Posts

blobmonster · May 9, 2026

Still waiting patiently for Canon to respond to the Fuji x100 and Ricoh GR, i.e. prime lens compact, preferably truly compact like GR.

G1xiii was an interesting option, but the slow zoom lens meant that it was not as exciting an option as a 35-40 mm equivalent prime. It also slowed down start up, and the form factor meant that it was too big for jeans pockets.

M6 is nearly perfect for jeans pocket camera with 22mm amd ovf. Just needs to lose the tilt screen weight and slightly smaller lens (maybe 2.8 or 4). If its fixed, we can have high sync speed built in flash just like the x100.

...and of course, a compromise would have to be made to cram in a nice evf in the same form factor. Realistically, that means dropping the lcd, or reducing it to give a real photographic viewfinder experience, where it shows settings not live view. Images could still be reviewed, but in the evf where they look better anyway. Canon's ovf sim evfs are amazing now...

A truly small powerhouse compact would do for Canon RF what the x100 has done for the X system, and be a simple gateway for new photographers.

Michael Clark · May 8, 2026

Rceres said:
It’s always a bit surprising to me how much criticism the Canon EOS R5 Mark II receives. These cameras are remarkable feats of engineering, and every design is a compromise. There’s only so much capability you can fit into an R5-sized body before something has to give. As a general-purpose, “one camera does everything well” tool, the R5 II is outstanding. Having recently upgraded from the Canon EOS 5D (purchased when it first came out), I’ve been very pleased with mine.

That said, I’m not the target customer for an R5 III.

If Canon follows the same path as before, the R5 III will likely be a Pareto refinement, slightly better in every spec, but fundamentally the same kind of camera. And for many users, that’s exactly right. But for some of us, the R5 II is already overbuilt in areas we don’t need (30 fps, advanced video), while still not fully optimized for what we care about most.

Personally, I’d trade some of that versatility for a more specialized tool.

The camera I would buy tomorrow (and which Canon might be able to introduce soon) would look similar to the R5, but with a different set of priorities. In particular:

a meaningful jump in resolution (80+ MP)

a higher-end EVF closer to the Canon EOS R1

To make that work within a similar form factor, I would happily trade:

reduced burst rate (10–12 fps is more than enough)

most or all video features

In other words, a stills-first camera designed for maximum detail, tonality, and rendering. Something aimed at landscape, fine art, studio, real estate, and large-format print work. Photography where ultimate image quality matters more than speed or hybrid capability.

Canon currently has speed-first bodies (R1/R3) and highly capable generalists (R5 II), but no dedicated image-quality-first camera. This would fill that gap.

Call it an R5S, an R4, or something else entirely. I suspect there’s a meaningful audience for a body that prioritizes image quality over versatility.

The R5 II is an outstanding generalist, and I’m sure the R5 III will be even better. I just think there’s room alongside it for a true image quality specialist.

A higher end EVF depends upon higher video performance capability of both the sensor and the processor.

P-visie · May 7, 2026

DPReview has an article about camera testing by NASA (from 2022) It includes the R5.

See: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/8...e-moon-but-nasas-tests-show-your-camera-could

Rceres · May 7, 2026

The venerated RF 50 and 85 1.2L’s feel a little long in the tooth. Both are amazing optically but are too fat, an artifact of the very large and powerful ring USM focus motors needed to move their massive focal groups. The more modern RF 135 1.8L shows how far Canon engineers have come. It is almost impossible to take a bad portrait with that lens.

Today’s Canon engineers could probably retain the 50 and 85’s optical properties and deliver mk ii versions with internal focus groups driven by nano USM. Such a design could be slimmer, handle better, and autofocus more quickly, quietly, and with more confidence. In other words, they could feel more like the 135 1.8L.

My opinion is that a redesigned 50 and 85 1.2L would both inspire and sell. Heck, I’d unload my current 50 1.2L and buy both. Throw in a similar 100 F1.4L and I’d buy that as well!

Mxw.be · May 7, 2026

So sad, I was hoping Viltrox would licence some rfs lenses like Tamron and sigma. Especially their pro lenses for apsc

Michael Clark · May 6, 2026

Sporgon said:
Are you sure about this ? It’s the first time I’ve heard it stated as a matter of fact.
I’ve only ever read rather woolly statements regarding how it must be to protect highlights, though when you think how much brighter the highlights can be over the rest of the image one third stop seems like naff all.
Have you a reliable source you can share regarding this ?

DxOMark ISO Sensitivities

DxOMark Derived Measured ISO

Michael Clark · May 6, 2026

justaCanonuser said:
I think we are not talking about the same issue, and I should have been more precise. I should have written that I always compared the 7D cameras with the D5X cameras, beginning with the 5D3 (I had the 5D3 and 4, and the 7D1 and 2). Only this makes sense, and of course the AF sensor of the FF DSLRs were bigger and could collect more photons (I am a physicist, I know what you mean). Comparing the AF systems of DSLRs (shooting with OVF) and ML cameras is like comparing apples with peas. Sorry, Michael, I should have been a bit more precise here. Have always good light

The PDAF Array was the same size, but the microlenses covering the PDAF Array which focused light onto them were placed closer together to gather light the light coming through the narrower semi-silvered portion of the reflex mirror.

snappy604 · May 6, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
Landscapes are often stopped down, in which case there will be little if any IQ difference. Mostly it will come down to focal range (more is usually better), weight (the 16-28 is a lot lighter) and cost (the 16-28 is about half the cost.

If the 15-35/2.8 is in your budget, have you considered the 10-20/4?

while I am looking at landscape.. I also do a fair bit of low light band shots and looking to do more inside.. so wanting the 2.8.. even that can be a challenge, hence the 20mm 1.4... but yep that weight

also I don't tend to use the Adobe ecosystem... my software (On1) tends to be less capable with lens profiles, which I should've mentioned in hindsight. The 10-20/4 is neat but if I recall still needs a fair bit of post correction and also again the brightness.. I prefer fast lenses so its not been on my radar.

AlanF · May 6, 2026

GMCPhotographics said:
Sorry Alan....I was messaging another chap, over on Whatsapp called Frank at the same time as i was writing my forum reply here and for some reason my brain got the two names mixed, I am so sorry.
Canon's lens MFT charts are measuring lens optical resolution at 30 lpm and contrast at 10 lpm. Optyczne's sensor tests are measuring 50 lpm, which is similar to what some other lens brands have used in the past to determin their Lens optical MFT charts. However, the two approaches do align to some degree and hold merit, but there needs to be adjustments between the two scales. As they currently stand, they are a reasonable approximation between sensor and lens sharpness testing.

What I was getting at is that a lens of MTF 0.75 will give a sharp image under certain conditions, but a lens of MTF 1.0 will give you a sharp image under more extreme conditions. If it's a telephoto lens, it will resolve as well 30% further away.

The overall MTF of the sensor/lens system, MTF(L/S) = MTF(L)xMTF(S), that is the product of the MTF of the Lens times that of Sensor. A lens of MTF 0.75 will lower the overall MTF(L/S) by 25%, irrespective of the resolution of the sensor.

GMCPhotographics · May 6, 2026

tleasa said:
A feature that I would love to see but I've never even seen it brought up before would be: Focus stacking where you could focus close, mark it, (push a button?) focus far, mark it and then have the camera calculate the required focus points between and shoot them.

Currently is guesswork. the space between focus points and the number of images...it would be nice for the camera to do the math for us.
It would also be nice of the camera generated a stacked Raw file too, the Jpeg is nice....but....

HenryL · May 5, 2026

Yes that video from Fro was an April Fools joke.

neuroanatomist · May 4, 2026

OldrockyGN said:
I suspect that many of the posts have not been made with full understanding of my preference for
HandHeld.

Not sure why you would think so, but I really doubt that’s the case. The concepts of signal to noise and lens design don’t depend on whether you are handholding or using a tripod. One of the points about shooting with a long lens in “low light“ is that often happens at light levels that would not normally be considered limiting, but when one needs a 1/2000 s shutter speed for a bird in flight, the amount of light reaching the sensor is low, even though to your eyes there is plenty of light.

Personally, I shoot a variety of subjects, some of which require tripod shooting (e.g., blue hour and astro, because handholding for a 30 s exposure is not really feasible). But most of my bird shooting is handheld, including most of my shooting with the EF 600/4L II (which I typically use with a 1.4x extender, currently the RF 1.4x). The exception to that is winter raptors, where I will sometimes set up in a spot for an hour or two waiting for a snowy owl to take off, and in that case I use a tripod and side-mount gimbal for the 600/4.

blobmonster · May 3, 2026

Lots of desire for powershot g1 / eos m6 style body with 22mm equivalent.

Rf mount is just too big imo. I'd love to see an m6 /G1 aps-c replacement with 22mm fixed to it, ideally with a leaf shutter and built in flash. It would beat the fuji x100 imo.

These days canons ovf sim evfs are potentially as good or better vs a little slr viewfinder, although not as good as an old fashioned add on optical viewfinder imo...

AlanF · May 3, 2026

P-visie said:
With some content creators it will be hard to tell if the hallucinating is from the original video or from the AI model creating the transcript.

Garbage in, garbage out.

AlanF · May 2, 2026

spartan said:
Hi dear,

I like it (f4) but accept F5.6 but no fressnel or DO.. I need best L optic with perfect bokeh.. Otherwise it is useless to have prime,

All the reviews on the Nikon Z 600mm f/6.3 PF (DO) lens say how good its bokeh is. Here are the first 4 I checked.

https://www.lenstip.com/672.7-Lens_...m_f_6.3_VR_S_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html

https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-600mm-f6-3-vr-s-review/2/

https://photographylife.com/nikon-z-600mm-f-6-3-s-long-term

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/reviews/nikon-z-600mm-f63-vr-s-review

So, I wouldn’t worry too much if it is DO or PF as the technology has improved.

David - Sydney · Apr 30, 2026

after >5 years since they promised one for the R5!

m4ndr4ke · Apr 29, 2026

Does anyone owns both the RF 28-70mm f/2.8 AND the 28-70mm f/2 L?

Also, to those who own the smaller lens, now that it's been over a year, how has been using it? Is the retractable design annoying, and do you find yourself going accidentally to "forbidden area" of the zoom ring, or is it not an issue at all?

I'm low key considering downgrading. The f/2 lens is incredible, but I don't think I take enough advantage of it - I shoot mainly at f/2.8, so I've been carrying extra glass that I rarely use.

To those who own both lenses: how do they compare in terms of colours, contrast and micro-contrast? I don't care for MTF charts (I do care, but I know these lenses are more than enough for my cameras).

And no, I'm not interested in the RF 24-70mm f/2.8.

neuroanatomist · Apr 28, 2026

I have my gear covered as a rider on my homeowner's policy.

Maybe you need a new agent/broker or a new insurance company? I've done this for many years with two different insurance companies, and I've had no issues with either company. The first was State Farm who we had since living in CA, but they have no agents in MA and stopped writing new policies here long ago. I dealt with their 'policy service office' to drop gear that I sold and add gear that I bought each year. We switched when we moved to a new house in the same town 9 years ago, and we're now with a different insurance company through a local insurance broker.

I'm sure you'd need to show your proof of purchases, regardless. I did when we switched insurers, and when I buy new gear I just send my insurance broker a pdf of the invoice (usually from B&H) and they add it to the policy (likewise, when I offload gear I just email them and they remove it).

I pay 1.3% of the value of the covered gear for full replacement coverage, worldwide including theft/loss. I don't put the small stuff on the policy, only gear costing >$1K is on the schedule, but the total is well north of $50K. My broker didn't bat an eye at that when we opened the policy, she just said send me a list and the receipts.

Gear coverage on a homeowner's policy is only possible if you don't make money with the gear. If you do, you need to look for 'inland marine' coverage. I suspect you're going to pay a substantially higher rate for that type of standalone coverage.

Askeladden · Apr 25, 2026

AlanF said:
7 posts in 2 years, each one complaining about Canon and your switching to Sony. Why do you bother to read a forum like this?

As someone who runs a forum and entertain certain controversial subjects on other platforms you'd be surprised just how much astroturfing, shilling and botting is going on these days. Organic discourse is pretty much dead.

Naqib Aliff · Apr 23, 2026

Sony has getting up with their game with the mobile apps. Dont you think should be doing the same or advance? Need a better mobile app for canon cameras since they releasing the V line up soon

Brown · Apr 23, 2026

*democratic republic

ruzun · Apr 22, 2026

With Canon releasing an updated version of the Cine-Servo 50-1000 I thought I should bring this up again. I don't for the life of me understand why there would not be a market for a decent, modern, native glass lens that has something like a 50-500mm zoom range, built in Drop-in filter slot, and built in 1.4x tele-extender. It would not have to be fast, f/6.3 or so would be enough at the tele end, and not really have to be very light. It could sell for $7k or even anything up to almost $10k and people would really use it quite a bit for wildlife video. There really isn't anything that fits this niche now. Most people that don't have access to the $70k cine lenses use something like the Sigma 60-600 just because there really isn't anything in between.

EOS 4 Life · Apr 22, 2026

mb66energy said:
for me a strange idea to have R6 iii, R6 V and C50 as three flavours of one basic camera "segment".

It is exactly what Sony does.
ZV-E1, A7S III, FX3, and FX6.

GMCPhotographics · Apr 22, 2026

It's very possible that Canon will take the current R8 mechanicals, remove the EVF and package it in a Video focused "V" style body shell. Job done. Does it need a R6III sensor? Probably not.

Canon Rumors · Apr 22, 2026

The legendary image editing software suite also introduces halation, glass textures, and chromatic shifts, as well as a host of workflow improvements that open up new artistic possibilities. Nik Collection 9 delivers the most ambitious update in the suite's history, combining powerful new Al-enhanced masking tools with a fresh approach to color grading and a […]

See full article...

Posts

Posts

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics