Latest activity

jeff89 · May 19, 2026

AlanF said:
Actually, some blurring of a dragonfly's wings in flight is rather attractive and parallels shooting helicopters and prop aircraft when, I believe, the devotees want the propellers and rotors blurred. I've shot 1000s of dragonflies in flight and have quite a few with crisp wings. The head-on one has a blurred body but that to me adds life to the photo. All taken with the RF 100-500 on the R5 or R5ii - you need a light lens to swivel fast.

View attachment 229579 View attachment 229580 View attachment 229581 View attachment 229582 View attachment 229583

To me, i like the detail better, but I can definitely understand your helicopter and prop analogy. Frozen blades in flight ain’t natural.

To those of us in the fixed wing community, the wisdom on the rotary wing community is “Helicopter lives are kinda like cat lives, but you never know how many of them there are, so you don’t want to go using them unnecessarily.”

In flight school I flew the T-34C, then at Cherry Point, the TAV8B’s mid to late 90’s. During the 70’s the AV-8A’s were dubbed the “Carolina Yard Darts”.

Del Paso · May 19, 2026

riker said:
Don't think about it, just do
The 100-500 is 200g lighter than the 100-400 and a 16y newer lens with better IS, AF, etc.
For me it's very important because it's my #1 travel lens even when just backpacking around places like Iraq, Pakistan, Afganistan, etc, so wight matters a lot.

It gets even lighter if you replace its enormous lens shade with the one made for the RF 50mm f/1,2. I never had any flares issues despite it being shorter.

Edit: The second one I bought for the RF 70-200 f/4.
Sure, you look a bit less professional...

riker · May 19, 2026

AlanF said:
It's lighter by 200g only when its tripod ring is removed. The in-use weight is only 90g less - see the-digital-picture.com

View attachment 229571

Damn, girl!
My whole world collapsing.
Well, still got that 90g, +100mm, better IS and AF.
Will be hard to sleep tonight, thanks

AlanF · May 19, 2026

jeff89 said:
It was nice of you to share the photos, to see what the RF 2x can do on the Z.

I shot a dragon fly resting on a croc and flies on a caiman, but unfortunately the photos were too shallow of depth of field. I saw your photos and it I thought, great pictures, but man, if only all the wings were crisp or the entire butterfly was in focus, with the background blown out like it is, they would be National Geographicesque, I know, next to impossible with a dragonfly in flight.

Actually, some blurring of a dragonfly's wings in flight is rather attractive and parallels shooting helicopters and prop aircraft when, I believe, the devotees want the propellers and rotors blurred. I've shot 1000s of dragonflies in flight and have quite a few with crisp wings. The head-on one has a blurred body but that to me adds life to the photo. All taken with the RF 100-500 on the R5 or R5ii - you need a light lens to swivel fast.

309A4870-DxO_Ruddy_Darter_Dragonfly_flying-ls-topaz-sharpen.jpeg

scyrene · May 19, 2026

riker said:
backpacking around [...] Afganistan

AlanF · May 19, 2026

riker said:
Don't think about it, just do
The 100-500 is 200g lighter than the 100-400 and a 16y newer lens with better IS, AF, etc.
For me it's very important because it's my #1 travel lens even when just backpacking around places like Iraq, Pakistan, Afganistan, etc, so wight matters a lot.

It's lighter by 200g only when its tripod ring is removed. The in-use weight is only 90g less - see the-digital-picture.com

neuroanatomist · May 19, 2026

jeff89 said:
I just don’t think I am ready to spend $589 for 1.4x and a loss of a stop of light, mentally, I think I prefer to shoot APS-C for the 1.6 crop factor, hence the interest in a high-end R7 II…

Ahhh, yes…the free lunch that comes with a smaller sensor. Truly magical.

The reality is that you’re losing over a stop of light with APS-C compared to full frame. Along with the smaller FoV (effective increase in focal length), you get 1.3-stops more noise. So, for example, ISO 3200 on APS-C looks like ISO 8000 on FF.

blackcoffee17 · May 19, 2026

jeff89 said:
I have no idea on Canon’s pricing margins, it’s often said Canon’s profits aren’t driven by their top end gear, presumably because of units sold, but when you see them knock $8000 off the RF 1200 L lens, there’s obviously some room for pricing.

The RF 1200mm is a special case because it's essentially a RF 600mm with added TC elements. And i assume the 14K 600mm already has a healthy profit margin on it.

neuroanatomist · May 19, 2026

I don’t travel with the charger for the LP-E19 batteries, I just plug the power adapter that I bring for my MacBook Pro into the camera to charge the battery.

I do that with my R8, as well, though I usually need to charge two batteries in succession in the camera.

riker · May 19, 2026

Surab said:
If I could only justify it... haha

Don't think about it, just do

The 100-500 is 200g lighter than the 100-400 and a 16y newer lens with better IS, AF, etc.
For me it's very important because it's my #1 travel lens even when just backpacking around places like Iraq, Pakistan, Afganistan, etc, so wight matters a lot.

john1970 · May 19, 2026

I would love to see Canon redesign the battery charger for the R1 series camera so the batteries plug in vertically instead of horizontally so the charger could be made significantly smaller (which is great for travel). I love the R1 camera, but really wished Canon would spend some resources and redesign the charger.

blackcoffee17 · May 19, 2026

I love everything about my R8 but a joystick would be nice. I find the screen-trackpad less accurate and less enjoyable to use. C'mon, even the R10 has a joystick.

jeff89 · May 18, 2026

homebodyMacro2 said:
As an enthusiast, I hope I get what I want too lol

Certainly, I don't expect equivalents for every other lens here. Something would be a good start. All the lenses I listed above are fairly attractive, imo. I think Canon has excellent lenses, and certainly each company wants to find its lane to an extent. My "get with the program" complaint is also not intended to be overly serious lol. I'd just like to have more options, and Canon has not been in this particular lane as of recent.

Trust me, I already died a little inside at the thought lmao

I mean no insult to those lenses. Their exclusion is because they pretty clearly (imo) don't fall into the "not quite the fastest" target that I was exclusively discussing. That's not to say this is some objective taxonomy that I've derived, it's just a forum post/lamentation as I beg Canon to take my money on a new supertelephoto release. I also rather like zooms for fast-moving wildlife (birds, dragonflies, etc.) - if somehow we get a 300-600 f/5.6L under 5 figures (which I somewhat doubt), it would be very attractive imo. A recent article here mentioned a 500mm f/5.6L (not that patents will strictly translate to commercial lenses), which imo would be interesting as well: https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-shows-off-rf-500mm-f5-6-l-is-in-latest-patent/

Canon makes great zoom lenses! I am a staunch evangelist for the 70-200Z (including w/ 2x). All of these taken with the 2x on:
View attachment 229568
View attachment 229569
View attachment 229570

Nice photos, I haven’t bought the RF extenders, and while I own both the EF’s, I haven’t ever shot with them, but given the amount of EF glass I have, I figure it better to have them and not need them, than to need them, and not be able to get them. I used the Sigma 1.4 on the 150-600 Sigma lens to shoot the moon, and occasionally flip the 1.4x into position on the EF 200-400 f4L +1.4x.

It was nice of you to share the photos, to see what the RF 2x can do on the Z.

I shot a dragon fly resting on a croc and flies on a caiman, but unfortunately the photos were too shallow of depth of field. I saw your photos and it I thought, great pictures, but man, if only all the wings were crisp or the entire butterfly was in focus, with the background blown out like it is, they would be National Geographicesque, I know, next to impossible with a dragonfly in flight.

I just don’t think I am ready to spend $589 for 1.4x and a loss of a stop of light, mentally, I think I prefer to shoot APS-C for the 1.6 crop factor, hence the interest in a high-end R7 II, and the thought of $689, while giving up two stops of light, has me hoping they come through with a $5-6K L tele zoom, c’mon Canon, don’t let us down.

homebodyMacro2 · May 18, 2026

scyrene said:
For the sake of the enthusiasts I hope you get what you want, it would be fun to see some novel telephoto options. But it could be that Canon is segregating the long lens market differently to those other companies - or vice versa - and so there will never be precise equivalents of each thing across every range. It's often presented as though Canon needs to catch up with Nikon etc but they probably don't see it that way. In any case we have more and better choices now than in the EF days when I started; back then you could go to 400 f/5.6 at ~£1500 but no further without leaping up to the hugely expensive big big whites.

As an enthusiast, I hope I get what I want too lol

Certainly, I don't expect equivalents for every other lens here. Something would be a good start. All the lenses I listed above are fairly attractive, imo. I think Canon has excellent lenses, and certainly each company wants to find its lane to an extent. My "get with the program" complaint is also not intended to be overly serious lol. I'd just like to have more options, and Canon has not been in this particular lane as of recent.

Del Paso said:
No, no, no!
We can only take a break from wide/ultrawide lenses AFTER the introduction of number 10: The 14mm TS-E !

Trust me, I already died a little inside at the thought lmao

Czardoom said:
As primarily a bid photographer, the Canon 100-500L and the Canon 200-800 are the only two lenses I would even consider from this group, even though you consider that they don't even compete. The 3 Nikon lenses certainly look like good value for the money, but they are all primes, so much more difficult to handle for my use, and I would not even consider them. The two Sony lenses, not nearly long enough, although the new zoom sure looks good for other uses. The Sigma 300-600, way too expensive compared to the two Canon options. Under pretty much no circumstances would I need (or use) f/4 for birding.

I mean no insult to those lenses. Their exclusion is because they pretty clearly (imo) don't fall into the "not quite the fastest" target that I was exclusively discussing. That's not to say this is some objective taxonomy that I've derived, it's just a forum post/lamentation as I beg Canon to take my money on a new supertelephoto release. I also rather like zooms for fast-moving wildlife (birds, dragonflies, etc.) - if somehow we get a 300-600 f/5.6L under 5 figures (which I somewhat doubt), it would be very attractive imo. A recent article here mentioned a 500mm f/5.6L (not that patents will strictly translate to commercial lenses), which imo would be interesting as well: https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-shows-off-rf-500mm-f5-6-l-is-in-latest-patent/

Canon makes great zoom lenses! I am a staunch evangelist for the 70-200Z (including w/ 2x). All of these taken with the 2x on:

danfaz · May 18, 2026

Click said:
Two very nice photos. I prefer the second one because of the composition with the hills.

Thanks, Click! I think I prefer that one, as well. Those yellow flowers weren't quite cooperating with me.

Click · May 18, 2026

Nicely done, jabird56.

Click · May 18, 2026

danfaz said:
A valley near the California/Nevada border with some wildflowers. R5 + RF 10-20.

Two very nice photos. I prefer the second one because of the composition with the hills.

jabird56 · May 18, 2026

One of the wife's roses out front..

Canon EOS 90D / ISO 800 / 1/160 / Partial Metering / RAW
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 II USM / @35mm and f/6.3

MAVEN Filters:
82mm Splash Guard
82mm CPL
82mm +2 Diopter

Processed using DXO Photolab Elite 9 and NIK 9 HDR Efex

ScreensMatter · May 18, 2026

pererik_2000 said:
The R6 mark ii ($2585) has the same 24 Mpix sensor as R8 (currently $1550 in Sweden) but also with IBIS. It is a much bigger and heavier camera. I like the idea of a lightweight camera like the R8 with somewhat better specifications. IBIS and 32 Mpix sensor is my wish. I doubt that a 24 Mpix (3x2) sensor is good enough for 4K video with 1,6 crop and 16x9 aspect ratio.

Stop doubting and get informed. The information is widely available.

"The R6 II captures oversampled UHD 4K/60p video using the entire width of its sensor – no more crop. It's also possible to capture 4K/60p from an APS-C crop of the sensor." DPReview

"The R6 II also supports a ProRes RAW video workflow when paired with a compatible Atomos recorder. This includes 6K Raw video using the entire sensor width or 3.7K Raw video using a Super35 crop" DPReview

AlanF · May 18, 2026

tomcat said:
My R5 Mark II won't upgrade from version 1.2.0 to 1.3.0. Both the camera and EOS Utility say that a downgrade isn't possible. Is anyone else having this problem – or even better, does anyone have a solution? Thanks!

Have you tried doing it by downloading the firmware to a card?

rombe3jr · May 18, 2026

Oh, and for a new lens, I am really hoping for Canon to complete the STM zoom "trinity" having the 16-28 f/2.8 and 28-70 f/2.8 now they only need the 70-180 f/2.8 and the HOLY TRINITY of lenses will be complete! For those of us more budget conscious it would be nice if this trinity came in under $3,500 USD which means it needs to be $1,300 USD. If that is too tall of an order, maybe they can shrink it to 70-150mm but it really shouldn't go less than that. This makes sense though since these are basically the Canon version of Tamron's best selling lenses. They should sell like hotcakes.

rombe3jr · May 18, 2026

I'm super excited for the Canon R8 II and would like to see it use the R6 III sensor, 12 fps continuous shooting, larger battery (LP-E6NH), a rear dial / scroll wheel, two card slots and priced at $1,500 USD. To keep the cost down I think it's ok to avoid IBIS with plenty of stabilized lenses, electronic first curtain, no joystick and if they can save by holding back RAW, 7K, Open Gate and C-Log 2 video then fine. But it would be nice to get 4k 120 fps without a crop. That would be a great hybrid camera and a nice "step up" to full frame from APS-C. Frankly, the R8 is still a good option too but it should be closer to $1,000 USD. And since the R8 came out just 5 months after the R6 II we are about due for this camera any day now!

neuroanatomist · May 18, 2026

bks54 said:
I saw a size comparison of the R6V R6iii and C50. Most interesting reveal was that the top-mounted she, while not a hot shoe with flash contacts does have concealed contacts at the front of the shoe which appear to be very similar to the contacts for the shoe-mounted EVF for the EOS M6ii and other M series cameras. Is it possible that older EVFs might work or that Canon might produce a future detachable EVF or use these for some kind of flash (with slow sync speed)?

There R6 V does have the multifunction shoe, it just does not support a flash. It does support, for example, the DM-E1D Stereo Microphone (I have one that I use with my PowerShot V1). Presumably, it would also support the Tascam XLR Adapter.

It could support a flash (one of the EL flashes directly, or an older EX flash via the AD-E1 adapter). As you suggest, Canon would need to limit the X-sync to 1/80 s or 1/60 s, and I suspect that is why they don't support it currently.

Yes, it is possible that Canon could launch an external EVF to work with the multifunction shoe on the R6 V. Older EVFs (e.g., the ones for the M-series) will not work. Here are the contacts on the EVF for my M6II (left) and the DM-E1D:

Czardoom · May 18, 2026

jeff89 said:
I think the reason for no 7D III is because of the transition to mirrorless, the 7D was released in September 2009, the 7D II in September 2015, so it was do for a refresh in September 2019, and even though, Canon had the M-series, Canon was under pressure to address Sony in the mirrorless market, thus they released the Canon R (5D IV sensor) in September 2018, and the RP (6D II sensor) in March 2019. The R5 and R6 were released during the Covid lockdowns, July 2020 and August 2020 with all the uncertainties and supply chain issues. So the R7 was released in June 2022 with the R10 in July 2022.

Canon still had the DSLR's: 1DX III and 5D IV. So with what was going on, I don't think the 7D III refresh was as high of a priority, everyone I know raves about the 7D II, those customers were happy. If I was a birder, I would have gotten a 7D II, but as a landscape guy, I moved from the 7D to the 5D III and 5DS R. There was talk of Nikon going the way of Sears Roebuck, but the Nikon D800 and D850 DSLR's kept the faithful Nikon shooters with hope, until they hit a home run with the Z9 and later Z8. I think I got the last Nikon APS-C, the D780, which was struggling against the mirrorless environment.

Birders like their APS-C sensors, my first entrance into birds was on Safari last year and for that I have the 200-400 f4 + 1.4x, but it left me coming up short more than I would have liked. I had my R5, R6 & R7 on the trip, but since I was a first time safari, I often had the wrong set up on the river or on game drives trying to balance light and length. Then on a trip to the Amazon, I took my R5, R7 and R3, and exchanged the 200-400 for the 300 2.8 and the 200-800 for length. Unfortunately the AF on the R5 isn't nearly as capable as the R5 II and the folks shooting A1 II, as they could track monkeys moving through the trees, while my R5 and R3 struggled mightily.

I have moved my R7 to my underwater photography niche and was looking forward to the R7 II, or a high MP R3 which is even more of a question mark than the R7 II. I was thinking about converting a R5 or maybe R5 II also, but now I think I am going to go the Sony A7CR or wait on the A7CR II for my FF underwater camera as it affords higher MP's in a smaller housing.

As far as future buyers, I think those in the R50 segment, will probably be more of a candidate for a R10 I/II or R8 I/II. Heck the RP is still selling, long after the R. I think the people that are most enthusiastic about the R7 II are wildlife and to a lesser extent, outdoor sports shooters, they want a premium APS-C flagship, if you ask them , they would really like for it to be a R1 APS-C camera, is Canon going there, highly unlikely, but Canon wants to hold on to that segment, there are plenty of other cameras for new buyers to hop into the brand. How many birders would opt for a R6 I/II over the R7? How many will opt for a R6 III or wait for the R7 II? I am in the wait crowd, as my current travel combo now is the R1 & R5 II.

I am amazed that people have already forgotten the Covid lockdowns and supply chain issues (toilet paper ?). There were a lot of abnormal things occurring, and the current Iran/Strait of Hormuz oil and supply chain issues are probably forcing them to be flexible. Heck, with talk of the market dropping 40-60% here in the US, the camera market may all but dry up.

Some good points, but I think you are ignoring the 6 year gap between 7D and 7D II and the 7 year gap between the 7D II and the R7. And the fact that Nikon has never made a successor to their "flagship" wildlife crop camera, the D500. Judging from people on this forum and other places, I also think that many folks who were looking for a higher end R7, ended up going full frame with the higher mp R5. I think, all things considered, we are talking about a niche camera. I bought the R7 because it was affordable. As primarily a bird photographer, a high-end, more expensive R7 II does not interest me at all. Price matters. This is not to say I don't think Canon may indeed go high end with the R7 II. I think that the R7 and R10 may be too close in terms of specs, so taking the R7 to another level might make perfect sense.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics