Latest activity

EricN · Dec 25, 2025

Markov said:
Thanks. Still I don't understand that for the R6 iii the difference is much smaller. It seems they primarily try to get extra money from the professionals.

I'm guessing they decided based on analysis of how much the target consumers have been willing to pay for similar products and purchase rates in the past.

David_B · Dec 25, 2025

AlanF said:
I'm also a bit of a scientist, and I see no scientific objections to correcting via digital rather than by analogue methods.

Depends on the correction - does stretching qualify as correction?

roby17269 · Dec 25, 2025

AlanF said:
Thanks for the link, which I have now read and the subsequent discussion. I get your point about the number of pixels in the corners etc when compressed. It remains moot until someone has done the necessary investigation to discover whether there is the same amount of image quality and information content in the periphery of an image that is stretched by an analogue lens method or a mathematical method of expansion of the compressed periphery. Information is lost on compression and the question is whether the analogue lens method manages to avoid that loss by prevention or is it simply expanding the compression similar to digital? I don't know the answer. Do you know as I would like to learn whether it does? It probably depends on how much effort and expenses they put in.

Would love to see a definitive proof one way or the other… but I don’t have one.
What I wrote was based on my own reasoning that, essentially, the less data you interpolate and / or the more data you start from, the better.
So I will continue to believe that optical corrections, all else being equal, are better IQ-wise, and obviously worse size- and weight-wise. Maybe marginally, but better.

Markov · Dec 25, 2025

AlanF said:
First of all, thank you for writing that beautiful and informative book and distributing it free of charge - it is much appreciated. The problem with pricing is Canon Europe. They rip off the EU states and the the UK even more so by another 11% on average. Reliable grey importers are the answer if you can wait a few months after the initial release. In the UK, the list price of the R5ii is £3999, from HDew it is £2999, and Panamoz £2560. Those difference are ridiculous as the grey importers also provide good warranties.

Thanks. Still I don't understand that for the R6 iii the difference is much smaller. It seems they primarily try to get extra money from the professionals.

AlanF · Dec 25, 2025

Richard CR said:
they don't bake the RAW file, correct. but it's a good idea unless there's a performance hit to turn it on for JPEG output.

DLO is more than what Adobe, etc can do. Canon boils the camera and lens down to their mathematical and data representation and then use deconvolution to reverse aberrations based on the camera and lens combination.

one of the rumors of the RF mount was that each lens could have its own unique DLO mathematical representation based upon its actual QC data testing.

However, I'm not sure they are actually doing that, since you still download the profiles from Canon.

I started to write an article on CanonNews about DLO way back when, and recently got Craig all excited about what DLO could do (I showed him one of the RF STM lenses before and after), and now he's a fan after it blew his mind. One of us is going to do a deep dive in the new year on it.

It's probably the most underrated thing that Canon gives us for free.

There is some good stuff in DLO, and showed me the impressive RF work so looking forward to the write-up. A few years ago before RF, I tested its claim to restore the effects of diffraction, but I couldn't detect it on an EF. I found it hard to believe it did a Lucy-Richardson type algorithm and suspected it was just sharpening. I'll give it a try now on some of my shots with extenders on the narrow aperture telephotos. It will have to be in bright light as my favourite DxO is a titan to compete with for noise reduction.

AlanF · Dec 25, 2025

ISv said:
I'm trying to squeeze as much as I can from my days off...
Par of Ruddy Turnstones doing what they do best...
And a grain of color: Saffron Finch.

View attachment 227217 View attachment 227218 View attachment 227219

They are ruddy well turning stones. (A British idiom). I'll be lucky to get even a crow where we are over Christmas, but you never know. Enjoy Hawaii's better weather! All the best for 2026!

Richard CR · Dec 25, 2025

m4ndr4ke said:
I’ll say again, DLO does nothing to RAW files
(in-camera, that is, of course)

Digital Lens Optimizer: Taking Image Quality to Greater Heights

they don't bake the RAW file, correct. but it's a good idea unless there's a performance hit to turn it on for JPEG output.

DLO is more than what Adobe, etc can do. Canon boils the camera and lens down to their mathematical and data representation and then use deconvolution to reverse aberrations based on the camera and lens combination.

one of the rumors of the RF mount was that each lens could have its own unique DLO mathematical representation based upon its actual QC data testing.

However, I'm not sure they are actually doing that, since you still download the profiles from Canon.

I started to write an article on CanonNews about DLO way back when, and recently got Craig all excited about what DLO could do (I showed him one of the RF STM lenses before and after), and now he's a fan after it blew his mind. One of us is going to do a deep dive in the new year on it.

It's probably the most underrated thing that Canon gives us for free.

ISv · Dec 25, 2025

I'm trying to squeeze as much as I can from my days off...
Par of Ruddy Turnstones doing what they do best...
And a grain of color: Saffron Finch.

Del Paso · Dec 24, 2025

EricN said:
Don't you, at least want to use them in France?

We cannot afford such expensive cameras in France, we use cheapo Sonies and plasticky Tammies. We can only dream of R 100, R1 and similar beauties.
And yes, my initial post (meanwhile corrected) could lead to such a treacherous attack.

AlanF · Dec 24, 2025

foda said:
Terrific photos Glenn! What camera/lens combinations were you using?

Glenn doesn't usually answer. According to the EXIF

Model	Canon EOS R5m2
Lens	EF600mm f/4L IS II USM

AlanF · Dec 24, 2025

Markov said:
In the Netherlands, the R5 mark ii is ridiculously expensive. About 4600 euro, versus 3900 $ in the US.

For the R5 mark ii the difference is much less: 2950 euro in the Netherlands versus 2800 $ in the US.

No idea why this is the case.

First of all, thank you for writing that beautiful and informative book and distributing it free of charge - it is much appreciated. The problem with pricing is Canon Europe. They rip off the EU states and the the UK even more so by another 11% on average. Reliable grey importers are the answer if you can wait a few months after the initial release. In the UK, the list price of the R5ii is £3999, from HDew it is £2999, and Panamoz £2560. Those difference are ridiculous as the grey importers also provide good warranties.

AlanF · Dec 24, 2025

roby17269 said:
Eh eh

I explained my "scientist" here time ago:
Post in thread 'The Canon EOS R6 Mark III is Canon’s Next Full-Frame Release'
https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/the-canon-eos-r6-mark-iii-is-canon’s-next-full-frame-release.44753/post-1032060

Thanks for the link, which I have now read and the subsequent discussion. I get your point about the number of pixels in the corners etc when compressed. It remains moot until someone has done the necessary investigation to discover whether there is the same amount of image quality and information content in the periphery of an image that is stretched by an analogue lens method or a mathematical method of expansion of the compressed periphery. Information is lost on compression and the question is whether the analogue lens method manages to avoid that loss by prevention or is it simply expanding the compression similar to digital? I don't know the answer. Do you know as I would like to learn whether it does? It probably depends on how much effort and expenses they put in.

Markov · Dec 24, 2025

In the Netherlands, the R5 mark ii is ridiculously expensive. About 4600 euro, versus 3900 $ in the US.

For the R5 mark ii the difference is much less: 2950 euro in the Netherlands versus 2800 $ in the US.

No idea why this is the case.

roby17269 · Dec 24, 2025

AlanF said:
What scientist do you see?

Eh eh

I explained my "scientist" here time ago:
Post in thread 'The Canon EOS R6 Mark III is Canon’s Next Full-Frame Release'
https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...’s-next-full-frame-release.44753/post-1032060

Click · Dec 24, 2025

Nice addition, ISv. I really like the shadow of the insect on the leaf in the third photo.

AlanF · Dec 24, 2025

Somehow or other I have missed this thread. Wonderful shots guys that make me look forward to the spring and summer!

Click · Dec 24, 2025

Lovely series, Chig.

AlanF · Dec 24, 2025

SereneSpeed said:
I’m not sure… (I’ve wondered that myself).

The R-single-digit cameras are all unique in some way and stand-out in some way.

R1 - Flagship
R3 - First with eye detect/First integrated-grip RF mount/Technology development (a bit different than the rest)
R5 - Highest resolution
R6 - Best balance of cost and performance
R7 - Best APSC
R8 - Entry level FF

Without something like an integrated grip, I’m not sure if Canon would create a new name for the flagship APSC?

R5 best balance of cost and performance.

EricN · Dec 24, 2025

Del Paso said:
I don't mind, as long as the high-end cameras (R5 II, R 1 & R 100) stay in Japan.

Don't you, at least want to use them in France?

AlanF · Dec 24, 2025

DocInfoSci said:
I've simply enjoyed having the chance to learn from and debate with a number of people whose remarks on this forum have proved interesting and useful to me over the years before I created an account.

My specialities are in large compute systems (distributed/parallel), data analysis (think spectra), complex information presentation/exploration, and knowledge systems (especially the psychology of technologies). I know a bunch of smart people, have hired a bunch of smart people, and I have a little bit of personal experience — but there's a lot I don't know in a pulled-the-lever-myself kind of way. My perspective does change as people comment back on my thoughts, questions, and posits.

And regrets for any confusion or consternation when I post casually betwixt ongoings and gloss over swaths of detailed info that gets implied within my own brain for a few quips of text. I'm more often in agreement with people here than what my posts probably indicate. It's a rumours forum, so I'm at peace with that.

In that spirit, thank you. I wish every fellow camera nerd here a peaceful, pleasant, and hope-filled transition to 2026.

There are lots of us here who enjoy the science and technology of photography in addition to taking photos, and it can be useful in choosing our gear and knowing its limitations and advantage in advance. You can take great photos without much of such knowledge, but then experience and practice are all important to polish the creativity.

neuroanatomist · Dec 24, 2025

DocInfoSci said:
Makes me think of cringy imputed gene expression values for mediocre slides.

I’m fine with imputed variant calling, but imputed gene expression analysis…cringy, indeed.

Del Paso · Dec 24, 2025

Chig said:
Yes, the SA can be nice for a dreamy look or a rather harsh look (with the 3rd shot at neutral setting) like these shots of my neighbour's magnoliaView attachment 227213 View attachment 227214 View attachment 227215

I like them too!

DocInfoSci · Dec 24, 2025

I've simply enjoyed having the chance to learn from and debate with a number of people whose remarks on this forum have proved interesting and useful to me over the years before I created an account.

My specialities are in large compute systems (distributed/parallel), data analysis (think spectra), complex information presentation/exploration, and knowledge systems (especially the psychology of technologies). I know a bunch of smart people, have hired a bunch of smart people, and I have a little bit of personal experience — but there's a lot I don't know in a pulled-the-lever-myself kind of way. My perspective does change as people comment back on my thoughts, questions, and posits.

And regrets for any confusion or consternation when I post casually betwixt ongoings and gloss over swaths of detailed info that gets implied within my own brain for a few quips of text. I'm more often in agreement with people here than what my posts probably indicate. It's a rumours forum, so I'm at peace with that.

In that spirit, thank you. I wish every fellow camera nerd here a peaceful, pleasant, and hope-filled transition to 2026.