Latest activity

AlanF · Oct 24, 2025

Sylvester said:
While entirely correct, and something I have certainly done with my R5ii, the key difference that that using the R5/R5ii in 1.6 crop mode results in an image with far less pixels on the subject that using the same lenses with an APS-C body with around 30M MP. For smaller subjects in the frame the APS-C option either gives you either more detail or additional ability to crop without loosing too many pixels in the final image vs a FF in 1.6 crop mode.

What I was getting at as I explained in my earlier reply and emphasized by others that a 1.6x crop factor doesn't automatically give 1.6x resolution, but just a 1.6x change in field of view. The change in resolution depends on the relative pixel densities of the FF and APS-C sensors. There is a load of misinformation provided by manufacturers by deception and others from ignorance. For example, Olympus will tell you that their 400mm lens is equivalent to 800mm on a full frame. But that maybe true for a 20 Mpx FF sensor, but it's equivalent to only 540mm for a 45 Mpx FF.

Eloniel · Oct 24, 2025

Bob Howland said:
At B&H, the R5-2 sells for $4100 or $~~430~~550 more than the R6-2 and R7 combined ($~~2220~~2100 + $1450)

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.

David_B · Oct 24, 2025

If you're thinking about buying new RAM for your computer, new SSDs, or even just new memory cards for your camera, do it "now" because a 30% price rise is coming due to demand from AI. This will potentially impact smart phones, laptops, maybe even some digital cameras where RAM isn't part of the SoC.

[News] Samsung, SK hynix Reportedly Lift Memory Prices Up to 30%; Long-Term Supply Deals in Play

The memory supercycle appears unstoppable, and memory giants are already responding by hiking prices. According to the Korean Economic Daily, Samsung ...

www.trendforce.com

Click · Oct 24, 2025

Very nice shot, shire guy.

Bob Howland · Oct 24, 2025

Eloniel said:
Of course dedicated top of the line APSC body will always be able provide more details/reach than high MP Full frame bodies but at some point you will be able with a single body to do both wildlife + others.
I would say for someone that don't want to have to deal with 2 bodies and having to buy a R6 camera + R7 camera it can worth it to just buy a single R5 line camera.

At least for an amateur like me I could totally see myself trying a bit of wildlife photography with a R5 without buying a R7, 17 mp would be enough for my use case. Once R5 in 1,6 crop mode will have 30mp the needs would only really matter for the very high end of professionnal wildlife photographer.

At B&H, the R5-2 sells for $4100 or $~~430~~550 more than the R6-2 and R7 combined ($~~2220~~2100 + $1450)

rombe3jr · Oct 24, 2025

ShowMeTheEagles said:
Yeah, not buying that. Plenty of R body examples where Canon has announced two models simultaneously or back to back. Sure availability was backlogged after release but that didn't stop Canon from announcing and releasing. Really that seems to be the photo industry standard operation. Also Canon does not make cameras and lenses in the same factory so there in no reason Canon can't produce the 300-600 lens concurrent with whatever new bodies are announced this year or next.

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.

Spring migration season is definitely going to be important for the R7 Mk ii! Would have liked to see it announced now and released in time to get under the Christmas tree. Now the hope is just to get it in time for migration.

reisi007 · Oct 24, 2025

ISO is relative and not absolute. So even if you used the same lens (different lenses of the same aperture do have different light transmission) there is so much variability...

And I am not even talking about the environment....

Eloniel · Oct 24, 2025

Sylvester said:
While entirely correct, and something I have certainly done with my R5ii, the key difference that that using the R5/R5ii in 1.6 crop mode results in an image with far less pixels on the subject that using the same lenses with an APS-C body with around 30M MP. For smaller subjects in the frame the APS-C option either gives you either more detail or additional ability to crop without loosing too many pixels in the final image vs a FF in 1.6 crop mode.

Of course dedicated top of the line APSC body will always be able provide more details/reach than high MP Full frame bodies but at some point you will be able with a single body to do both wildlife + others.
I would say for someone that don't want to have to deal with 2 bodies and having to buy a R6 camera + R7 camera it can worth it to just buy a single R5 line camera.

At least for an amateur like me I could totally see myself trying a bit of wildlife photography with a R5 without buying a R7, 17 mp would be enough for my use case. Once R5 in 1,6 crop mode will have 30mp the needs would only really matter for the very high end of professionnal wildlife photographer.

BFG9000 · Oct 24, 2025

Sylvester said:
While entirely correct, and something I have certainly done with my R5ii, the key difference that that using the R5/R5ii in 1.6 crop mode results in an image with far less pixels on the subject that using the same lenses with an APS-C body with around 30M MP. For smaller subjects in the frame the APS-C option either gives you either more detail or additional ability to crop without loosing too many pixels in the final image vs a FF in 1.6 crop mode.

And far more noise as a counterpart. Don't forget it.

fox40phil · Oct 24, 2025

Crippled buffer incoming ;P

Planterz · Oct 24, 2025

I'm disappointed, but not surprised. I can't afford it yet anyway (well, I can, but not the 100-500mm to go along with it), but It would have been nice to have a few extra months of reviews and testing by others before I make the decision to purchase.

Bob Howland said:
I own an R50V and it's pretty good. I'm thinking of something a bit upmarket from there, an R7V perhaps, to compete with the Sony FX30.

Right, if the R50V competes more with the ZV-E10 II then there's a gap in Canon's lineup (if they want to fill it) to compete with the FX30.

Jethro said:
Oh dear, do we really need to get into another argument about the 'equivalence' of f/ numbers as between APS-C and FF sensors?

Apparently.

Sylvester · Oct 24, 2025

AlanF said:
If a 1.6x crop factor turns my RF 100-500 into a 160-800 f/7.1, then clicking my R5 into 1.6 crop mode would do the same. Or, cropping a full frame image by 1.6x in post processing would also lengthen the lens.

While entirely correct, and something I have certainly done with my R5ii, the key difference that that using the R5/R5ii in 1.6 crop mode results in an image with far less pixels on the subject that using the same lenses with an APS-C body with around 30M MP. For smaller subjects in the frame the APS-C option either gives you either more detail or additional ability to crop without loosing too many pixels in the final image vs a FF in 1.6 crop mode.

shire_guy · Oct 24, 2025

Powerful Owl

There was another Powerful Owl higher up in the tree but I couldn't see a nest. From the droppings below it looks like they had enjoyed a possum recently.

View attachment 226593

m4ndr4ke · Oct 24, 2025

snapshot said:
may still have differences in exposure?

Yes, absolutely, that’s normal

Eloniel · Oct 24, 2025

blackcoffee17 said:
OYeah, Canon really needs to up their lens game, especially on entry level. No more "optional" lens hood or slow AF motors (RF 85 F2) or zero weather sealing.

On the high end too.
Where are the equivalent to 50-150 f2.0 with internal zoom, a lighter 28-70 f2.0 with internal zoom or extend it to 24mm, a 15-35mm f2.8 with internal zoom, the 35mm f1.2, tilt shift lenses, etc... And I'm not even talking about telephotos lenses.

They have a least 10-15 lenses to release to have an offer that could satisfy most people. Hopefully some of these needed lenses will be announced in November.

blackcoffee17 · Oct 24, 2025

SvO2 said:
This is only really the case if Canon's lens selection is superior to what you can get elsewhere. That's not really the case these days IMO.

Yeah, Canon really needs to up their lens game, especially on entry level. No more "optional" lens hood or slow AF motors (RF 85 F2) or zero weather sealing.

Richard CR · Oct 24, 2025

John Wilde said:
Their closed-lens-mount strategy seems to be working OK.

eh.
Canon is now around 800-900 days for each 10 million lenses.

They used to be around 400-450

I'll have more on this later.

curiousMonkey · Oct 24, 2025

Here are a few shots with my new 400mm F4 DO II. All of these were shot with relatively high ISO (4k-12k) and had noise reduction applied. I checked the focus points in DPP and they all seem to be located on an eye. Something just looks off in the cat photo, the nose is a little soft but the rest of the body looks fine to me. I had to crop the birds a lot but those images were still around 7MP and look fine to me.

MrFotoFool · Oct 23, 2025

One small mistake in the specs chart posted. It says colour (color to us Americans): black. In fact it comes in either dark blue or medium gray, but not black.

SHK1 · Oct 23, 2025

Eloniel said:
Kind of between 2009 and 2014 they produced 50 millions lenses (10 millions average) and between 2014 and now 70 millions (6,36 millions average). So they are definitely slowing down, we don't have more precise data's in the article. RF could have had a noticeable impact on this average per year.

I wonder if the seamless integration of EF is also a factor. I have noticed a lot of people adapting EF lenses that they could previously not afford before the arrival of RF and putting off new purchases consequently. Looking at the secondary market, EF lenses are an absolute bargain.

Bob Howland · Oct 23, 2025

Jethro said:
Oh dear, do we really need to get into another argument about the 'equivalence' of f/ numbers as between APS-C and FF sensors?

If you consider three things: (1) field of view, (2) depth of field and (3) exposure, it's possible to construct a definition of "equivalence" by holding two of them constant while allowing the third to change. Most people, including me, hold the FOV and exposure constant while allowing the DOF to change. Others hold the FOV and DOF constant while allowing the exposure to change (F/2.8 is F/2.8 regardless of the size of the sensor.) And most people don't consider that cropping an image changes the FOV but holds the DOF and exposure constant.

Hope that helps or, at least, doesn't make things worse..

Update: Comparing images between my R6-2 and R7, I'd say the R7 noise is about a stop worse than the R6-2.

SnowMiku · Oct 23, 2025

If you put a 100-300mm f/4-5.6 lens on a APS-C body, at 300mm it will be equivalent to 480mm F/9. If you used a Full Frame body, for example using the RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM @480mm F/9 will give the same depth of field. But if you used that same lens @500mm F/7.1 on a full frame you will get 2/3 stop more shallow depth of field then with the APS-C with the 100-300 f/5.6

SvO2 · Oct 23, 2025

CJaurelius said:
If Canon were to open up their RF mount on the full frame side it would only accelerate the takeover. By keeping them out it at least drags out the process and allows them time to make any possible pivots.

This is only really the case if Canon's lens selection is superior to what you can get elsewhere. That's not really the case these days IMO.

snapshot · Oct 23, 2025

Uneternal said:
You're just too zoomed in, change to print view. Even in the RAW the camera leans slightly towards green. Navigate to the Asian lady and look at her nose or her neck.
It's a fact. If you don't believe it, rent an R5/R6, try them side by side in the real world and you'll see the difference.

i have access to the 4 cameras in my comparison. not sure how to proceed with a color test through. i suppose a picture taken in a clear sky with noonish sun shoot a raw through an ef 70-200 f/2.8 at 100 iso,, some same shutter speed and maybe f/4? may still have differences in exposure?

Jethro · Oct 23, 2025

Oh dear, do we really need to get into another argument about the 'equivalence' of f/ numbers as between APS-C and FF sensors?

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics