The Sad Truth About Canon's Future?

[EricN]

Lens design is an old tech and has not changed much in the last 20 years. You will not find better lenses for the price than used Canon EF L lenses, in my opinion.

I agree for the most part. I've been comparing the 14mm f/2.8 ii L and 16mm f2.8 stm for a while. They both have their strengths and weakness. over all I believe the higher used price of the 14 and it's larger size and weight offer enough advantages that I keep it. At the same time, the smaller and lighter 16 is good enough much of the time.

Another example is we can say the the ef85mm f/1.2 ii L lens has it's weak points, but the rf is more expensive and heavier.

To put it simply, the ef lenses were acceptable enough that they sold well enough for Canon. It's hard for me to seriously say they are suddenly not good enough (in most cases) after one considers all factors.

 

[neuroanatomist]

To put it simply, the ef lenses were acceptable enough that they sold well enough for Canon. It's hard for me to seriously say they are suddenly not good enough (in most cases) after one considers all factors.

Clearly you just don’t get it. Since we all love our car analogies here, I bought my 2020 Subaru Crosstrek in July of 2021. A few months later, the 2021 models were out with a new 2.4 L engine, and all of a sudden the 2.0 L engine in my car felt very slow and sluggish. That’s just how this works.

 

[peters]

Thanks, Nero. Even if it's an older thread, I should be clearer on context! Apologies to @peters, as I wouldn't want the f/4-7.1 either. Just too slow at the long end.

Thank you =)
Jeah, I totaly agree on the 24-105 f4 - its a great lense and super usefull for many applications. =)

 

[peters]

Say what you want or think about Sony bodies, you will never convince me to buy (again) such unergonomic crap. Panasonic, Leica, Fuji GFX, Nikon? Why not.
But never again a Sony. I was p....d after not even 2 weeks. Third party lenses? Cheaper, but Canon RFs are simply better. Why should I buy a plasticky Tamron???

Ergonomics are a bit subjective. I agree that Sony does have the worst, but its still okay for me, even after long days of weddings I personaly had no problems.

Jeah - I agree on the lenses - but this entire topic here is about affordable lenses for beginners and the impact of that situation for the development of the market. Which I generaly agree on - the affordable lense options of Sony (thanks to third party) are a big reason for beginners to pick Sony. I would still recommend a Sony for exactly that reason. I cant tell any beginner (with limitd budget) to get a 3000€ lense for canon RF, if they can get a comparable third party lense for Sony for 600€ or something. Even if the RF is better built and higher quality, no doubt.

 

[peters]

These days, I would not recommend as a walkaround zoom to a beginner photographer a FF lens that cannot cover 24mm. Definitely not "for 200$ more".

But the option is about 2000€ more, if you want to go to canon and have that 24mm. Which is simply often not affordable for any beginner.
Even if you need the 24mm, the Sony GM 24-70 2,8 is roughly 1000€ cheaper than the canon RF 24-70 2,8. Which may be a bit better, but its still a 1000€ gap, that is hardy justified for a beginner. The Tamron 24-70 f 2,8 for e-mount is even 1400€ cheaper.

 

[peters]

Will it work with a 24-105/2.8? A 100-300/2.8? Those are my two most commonly-used lenses. (Yes, there’s a 10+ year old Sigma 120-300/2.8, heavier and with inferior IQ, and that lens need not apply.)

In that special case, okay, it wont.
But you are probably not a beginner and certainly not into budget options ;-) Btw, how is the 24-105 2,8? I guess if I would do more video work, that would be my go-to lense =)

So I think in general my idea still stands: thanks to third party and wide lense compatibility, Sony does have an edge over canon, when it comes to offerings for beginners in the fullframe market. Which may get more important in the future.

 

[peters]

It’s a gap Canon is choosing not to close. They could allow 3rd party AF lenses. They could price lenses lower. They could launch a true middle tier of lenses (e.g., non-L constant aperture zooms, non-L f/1.4 primes). They haven’t. Yet they continue to dominate the market.

In general, I agree with your points…from a consumer perspective, more lens choice is good, cheaper lenses are good, etc. But I also recognize that Canon’s goals and consumers’ goals aren’t the same thing, and I understand that as a business Canon will implement the strategy that best achieves their goals.

It’s evident from the market share data that locking out 3rd party AF lenses was a tempest in a forum teapot, not the horrible terribly very bad decision a small number of people claimed it to be.

I agree

Though I personaly dont like that lense lockout of third party... I realy hope that this will change. My most often used lenses right now are the
Canon EF 24-70 L f2,8 II (allround)
Canon EF 11-24 L f4 (architecture, imagefilms/photos)
Canon 35mm f1,4 (video)
Sigma 50mm Art f1,4 (wedding photos)
Sigma 20mm Art f1,4 (video)
Sigma 80mm Art f1,4 (some portraits)

The quality, build quality and prices of the Sigmas are excellent - I wish there where options for RF. Though these lenses still peform good, so there is not much need for me personaly to upgrade soon.

I guess the next upgrade would be the Canon RF 24-70 because of the MUCH better AF (and I use that lense very much) and the Canon RF 10-24mm because of its incredible small form factor. That weight of the EF is realy something, especialy on a gimbal.
I must say, the RF lenses ARE incredible, AF Speed, form-factor, quality... just the prices keep me from upgrading.. .

 

[koenkooi]

[...] Jeah - I agree on the lenses - but this entire topic here is about affordable lenses for beginners and the impact of that situation for the development of the market. Which I generaly agree on - the affordable lense options of Sony (thanks to third party) are a big reason for beginners to pick Sony. I would still recommend a Sony for exactly that reason. I cant tell any beginner (with limitd budget) to get a 3000€ lense for canon RF, if they can get a comparable third party lense for Sony for 600€ or something. Even if the RF is better built and higher quality, no doubt.

And I think this effect is currently slow enough to get offset by the sales of the expensive Canon gear, I wonder if we're going to see a noticeable impact when Canon presents the numbers for their 2024 performance.

As a hobbyist, I'm usually surrounded by a sea of smartphones when taking pictures, so I don't even have anecdotal 'evidence' to share to back up my feelings

 

[peters]

The A7Riv or Rv will blow any Canon out of the water? Maybe for your needs, but not mine. The iv and v have appallingly long readout times of about 100ms for awful rolling shutter, only up to 10 fps, and the Canon R5 with its far better AF and speed blows them out of the water for bird and nature photography where action is concerned and other activities, and Canon has a better selection of long zoom telephoto lenses.

The higher resolution and far better DR make these cameras for me the clear winner for photography, even if the rolling shutter may be a concern in fast action situations. Though I personaly never scratched that limit on the A7RIV. It does 10fps with af, while the canon got 12 mechanical (and 20 e-shutter, though I dont know if this is with AF?).

Looking at the A7RV vs R5 (which I have and use): the way better battery life, better swivel screen function (swivel and tilt), better connection (full hdmi, quicker hdmi out), better DR(!), higher Resolution, much better viewfinder makes the A7R the better option in my opinion. Though I currently stick to the R5 because I have so many EF lenses, I like its video performance and I will certainly wait for the R5 II.
But if someone asked me for the best PHOTOcamera, and is looking for a completely new kit, I would recommend the Sony.

 

[AlanF]

The higher resolution and far better DR make these cameras for me the clear winner for photography, even if the rolling shutter may be a concern in fast action situations. Though I personaly never scratched that limit on the A7RIV. It does 10fps with af, while the canon got 12 mechanical (and 20 e-shutter, though I dont know if this is with AF?).

Looking at the A7RV vs R5 (which I have and use): the way better battery life, better swivel screen function (swivel and tilt), better connection (full hdmi, quicker hdmi out), better DR(!), higher Resolution, much better viewfinder makes the A7R the better option in my opinion. Though I currently stick to the R5 because I have so many EF lenses, I like its video performance and I will certainly wait for the R5 II.
But if someone asked me for the best PHOTOcamera, and is looking for a completely new kit, I would recommend the Sony.

It depends what photography you do. If you are taking static shots or lazy birds in flight, then the A7R5 has a resolution advantage. The R5 does 20 fps with full AF in ES, which I am surprised that you as an R5 owner don't know. It's in a different league for bird photography etc where rapid action is involved as it also has better AF and subject recognition. As for DR, at 10fps the A7RV/IV is certainly not far better than the R5 at 12 fps - it has basically the same DR. So, please none of this nonsense about the Sony being a clear winner or blowing the R5 out of the water.

 

[koenkooi]

[...] As for DR, at 10fps the A7RV/IV is certainly not far better than the R5 at 12 fps - it has basically the same DR. So, please none of this nonsense about the Sony being a clear winner or blowing the R5 out of the water.

View attachment 215705

It could be a matter of where the DR is located, Sony might preserve a lot of shadow detail at the expense of highlights and Canon might to the reverse. So if your modus operandi is to raise shadows significantly in post and not touch highlights, the Sony would seem to have more DR than a Canon. And for practical purposes, it has, unless you change how you expose the scenes.

Also, at 12fps the R5 has dropped down to 13-bit, I think you need 8fps or slower to get the full 14-bit. And use very low ISO, of course.

 

[AlanF]

It could be a matter of where the DR is located, Sony might preserve a lot of shadow detail at the expense of highlights and Canon might to the reverse. So if your modus operandi is to raise shadows significantly in post and not touch highlights, the Sony would seem to have more DR than a Canon. And for practical purposes, it has, unless you change how you expose the scenes.

Also, at 12fps the R5 has dropped down to 13-bit, I think you need 8fps or slower to get the full 14-bit. And use very low ISO, of course.

How does this plot square with shadow enhancement being better for the Sony? You are the expert, but the Canon looks better to my non-expert eye for most of the range.

 

[neuroanatomist]

In that special case, okay, it wont.
But you are probably not a beginner and certainly not into budget options ;-) Btw, how is the 24-105 2,8? I guess if I would do more video work, that would be my go-to lense =)

The 24-105/2.8 is excellent! I don't shoot video with my ILCs, but for stills it's an ideal combination of range and speed (for me). But definitely not cheap.

So I think in general my idea still stands: thanks to third party and wide lense compatibility, Sony does have an edge over canon, when it comes to offerings for beginners in the fullframe market. Which may get more important in the future.

Perhaps we must agree to disagree. I suppose it depends on what characterizes 'beginners in the fullframe market'. From my perspective, beginners care more about focal length than aperture, and care a lot more about price. That's where lenses like Canon's RF 15-30 and RF 100-400 give them a real advantage. Is there a Sony FF kit you can put together that runs ~$2500 for a recent-model FF camera and lenses covering 15/16mm to ~400mm?

 

[neuroanatomist]

The higher resolution and far better DR make these [Sony] cameras for me the clear winner for photography,

Far better DR? Sony propaganda has invaded your brain. Please, return to reality.

 

[koenkooi]

How does this plot square with shadow enhancement being better for the Sony? You are the expert, but the Canon looks better to my non-expert eye for most of the range.


View attachment 215706

Heh, I've only used Sony bodies sporadically, so I wouldn't even call myself a novice How should I read that chart, lower values are better?

 

[AlanF]

Heh, I've only used Sony bodies sporadically, so I wouldn't even call myself a novice How should I read that chart, lower values are better?

Explained here https://www.photonstophotos.net/Gen...ographic_Dynamic_Range_Shadow_Improvement.htm Basically, the Sony and Canon are very close.

 

[koenkooi]

Explained here https://www.photonstophotos.net/Gen...ographic_Dynamic_Range_Shadow_Improvement.htm Basically, the Sony and Canon are very close.

If I'm reading that explanation correctly, it is measuring what reviewers would call ISO-invariance, as in the trade off between raising shadows in post vs bumping ISO during capture.

What I'm getting at is this:


For the same scene and the same exposure in the EVF, the Sony 'overexposes' to get more shadow detail. So if you drag the shadows all the way up in post, the Sony image will look cleaner.

That is how I try to explain reports of something having more 'DR' when photonstophotos shows the difference is pretty much unobservable. I don't know if my theory is correct, it is based on remarks from reviewers and staring at photonstophotos plots, not actual, objective research

It might not be 'better DR' that people are observing, but something else that they associate with DR, but actually isn't DR. Like how DxO will clip highlights on some Nikon Z cameras due to ignoring the whitepoint from the EXIF and calculating a wrong value for it: https://forum.dxo.com/t/clipped-highlights-but-only-in-photolab/37138/

 

[AlanF]

If I'm reading that explanation correctly, it is measuring what reviewers would call ISO-invariance, as in the trade off between raising shadows in post vs bumping ISO during capture.

What I'm getting at is this:

View attachment 215708
For the same scene and the same exposure in the EVF, the Sony 'overexposes' to get more shadow detail. So if you drag the shadows all the way up in post, the Sony image will look cleaner.

That is how I try to explain reports of something having more 'DR' when photonstophotos shows the difference is pretty much unobservable. I don't know if my theory is correct, it is based on remarks from reviewers and staring at photonstophotos plots, not actual, objective research

It might not be 'better DR' that people are observing, but something else that they associate with DR, but actually isn't DR. Like how DxO will clip highlights on some Nikon Z cameras due to ignoring the whitepoint from the EXIF and calculating a wrong value for it: https://forum.dxo.com/t/clipped-highlights-but-only-in-photolab/37138/

Yes, that's what it's all about on the photonstophotos page. If it's iso invariant, then if you are shooting in RAW you obtain the same shadow detail for both by suitable pulling or pushing. Both the Sony and Canon plots are pretty much limited by photon noise from beginning to end, being close to linear, and both sensors are close to being as good as it gets.

 

[Kit.]

But the option is about 2000€ more, if you want to go to canon and have that 24mm. Which is simply often not affordable for any beginner.

From my limited experience, I would consider a beginner that wants an f/2.8 zoom a rarity. I personally don't recall ever seeing one.

 

[neuroanatomist]

From my limited experience, I would consider a beginner that wants an f/2.8 zoom a rarity. I personally don't recall ever seeing one.

N = 1, my first DSLR was a Rebel T1i/500D, I bought the body only version, and purchased two lenses to start, the EF-S 17-55/2.8 and the EF 85/1.8. But in fairness, I had shot film many years before, so I wasn't a complete beginner and already knew the importance of a wide aperture.