Latest activity

Click · Mar 28, 2026

Beautiful shots, Noreaster.

john1970 · Mar 28, 2026

Let me know when they release the rumored 300-600 mm f5.6 L lens and / or a 500 mm f4 L lens for the RF mount. Might also consider a second generation 400 mm f2.8 lens, but the 1st gen RF 400 mm f2.8L is still a very good lens.

Noreaster · Mar 28, 2026

GirlsAreBeautiful · Mar 28, 2026

Del Paso said:
And I very happily welcome a non-budget 28mm f/1,4 or f/1,2 L !!!
And, of course, a 35mm f/1.2 or f/1,0 L !!!

I'd take any 28mm with a focus speed up to today standards, but I know that it is not a market priority since zero manufacturers have released one. Plus the Canon pancake being a good deal has made it the lowest possible priority.

GirlsAreBeautiful · Mar 28, 2026

To be honest AI noise reduction or upscaling is "generating pixels". The effects can be pretty noticeable. I wish they focused more on dynamic range instead. Images are already clean enough and with enough resolution.

Also very funny comments on the RF restrictions to third party "it's not like that, but we are not going to say how it is". Sure...

Del Paso · Mar 28, 2026

m4ndr4ke said:
I’d very happily welcome a budget RF 28mm f/1.4 STM, it would be a perfect sister to the 45mm f/1.2.

And I very happily welcome a non-budget 28mm f/1,4 or f/1,2 L !!!
And, of course, a 35mm f/1.2 or f/1,0 L !!!

Del Paso · Mar 28, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
Sounds like a typical Canon interview. Nice to see the plan is to continue at 6-8 lenses per year.

FSI for the 6DIII wasn’t a surprise, the R5’s FSI sensor delivered IQ as good as any other FF sensor on the market. BSI is a marketing gimmick for current full frame pixel sizes (though you can’t get the speed benefit of a stacked sensor without BSI).

Why? I honestly don’t get comments like that. Except from trolls, or people with zero business acumen. Why lie when you can just leave it at ‘no comment’ (which was the main answer anyway). It could easily be true that the lack of 3rd party FF autofocus lenses is the choice of the 3rd parties, technically…Canon sets the terms, and if they don’t want such lenses made they just need to set terms to make it undesirable. 3rd parties won’t make the lenses if Canon’s licensing fee makes them unprofitable. It’s not personal, it’s business.

Del Paso · Mar 28, 2026

GMCPhotographics said:
The big question about that particular lens, which is typical for Sigma…is it sharp at its longest focal length? Does it suffer from horrendous flare and focal breathing and what’s it like with tele converters?
If none of these are “amazing” or “take your breath away” but merely “ok”, “adequate” or 90%, then a used EF 600 lis II might be a better option.

roby17269 · Mar 28, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
Sounds like a typical Canon interview. Nice to see the plan is to continue at 6-8 lenses per year.

Agreed

neuroanatomist said:
FSI for the 6DIII wasn’t a surprise, the R5’s FSI sensor delivered IQ as good as any other FF sensor on the market. BSI is a marketing gimmick for current full frame pixel sizes (though you can’t get the speed benefit of a stacked sensor without BSI).

Agreed

neuroanatomist said:
Why? I honestly don’t get comments like that. Except from trolls, or people with zero business acumen. Why lie when you can just leave it at ‘no comment’ (which was the main answer anyway). It could easily be true that the lack of 3rd party FF autofocus lenses is the choice of the 3rd parties, technically…Canon sets the terms, and if they don’t want such lenses made they just need to set terms to make it undesirable. 3rd parties won’t make the lenses if Canon’s licensing fee makes them unprofitable. It’s not personal, it’s business.

Canon haven't been 100% honest in the past though - same as Sony with the A mount, they kept making noises about the M mount not being dead well after the decision had been taken to kill it. They will say whatever they think we want to hear and honesty and candor are not a priority. Like any other corporation.

And I don't believe for a second that Sigma would not sell their FF lenses to RF customers if they could. If it was a case of costs they could simply pass them to the customers. And if it was a question of capacity they could simply produce less crop lenses and favor the more profitable FF ones

roby17269 · Mar 28, 2026

GMCPhotographics said:
The big question about that particular lens, which is typical for Sigma…is it sharp at its longest focal length? Does it suffer from horrendous flare and focal breathing and what’s it like with tele converters?
If none of these are “amazing” or “take your breath away” but merely “ok”, “adequate” or 90%, then a used EF 600 lis II might be a better option.

I know you like your old-ish lenses, but you should inform yourself about Sigma lenses... they've come a long way since a decade ago.
In any case, even if the lens was "horrendous" (which it isn't)... why would this be a problem? People can simply not buy it. It's called free market. Not that Canon shooters have the trouble of taking this horrendous risk...

Gino_FOTO · Mar 28, 2026

m4ndr4ke said:
I’d very happily welcome a budget RF 28mm f/1.4 STM, it would be a perfect sister to the 45mm f/1.2.

Personally, for the purposes for which fast primes are made, I am okay with the RF 45mm's performance. It delivers decent sharpness where it’s crucial, as well as an amount of bokeh that is otherwise hard to obtain. For me, though, 45mm is not the focal length I prefer. I would be happy to see something three times longer; just as the 45mm is a 'reimagined' EF 50mm f/1.2L, an RF 135mm f/2 STM would be sweet as a modernization of the EF 135mm f/2L. With more plastic in the construction, modern coatings, and an STM motor, a price point around €1,000 would be perfect.

GMCPhotographics · Mar 28, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
The title of the post is, “Is Ring-Type USM on the Way Out?” The lenses you list use Nano USM, not Ring USM. There’s a significant difference. Most of the VCM lenses have two AF motors, one VCM and one Nano USM.

Ahh, thank you for clarifying. The devil is always in the detail!

m4ndr4ke · Mar 28, 2026

I’d very happily welcome a budget RF 28mm f/1.4 STM, it would be a perfect sister to the 45mm f/1.2.

Michael Clark · Mar 28, 2026

EthenJ said:
I use my R50V for photography, and like it, but no IBIS is painful.

UBIS is available and quite affordable for the R7.

One example of Under Body Image Staabilization:

Benro MAD49A Adventure Series 4 Aluminum Monopod

neuroanatomist · Mar 28, 2026

I used to sell on Craigslist. Doable and fetches a higher price but a hassle. Now when I have gear to offload, I get a quote from MPB and KEH and go with the better one.

Michael Clark · Mar 28, 2026

MSH411 said:
The used market for an R7 in excellent condition is $1200 to $1300, at $800 that body would be a steal.

You're mistaking the used *selling* price from a reseller who offers no questions asked returns, 90 day warranties, etc. with the used *buying* price from those same entities.

In return for selling at a lower price to places such as KEH one can have confidence they are dealing with someone who will not rip them off and claim they never received the item, then file a complaint on eBay or whatever other platform and get their money back from you without returning the camera you "sold" them for what ended up being $0.00. Selling to KEH or the like is no hassle and practically risk free, unlike selling via eBay, Craigslist, FB Marketplace, etc. where there are 99 scammers on those platforms for every 1 legit potential buyer.

Michael Clark · Mar 28, 2026

danfaz said:
Have you tried seeing what KEH, MPB, etc. are offering? Or were those one of the ones you already looked at?

I highly suspect KEH is who gave her the quotes. They rarely pay more than half new price for an EX+ piece of gear.

Edit: Okay, so it was MBP.

Michael Clark · Mar 28, 2026

mb66energy said:
Most interesting minor point is: Where goes the thumb wheel?

"In hell, where I sent her." - Po Campo, the potential new cook in Lonesome Dove, when asked in San Antonio if he had a wife he'd miss and want to go back to when the cattle drive was halfway from Texas to Montana.

Michael Clark · Mar 28, 2026

john1970 said:
The third wheel on the R7 II makes a lot of sense. Frankly, if I were Canon I would use the three wheel design on all cameras if physically possible because it would standardize the controls across the brand.

Next thing you know, someone will suggest Canon should standardize metering linked to selected AF point across their entire line of ILCs!

Bob Howland · Mar 28, 2026

@zajicekpavel said:
Sigma and co. are focusing on APS-C because there is a huge gap in the market.

I somewhat agree. However, judging from Sigma's lens mount conversion service, the additional effort and cost to port their existing FF lenses to Canon RF is pretty trivial. As I recall, they quoted me about $250 per lens to convert two lenses from EF-M to RF and that included removing old parts and putting in new replacement parts. How much more could it cost to make all their existing FF lens in RF mount also? I don't know exactly why Sigma doesn't do it but Canon saying/implying that it's all Sigma's and Tamron's fault just seems like manipulative BS. Craig may be right that Sigma doesn't have the factory capacity now but I think Sigma would somehow make it work even if it means adding onto their factory and hiring more people.

@zajicekpavel · Mar 28, 2026

Sigma and co. are focusing on APS-C because there is a huge gap in the market.

neuroanatomist · Mar 28, 2026

Bob Howland said:
A distinction without a difference

Sure. Well, it’s not libel but only because you’re irrelevant to Canon and thus incapable of causing them harm.

dobiewancanobie · Mar 28, 2026

that was what MPB offered me. Thank you I don't need to sell it and I don't want to be robbed. I think their offer on the lens is a bit off as well. Any suggestions for places to sell as the seller not through mpb or others. I just looked on line and the r7 body is selling for 1,139. so 800 isn't that horrible and I am no worried of a flood of r7's when the new one comes out

Bob Howland · Mar 28, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
I know. I think you misunderstood my point, which was ‘technically’ in the sense of a technicality. I wrote in response to a claim that Canon was lying. If Canon sets license terms that effectively make it unprofitable for a 3rd party to make a certain lens, then when the 3rd party doesn’t make that lens, Canon can truthfully say it’s the 3rd party’s choice to not make the lens…and be technically correct.

A distinction without a difference