Del Paso said:

On my MX, I replaced the standard (horrible!) focusing screen with a full-matte one, I adapted from an LX model.
It was indeed a little jewel, ultra-compact, but still usable with large hands. Despite using Leicaflexes and Leica Rs, I almost ordered a Pentax LX...
I also had Olympus' OM 1 & OM 2, with their focusing, aperture and shutter speed controls all aligned. I never got used to this strange disposition of controls, on an otherwise fantastic camera.
But the MX, I still regret having sold it!

Click to expand...

They were little jewels in those days. I think the ME/MX, OM-1/2 and FM/FE were the pinnacle of ‘consumer’ grade manual focus slrs. I have a lovely, mint ME, but having had it for a few years I realise it would never have stood up to the use my Nikon FMs did.
The only problem with the original FM is that its vertical run metal shutter created a lot of shutter shock. This was improved in the FM2

Etnaphele said:

I was thinking of the pricing of Z8-Z9, Z6 III, the F1.4 primes and the PF telephoto primes + access to some interesting 3rd party like Sirui AF anamorphics and some other niche AF lenses.

Click to expand...

Well, the lens catalogs are not an exact match nor is there a reason they should be. From what I can tell, Nikon only has two f/1.4 primes, 35mm and 50mm. Those are not S-line lenses and yes they cheaper than Canon's L-series VCM lenses. Shocking. OTOH, Nikon doesn't have a zoom lens starting at 10mm, a prime wider than 20mm (Canon now has two), an f/2 zoom lens, a 24-105/2.8, supertelephoto lenses under $1000, etc. Nikon's 'cheap' supertele zooms are 100-400 S and 180-600, Canon's are 100-500 L and 200-800, and the inexpensive RF 100-400.

Etnaphele said:

Well, access to the 35-150mm F2-2.8 represents in itself a very good reason to choose a system over another.

Click to expand...

For some. Personally, 35mm is not wide enough for a standard zoom lens so the RF 24-105/2.8 is a much better choice.

neuroanatomist said:

I have limited experience with Milky Way shooting, but I will mention that regarding light pollution filters, several manufacturers (Kolari, Kase, Astronomik, perhaps others) make light pollution filters that 'clip in' (or magnetically attach) inside the camera body and thus will work with any lens including those without front filter threads. I have a set of Kolari magnetic in-body ND filters (3-, 6- and 10-stop) and they work very well.

I'd also suggest reserving judgement on the 14/1.4. From the available reviews its performance overall seems similar to the 20/1.4 (which I also have and like), and looking at Canon's MTFs it appears that the 14mm lens has better resolution (blue lines) and a bit more contrast (black lines) than the 20mm lens, especially away from the center of the frame.

View attachment 228138

Click to expand...

You make a strong case. And thanks for the filter tip, very much!

neuroanatomist said:

In the past 5 years, Nikon has launched 33 new lenses and Canon has launched 36. Nikon's newest lens is a 70-200/2.8 that was, "Completely redesigned...to make it way lighter." The new Nikon lens is heavier, longer and fatter than Canon's 70-200/2.8 Z lens, and costs the same $3200. Those sound like true wins for consumers, right?

Click to expand...

I was thinking of the pricing of Z8-Z9, Z6 III, the F1.4 primes and the PF telephoto primes + access to some interesting 3rd party like Sirui AF anamorphics and some other niche AF lenses.

Del Paso said:

Including some Tamron lenses rebadged as "Nikon"

Click to expand...

Well, access to the 35-150mm F2-2.8 represents in itself a very good reason to choose a system over another. For the rest, I also despise badge engineering...

neuroanatomist said:

In the past 5 years, Nikon has launched 33 new lenses and Canon has launched 36. Nikon's newest lens is a 70-200/2.8 that was, "Completely redesigned...to make it way lighter." The new Nikon lens is heavier, longer and fatter than Canon's 70-200/2.8 Z lens, and costs the same $3200. Those sound like true wins for consumers, right?

Click to expand...

Including some Tamron lenses rebadged as "Nikon"

Etnaphele said:

A less dominating company will usually try to be more competitive to regain market position, to the gain of the consumers

Click to expand...

In the past 5 years, Nikon has launched 33 new lenses and Canon has launched 36. Nikon's newest lens is a 70-200/2.8 that was, "Completely redesigned...to make it way lighter." The new Nikon lens is heavier, longer and fatter than Canon's 70-200/2.8 Z lens, and costs the same $3200. Those sound like true wins for consumers, right?

bluezurich said:

Wait, you are salivating at the premise of Canon's doom? Ok....

Click to expand...

A less dominating company will usually try to be more competitive to regain market position, to the gain of the consumers

Etnaphele said:

Yes, totally in their right! That's also the mechanism I hope will bring many to abandon Canon, so that...

Click to expand...

Wait, you are salivating at the premise of Canon's doom? Ok....

AlanF said:

I think he is implying that the correction data should be readable by other RAW converters like DxO, PS etc without their having to reverse engineer it.

Click to expand...

Yes, that was clear. But…do we know those data aren’t readable by other developers? Have DxO, Adobe, etc., come out and stated that they cannot use Canon's in-lens correction profiles that are presumably written into the .CR3 files? Those developers have established workflows for building lens profiles that work for all manufacturers' lenses. I can certainly see those developers deciding that modifying their software and processes for Canon RF lenses alone would not be a worthwhile investment of resources, given that the current processes in place have been working and continue to work for them.

neuroanatomist said:

Well, they make the camera so they get to choose. You get to decide whether or not you buy their products.

Click to expand...

Yes, totally in their right! That's also the mechanism I hope will bring many to abandon Canon, so that...

neuroanatomist said:

Nikon lost a ton of market share over the past decade as the industry transitioned to mirrorless, going from being #2 and barely behind Canon with >40% market share to a distant #3 with <15% market share. Is that big, heavy Sigma 14/1.4 available in the Z mount?

Click to expand...

...they are forced to offer high value lenses like Nikon does and maybe maybe let some Sigma, Tamron and Sirui AF lenses in. Let me daydream a bit!

neuroanatomist said:

One could argue that they do just that, since with RF lenses the correction data for DLO are stored in the lens itself and transmitted to the camera.

6 Significant Features of RF Lenses

Click to expand...

I think he is implying that the correction data should be readable by other RAW converters like DxO, PS etc without their having to reverse engineer it.

Etnaphele said:

The whole point is that Canon is the one calling the compromises, barring out any other option (big heavy Sigma 14mm 1.4 vs tiny Sony 14mm 1.8).

Click to expand...

Well, they make the camera so they get to choose. You get to decide whether or not you buy their products.

Etnaphele said:

I just hope Canon loses enough market share to be compelled to either open the mount or adjust their product value ratio.

Click to expand...

Nikon lost a ton of market share over the past decade as the industry transitioned to mirrorless, going from being #2 and barely behind Canon with >40% market share to a distant #3 with <15% market share. Is that big, heavy Sigma 14/1.4 available in the Z mount?

PhotonShark said:

When Canon sells you a lens which is designed to be digitally corrected, they should include (directly, or indirectly) the means by which you can get the image that they sold you. In other words, the lens plus the correction data.

Click to expand...

One could argue that they do just that, since with RF lenses the correction data for DLO are stored in the lens itself and transmitted to the camera.

neuroanatomist said:

Compare the EF 11-24/4 to the RF 10-20/4. Compare the Sigma 14/1.4 to the Canon 14/1.4. In both cases, the former is much larger than and double the weight of the latter, for IQ that is about the same. Save on materials? YES, please!

Click to expand...

The whole point is that Canon is the one calling the compromises, barring out any other option (big heavy Sigma 14mm 1.4 vs tiny Sony 14mm 1.8).

I just hope Canon loses enough market share to be compelled to either open the mount or adjust their product value ratio. There are so many reasons I appreciate Canon products, and native glass has a lot of upsides seldom mentioned, but Canon lenses having a reason for being more expensive than similar offerings in other systems doesn't justify them being the only options.

Maximilian said:

German (MRSP) prices:
499,00 € for the 15mm F1.4 DC
999,00 € for the 35mm F1.4 DG II | Art

Click to expand...

Well worth lenses.

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

DocInfoSci said:

Canon is simply making everyone else do the reverse engineering and math that Canon achieved during the design, manufacturing, and test processes themselves.

Click to expand...

The problem is that their included software is just terrible by modern standards and I would guess that the overwhelming majority of users are editing their RAW files in other software.

When Canon sells you a lens which is designed to be digitally corrected, they should include (directly, or indirectly) the means by which you can get the image that they sold you. In other words, the lens plus the correction data.

As I also mentioned, this works for non-native lenses too. Where the camera could thus use the third party correction data for in camera .jpeg.

P-visie said:

This is what Canon’s neural network image processing tool does.
See: https://app.ssw.imaging-saas.canon/app/en/nnipt.html

Halfway down the page is a link to a whitepaper which describes the concepts.
See: https://app.ssw.imaging-saas.canon/...aper_Deep_Learning_Upscaling_Technology_E.pdf

Click to expand...

LR user here (with DxO PureRaw plugin), currently undergoing a switch DxO PhotoLab 9. DxO doesn't support the RF 14 yet. But I also subscribed to Canon's NnIP for a year, since there's a 30 days trial period included. I use the latest version of the software (1.5.10) and it doesn't apply DLO on RF 14 RAWs. It indicates this with a specific output message btw. I will check this weekend how it handles my RF 20 files since I don't know if it's deliberate or a lack of proper lens profiles... I will also check how DPP handles these...

ISv said:

Very nice photo! It's difficult to find the usually nocturnal owls perched like some other birds (I have never seen one..., well, may be few times the Little Owl)! With the day-flying owls (like the Burrowing Owl) it's different.
We have on Hawaii the very similar Barn Owl (Tyto alba) - I still have no photo of that one, despite it's the only European Barn Owl. Your photo is of the American Barn Owl (Tyto furcata). There are 10 different "Barn Owls" in the world and totally 25 from the genus Tyto (as of 2013). Some of them hard to separate from each other.

Click to expand...

Thank you! This was only the 2nd time I've seen one in a few years. I didn't know that about the Barn Owls, good education!

I prefer the wing position on this one. Well done, Norman.

What has become of this rumor?

I ordered mine from B+H two hours the evening it was released. Originally my shipping date was March 11, but it shipped today early.

ashmadux said:

And my dollars will go elsewhere.

Click to expand...

Another departure announcement in the CR airport. Kewl.

ashmadux said:

…mandatory stretching so they can save on materials.

Click to expand...

Compare the EF 11-24/4 to the RF 10-20/4. Compare the Sigma 14/1.4 to the Canon 14/1.4. In both cases, the former is much larger than and double the weight of the latter, for IQ that is about the same. Save on materials? YES, please!

Yay for canon.

In other news, the new Sigma 35 mm 1.4 mkii is head and shoulders above the quality of that stretched mess they call a vcm 35mm.

Pardon the pivot, but that sigma simply means much more to me than this Canon victory lap for fan and investors.

I'm confident they'll eventually be a Canon lens that I'm actually interested in sooner or later. The R5 needs new friends.

I have to admit I saw the first posting of this and just started cracking up. Sigma just dropped one of the best 35 mm ever, a 85 1.2 is announced, tamron's 35 to 100, etc etc.

And canon shows...this.

I'll keep saying it, expanding to L mount was my best camera moved since buying the R5. And since Tamron doesn't want to support L mount, might have to add a Nikon.

Relying on one brand in a heavily segmented camera market is dead dead.

Over the years I've read so many comments with the approach of getting rid of their current gear just to replace all of it with the same type of lenses etc...uh... well that doesn't make sense to me. The goal with these other mounts is to be able to purchase lenses that I simply cannot get or refuse to buy versions of on RF ( vcm cough prices cough cough).

I could care less if other kind of users are fine with canons offerings. I'm not. And my dollars will go elsewhere. if Canon create something that deserves my money I'll be happy to purchase it of the prices aren't ridiculous and mandatory stretching so they can save on materials.

Anyway...good job Canon.