What’s Coming Next from Canon?

[David - Sydney]

Look at Apple, they will resort to comparing a M5 or M4 with the M1 chip to make it seem more impressive as we are talking ms’s and the M4 compared to the M3 just doesn’t sell as well from an advertising perspective, even with people that have an 8-second attention span. What I care able is how fast I can process a large file in Lightroom or how quickly I can edit and process a video in Final Cut Pro.

I am happy with the comparisons as I got one of the first 16" M1 and are still using it today.... but I get your point.

I've saved up for the M6 version with hopefully an OLED screen and a significant processing boost over M5. At least a 5 year lifecycle makes sense for me and I still should get back something as a trade-in.
I don't see the point of touchscreen though. Hard enough to keep the current screen clean enough to remove backscatter and bright pixels from shots without competition from fingerprint marks.
Going between my corporate PC and my personal MacBook Pro reminds me of how good macbook pros are!

 

[ScreensMatter]

Sigma 105mm f/1.4 has 105mm filter size
Nikon 105mm f/1.4 has 82mm filer size.

If they can manage to do it in the VCM filter size of 67mm with out having -4 eV in the corners colour me impressed

 

[walkch]

Seems like an R3 Mark II with the rumoured dual resolution 50MP+ sensor might be needed to compete with Sony.

 

[Nemorino]

Sigma 105mm f/1.4 has 105mm filter size
Nikon 105mm f/1.4 has 82mm filer size.

If they can manage to do it in the VCM filter size of 67mm

105mm : 1.4=75mm

 

[Mr. Warbucks]

What about the connection with the unveiling of FCC-registration (DS126933)? Doesn’t that not hint anymore towards R7ii?

 

[john1970]

Me too but I can't see it being cheaper than the very similar RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM if it's an L lens I would expect it to be at least 10% more expensive.
If Canon made a non L 300-600mm f/5.6 as they did with the RF 200-800 using cheaper elements and coatings and consumer grade materials then it should be a bit cheaper than the RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM but personally I'd rather they made it a full on L lens and hopefully get the weight down and add a built in 1.4 extender for 420-840mm f/8 with it engaged. I'd be happy to save up for this even if it's USD $12,000

Agreed. Honestly, I would be content if Canon just made the same lens as Sony (100-400 mm f4.5) with a similar weight. As I get older being able to carry smaller lenses is a huge benefit. What would be really cool would be a 100-400 mm f4.5 DO with a built-in 1.4x TC at less than 5 lbs. I would buy it in a heartbeat.

While I do use Canon primarily I do own other systems (e.g., Nikon Z8 with Nikon 800 mm f6.3 lens). Hopefully by year's end we have a better idea of what Canon will do in the $4K to $7K telephoto zoom department. Otherwise, I might have to give Sony a try (love some of their lens, but tend not to like their cameras).

 

[Del Paso]

Am I the only one who doesn't understand the "hype" about the Sony 4,5/100-400?
The EF 4,5-5,6 100-400 cost half, was lighter and at longer focals about 1/2 aperture slower...
The Sony is certainly a brillant lens, but I still don't get it.