Etnaphele said:

I was just wondering what could sway Canon in either lowering some prices - the VCM line is overly expensive in my opinion - and/or let 3rd party lenses on the RF mount: as corporations understand only money, I see financial setback as the only factor. As said, just daydreaming

Click to expand...

Canon needs to maximise shareholder profits and maintain customer satisfaction.
In the ~7 years of RF mount, Canon hasn't seen significant financial pressure to modify their strategy. I'm not sure what would need to happen to shift the needle enough to change that strategy despite the internet outrage echo chamber of not allowing 3rd party AF FF lenses.

Nikon priced the Z9/Z8 significantly cheaper than the Sony/Canon pro bodies but it hasn't helped them win more market share or significant positive financial results. Great for consumers but at the end of the day, an OEM with a strong balance sheet will bring lots of goodies to the table in the future than one that can't afford it.

Canon allows 3rd party APS-C lenses on RF mount today.
They don't allow RF mount FF lenses with AF today. It is their option whether Canon will allow it in the future or not.
It is also Sigma etc choice whether to release EF mount or RF mount in manual focus (or RF mount with EF protocols).
Yes, it would help consumers with more choice but remove profits from Canon unless they sell more bodies as part of the deal. Alternatively, the 3rd party RF mount lenses could be more expensive than L mount etc due to Canon's licensing costs.

Canon released a compelling (for a bunch of people) set of f1/4 VCM lenses at a certain price.
The initial list price has to allow for tariffs and Canon Europe's bid for extreme profits.
Using rebates or discounting is a much simpler option to "lower" prices and tempt more sales to offset the profit decrease.
Let's also not forget the advantage in the US for refurbished products that doesn't exist in other markets which would be considered lowering prices.

el peso said:

Looking at perfect RF 50/1.2, I cannot justify the price of that Voighländer. IMHO I define such kind of lenses as “effect lenses“ of “mood lenses to walk and play with“.

Click to expand...

3 years after announcement a brand new copy of the 50mm f/1.0 is now under US$1,050 vs the 7.5yo RF 50mm f/1.2 @ under US$1,900 for tourists in Tokyo. Given that in 2.5-5.0 years from today the replacement of the RF 50mm f/1.2L USM will come out...

el peso said:

I have the Zeiss 1,4/50 ZE lens for that as an example. It didn‘t cost me much. This prime costs too much for such kind of the equipment and isn‘t good for serious usage today. Maybe in a few years as used item from those who‘s disappointed in it and ready to get rid of for less.

Click to expand...

With that price adjustment in mind I want to hear your thoughts on it as I also have the Zeiss 1,4/50 ZE bought months after it's announcement in 2008 and started to enjoy it with Focus Guide (Green Box).

With the Nokton that was priced at $1799 is now under $1050 for tourists in Japan would you now consider the f/1.0?

Beautiful series, Noreaster. A real couple on the second one, the female is easily identifiable.

roby17269 said:

Well, it seems it is not available for the R5, so I am saved

Click to expand...

I wouldn't describe as having an R5ii as being doomed.

AlanF said:

There certainly is:

https://www.canon.co.uk/pro/infobank/neural-network-technology/

I have asked twice here if anyone has paid to use it, but with no response.

Click to expand...

Well, it seems it is not available for the R5, so I am saved

Same image, top right corner...

Maximilian said:

My first thought:
Check the date. Is it April 1st again already?

Click to expand...

I totally agree. The design is ridiculously and unnecessarily complex.

Klendothir said:

I just started a subscription There’s a 30 days free trial period included, so I decided to try it out.

Click to expand...

AlanF said:

Let us know the results.

Click to expand...

I am genuinely and positively surprised. I'll probably keep it and include it in my LrC workflow for specific cases... NnIP is a standalone app which allows batch processing and outputs raw (.CR3) files... That means one can apply Canon's DLO profiles to the pictures and edit them in an LrC workflow. I am only interested in the DLO capabilities, though denoising seems to be at least on par with Lightroom's AI denoise capabilities... I didn't bother checking the .CRN files which are only readable by Canon's DPP (and HUGE...) Here's an example. EOS R8 + RF 35mm f/1.8, 1/50s at f/1.8, 1600 ISO, left corner, zoomed 200%. First image is LrC with the appropriate lens profile activated and AI denoise. Second image is LrC with the appropriate lens profile actived but denoise and DLO applied via NnIP beforehand. This has been quite eye opening to me...

Common and hooded mergansers

Klendothir said:

I've just started a subscription There’s a 30 days free trial period included, so I've decided to try it out.

Click to expand...

Let us know the results.

danfaz said:

Hi guys,
I really hesitated to post this one, as the Barn Owl was surrounded by so many branches, but this was all he/she would allow me.

Click to expand...

I love the atmosphere that comes across in your photo.. Nicely done, danfaz.

Unlike Canon and Nikon, Sony never reports camera unit sales in their financial documents. The big cheaters.

I really like this shot. Very dynamic with superb reflection. Well done.

Captured this shot of a double-crested cormorant as he "escaped" my lab who was rummaging through the brush at waters edge (no animals were harmed in the making of this photo )

R1 + RF 200-800 @ 570mm, 1/2500, F8, ISO 12800

Skylark (R5ii 1120mm).

First Peacock butterfly of the year! (R5ii 1120mm).

Lovely series, Nemorino.

neuroanatomist said:

Fair, but those are your ideas of value. Anyway, it's a sliding scale. Nikon and Canon 600/4 lenses are $15K, give up 1-1/3 stops for the Nikon 600/6.3 knock 70% off the price, then give up an additional 1-2/3 stops and knock 80% off that price. Nikon gives us the middle option, Canon gives us the bottom one.

Click to expand...

I am with you and Etnaphele: there is definitely a gap in the mid price range in Canon's current RF mount tele lens line, so I can imagine that they will bring a new lens which fills this gap. Could well be the revenant of the past two years here in CR, a 300-600mm that isn't as slow as the 200-800 but still relatively light and compact, and - important - has real L quality. My impression is that Canon generally decided to focus more on zooms than primes in the tele section, looking at the 120-300/2.8.

neuroanatomist said:

Lol, yes it did and fair. But funny that you mention the Sony 300/2.8. Where are the 100(120)-300/2.8 zooms from Sony and Nikon? You seem fixated on two specific Nikon lenses and/or one specific price range. I suspect that many people willing and able to spend $4-6K on a lens could also spend $10-15K on a lens. For me, at least, a better argument is the one I made above for the 14/1.4 – the Nikon 600/6.3 is under 1.5 kg and 278mm long, the Canon 600/4 is over 3 kg and 472mm long and I know which one I would take on an airplane and which one I would not.

Click to expand...

I was just this morning out with my wife, shooting birds at a river close to our place (wasn't good today) - my wife with her z600/6.3 (+ 1.4x TC), me with my much bigger EF 600/4 III (+ 1.4x TC). I thought again that the compact, light Nikkor is so smart, since f/6.3 is with modern DSLRs quite useable. I am still fit enough to carry and use a big lens hand-held, but the age when I'd love to use such a light lens with real reach is getting closer, definitely. And hand luggage with such big lenses is always a hassle, even if you fly business class.

neuroanatomist said:

Oh I get decent JPGs out of DxO. Better than DPP, IMO.

Click to expand...

DPP has a quite good RAW converter, but I prefer DxO, too.

GMCPhotographics said:

I gotta wonder, why the double mirrors, why not use an EVF? Then look down straight into the EVF with a sensor scrape?

Click to expand...

I wondered about that, too, but obviously they tried to provide a sort of classic shooting experience - but maybe comments about this concept camera drive them to reconsider that solution. Generally, I think the idea of bringing a waist-level retro camera out is quite smart, smarter than adding another usual retro-style camera to an already crowded market.

dolina said:

Is it larger than FF?

Click to expand...

That's also my question. If Canon would implement a (half) middle format sensor, like Hasselblad or Fuji, this could be a very attractive retro camera. But I doubt it will have such a big sensor, since Canon doesn't produce cameras in the MF segment, so if they don't buy such a sensor elsewhere, they would have to expand their own sensor production line to that bigger format - too costly for only such a special camera. So this camera fancies a FF, APS-C or 1-inch sensor, I guess.

But this interesting camera shows that Canon has a much more creative approach to retro style cameras. Stuffing an in-house digital camera camera just in an edgy grip-less retro body mimicking industrial design of the 60s-80s is only smart because you can sell it to a big enough number of users. Ergonomically, it is a simple downgrading from a modern more user-friendly camera design, so it worsens the shooting experience. Canon designers, by contrast, obviously were thinking about adding a shooting experience you don't have with today's cameras: a true waist-level finder. This is lost in today's photography, the only alternative is using a swivel display - but we all know that often in bright sunshine one can't see much on it. A classic
waiste-level finder is much more useable e.g. in street photography if you want to shoot in a sort of "stealth" approach so people don't necessarily notice that you are taking photographs and don't start their posing (for boring results).

m4ndr4ke said:

The relevance is exactly the same reason for your complaint. A working professional will find a way to afford the acquisition of a new tool if he feels such tool it is a requirement for his job, regardless of the price. It doesn't make that much of a difference whether it costs 4k or 10k; if it is a requirement for the job, he'll find a way to make it profitable, it's just a matter of how long it takes for the return of that investment. It's a business decision to acquire a tool that suppresses a necessity.

An amateur does not have the revenue to make that investment profitable, hence not being a consideration on the development of such high end products.

The development of new professional tools is all about reaching new heights, not being cheaper.
That's not to say Canon won't ever release, for instance, a RF 300mm f/2.8 as you referred, but it may not be a priority for them, since they know they have the same capability on other lens, and they definitely know that a RF 100-300mm f/2.8 is more versatile than a RF 300mm f/2.8.

How many times did Canon release a non-specialised professional prime lens with the same aperture as an existing professional zoom lens? Not many, if ever.

I'd say it's more likely they create a 300mm f/2.8 with built-in TC (being more expensive), or a 300mm f/2 to f/1.8 (there are patents for that, actually), rather than a "more affordable regular 300mm f/2.8" because, again, it's all about reaching new heights.

Click to expand...

I’m not complaining and price always matters. By only looking at what Canon does and did in the past, one ignores a huge bunch of the industry. Obviously Canon knows what they’re doing, so do other companies. I just look forward to interesting lenses with a better value than the ones offered now - this doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate what Canon does right now

Etnaphele said:

I don’t see any relevancy in “pro” and “consumer” classifications. Amateurs often have deeper pockets than pros and anything under 10k can be fully in reach, 200-800 is of course an amateur lens well loved by pros.

Click to expand...

The relevance is exactly the same reason for your complaint. A working professional will find a way to afford the acquisition of a new tool if he feels such tool it is a requirement for his job, regardless of the price. It doesn't make that much of a difference whether it costs 4k or 10k; if it is a requirement for the job, he'll find a way to make it profitable, it's just a matter of how long it takes for the return of that investment. It's a business decision to acquire a tool that suppresses a necessity.

An amateur does not have the revenue to make that investment profitable, hence not being a consideration on the development of such high end products.

The development of new professional tools is all about reaching new heights, not being cheaper.
That's not to say Canon won't ever release, for instance, a RF 300mm f/2.8 as you referred, but it may not be a priority for them, since they know they have the same capability on other lens, and they definitely know that a RF 100-300mm f/2.8 is more versatile than a RF 300mm f/2.8.

How many times did Canon release a non-specialised professional prime lens with the same aperture as an existing professional zoom lens? Not many, if ever.

I'd say it's more likely they create a 300mm f/2.8 with built-in TC (being more expensive), or a 300mm f/2 to f/1.8 (there are patents for that, actually), rather than a "more affordable regular 300mm f/2.8" because, again, it's all about reaching new heights.

stillviking said:

How real we will have a new RF 24-70 2.8 L VCM Z soon? I'm too excited for this one..!

Click to expand...

Me too! Me too!

LTT at work
R5m2 + RF 200-800 + 1.4TC
@ 1/4000s, f/13, ISO 12 600, 990mm



@ 1/4000s, f/11, ISO 8000, 798mm

m4ndr4ke said:

Since when any of those lenses is amateur level? The 600 and 800mm f/11 are amateur level, and the 200-800mm is a stretch at 2k, but some amateurs may go for it for the specs.

Lenses that cost 4k, 6k 10k are absolute professional tools that you see on the sidelines at stadiums, paired with the highest end bodies, because that’s who they’re designed for. Amateurs are not even a consideration on the development of such products.

Click to expand...

I don’t see any relevancy in “pro” and “consumer” classifications. Amateurs often have deeper pockets than pros and anything under 10k can be fully in reach, 200-800 is of course an amateur lens well loved by pros.