Rumors Boring Year

[RickyRed]

Not a lot going on with new-updated cameras or lens. The R8 is a yawn. The RF 100-500 needs an update. Maby a 150-600 with max 6.3? And this is all across camera brands. If no new cameras. Canon, please put some software updates out. The R5 could use an AF update and a fix for communication glitches between body and lens. So what are you waiting and hoping Canons next move will be?

 

[Dean Wilson]

Some people are asking Canon: "Zebras for Stills - How Hard Can It Be?"

 

[SwampGrizz]

I don’t understand the R8mk2. On its face, it seems like a nice update to the R8, but it’s priced very close to the R6mk2, which from all I’ve heard is a great camera with more features. Why wouldn’t you pay a few extra bucks and get the R6mk2? I’m sure they will be phasing the R6mk2 out in the future, but there will be a good many still for sale on the used market at presumably lower cost. From all the reviews I’ve read, the R8mk2 is not a bad camera, and the worst thing I’ve read is that it looks like a Sony. I don’t care what the camera looks like, I care what the pictures look like. Somebody help me here.

 

[THXGEEK]

I'm still waiting for Canon to allow back-button pre-continuous activation on the R5II (like the Nikon Z8 & Sony A1II). I would think it would be a simple firmware update, but what do I know?

 

[Only RF]

That is kind of odd. I can map pre-continuous on my R6III to a BB. Currently it's mapped to DOF. I'd like the ability to map Shutter Mode to a button. Maybe other bodies can but not the R6III. I doubt we'll ever see it but an RF 500 or 600 5.6 would be enticing. Doesn't look like I'll get a crack at the R7II before mid January.

 

[Only RF]

Not a lot going on with new-updated cameras or lens. The R8 is a yawn. The RF 100-500 needs an update. Maby a 150-600 with max 6.3? And this is all across camera brands. If no new cameras. Canon, please put some software updates out. The R5 could use an AF update and a fix for communication glitches between body and lens. So what are you waiting and hoping Canons next move will be?

Just curious what would you do to update the 100-500? 150-600 would be nice but it would be heavy and not as easy to travel with. For me anyway.

 

[Only RF]

Something I have found irritating for as long as I can remember. IS switch. Sometimes it takes multiple tries on my 100-500 to get it to Mode 2. I see the RF 200-800 has no mode switch and I have read it adapts IS to the situation. I see the higher end RF lenses still have mode switches so I guess the 200-800 is experimental? It sure wood be nice of Canon made it easier to switch modes.

 

[Only RF]

Just thought of another one. R6III. Not sure why ES is limited to 40 and 20 fps. I’d like to set it at 10 fps. Even at 20 culling gets tedious.

 

[chipman]

Between taco tariffs and chip shortages I'm surprised to see anything new hit the market.

 

[RickyRed]

Just curious what would you do to update the 100-500? 150-600 would be nice but it would be heavy and not as easy to travel with. For me anyway.

I think the reason the 100-500 is compact relative for its reach. is its non ability to use extenders. A 150-600 with a variable aperture maxed to 6.3 would not be much larger. This Lens Should be kept affordable for the masses and build on the greatness of the 100-500 Keep the price around the same.

 

[RickyRed]

Saturday I was out on the Skagit Flats with the R5 and 100-500.Rain and low light conditions. Battling with AF hunting all day. Its my only reason to go with a R5II. With a slightly newer AF the R7 handles this much better. I think the AF software for the R7 was from the R3. As a side note. Canons lack of support for bird photography for the masses' semi affordable. I see out in the wild. Sony taking over this segment and with a few Canons And Nikon with DLSR.Ie D850 and D500.

 

[Only RF]

I think the reason the 100-500 is compact relative for its reach. is its non ability to use extenders. A 150-600 with a variable aperture maxed to 6.3 would not be much larger. This Lens Should be kept affordable for the masses and build on the greatness of the 100-500 Keep the price around the same.

Can you describe the 100-500 lens non ability to use extenders because I use one with that lens most of the time.

 

[Dean Wilson]

Can you describe the 100-500 lens non ability to use extenders because I use one with that lens most of the time.

Possibly because you can't use the 100-300mm range... just guessing. But isn't that range WHY you use a teleconverter in the first place, as that rance can "basically" achieved without a TC and loss of light?

I can't imagine the logic of engineering a TC for a nifty-fifty.

 

[Only RF]

Possibly because you can't use the 100-300mm range... just guessing. But isn't that range WHY you use a teleconverter in the first place, as that rance can "basically" achieved without a TC and loss of light?

I can't imagine the logic of engineering a TC for a nifty-fifty.

That was my thought but it does not make it unusable. It's just limiting which does make it non-appealing for some people which I understand. When I have the 1.4 TC on that lens I rarely shoot less than 500mm. I just asked because the way it was worded someone may think it is completely incompatible as some lenses are when it comes to extenders.

I'm pretty happy with that combo.

• Join to view EXIF data.

 

[chipman]

My usual wildlife kit is the 100-500 on a R5ii and 800f11 on R7.
Last year it was a pair of R7s, and one day I wondered if I could use the 1.4xTC on the 100-500 and get rid of the 800f11.
First thing I noticed was it wouldn't fit in the bag with the TC attached.
So I left the kit at home and took just the one body and lens.
I'm at TRNP, driving around a curve, and there's a bison rolling in the dirt. Bucket List Item!
I knew I wouldn't have much time, and I knew I had the wrong gear, but I poked the lens out the window and took what I could get -

• Join to view EXIF data.

300x1.4x1.6=672mm EFL.
I was a bit too close to get the full body in the frame.
But I did capture his lovely eyelashes.

 

[RickyRed]

Can you describe the 100-500 lens non ability to use extenders because I use one with that lens most of the time.

Canon does not recommend using extenders. I guess the lens elements extend further down the barrel I don't use extenders I use an R7.Any ways It would be nice to have an update. Longer reach would be my priority and be a L lens and have a decent 6.3 max

 

[RickyRed]

That was my thought but it does not make it unusable. It's just limiting which does make it non-appealing for some people which I understand. When I have the 1.4 TC on that lens I rarely shoot less than 500mm. I just asked because the way it was worded someone may think it is completely incompatible as some lenses are when it comes to extenders.

I'm pretty happy with that combo.

View attachment 50257

How do you stop the lens from going below 300mm? The external twist lock sucks.

 

[Only RF]

How do you stop the lens from going below 300mm? The external twist lock sucks.

I don't have stop it. It stops at 300mm on its own. Can you describe the external twist lock? I'm not sure that is something new or different. I've been using extenders for about 15 years and both the EF and RF operate the same way.

 

[Only RF]

I don't have stop it. It stops at 300mm on its own. Can you describe the external twist lock? I'm not sure that is something new or different. I've been using extenders for about 15 years and both the EF and RF operate the same way.

I see. You are talking about TC's in general, not the RF 1.4 specifically.

 

[Only RF]

This is not the first conversation about the limit of the 100-500 and extenders. Some people hate it and some don't mind it. I actually like it. I did some searches again to find the reason for this design choice. Still not much out there. Many years ago I read the reason was because the lens rear element moves as you zoom to maintain a close distance the TC's front element. This is supposed to result un better IQ. Also the design makes the lens more compact. I was just on another site that showed it beside the EF 100-400II (which I had) and they are both the same length.

Not sure this will help but it shows the design a bit.

Canon RF 100-500mm Extender Mounting Restriction

Why Canon RF Extenders require the RF 100-500mm to be at 300mm or below when mounting, and how the lens works to 500mm afterward.

www.vernonchalmers.photography

 

[Michael Centofanti]

Is anyone else’s not thrilled with 100-500 at F/7.1 and nothing from Canon with a lower aperture yet affordable? After 30 years of Canon I researching Sony.

 

[Only RF]

I know nothing about Sony. I just looked at the 300-600 f4 and it's about $6,500. The 200-600 f/6.3 is $2800. Not sure if there would be a big difference between 6.3 and 7.1. You get an extra 100mm which is nice. Good luck on your hunt. Personally I'm not disappointed because of the NR, etc tools available. I also prefer the light weight and compact designs.

 

[Michael Centofanti]

I am still debating as I want my cake and eat it too. (1) want the lower aperture so considering selling then100-500 for the EF 400 or 500. (2) that just adds weight which I am battling a knee injury at my age (3) limits me to straight 500mm. I still have my 70-200 and 24-70 (4) changing brands on trade in is a financial loss but it serves the aperture and weight. Cmon Canon where are the affordable lower aperture for us hobbyists

 

[Dean Wilson]

I am still debating as I want my cake and eat it too. (1) want the lower aperture so considering selling then100-500 for the EF 400 or 500. (2) that just adds weight which I am battling a knee injury at my age (3) limits me to straight 500mm. I still have my 70-200 and 24-70 (4) changing brands on trade in is a financial loss but it serves the aperture and weight. Cmon Canon where are the affordable lower aperture for us hobbyists

I feel your pain.

 

[Michael Centofanti]

LOL that looks like a load !

 

[Only RF]

I am still debating as I want my cake and eat it too. (1) want the lower aperture so considering selling then100-500 for the EF 400 or 500. (2) that just adds weight which I am battling a knee injury at my age (3) limits me to straight 500mm. I still have my 70-200 and 24-70 (4) changing brands on trade in is a financial loss but it serves the aperture and weight. Cmon Canon where are the affordable lower aperture for us hobbyists

I hope all goes well for you with your knee.

I always hoped Canon would come out with a 500 5.6 like the Nikon PF. Unless I win a lottery I'm pretty happy with the 100-500.

In 2020 I had a long hard look at Sony because I was selling all of my Canon EF gear. It went on for months and one day my wife said. Do you really want to switch systems at this point. It made sense. It's not like I can't learn anything new. Sometimes I don't shoot for months and Canon is like riding a bike. I don't want to read the manual and try to refresh myself on how things work. I just want to go out and have fun.

 

[Michael Centofanti]

I hope all goes well for you with your knee.

I always hoped Canon would come out with a 500 5.6 like the Nikon PF. Unless I win a lottery I'm pretty happy with the 100-500.

In 2020 I had a long hard look at Sony because I was selling all of my Canon EF gear. It went on for months and one day my wife said. Do you really want to switch systems at this point. It made sense. It's not like I can't learn anything new. Sometimes I don't shoot for months and Canon is like riding a bike. I don't want to read the manual and try to refresh myself on how things work. I just want to go out and have fun.

That is a concern about starting fresh with Sony vs Canon is like riding a bike. I just wanted better aperture at 500mm for the wildlife/jets. The less weight is also for my knee as I start PT tomorrow for a very small horizontal meniscus tear. So changing the RF 100/500 to a EF 500 F/4 just adds more weight. Too bad the magic 8 ball wont have the answer LOL.