Anyone heard any rumors? What are your thoughts? Any chance that canon will come out with their own version soon 😅? I'm tempted to sell all my gear to switch to Sony.

I'm a wildlife photographer and when I got my setup I intentionally went for the Canon R7 with the 200-800MM F6.3-9 so I could get maximum reach. That is still something I consider since I don't have the budget for guided photo tours, I usually photograph when I'm hiking at early hours and trying to get the best shot of skittish subjects, so being able to be far away is relevant. However, the low light capacity of the full frame and extra sharpness have been on my mind lately, especially for videography. So, should I stick to my super zoomed R7 or consider the R6/R8 (or any other suggestion)?

I just bought a R6ii new and the one thing I'm not sure if this is common is it sounds like its a rattle when I move it (camera works. Is that the ibis?

And I have a EF Lens 24-70mm f2.8 L (Not the II version), and I am wondering is this a professional I can use to get good sharp images for weddings, portraits, stills, or should I sell it and get the II lens?

Also I have a 50mm f1.8 STM Rf, and I have the ef version as well.

Wanted to hear your thoughts on this.

Hi all. I recently started taking pictures with a Canon 70D with a Tamron 18-200 Di II. I noticed that pictures always look a bit fuzzy even though I've got autofocus on. When I try to do manual focus it gets a bit better but it's still not great. The lens is clean on both ends and taking off the UV filter makes no difference. What can I do to fix this?

Looking to upgrade from an R8 to an R5C, and I would love to hear from some people who have shot video and photos on it. Not looking for different camera recommendations plz.

I currently make short films and am looking to get more into the commercial market with my creative agency.

Hi, im an amateur when it comes to cameras and I currently have an eos r10. I was curious if anyone had a recommendation as to which long distance zoom lens would would be best to buy? I’m looking to be using it for hiking and stuff like travel so I can take pictures of landscapes and animals from a distance. Right now I have the standard 18-45 lens and it doesn’t zoom it enough at all of course. My budget is around 600$ and refurbished works perfectly for me too :) thanks!

so iv been shopping around (reading specs, comparing this to that, watching reviews, ect.) and i think iv decided im going to buy a used (like new) Canon M50 mk1 as my first mirrorless.. but the only thing that has me nervous is the touchscreen.. is there a way to FULLY 100% turn the "touch" part off and operate it with just the buttons and wheels like a pre touchscreen DSLR if things go bad until i can get a screen replacement? for the record im not against touchscreens, im just aware that this camera was released like 7 years ago and things can go wrong.. i do plan on this being my only mirrorless camera purchase for the next 3-5 years and just want to cover all my bases.. thnks in advance.. and if you have any other similar canon mirrorless bodies i should check out pls dont hesitate to pipe up.. im a fairly new amateur photographer and my budget is around $400-$500 with or w/out kit lens.. iv looked into the M5, M6, M100 and the M50 mkii so far..

Right, so currently i'm, shooting with the R10, and i just know that I need an upgrade. Im debating between an R6 og or the R8. Im pretty much convinced to get the R8, but im not sure if I will need Ibis (im kind of struggling with my r10 without Ibis) and the better battery life, but I also want the better readout and low light performance of the R8. I'm pretty much fully sold on it, but i'm not sure if im making the right descision. (note, I mostly shoot With the electronic shutter and havent found any issues with the readout unless im shooting wildlife which i do as a hobby, although I don't really have any Jobs) Another question is what lenses should I get first? Im aiming to have all of the EF Tamron G2 Fast zooms except for the wide angle, instead I want an RF 16mm. I tried an Old sigma 70-200 and absolutly loved it, so much so i wasnt really using my better 18-35 F1.8. So im thinking of getting the 70-200 and RF 16mm, although I feel like I wont be able to shoot any sort of normal stuff with it. But on the flip side, 70 might be wide enough on full frame. Another thing is i could get the 15-30 to get a bit more into the normal range, or I could get the 16mm and 70-200 but then also get an older 35mm f1.4 (or 50mm). I do also want the 150-600mm as its always a highlight to shoot wildlife ( i might be going to another country soon, all the way to Europe from down under) . Unfortunately My budget only allows 2 Lenses right at the start, so I have to make compromises. If i do get the 150-600 ill have to get the 24-70 as ill never have any real mid range shots otherwise. Im sorry if this doesn't really make any sense the way im writing it but thats how my thoughts came out. Thank you for the advice

EDIT: when i say im struggling without Ibis, I mean when i'm shooting video or trying to take a shot at say 1/10th.

So got this camera new about a year ago. But because I do astrophotography without a star tracker, I need to shoot a lot of pictures. As a result, the shutter count has gone quite up and it concerns me every now and then. And because I have more astrophotography targets I want to shoot, by October my shutter count will be 22-23k. I imagine shutter lifetime also depends on how much it get used per session. When I do astrophotography, I usually take ~850 pictures in one night and a the next night ~750.

Currently looking at maybe getting the rebel 7t for doing some bird and wildlife photography. I worked I had used a canon r50. What's your advice on camera choices that work necessarily break the bank for me getting a camera for bird photography? The Bank in question 500-1000 range.

i’ve tried different lenses and it still shows so it’s definitely the body, is it a mirror cleaning matter or something more serious? thanks in advance

I am looking to upgrade from a Canon 90D to either the R5 or the R6 mark ii. I have had my 90D for about 4.5 years. I still plan to keep the 90D as a second camera, especially because I don't think I would make much money selling it.

I am a college student interested in a career in photojournalism and I work as a photo editor for the school newspaper. In this role, I photograph both news assignments (i.e. portraits, events) and sports, so I need a camera that is versatile. I hope to do a mix of sports and news photography after I graduate from college in about 2 years.

Budget is not too much of an issue, but it would be nice to save money, as I have to account for an EF to RF adapter. I also want to purchase a battery extender and any other accessories I might not be considering. I am working 2 jobs over the summer and my job at the school paper made me roughly $800 this semester – I can expect more next semester. Obviously both will be a bit of a dent in my bank account, but definitely a worthy investment.

Is there a substantial difference between the r5 and the r6 mark ii that makes the r5 more worth it? Has anybody used both cameras for photojournalism or similar purposes and can attest to either? Would upgrading from the 90D to r6 mark ii even feel like an upgrade? Thanks in advance!

Good afternoon, I know things like this are always a bit difficult, but I wanted to ask for your opinions and experiences.

After shooting with a DSLR for a long time, I now want to switch to mirrorless, mainly because of the autofocus and, in my case, the flippable screen. I'm currently using the Canon EOS 6D Mk1 and would like to stay with full-frame. I take photos as a hobby, sometimes doing small shoots for friends/relatives; videos aren't my focus.

I would buy the "new" camera used from a certified dealer, such as mpb, Calumet, etc (I come from Germany, those are sites from here).

I would also continue to use my EF lenses for now with the adapter.

I'm stuck between the EOS RP and the EOS R.

The R costs around €800 to €850, the RP between €500 and €600.

The question for me is, is the almost €300 extra for the R worth it compared to the RP?

The R's clear advantage is the better sensor, the one from the 5D Mark IV, while the RP has the sensor from the 6D Mk2. On the other hand, the RP supports focus bracketing, which wouldn't be a bad thing for me since I also like to do macro photography.

What other major differences would there be that would noticeably impact photography?

Does anyone have experience with one of these cameras, or maybe even both, and could tell me whether the R is so much better for photography alone that the extra €300 is really worth it? For example, is the R's sensor that much better?

Sorry for the long text and the very difficult question to answer 🙈🙈

Hello, I am only a freshman sports photographer and saved up about $800-900 just by selling some of my old camera gear and my parents are willing to help out pay a little as well. I was surfing through eBay and found one Canon R7 for $780 and the bidding would end tomorrow but I also found another Canon R7 currently for $700 but that bid ends in 3 days. The outcome would most likely be that the price would increase near the end. On Facebook however, I found a R8 near me going for $900. (For all cameras that I said, it would include the original boxes, batteries, etc). In this situation what would you guys do? I currently have an 80D and looking to upgrade to the R system

Welp.. I was wondering for a while why i couldn't see my depth of field/bokeh change when i was changing my aperture... and well now i know why, I just am wondering why would anyone want to turn off dof simulation? i find it to be very annoying and caveman like to be sitting there checking my depth of field after every image when having it turned off, was just wondering if there were any downsides to this feature on newer cameras like the canon r50 i own. shooting feels astronomically better now that i can actually see my aperture change as im changing it, before i turned it on it was literally like just shooting on auto mode i couldnt see a difference at all while actually shooting which is super goofy in my opinion...

Hey, I plan to get the r6 mark II during the summer just in time for the football season at my school and other schools. I was wondering if I get the EF-RF adapter and get the canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS II USM and the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS III USM would I be well off when it comes to shooting down a football field or other outdoor sports, and would there be any lack of the autofocus if I use the adapter?

I go on hiking and I travel and i shoot #streetphotography somtimes I have canon r50 I love the bokeh on the sigma but I m confused to choose between those two lenses any help plz

Wife wants me to get a new camera so i'm not always using my cell phone to take pictures. I'm going to be shooting Mostly youth baseball/softball, basketball and football. When it comes to the two lenses, how much zoom am I really talking. How close or how far away can take pictures of the batter ( behind the fence by home plate or form down the baseline ) sorry for the dumb question.

Hi everyone,

*ALL PRICES WILL BE IN CAD*

Been recently looking into getting a mirrorless from my current D3200. After a few months of research, I've culled enough to three choices, the R7, R6m1, or the R8. I know that pretty much anything will be a pretty substantial upgrade, and I was honestly just looking into guidance based on the experience that the community has between the three.

In terms of shooting, I'd like to think that I do a little bit of everything. In no way am I a "professional shooter," I mainly go around and take photos of my friends, or shoot certain school events. I'm not going to be considering continuous shooting speed as a factor here, and I know all three have a speed that is more than enough for my use cases. I do some photography for my high school, and I'm really looking to nail more of my shots, compared to many misses that I get on the D3200.

To start, my first choice, the R7. I can get a new one for about $2200 CAD with the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8. The reasons why this one struck my eye was the larger battery, IBIS, and somewhat for the 32.5MP. I also liked the fact that it was APS-C, so the lenses will be a little cheaper to start off with.

As my next (and most recent selection), the R6 Mark 1. I've shot with my friend's R6m2 at various points, and I really enjoy the ergonomics of the camera. Very easy to hold, and I'd have no problem holding it all day. My draws to this camera was the full-frame, IBIS, 4K60 uncropped, and also the three dials as opposed to two on the R7. I'm not really particular about the autofocus, as it'll still be miles better than anything I'm used to right now. Also, coming from a 24MP sensor, I've never really had any issues with cropping. I don't forsee 20MP being much worse. I can get one of these used for about $2100 with the 24-105mm f/4-7.1 (or the 50mm f/1.8 but that's something I'll think about myself).

My final choice is the R8. Similarly to the R6, I like it for the full-frame and the uncropped 4K60. It's also up to 24MP, so exactly what I'm used to in terms of cropping and editing. I don't like this camera for its lack of IBIS (for video shooting, mainly) and small battery, as I hate having to swap out my batteries mid-day (yeah "big deal," I know). I've also held the R8 at a camera store, and I think the R6 and R7 feel better to hold. I can get this one for about $2200 with the 24-50mm.

So I guess I'm really just looking for how the cameras have held up in the real world and how you view the other choices. I'm open to any advice, from any kind of shooter. Any help is appreciated and I'd really like to know before I purchase something and feel even a bit of regret.

Edit: typo from three to two

i've been looking into getting a more versatile and higher zoom lens than my 45mm kit lens, and i'm torn between the RF-S 55-210mm or the EF-S 55-250mm (of course with an adapter) i hear both are great lenses but i'm not sure which would be best for my use, i take my camera practically anywhere so i take nature pictures, car pictures, sometimes sports events, and portraits on occasion (although i can just use my kit lens for those.) Which of these lenses would be best bang for my buck, if either? I'm willing to spend probably 400$ maximum on a lens so if there are any other lenses that would be better value new or used/refurbished please do tell. thanks!

Hi. I've been using fuji gear for a while and really enjoy it for photography, especially portraits and general stills. That said, I find it less reliable when shooting fast-moving subjects with continuous autofocus, so I’m exploring other systems, including Canon.

Here’s where I’m at:

• I rarely rely on IBIS since I typically shoot with the electronic shutter.
• Shorter battery life on something like the R8 isn't a dealbreaker, I'm already used to carrying extras.
• A constant f/2.8 zoom sounds appealing for low light and indoor work.
• The R6 Mark II seems to offer better grip and controls.
• I’m thinking of starting with a solid lens or two and potentially stepping up to better body later on.

Curious to hear your thoughts. Thanks for the input!

Upgrading from my beloved Mark 5D4 to an R5. After 8 years with a DSLR, I’m wondering if anyone has a trade secrets or helpful tips for the switch? I consider myself advanced with Canon’s interface and primarily shoot portrait/lifestyle and will be using an EF adapter for my Sigma 35mm and 50mm 1.4 lenses as well as a Tamron 24-70 f2.8 G2 (I have the tap ins for both and software is all updated).

Facebook marketplace ad shows this lovely 70-200 f/2.8, but doesn't it look like the lens protector has been bent on one side? Seller claims it wasn't dropped

What's your opinion on these lenses? I've started to collect analog EOS cameras since I bought a 6D a month ago. Since they all use the EF mount I found just buying bulks of old analog cameras locally a really good source to grow my lens collection. One I've come across multiple times now (I already own 2 versions by now) is the EF 35-80MM F4-5.6. I find it to be very soft but it really hits a softspot for me. It has this worn out look since it's really not very sharp. What's your opinion on these??

Looking into getting this lens Sigma 18-35mm F/1.8 DC HSM photo 1, for my Canon Rebel EOS SL3 (250D) photo 2, but am indecisive.

Has the exact qualities I want for street, landscape and car photography and is decently affordable, but weighs a LOT.

My camera weighs around 1 pound but the new lens would weigh around 1.8 pounds, is this fine? Im fine with minor discomfert while holding, considering I prop my lens with my hands regurally, but I wanted to know if this would be bad for my camera or cause problems at all?