Click said:

My cat does the same thing. He even goes behind the TV to see if the bird is there.

Click to expand...

In this case there is no behind: the TV is on the wall....

ThomasTH said:

I especially like the first photo, which is minimalistic and kind of abstract.

Click to expand...

Same here.

I hope a Canon PowerShot G5 X Mark III (or G1x APS C new issue) better, and available in Europe too.

BCN released its data for November, and there are a few other interesting pieces of information that have come out lately, so I'm going to lump it all into my musings, so lets get into things and oh, we have to talk about the R3 Mark II, R7 Mark II, R10 Mark II along the […]

See full article...

Our crop stable included the Rebel, Rebel XTi, T2i, and 80D. I love the Rebel and 80D, although the former is now for nostalgia and the 80D is in the hands of my kiddo. The 80D resulted in large, beautiful Alaska prints that adorn my office.

I was tempted with the 7D2, but at the time I felt it was too out of date compared to the 80D. But I have friends with the 7D2 for whom you'd have to pry the camera out of their dead hands, even with the R7 offering.

I ultimately decided the R6 with long glass gave me equivalent framing at much higher quality pixels, so left the crop world. But I think the crop world remains quite valid, and the sensors only get better. Someone mentioned in the R3 "II" forum how a crop R3 would be a neat spin on the professional use of crop sensors, and I have to agree. It would be neat to see an R7/R3II crop value pair in the line-up for those photographers needing every last ounce of apparent zoom.

ddixon said:

FYI - for those that use DXO PhotoLab, they have now posted an update that supports the R6mIII.

Click to expand...

Finally!!

Dragon said:

For liquid cooling, you wouldn't immerse the sensor in liquid, but rather attach a thin liquid chamber to the back side (i.e. the non-illuminated side) with very small and light tubes to carry the liquid to a heat sink (either the body of the camera of a small radiator). A micro pump would be required, but would only be needed when the sensor was getting too hot. Mechanically complicated, but it could actually be quite small and light. Water has the highest specific heat of handy liquids (ammonia is higher, but it is nasty and needs pressurization), so the most likely choice. The Canon patent is clearly aimed at mechanical simplicity, which makes sense, but liquid cooling is possible. High specific heat is important for maximum heat transfer with minimum mass of fluid.

Click to expand...

I think there was a patent already with something like this, with a novel heat pipe that attached to the sensor.

but there's a matter of flex - those tubes are under constant movement, and have to be insanely flexible with a low as possible resistance to movement.

Maximilian said:

I would like to see wide aperture RF-S zooms and primes from Canon.
I don’t get why they do think they wouldn‘t make enough money with them and so don’t offer them.
In the meantime I enjoy using the great Sigma 18-50/2.8 with my R50 together with the great (for APS-C) RF100-400.
Light, lovely travel combo.

Click to expand...

I'm guessing from analyzing past sales and current trends they determine which products to prioritize in development and production.

EOS 4 Life said:

I don't.
Reading their financial statements, Canon is obsessed with a market share goal of around 50% for some reason.
They price their cameras to meet that goal.

Click to expand...

I agree. Canon's image relies on being the standard. Canon is not a brand that most people are going to be familiar with outside of cameras. So if you are new to cameras you're going to easily see that Canon sells the most so they're a likely statring point. Sony already has brand recognition with plenty of other electronics and Fuji appeals based of the retro look of their cameras. Nikon seems to tbe the odd man out.

EOS 4 Life said:

Nikon seems to put profit first.

Click to expand...

This seems to be changing. Nikon priced thei ZR very aggresively as well as discounted the Z6III as well. It looks like they are now trying to cut prices in an attempt to claw back market share.

EOS 4 Life said:

Looking at the actual lineup makes it look less straightforward.
The R1 is more expensive than anything Nikon makes, the R5 II is priced between the Z8 and Z9, and the Z30 is pretty cheap.

Click to expand...

The line comparison to me looks like

Z5II - R8 (Entry level)
Z6III - R6miii (Midrange)
Z8/Z9 - R5mii (Premium)
Nothing - R1(Flagship - Sports)

Nikon currently doesn't have a true flaghip as the Z9 is essentially a Z8 in a larger body. With that being said I think there is an arugment that the R5mii is Canon's top camera and the R1 is more of a sports camera. The R5mii is more versatile and the R1 is basically for someone who prioritises speed at all cost. Similar to the A1 and the A9 for Sony.

I have done a Sydney SBD architecture walkaround shoot. Handheld as I would need a tripod side extension to avoid the tripod legs. Composition is really hard plus avoiding fingers on the body and toes and still trying to get horizon or other building alignment. Massive dynamic range as the sun was in a number of shots so exposing to the right and then bringing up shadows multiple stops was challenging plus some object removal. Hard circular cropping got rid of the edge aberrations and/or slight re-centering of the composition and still >8mm focal length.

That said, I was really happy with the results (see my Instagram). Small changes in physical location changed the comp so much that next time I will take more shots moving a little in different directions. Well worth the AUD500 (~USD300)

A great article overall, and I think Canon Rumours is a great place to centralize material such as this. Canon's technical archives are the source of truth, of course, but this is convenient and fun.

Personally, I find that even with the amazing AF capabilities in today's R series cameras I still find myself using manual override at rodeos, marshes, wheat fields, etc. I've kept my EF lens stable as a result, and as much as I do appreciate the RF lenses for many factors I simply cannot justify to myself plunking down $1-$6k on anything that does not offer manual focus override without first needing to hit a power button after a moment. Plenty of other toys to get instead. The EF lenses at the L tier are plenty fine for many modern photos, and instant manual is awesome. It really sucked to see RF lens focusing tech partially step back to 1987 when the lenses were first released. If instant manual override returned to the RF line without the need to wake the camera up I would very much seriously consider a lens replacement spree. For now, every so often a Canadian retailer offers stuff like the 50mm f/1.2 for 50% off due to overstock. Unless someone needs the latest and greatest for what they do, it's hard to beat those kinds of deals.

On the other hand, I haven't really turned the ring on many RF lenses this last year. Maybe someone here has and can pleasantly surprise me with a, "hey, check out the XYZ -- it works just like the EF XYZ L USM but sharper, faster, more rainbow-y and also manual MFs with a twist and a dead battery" remark.

But, no doubt, purely from an engineering nerd perspective the advancements are cool!

I hope there coming more compact camera's with a good sensor and raw and evf and zoom around 300/400 that would be awesome travel buddy's.
Still hoping that camera companies will make more compact camera's next year

Got the RF 45mm F1.2 last week. I had bought a used EF 50mm F1.2 a few weeks before the 45mm was announced (lucky me).

So I decided to do a bit of comparing the two. I used my R5 II (all in electronic shutter) fo comparing. Every time I try to do this, I gaine renewed respect for folks who do reviews online. Doing these comparisons is hard and labor intensive!!

My comparison is only loosely controlled and somewhat ad-hoc. However, for what it's worth, my overall feeling is:

- These lenses are much more similar than they are different.
- The RF 45mm F1.2 is sharper
- The EF 50mm F1.2 has smoother bokeh

The AF feels different, with the 50 feeling "EFy" and the 45mm "RFy". That is the EF sometimes feels a bit more jerky and the 45mm a bit smoother. However, in terms of focus speed and accuracy, I couldn't really identify one I'd say is better. I shot mostly static subjects, though.

In case someone is interested, here is a link to some CRAW files (44 images, 22 each lens with same settings, handheld approximate framing).


EF 50


RF 45


EF 50


RF 45


EF 50


RF 45

roby17269 said:

No complaints here, I like mine for its IQ and portability.
Do not love the hood design...
My biggest gripe with it it's not a fault of the lens per se: as a photographer, I find that it's difficult for me to use it successfully at 10mm. Not a matter of quality, just a matter of finding a composition that works at 10mm. I find myself using it much more at 20mm.

Click to expand...

It seems that composition does become far more difficult at uwa.

zardoz said:

Firstly - would love some clarity. The WiFI functionality of the R5 II and R1 is tri-band WiFi 6E, so 2.4GHz, 5GHz and 6GHz. If it is, then it's likely a significant overhaul of an existing product, so could be an R7 II given the speculation of the market positioning for a budget professional sports camera use-case. The R7 II at a high frame rate would make a very useful camera for additional remotes, as a fleet of R1 bodies would be costly, but would definitely be a viable use case and would demand good network connectivity, eg, 6GHz to overcome loaded 2.4 and 5GHz bands in stadiums or performance venues.

Click to expand...

The trouble with the 6GHz band is that battery operated equipment are in the outdoors limited to very low RF power output in the US in order to protect existing 6GHz systems (incl ENG setups) .
So while the 6GHz band is nicely uncongested, it is of less interest.

Otherwise I agree with a previous poster about the natural progress of 'higher end' WiFi capabilities migrating downwards in the market. There's already a Wi-Fi 7 standard and Wi-Fi 8 in on the way, and they provide general benefits that all products can use. Increasing the available bandwidth so you don't hog the channel is a Good Thing(TM) IMHO.

I can't find the link to comment on the rumored EOS RE-1 from the post today. It looks like it will be getting the R6 III sensor and less focus on video. I mainly do photography so this could be ideal for me.

Firmware Notice: EOS R5: Firmware Version 2.2.1​

Firmware Version 2.2.1 incorporates the following fixes:

1. Fixes an issue that, in rare instances, may prevent certain CFexpress cards from being formatted in the camera.
2. Fixes an issue that may prevent the camera's firmware from being updated via an Internet connection, even when a newer firmware version is available on Canon servers.

Please perform the firmware update with only the firmware file to be updated stored on the memory card.

If the camera's firmware is already Version 2.2.1, it is not necessary to update the firmware.

It might just affect camera-lens comms, I don't know. But it certainly stopped the IBIS working on my 50 Art with the R5ii and disabling it brought the IBIS back to life...

cy20250430 said:

This was probably referring to the new 45mm F1.2 STM. Don't you think so?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, yes. Not as exciting as I hoped, but probably good for Canon profits.

Would love to see an updated professional cinema camera. They should be able out figure out how to include but fully disable IBIS and lock the sensor in place when it is not desired to prevent wobble. Updated sensor. 2 CF express cards. Excellent heat management. Built in ND filters. Full sized HDMI. Internal sound recording with 120p. While we are at it, there seems to be no technical reason they can't make it fully functional for stills with an electronic shutter. That would be my dream camera.

I hope I'm not the only one to request these things for the R5 mark ii, but I consider that adding the extended video features in firmware will make it a world class product:
- support for recording 8k60p video in codec form
- support for oversampled 4k60p video (4K HQ)

GMCPhotographics said:

The Rf 10-20mm f4 L is a sweet lens. I also have the EF 11-24mm f4 L and it's great that I can use it with rear mounted drop in filters in my EF to R adapter. However, it is it's only advantage. It's a nice benefit, but I'm finding that I'm often leaving it at home due to it's sheer size, bulk and weight. That RF 10-20mm f4 L is sure looking tempting!
I think 2026 is a year for me to invest in some cherry picked RF glass (finally).

Click to expand...

Yeah, it was literally the moment when I was trying to stuff the EF 11-24/4 into a photo backpack before heading out on a trip that I decided to get the RF 10-20/4.

I'll say it right off the top, nailing down when firmware is going to be announced has always been difficult to nearly impossible. Though, the odd time it does work out. We recently saw new firmware for the R5 Mark II and R1, those updates focused more on compatibility and bug fixes than new features. […]

See full article...

Museum hallway...

EricN said:

It's a video about a dwarf telescope hosted on a dwarf website..

Click to expand...

Careful there, there are real people that fit into the "dwarf" category, not just those that live in Moria, just ask the actors who played Ewoks - some of whom got told they were too tall! But when compared to even a 300mm lens + full frame camera, it does look a bit challenged for size.

P-visie said:

It has a Sony IMX678 Starvis 2 sensor with a diagonal 8.86 mm (type 1/1.8), i.e. smaller than the main sensor of a recent iPhone. So I would not expect a high image quality.

Click to expand...

You don't need many MP to post on social media.... and social media doesn't need high quality, only high "wow".

AlanF said:

It's really a digital telescope, not a camera. It has only an 8.4 mpx sensor

Click to expand...

2MP is enough, the only difference between 8MP and 32MP is how much downsamling is done before posting to IG or TT.

AlanF said:

with a 4.9 crop factor. In terms of reach, with its 150mm lens it is equivalent to a 300mm on an R5 or 430mm on an R3 or R6, not the 735mm stated, which is a field of view factor. The f-number is 4.3, which has the depth of field equivalent of f/21 of FF. So, you can take its claim of "enchanting bokeh" with the large pinch of salt.

Click to expand...

Bokeh is now something that can be done in software. Just like we don't need lenses producing pictures that fill the entire frame, we don't need lenses that create bokeh. Software correction to the rescue!