1999 in the film era and never had any other photo system apart from Hasselblad V, but I'm not blind to the rest of the market, and the progress that Sigma and Tamron did (which makes them in my eyes "first party" lens manufacturers on pair with CanNikSon), and that Chinese manufacturers are doing right now.

Lovely series, ISv.

GMCPhotographics said:

AF is less consistent and less accurate.

Click to expand...

That ended when Canon launched the RF mount, back in 2018 lol. We all know Canon's EF lenses work a lot better on mirrorless cameras than they did on DSLRs. Generally speaking, the same happened with third party glass from reputable brands. Come on, it's time to stop relying on outdated information, that is misleading at this point - it's been 7 years.

GMCPhotographics said:

The build and durability is poorer

Click to expand...

Better in many cases, specially considering many third party lenses cost as much as low end to medium range offerings from first parties.

GMCPhotographics said:

often there's a difference in contrast, colours and rendering.

Click to expand...

Well, that's to be expected, I guess. Each brand with their own signature. Heck, even among the same brand we don't have the same rendering across all lenses. Just yesterday, or two days ago, I was here commenting that I'm not very fond of the lower contrast look of the RF 50mm f/1.2, that differs from my 28-70mm f/2.

GMCPhotographics said:

Flare suppression on Canon L series is usally top drawer

Click to expand...

That's actually an area where I'm not a very happy Canon customer lol. This is not to say that every lens from other brands is better, but I see a lot of offerings from our opponents retaining a lot more contrast when the sun is in the frame. Try comparing a few Canon RF lenses against Sony or Sigma DN lenses, you may be in for a surprise.