Latest activity

ashmadux · May 26, 2026

The 2.8 v2 is my most beloved photographic tool treasure... it is simply wonderful and as long as it's compatible with current r series I see no reason to ever let it go. It just gets the job done it is has Wonderful rendering character and the autofocus is still bang on at least with an R5. I remember the day I bought it from adorama, and the cashier was just shaking his head when he saw the receipt. I worked super hard that year and I deserved it and so I got it. And it's been a trailer ever since. I don't get to use it much nowadays but no way I'm selling it off.

My2c

roby17269 · May 26, 2026

35 1.2 c'mon Canon!

Can it be called "never before seen"?

Del Paso · May 26, 2026

RF 20-70 + 14 TS-E

justaCanonuser · May 26, 2026

GMCPhotographics said:
We all know how much Europe loves the uk these days!

Well. I gonna travel to Northumberland next week, and I am from evil Germany

justaCanonuser · May 26, 2026

DocInfoSci said:
Thanks! Yes, I've seen that with my own eyes. I do intend to, although I've been wondering if a 2.8 makes more sense. Appreciate the input.

Depends on what you want to mainly shoot with that lens: the f/4.0 is a very good landscape and short sports tele zoom; the f/2.8 shines when you shoot people, including portrait (that's why reporters love this lens), and it is of course the better choice if you want to use it with extenders. But I do not want to teach you, you surely know exactly for which purposes you want such a lens.

Btw the f/4.0 L IS USM is not only quite compact & light (like the non-IS version), feels very nice in the hands, in particular turning the zoom ring feels so light and smooth, it is a real fun to use that lens. The f/2.8 L IS USM II that I have feels extremely solid, too, but it is much more massive.

Dragon · May 26, 2026

danfaz said:
Last weekend on the Lundy Canyon trail, Lee Vining, California.

View attachment 229715 View attachment 229716 View attachment 229717

Pretty country. Always liked the drive over Tioga.

Surab · May 26, 2026

What are the odds that the R8II will also get the bigger battery. I mean the Nikon ZR got theirs together with IBIS in that slim body that doesn't even have a proper grip.

Definitely curious to see Canon's interpretation of retro. I'm usually not much of a fan (Fuji or Nikon Zf). I like modern control schemes.

danfaz · May 26, 2026

Last weekend on the Lundy Canyon trail, Lee Vining, California.

scyrene · May 26, 2026

@zajicekpavel said:
Rain Gauge (Pluviometer) Principle
A rain gauge is an instrument used to measure the amount of liquid precipitation (rain, snow, hail) that falls over a given period at a specific location.
Basic Principle
The most common type is the standard manual rain gauge (often called a Hellmann rain gauge or similar):
It consists of a funnel with a precisely known opening area (usually 200 cm² or 500 cm² in professional gauges) that collects rainwater.
The funnel directs the water into a narrow measuring cylinder (inner tube) to amplify the height of the water column for easier and more accurate reading.
The collected water is measured manually with a graduated scale, typically in millimeters (mm).
How it works:
Rain falls into the funnel → flows into the measuring tube → the height of the water column is read. Thanks to the funnel's known area and the calibrated tube, the height directly corresponds to the depth of rainfall.
Modern versions include:
Tipping bucket rain gauges (automatic) – a small bucket tips every time it fills with a fixed amount (e.g., 0.1 mm or 0.2 mm), sending an electrical pulse.
Weighing rain gauges – continuously weigh the collected water.
Optical/displacement sensors – used in professional meteorological stations.
Conversion of Fallen Water to Area (Rainfall Depth → Volume)
Rainfall is always expressed as a depth in millimeters (mm). This is a very practical unit because:
1 mm of rainfall = 1 liter of water per square meter
Mathematical explanation:
1 mm = 0.001 m (depth)
Area = 1 m²
Volume = depth × area = 0.001 m × 1 m² = 0.001 m³
1 m³ = 1000 liters → 0.001 m³ = 1 liter
Examples of conversion:
10 mm of rain on 1 m² = 10 liters
25 mm of rain on 1 hectare (10,000 m²) = 250,000 liters = 250 m³
50 mm of rain on 1 km² (1,000,000 m²) = 50,000,000 liters = 50,000 m³
General formula:
Volume (liters) = Rainfall (mm) × Area (m²)
Or more precisely:
Volume (m³) = Rainfall (mm) × Area (m²) / 1000
This is why meteorologists love the mm unit — it makes hydrological calculations extremely simple without needing complex conversions.
Would you like me to also explain different types of rain gauges or how to calculate runoff, evaporation, etc.?

Have you just copied + pasted from Wikipedia or an AI response?

neuroanatomist · May 26, 2026

Keithf2.8is said:
It sure would be nice if Canon would update the RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1 being that it came out in September 2020.

As a benchmark, the EF 100-400L II came out 16 years after the original. I would not expect a 100-500L II any time soon. I'm sure there will be a first MkII RF lens at some point, but that won't be the one.

Uneternal · May 26, 2026

Porting the EF-M 22mm f/2 pancake to RF-S and making it f/1.8 would technically be a never-before-seen lens.

Keithf2.8is · May 26, 2026

It sure would be nice if Canon would update the RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1 being that it came out in September 2020. And big disappointment about the R7 Mark II, but the good news is I'm not out $2000-ish bucks!! If it has the same setbacks at the 7D MII, then it won't be released until the end of 2027.

EricN · May 26, 2026

I sure hope one is a never before seen budget priced 80mm f1.2 with focus shift! That will go great with the 45mm, right?

HMC11 · May 26, 2026

Well, any new lens is technically a 'never seen before lens'

. Thanks for keeping the rumours bubbling along nicely!

Click · May 26, 2026

foda said:
Silver Pheasant photographed while birding in Vietnam, March, 2026.

R5MkII RF200-800mm

Beautifully photographed in its natural habitat. I love the bird's pose.

Ozarker · May 26, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
As @EOS 4 Life correctly pointed out, Canon makes the ST-E10 – a wireless trigger for their flashes (and I have one!). So I asked a question to which I should have known the answer. Having said that, if the R6 V doesn't support Canon MFS flashes, I don't see how it would support the Canon MFS flash trigger.

You are getting more human everyday, AI Agent Neuro.

I should have specified, for my use, 3rd party mono light trigger, which is still probably no at this stage.

Ozarker · May 26, 2026

EOS 4 Life said:
Canon ST-E10 Speedlite Transmitter
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1663793-REG/canon_4944c001_st_e10_speedlite_transmitter.html

Of course!

Now show me an inexpensive mono light trigger

I should have specified.

Nathalietje86 · May 26, 2026

Still waiting for new compact camera's from canon i hope a super zoom with at least raw

So come one canon show us new gear

neuroanatomist · May 26, 2026

Uneternal said:
I said it's less efficient if there are smaller pixels, which my example of R3 and R5 perfectly illustrates. It is the same efficient if the pixel size is the same.

The R5 in crop mode has less dynamic range than the R5 in full frame mode. Same pixels, same pixel efficiency, less area used to capture the image, less total light gathered...therefore more noise and thus less DR.

Uneternal said:
You're not losing any light/rain per square inch

Of course not. But the point was about image noise. Light per unit area determines the exposure, total light gathered determines image noise.

Uneternal said:
This is where the confusion often arises in sensor discussions.

Yes, clearly you are confused.

Uneternal said:
So it really comes down to interpretation.

Sure, you want to measurebate individual pixels and compare two images of different resolutions with both viewed at 100%. You can also print an R3 image at 13 x 20" and an R5 image at 18 x 27", hang them side by side and compare them (viewed from the same distance...or not, however you want to do it). Neither is the conventional and accepted way to compare two pictures.

The interpretation I am using is the one that is generally accepted in the field – compare pictures at the same output size and viewing distance. The interpretation you are using is not the one that is generally accepted.

Uneternal said:
But saying "you lose light" is incorrect and misleading when framed as a loss of resolution or a drop in pixel efficiency.

You are the one framing it as a drop in pixel efficiency. You are the one using a non-conventional method to compare images, and that is misleading.

I am simply talking about the total amount of light captured by a sensor, i.e. the number of photons. Under the same exposure conditions, a larger sensor will collect more light and have lower noise in the resulting image. A smaller sensor sensor will collect less light and have more noise in the resulting image.

The smaller sensor collects less total light, and it is completely accurate to say that light is 'lost' with the smaller sensor relative to the larger one.

Surab · May 26, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
We had an arborist out last fall, to evaluate some plantings and arrange for pruning of some lovely, old Japanese maples on our property (not something I'm willing to do myself or have our regular landscapers handle). He left a bunch of literature and the rain gauge with us, the papers went in the filing cabinet and for no reason other than laziness the rain gauge has sitting on the second desk in my home office since then. But I had to put some water in it (then weigh that water) in making my point, so after drying it off (ironic, right?) I did put the rain gauge out in the garden shed where it should have been put in the first place, last fall.

When the forum helps you!

neuroanatomist · May 26, 2026

@zajicekpavel said:
And can we at least agree that light is not water?

You evidently need to look up the definition of the word 'analogy', it has been used several times to describe the comparison being made between light falling on sensors and water falling on buckets.

@zajicekpavel · May 26, 2026

And he's right: Uneternal

explained perfectly, thank you.

Uneternal · May 26, 2026

Ph0t0 said:
Aha ... So by your logic, the crop suddenly becomes less efficient in measuring light, but the same amount of photons hit the cropped area of the sensor as the entire sensor ... Brilliant.

I said it's less efficient if there are smaller pixels, which my example of R3 and R5 perfectly illustrates. It is the same efficient if the pixel size is the same. Area does not affect sensor pixel efficiency.
Sure, if you count the complete sensor area and you compare different pixel sizes, then yeah, a full-frame sensor measures more accurate values of light, cause more photons arrive on one pixel, duh.
I'm not talking about that, I simply said if you compare the same area and pixel size, the noise of FF and APS-C is the same.

You're not losing any light/rain per square inch; you're just losing resolution (or total test tubes).
This is where the confusion often arises in sensor discussions.

Shot noise (perceived grain or noise in an image) is determined by the signal-to-noise ratio of the light hitting the sensor. If you crop a full-frame image to match the exact field of view of the APS-C sensor with the same pixel size, the noise performance within that cropped area is identical to that of the APS-C sensor. So it really comes down to interpretation. But saying "you lose light" is incorrect and misleading when framed as a loss of resolution or a drop in pixel efficiency.

neuroanatomist · May 26, 2026

Surab said:
Why do you have a rain gauge at hand? This made my day.

We had an arborist out last fall, to evaluate some plantings and arrange for pruning of some lovely, old Japanese maples on our property (not something I'm willing to do myself or have our regular landscapers handle). He left a bunch of literature and the rain gauge with us, the papers went in the filing cabinet and for no reason other than laziness the rain gauge has been sitting on the second desk in my home office since then. But I had to put some water in it (then weigh that water) in making my point, so after drying it off (ironic, right?) I did put the rain gauge out in the garden shed where it should have been put in the first place, last fall.