A Canon competitor to the magnificent Sony 14mm f/1.8 GM would be AWESOME!

I hope it'll be good for Astro photography! It would probably also be an interesting choice for landscape timelapses.

How about if Canon creates a pocket camera, not a phone wannabe or a do-everything super zoom blah blah. Fast lens, fixed or a modest zoom illuminating a real sensor, "1 inch" or "aps" (jeez sensor sizes need to standardize to area or xy dimensions) not a phone-sized toy. Modest 4k video specs, but stills focused on stills. A camera that can go where we take our phones but blow them out of the water with IQ. Ricoh's GRIV seems to fill the niche but at a ridiculous price.

EricN said:

Current AI for public use are about as prone to errors as humans.

Click to expand...

Be fair. There are some humans even the worst AI couldn't stoop low enough to match. For calculations like these, Gemini, ChatGPT etc are very reliable.

Mekos said:

I'd prefer a TS-R 12mm f/2.8 over that one (or RF 12mm f/2).

Click to expand...

I'm not sure a TS-R of 12mm is even possible, if it did, it'd probably look something like the Nikkor 7.5mm, which would be highly amusing to be honest.

Hah. i guessed around the correct number, it'd be 7.8mm, assuming a 10mm shift amount, or a full 66mm image circle diameter.

justaCanonuser said:

That's exactly what I learned in the past, say, 15 years reading lens reviews, e.g. the ones of lensrentals. In particular these showed that the variation of the production quality of lenses gets smaller and smaller over the years. They also showed that Canon is one of the leading manufacturers in terms of stable optical quality, e.g. Nikon struggled much longer with decentered lenses in their production lines (a typical Nikon problem back then in particular with tele lenses, unfortunately):

The Nikon 300mm f/4E PF ED VR Test: Or Why I Don’t Test Just One Copy

As most of you know, we generally test multiple copies of a lens when we evaluate it, simply because we are so aware of copy-to-copy variation. But I got caught between a rock and a hard place this week. We received exactly one copy of the new Nikon 300mm f/4E PF ED VR lens and [...]

www.lensrentals.com

Today, MTF charts aren't just showing the best case - the "lucky copy" - of a lens like in former times, they tell you what you can expect to get.

Click to expand...

There is still variation, unfortunately. I've tested multiple copies of some lenses that have outstanding reputations for consistency, including the EF 100-400mm ii that Lensrentals claimed to be one of the most consistent they have tested, and have seen differences. Even extenders, like the EF 1.4xIII varied. @neuroanatomist has mentioned occasions where the-digital-picture has had to change their copies because they were poor compared to his.

These are my predictions for the R7 (ii). Based off the recently released R6 iii and original R7.

Resolution ------------- 34.4MP Stacked.
Sensor Size ------------ Crop Sensor (22.3 x 14.8mm).
Sensor readout ------- 10ms or faster.
FPS -------------------- 15 mechanical
Sensor Stablization --- 8 Stops of 5 Axis Stablization.
ISO -------------------- 100-32,000 (100-51,200).
Video Format --------- 10/12bit H.265, CLog3.
Video Resolution ------ 6k30p OS, 6k60p LS, 4k60p OS. ~OS = OverSampled, LS = LineSkipping~
Processor -------------- DIGIC X, Faster version.
Storage ---------------- CFexpress & SD UHS-II.

This is based off my predictions and nothing more

David_B said:

The problem is the lack of evidence or more importantly, Canon's internal testing where they decided that 19.96 was acceptable. I mean it's great that you did something that you consider to be worthwhile evidence but your test bed isn't Canon's test bed and your image analysis isn't Canon's image analysis.

Click to expand...

Worth noting that Canon was certainly not the first manufacturer to 'cut corners' (literally) from the image circle. The fact remains, the ultimate arbiter is the consumer. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Their choice to rely on distortion correction to fill the frame does not seem to be impacting their market share. The RF 16/2.8 appears to sell very well, for example. If you prefer 'optically corrected' lenses, stick with EF for your wide angles.

Richard CR said:

3) what artifical conditions? yes, the MTF is calculated in Canon's case but their elements and most lenses are manufactured by machines, not humans anymore; the odds that the MTF will match reality have a fairly strong correlation.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what I learned in the past, say, 15 years reading lens reviews, e.g. the ones of lensrentals. In particular these showed that the variation of the production quality of lenses gets smaller and smaller over the years. They also showed that Canon is one of the leading manufacturers in terms of stable optical quality, e.g. Nikon struggled much longer with decentered lenses in their production lines (a typical Nikon problem back then in particular with tele lenses, unfortunately):


Today, MTF charts aren't just showing the best case - the "lucky copy" - of a lens like in former times, they tell you what you can expect to get.

David_B said:

I presented some calculations from gemini

Click to expand...

Current AI for public use are about as prone to errors as humans.

Old Man FL/FD said:

Thanks for the clarification. I Googled "*** slang" and some obvious offenders showed up. I wasn't aware of the previous controversy on this site.

Click to expand...

Fortunately, as a European, I can state that our system is called Galileo, which is harder to mistreat as an offending acronym (you'd have to invent something with seven words, for G. A. L. I. L. E., and O., so any willing offenders would need quite a bit of imagination)

David_B said:

The evidence of one person that's demonstratably biased towards Canon is not good scientific evidence.

Click to expand...

Did you ever in your life see scientific evidence that was coming from an unbiased person?

I'd prefer a TS-R 12mm f/2.8 over that one (or RF 12mm f/2).

50wyldeman said:

I apologize for three consecutive posts I am very excited for this camera and hope this wasn't all too much

Click to expand...

That's okay, at least for me, because we all are enthusiasts in this forum, and I get sometimes carried away here, too. Have always good light

Richard raises in this very interesting comparison of reviews a question that I ask always myself: do I want perfection or "artistic" imperfection?

Being myself scientifically educated (physics) I always love to check sites like Photozone, now OpticalLimits, with thorough lab reviews - that's the sort of "scientific" Dr. Jekyll in me. But when it gets to real life photography, the "artistic sort" Mr. Hyde could be set free, and then I enjoy shooting with gear that isn't technically, in particular optically, perfect - depending on the subject, of course. Its the street & people side of photography in which I often love to get an imperfect, vintage look (not quite Lomography, that's too crappy for my taste). By contrast, when I shoot wildlife or macro, I want technical perfection. Getting to the 45/1.2 here, this would be a nice candidate for the first approach to real life photography, so I can understand well why some reviewers are more enthusiastic than others.

The 20/1.4 VCM is a great lens and I’d almost certainly buy a 14/1.4 or 14/1.8 VCM, should one come along. But personally, I’d take a TS-R 14 over the faster VCM prime, in a heartbeat.

Also, with a TS-R the purists won’t be able to complain about cutting the corners off the FF image circle.

Tom R5R7 said:

I happen to have both this new 45/1.2 STM and the old EF 50/1.2L. I haven't run a full battery of tests, but what I can say from my limited comparisons is that the RF 45 is the sharper of the two, especially at wider apertures. Just a sharper lens.

Click to expand...

Thank you, Tom, that really helps me to get a bit of a clearer picture. I have the EF 50/1.2 L, and when I bought it years ago, I was first disappointed that it gets so soft wide open, compared to my beloved EF 85/1.2 L II. On the positive side, it was much better than the EF 50/1.4 I had before. Over the years I learned how to use the EF 50/1.2 even wide open and get nice results, because in the center it is acceptable. The creamy, dream-like bokeh is definitely the strength of this old lens design. Now, I decided to keep my old EF 50/1.2 for a while, because it is also such a nicely compact lens, given that it is so fast and made for SLRs with a deep flange focal distance. So, if I would upgrade, I'd more likely invest more and get me the RF 50/1.2, I guess.

Currently, if there is enough light and I need more sharpness, I use my RF 24-70/2.8 anyway, a very good allrounder zoom that is also capable of producing a nice bokeh, if the background isn't filled with busy highlights. But that's a quite big and very different lens, of course.

rives305 said:

The v1 is a fun camera. The wide lens is great for filming yourself for content. 16-50 is great. Even a 20-70 would be great for the use of selfies or filming yourself.

My biggest gripe was the flash situation. If it was to appease the demand of the g7x there was a clear miscommunication.

The influencer world was using it for photos. The fill flash was their favorite feature.

Click to expand...

The V1 is a vlogging camera, it does not seem intended to replace the G series.

rives305 said:

The v1 lacked a flash and the only real option was the el flashes that are bigger than the camera. And the adapter to use older hot shoe model flashes again make it impractical and cumbersome.

The godox it30 wouldve solved this issue but was released almost a year after the v1 was.

Click to expand...

Does the Godox flash use the multifunction shoe? I’m guessing yes from your statement, if so I may pick one up. I have the (long discontinued) 270EX II that I use directly with the R8 and M-series bodies, but the adapter is needed on the V1.

Snapster said:

Assuming the photographer actually knows the lens has focus shift in the first place and is aware of the setting you have to change. And still it's not ideal that the camera won't be allowed to AF at the widest aperture in low light.

Click to expand...

Agree that it’s not ideal, but because the magnitude of focus shift varies inversely with subject distance, those not shooting subjects near the MFD will likely not notice it.

Snapster said:

R5 and R6 not getting a firmware update for ExpSim + DoF Preview is also questionable. There are probably lots and lots of hobbyists with an R6 who this new lens is actually meant for.

Click to expand...

Firmware updates for cameras that have been replaced in the lineup are rare events, and I don’t recall one that added any significant features to the superseded model. Such updates are typically to fix problems identified later. I certainly wouldn’t hold my breath for features being added to cameras that are no longer current in the lineup. That will be even more true for the R6 that is now two versions out of date.

The v1 is a fun camera. The wide lens is great for filming yourself for content. 16-50 is great. Even a 20-70 would be great for the use of selfies or filming yourself.

My biggest gripe was the flash situation. If it was to appease the demand of the g7x there was a clear miscommunication.

The influencer world was using it for photos. The fill flash was their favorite feature.

The v1 lacked a flash and the only real option was the el flashes that are bigger than the camera. And the adapter to use older hot shoe model flashes again make it impractical and cumbersome.

The godox it30 wouldve solved this issue but was released almost a year after the v1 was.

The g7x hype is a small form factor with a decent sensor and fast aperture. People want a fun camera to carry around that isn't bulky for their everyday lives

I think it has to be 24-75, so that it can be sold as a 3x zoom (at least.) I don't see why constant aperature would be a big deal for this crowd but what would I know? I'm not going to buy it.

reefroamer said:

The shutter lag is pretty noticeable on my G7xiii. An update, with a modern sensor and DIGIC chip should improve this along with shutter rate and auto focus. I’d keep the form factor/size unchanged. Still a great little pocket camera.

Click to expand...

This. I think shutter lag on pocket cameras is one of the most important things for Canon to fix/eliminate in this part of the market.

A 14/1.4 would be nice but looks to be heavy and expensive with all those elements. I wouldn’t need close minimum focus distance or IS for Astro.

Having a similar lens in price to the Sony 14/1.8 would suit everything I would need and some of the physical features of the sigma 14/1.4 (dew heater placement, focus lock etc) would round out the perfect lens

I am yet again see any discounts on the RF20/1.4 so I haven’t pulled the trigger for it although it would have better coma than the sigma EF20/1.4 that I currently use

HMC11 said:

I once had a colleague who, when confronted with scientific evidence from a wide range of disciplines about human's impact on global warming, simply stated that he wouldn't believe any of these results until he had personally conducted the experiments. All around the table simply disengaged from the debate.

Click to expand...

I hear you. The evidence of one person that's demonstratably biased towards Canon is not good scientific evidence. It might be good evidence for him, but nobody else, it would be good if we had scientific evidence, but we don't. Even the description of the test does not fill me with joy over its rigour. I'd wager that Canon does have that evidence. (and possibly Adobe, et al.) Consider Canon witholding that evidence akin to oil companies witholding evidence from decades ago about their predictions of global warming.

David_B said:

The problem is the lack of evidence or more importantly, Canon's internal testing where they decided that 19.96 was acceptable. I mean it's great that you did something that you consider to be worthwhile evidence but your test bed isn't Canon's test bed and your image analysis isn't Canon's image analysis.

Click to expand...

I once had a colleague who, when confronted with scientific evidence from a wide range of disciplines about human's impact on global warming, simply stated that he wouldn't believe any of these results until he had personally conducted the experiments. All around the table simply disengaged from the debate.

neuroanatomist said:

I suppose the only reasonable cutoff point is, are you happy with the resulting images. Since you don't use distortion correction and most lenses have at least some, I suspect you have a low bar for image quality by my standards. I know that straight lines are just that, and I want them to appear that way in my images.

Click to expand...

Find a scraggly old tree and take a photo of it. How many straight lines are in that? Put it in your raw image editor of choice, apply a lens profile and compare the before and after. Sure they're different but does one or the other make or break the image?

neuroanatomist said:

Eschewing distortion correction means straight lines in your images are curved, to me that is highly undesirable (and I only tolerate when it's necessary for correction of volume anamorphosis, because I prioritize the appearance of faces at the edge of the frame over lines being straight).

Click to expand...

You're assuming I shoot straight lines. Sounds like a boring photo to me. I also don't put faces at the edge of the frame if I can help it.

neuroanatomist said:

Only 19.96 mm 'high', as opposed to 21.64 mm. 8% shorter on the half-diagonal. With the 24-105/2.8 at 24mm, the black corners are less than 0.05% of the image that need to be 'filled in' by 'stretching'. On my R1, that's 11,400 pixels out of the 24,000,000. If you want to lose sleep over that, be my guest.

Click to expand...

Back in this post:
I presented some calculations from gemini about image coverage of the smaller circle on the sensor and its answer was 98.5%. On a 45MP that's ~675,000 pixels (1.5%) that aren't usable. For the R1, 1.5% is 360,000. How'd you come up with 11,400 out of 24,000,000? Did Gemini get it wrong? It's not a trivial calculation to work out the area lit by the smaller image circle