Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any update so far. @Canon Rumors may have something in the works, but I haven't seen anything else on the internet. I bumped this thread to see if we could get that wheel spinning a bit lol. But who knows, maybe this one died down again. I certainly hope not!So is there an announcement on the 26.11 ?
Anymore information around this lens ?


Science has to conform to political opinions, best seen in a former colony...Science is just another opinion. Facts, data and evidence are superfluous. Sigh.
Well, Richard, to repeat the point: it's a business.We've long believed Canon has been holding back the RF mount for profit, but what if that isn't the only reason? Did Canon look at the trends out of China's optical companies and realize that their greatest threat wasn't Sony, Nikon, or Panasonic, but the likes of Laowa, Sirui, and other Chinese manufacturers that were […]
See full article...
Somehow, I doubt you will see anything like the P1000/1100 from Canon. It is a very niche product. I have a P1000 (same as P1100 except for USB connector type) and it is an interesting beast. The lens is actually quite good, considering the enormous zoom range, but the camera, itself, is a bit quirky IMO. It has a very short burst buffer (7 raw as I recall) and the lens stabilizer is dodgy past about 1000mm equivalent (not surprising). I have found if I set it to burst mode and take a handheld burst of 3 to 5 images at 3000mm, one or two will be OK. That makes the long end usable, but the catch is that the buffer takes several seconds to recover, so you basically only get one try at the shot. And, yes, it is a big camera (huge for a P&S), but not all that heavy. Here are a few samples of what it can do. The first two are at full reach (3000mm equiv.) and third is at about 1000 mm equiv. These were all shot raw (I don't shoot JPEG) and processed through Lightroom. It is only a 16 MP sensor, so you do need to frame carefully, but it can make some very nice images.Hi - I am new to canonrumors and curious if there is any recent update on an SX70 HS replacement? I am not a professional, or frankly, not even a camera enthusiast. I have an older EOS Rebel XS (circa 2006ish) with a 70-300mm lens that I took on my last African safari (and an iPhone - lol), but it's dated and I'm seriously thinking about a superzoom bridge camera for my next safari in Feb '26. The Nikon P1100 looks sweet, but big. Hoping Canon is still planning an SX70 replacement that will be similar to the P1100, but smaller/lighter and with a bigger sensor. And come out before Feb! Open to comments...Thanks



Can time lapse have original sound even in principle? It's just a series of still images stitched together as a video. (High fps/slo mo is another matter).Canon sadly offers no audio recording in camera during time lapse/slomo.
I agree, between the outdated still too pricey R3 or very new latest model less pricey R6III i will go for R6III, heck i even can't afford R5II which is newer model although it is cheaper than R3, i do sports, and i know people in sports prefer build quality more for reasons and battery time, but all those years i learnt that money affordable value is what i should go for over whistles and sparks, i came from 1DX which was top of the line for Canon and bloody expensive, time passed and it is outdated and just a thing of a past and all that spending didn't make history for me, it served me excellent for sure, but it wasn't that i can't make the difference with lesser bodies, such as 1D mkIII or 7D mkII, i do have 1D3 and 1Dx is superior, but my outdated very old model of Sony A7R did put both into shame and also my 1Ds2 and 1Ds3 into shame for pure resolution, not about focus or speed, and that was an old model camera, imagine what a Canon mirrorless current cameras can do now, and i don't think R1 will make superior quality over R7 or R6II, but it is better overall performance, so i won't choose R3 for sports by myself.Well, you mentioned "pro build" twice, just to make the list of which the R3 superior is look longer.))
Anyway, for me who shoots mostly wildlife, it would not be reasonable to buy even a used R3 anymore, which has only the benefit of stacked sensor and pro build over the R6 III. I am not sure if there is a major difference in buffer between these two, 150 RAW pics of the R6 III is plenty even at 40 fps. I rarely photograph birds, so rolling shutter is less of an issue for me. More video options, precapture/prerecording, 40fps, 32 MP, lower price etc outweights not having stacked sensor or pro build, which I also like.
Maybe a sports photographer, who can not afford the R1 would gravitate towards the R3, but still precapture, 40 fps, the price point of the R6 III is very tempting.
I also noticed the increasing number of used R3s for sale just prior to the announcement of R6 III...maybe just a cooincidence.
All cropped so that 1 px of the crop posted = 1 pixel of original (100% crop). Just bulk standard DxO PL6 Prime output. Light was fine and that's all I use 99% of the time.We're these cropped and / or denoised?
I'd say this seals the deal (in negative) on the lens, but, as seen in the first reviews, it was to be expected.Overall I'd say the 50 1.8 is always sharper.
Sane people don't wander around the net getting in pissing contests about what's better, making accusations, or requiring others to see things exactly like they do. I don't shivagit what someone says somewhere else.Maybe check out Alistair's posts of dpreview, he has been called out countless times for jumping to Canon's defense at the slightest hint of criticism of a product. His modus operandi is the basic Argument from Ignorance logical fallacy - "I can't see any problem with it, so there are no problems, so nobody should say anything negative about it". People on that forum have also said to him after looking at how bad his photos are, that he shouldn't be advising anyone about anything. Just a pre-emptive post to stop him polluting this forum in the way he does over there, best to call it out. You need to understand, when someone has very low photography skills it is easy for the gear to far exceed their abilities, so naturally, everything looks good to them, and so they tell everyone that gear is good for EVERYONE, and nobody should complain. No mind reading needed, just a simple logical inference (drawing conclusions based on evidence and reasoning), exaggerated with a little hyperbole for amusement, to sum up Alistair's typical posts and behavior on the other forum - if you don't believe me look it up. Anyway, enjoy your day!![]()
Group 3 also includes R5/R5 Mk II owners who did not buy the R7 because they did not like the ergonomics, viewfinder and electronic shutter performance.There is a Group 3, of which I am one, R5/R5ii owners who like the R7 as a complement to our full frame with slightly better reach and useful with some lighter lenses. We are ones who want the R7 to have the same ergonomics as the R5 series and I presume would be candidates for an R7ii.
Mark IV is spoken as "Makū Fō". Same goes for the EOS Kiss X4 which is spoken as "Ekkuso Fō".And why would Arabic numerals count by that logic? That's not native to Japanese either. The 5dIV is called the "five dee mark four" which in Japanese would contain the word. Other Japanese companies don't seem to avoid the number too much. Nikon had a D4 and a J4. Sony had a PS4. Fuji has an XT4.
In any case, number 4 can be pronounced as both shi or yon in Japanese. The latter seemingly preferred due to the death connotation of the former. But for the same reason, the use of the number doesn't seem to be avoided by Japanese companies to the same degree as Chinese companies.
Thanks for sharing this link, the ‘Technical articles’ have a lot of interesting information.There is a surprisingly detailed and highly accurate source showing all of Canon's autofocus motors here:
ƎXCLUSIVE ARCHITECTURE
exclusivearchitecture.com
Cheers!