Latest activity

Richard CR · Dec 20, 2025

We are getting closer to the end of 2025, and I decided to assemble my list of the best and worst in 2025. Initially, I was going to limit it to Canon, but then I thought I should expand it further. Maybe not the worst, though, because that baby is all Canon. The Best Camera […]

See full article...

EricN · Dec 20, 2025

Bob Howland said:
I read Butler’s essay when it first came out but the James piece is new to me. Let me be blunt. Joseph James, Richard Butler and you do not have the social power to tell everybody what “equivalence” means and force them to use your definition, especially because your definition is almost certainly different than what most people use.

The physical reality is known by almost everybody here. We’ve certainly discussed it enough. Given three parameters (1) Field of View, (2) Depth of Field and (3) exposure, it is possible to define “equivalence” of lenses for different sensor sizes such that two of the three are held constant but the third must be allowed to vary. In your (and Butler’s and James’) definition, the FOV and DOF must be the same but the exposure is allowed to change. I maintain that most people, including me, say that FOV and exposure must be the same but, because the focal lengths of the two lenses differ, the DOF also differs. The difference in DOF is simply less important.

(So how does one hold exposure and DOF constant and allow FOV to change? Answer: use a different size sensor with the same lens at the same distance from the sensor using the same aperture. Alternatively, simply crop the image differently.)

FWIW, Chris Niccolls of PetaPixel has, within the last year or so started stating (usually rapidly) that some lens is equivalent to some FF lens but the DOF must be changed to some different aperture value. I suppose the PetaPixel folks got tired of folks complaining.

Frankly, this whole issue seems suspiciously like some guy with a penis and XY chromosones demanding that everybody must say that he’s a she. Social dominance only goes so far.

I thought "Bob" was a male name. Sorry for assuming your gender.

Bob Howland · Dec 20, 2025

neuroanatomist said:
I suggest you read up on the actual definition of (photographic) equivalence. Yours isn’t it.

If you maintain field of view, then you change depth of field. If you want to maintain field of view AND depth of field (as you put it), then you need a wider aperture lens for the crop sensor (as @Chunk correctly stated). That wider aperture means you use a lower ISO on the crop sensor (assuming you keep shutter speed constant), and that makes the image noise equivalent.

This link has a thorough explanation of the concept:

Equivalence

This link is a decent summary:

What is equivalence and why should I care?

Equivalence, at its most simple, is a way of comparing different formats (sensor sizes) on a common basis. Sounds straightforward enough, but the concept is still somewhat controversial and not always clearly understood. We thought it was about time we explained - and demonstrated - what...

www.dpreview.com

I read Butler’s essay when it first came out but the James piece is new to me. Let me be blunt. Joseph James, Richard Butler and you do not have the social power to tell everybody what “equivalence” means and force them to use your definition, especially because your definition is almost certainly different than what most people use.

The physical reality is known by almost everybody here. We’ve certainly discussed it enough. Given three parameters (1) Field of View, (2) Depth of Field and (3) exposure, it is possible to define “equivalence” of lenses for different sensor sizes such that two of the three are held constant but the third must be allowed to vary. In your (and Butler’s and James’) definition, the FOV and DOF must be the same but the exposure is allowed to change. I maintain that most people, including me, say that FOV and exposure must be the same but, because the focal lengths of the two lenses differ, the DOF also differs. The difference in DOF is simply less important.

(So how does one hold exposure and DOF constant and allow FOV to change? Answer: use a different size sensor with the same lens at the same distance from the sensor using the same aperture. Alternatively, simply crop the image differently.)

FWIW, Chris Niccolls of PetaPixel has, within the last year or so started stating (usually rapidly) that some lens is equivalent to some FF lens but the DOF must be changed to some different aperture value. I suppose the PetaPixel folks got tired of folks complaining.

Frankly, this whole issue seems suspiciously like some guy with a penis and XY chromosones demanding that everybody must say that he’s a she. Social dominance only goes so far.

JohanCruyff · Dec 20, 2025

m4ndr4ke said:
On the other hand, I imagine most buyers won't purchase the lens to shoot at f/2.8 or smaller. I'd do it for personal stuff, but for work I'd only grab the lens if I needed wider than f/2, since the 28-70 f/2 is my main lens.

The issue certainly exists, but it'd be useful to see how many times it is a real problem with R, RP, R6 and R5.

For example: is it only visible when the aperture is stopped down one or more stops AND the camera is focussing close to the minimum focus distance? If so, a full body portrait (from, say, 1.5 / 2 meters) @ F/2.8 should not be affected since there could be like 20 centimeters of depth of field; so, if the focus point shifts 5 or 6 centimeters, the photographer should not see a mis-focused picture.

I own a R6 and a R and, personally, I think I'll skip this lenses (even if I think I would have used it at 1.2 most of the times, like @m4ndr4ke ).
I think I can convince myself that, for me, a RF 50mm 1.2 is the way to go using very solid

arguments like "i only own 77mm filters", "I can't afford to buy a lens hood" etc.

Philnick · Dec 20, 2025

Actually, with Canon's Loyalty program, if you have a Canon body that's old enough to no longer be serviced by them - and this includes old Powershots and film cameras - a phone call to the loyalty program can get you a new camera for 20% off list, or a refurb for 10% off.

This is limited to cameras that have been on the market for at least 6 months. (It's often cheaper to get a new one for 20% off than a refurb for 10% off!)

They have a similar deal for lenses: 15% off (10% off refurbed).

And they don't even want the old gear returned to them. Just read them the serial number.

jeffa4444 · Dec 20, 2025

This thread seems to have drifted off!
Sony has two high end cameras the A1 series and the A9 series so Canon definitely has room for the R1 & R3 and making the R3 MKII a high MP camera around the 45-50MP makes a lot of sense.
The R7 MKII needs to be a APS-C version of either the R1 or R3 which will move up its price but the R10 MKII could be improved and moved up where the R7 sits now. I have the current R10 and it’s a great camera I use for wildlife which is not my main area of photography being mainly a portrait shooter & landscape using the R5 for portraits and the R6 MKIII for landscapes.
The R10 paired with the RF 200-800mm has been a great combo and I also use the RF 100-400mm as a walk around wildlife lens the two together are so lightweight that’s the combo I travel abroad with on vacation adding the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8.
The R10 MKII at 30PM would be ideal along with slightly faster shutter speed and the enhanced AF (it struggles with the RF 200-800mm at the long end with birds in flight).

Philnick · Dec 20, 2025

The Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 RF-S Art lens, by being a stop and a third faster than the typical f/2.8 standard zoom, and covering 27.2-64mm equivalent angles of view, overcomes full-frame's one-stop ISO noise and backgound blur advantages - and it's a nice sharp lens wide open at all focal lengths.

And yes, as others have noted above, its physical size is not less than that of a full-frame standard zoom. Compared to Canon's budget standard zoom, the RF 28-70mm f/2.8, the Sigma is about an inch longer and weighs 16.5% more - but this - and its thousand dollar price - is "an equitable trade" for giving the R7 parity with full-frame for the standard zoom range. For more reach, add the tiny Sigma RF-S 56mm f/1.4, which gets you to 90mm. (The Sigma 17-40 is smaller, lighter and substantially cheaper than the RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L.)

* For those who felt a tingle at the echo of the phrase "an equitable trade, Doctor," go rewatch "Operation Annihiate!" (TOS 1srt season) to hear Spock say that about the loss of his sight in exchange for being freed from the flying parasite - shortly before his sight came back due to being protected by Vulcans' long-forgotten nictitating membrane that shielded his retinas.

Click · Dec 20, 2025

Noreaster said:
nothing special but trying to figure out my RF 100 macro

Simple subject, well-composed image. Very nice POV. Nicely done, and congratulations on this new acquisition.

GMCPhotographics · Dec 20, 2025

Exploreshootshare said:
If it significantly lighter than the 70-200mm F4, I'll switch those lenses.

I seriously doubt that it will be lighter than the f4 version, but will be in a similar ball park. However, that is remarkable considering that it is twice as bright (f2.8).

AlanF · Dec 20, 2025

neuroanatomist said:
I suggest you read up on the actual definition of (photographic) equivalence. Yours isn’t it.

If you maintain field of view, then you change depth of field. If you want to maintain field of view AND depth of field (as you put it), then you need a wider aperture lens for the crop sensor (as @Chunk correctly stated). That wider aperture means you use a lower ISO on the crop sensor (assuming you keep shutter speed constant), and that makes the image noise equivalent.

This link has a thorough explanation of the concept:

Equivalence

This link is a decent summary:

What is equivalence and why should I care?

Equivalence, at its most simple, is a way of comparing different formats (sensor sizes) on a common basis. Sounds straightforward enough, but the concept is still somewhat controversial and not always clearly understood. We thought it was about time we explained - and demonstrated - what...

www.dpreview.com

Those are two excellent articles you quote. The first is detailed and cuts through common misconceptions that that are raised continually. The second is a nice summary of equivalence. They should be a "must" read. It's worth emphasizing for "equivalence" that it is the diameter of the lens, not the f-number, that is key. The diameter of the lens determines the depth of field, effects of diffraction on resolution and key to the S/N of the image, independent of focal length. Thanks for drawing attention to them.

neuroanatomist · Dec 20, 2025

Bob Howland said:
I suspect that I very much disagree with your definition of "equivalence" in lenses. If you have to change the exposure to maintain field of view and depth of field, it isn't equivalent.

I suggest you read up on the actual definition of (photographic) equivalence. Yours isn’t it.

If you maintain field of view, then you change depth of field. If you want to maintain field of view AND depth of field (as you put it), then you need a wider aperture lens for the crop sensor (as @Chunk correctly stated). That wider aperture means you use a lower ISO on the crop sensor (assuming you keep shutter speed constant), and that makes the image noise equivalent.

This link has a thorough explanation of the concept:

Equivalence

This link is a decent summary:

What is equivalence and why should I care?

Equivalence, at its most simple, is a way of comparing different formats (sensor sizes) on a common basis. Sounds straightforward enough, but the concept is still somewhat controversial and not always clearly understood. We thought it was about time we explained - and demonstrated - what...

www.dpreview.com

Noreaster · Dec 20, 2025

Click said:
Very nice series, Noreaster.

nothing special but trying to figure out my RF 100 macro

Click · Dec 20, 2025

Very nice series, Noreaster.

Noreaster · Dec 20, 2025

Trying out my new lens

Quack · Dec 20, 2025

Bizcut1 said:
Why do you think so many owners of these cameras list them on auction and sale sites for what Canon (and some of the others - KEH, MPB, et al) ) sells refrubished or re-certified?

I realize there is a delta between what is asked and hoped for and what eventually happens. It just seems that these cameras, at least on the auction sites like ebay are way over-priced.

They are priced high on Ebay because Ebay/Paypal is ultimately taking about 15% of the price. Not everyone is aware of refurbished. And refurbished is often sold out. So Ebay sellers hope to get what they want, but as a buyer, if I can get Canon refurbished for the same or even slightly higher than a used Ebay item, I am going with Canon refurbished every time.

Bizcut1 · Dec 20, 2025

Awesome - thank you!

danfaz · Dec 20, 2025

Click said:
Great shots! The first and 3rd are fantastic.

Thanks, Click! Those just may be my favs of this set.

Click · Dec 20, 2025

PinholeR5 said:
View attachment 227156R5 + RF 200-800mm, 800mm, 1/800s, f/9 ISO 2500

View attachment 227157
R5 + RF 200-800mm, 800mm, 1/1250s, f/9, ISO 3200

Very nice shots.

Click · Dec 20, 2025

P-visie said:
A day later: the same spectacled eider (Somateria fischeri), taken on almost the same spot, at almost the same time on the Dutch Island of Texel, with very different light (very foggy).
View attachment 227155

Same camera and lens: R5 Mk II and RF 200-800mm @ 800mm with a slight crop in post.

Beautiful shot.

I really like the foggy atmosphere.

Click · Dec 20, 2025

Great shots! The first and 3rd are fantastic.

PinholeR5 · Dec 20, 2025

R5 + RF 200-800mm, 800mm, 1/800s, f/9 ISO 2500

R5 + RF 200-800mm, 800mm, 1/1250s, f/9, ISO 3200

Bob Howland · Dec 20, 2025

John Wilde said:
40 MP would be the marketing sweet spot.

I vote for 32MP.

John Wilde · Dec 20, 2025

justaCanonuser said:
24 MP stacked would be technologically a sweet spot, I agree.

40 MP would be the marketing sweet spot.

P-visie · Dec 20, 2025

A day later: the same spectacled eider (Somateria fischeri), taken on almost the same spot, at almost the same time on the Dutch Island of Texel, with very different light (very foggy).

Same camera and lens: R5 Mk II and RF 200-800mm @ 800mm with a slight crop in post.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics