Latest activity

MontereyBay · Monday at 8:32 PM

Gogo7 said:
Everyone that was criticizing the Sony A9iii for its lack of dynamic range will now say: ohhh you see the Canon R1 is not that bad , it competes with A9iii , so it’s all good . That’s called hypocrisy
But anyways , I love my R1 but it seems every camera company moving forward , makes a step backwards when it comes to image quality and It’s all about speed now .

The criticism was for the loss of dynamic range from the A9II to the A9III but with a substantial increase in price for the camera. For still photographers paying $$$$ for IQ. the slight increase in global shutter readout is a wash for the price one is paying hardware wise. Processing is still limited by the write to disk speed. The speed didn't create a substantial more hit rates or income in stills. Reason the global shutter hasn't garnered much traction in still photography since it was invented by Kodak back in the 1970s. Ok for motion picture and video, but has relatively little use in still photography and not worth the $$$$. Once stacked sensors reach 2 - 3ms the advantage of the GS for still photography is a wash hence the criticism for a $6800 + tax camera that doesn't capture any more stills faster than the R1 or R3

Botts · Monday at 7:39 PM

Maximilian said:
With the 28-70 STM ending at 70 mm, this 70 mm should be the starting FL and it should go further than 150 mm.
With 200 or else preferred.

As much as it sucks as a potential buyer, I think Canon has to limit this to 150mm for market segmentation alone.

Skux · Monday at 7:23 PM

It has to keep the G7 X name, it's become its own brand at this point like the X100 series.

All Canon needs to do is upgrade the AF and 4k. The flash, screen, lens, sensor and ergonomics are already great.

Oh, and add vertical video detection.

Quack · Monday at 6:59 PM

Exploreshootshare said:
It's gotten to a point where I really despise all these online reviews. Pixel peeping and looking at 300% views... nobody ever does that in the real world... so why the heck base a lens purchase on that review? Not the mention the "so, the lens has two switches, an aperture ring..." bullshit nobody needs. Optical limits only tells me if a lens is "clinical sharp" or not, it doesn't tell me anything about how usable the images actually are.

Given that most images are viewed on smaller screens and most prints are smaller as well, the lenses should be evaluated in that regard. I recently made Christmas pics of my students (4th grade) in challenging lighting conditions with the 85mm F2. In Lightroom, some images looked "slightly blurry" or not perfectly sharp at 100-300%. The prints (20cm x 30cm which is 8x12 inches) turned out perfectly. One couldn't tell if anything wasn't sharp or "the edges fell apart". Good lenses don´t necessarily have to be super sharp and great at 300% crop.

I just wished lenses reviewers would acknowledge that fact. But I'm ultimately guessing, not clinging to test-charts and actually reviewing the lenses for the purposes they are made for and forming a judgment without intensive chart-testing would require a skill most reviewers don't have: knowing how to shoot and what to shoot.

Funnily, some of favorite lenses have gotten bad reviews such as the 85mm F2, 100-400mm F5.6-8 and RF 16mm F2.8. The 85mm was recommended to me by a people photographer on a German camera website and it is a bargain. The 100-400mm was recommended to me by AlanF (among others) here at CR and it is great. It even produces great images with the TC attached. The 16mm was praised by photographer who hikes in the alps and so far, almost every time I used it delivered. All recommendations came from photographers who actually used the lenses, know their value despite their caveats. But the caveats don´t really matter if know how to work around them or know how theses lenses were intended to be used.

Pretty much all online reviews and information should be read with a grain of salt, so to speak. They are best viewed as entertainment, in my opinion, and not as serious research into making purchase decisions. When it comes to cameras and lenses, the reality is that they are all very good to excellent, they all can do the job (especially if you understand what job they are best suited for), and all differences are minor. Of course, any online reviewer who would say such a thing, would soon have nothing to say. So they must do the opposite, to stay relevant. Slight differences are exaggerated. Images, as you say, are evaluated in conditions that are nowhere near what any actual photographer would view them under. And, of course, there is always the fact that anyone can produce a blog, podcast or website with no actual expertise.

MStrathmore · Monday at 6:04 PM

I anguished long and hard about what to do regarding this lens.

In the end, the review by Christopher Frost decided me - I fall into the subset of users that have the original R5, and, as I understand it from his review this lens has a focussing issue on all Canon cameras of that age or earlier. I didn't want to be at the mercy of Canon for a firmware update that may never happen (and likely won't happen).

The other aspect was the fact that I already had (the excellent) Sigma 85mm 1.4 Art which I attach using the Meike drop-in filter EF-RF adapter. For me, going for the Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art was a no brainer when you look at the quality of that lens. Literally the only thing counting against the Sigmas is weight, which is a fair comment. I also found that the need for a VND filter when shooting at 1.4 outdoors is often unavoidable, so the drop in filter adapter provided a very neat solution for this - conveniently available across all EF lenses with no fuss.

Ultimately, I think I could live with all of the "issues" the 45mm has, except the focussing one which is a deal breaker in my case. A lot of people want the "character" of an older lens, and many folks including me often put a small vignette in their photos in post anyway, so a lot of these things really come down to a matter of taste.

Mark.

neuroanatomist · Monday at 5:48 PM

gbasilemc said:
Like what ? any exemple of any "halo" product that already exists ?

The RF 28-70/2 is one example. It launched with the R system in 2018 (it took Sony 6 more years to launch theirs).

gbasilemc · Monday at 5:32 PM

"There will be at least one “crazy” lens. I have no idea what that could be, but Canon does need to release some things that fit under the “halo product” banner."

Like what ? any exemple of any "halo" product that already exists ?

mb66energy · Monday at 4:49 PM

Maximilian said:
I haven't yet had a personal experience with this lens.
I am considering to get it, knowing that its IQ is limited.
I am not using f/1.x that often to justify the prices of the much better L lenses.
It was clear to me from the start that its sharpness wide open would be only good in the center to mid frame.
It was clear to me that the bokeh wide open exhibits “cat's eye” corners.
I thought, Canon could do a bit more about aberrations.
I am sure, I'll have to take a personal look at it.

Just to make it clear for me:
Your opinion is based on hands on experience or theoretical thoughts form MTF and the reviews in the web?
Thanks in advance for your clarification

No personal experience - it is from a mix of different videos about that lens, from some technical reviews and the lens design which is of the (modified) double gaussian type.
In my opinion close to the old EF 1.4 50 which I own.

Here the link to the TDP comparison: https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Here the pages on canon.jp for both the RF 45 and the EF 50 which show the lens configuration:
https://personal.canon.jp/product/camera/rf/rf45-f12/spec

https://faq.canon.jp/app/answers/detail/a_id/105318/~/【交換レンズ】ef50mm-f1.4-usm-機種仕様

Tom R5R7 · Monday at 4:44 PM

Maximilian said:
Understood and welcome.

I'd prefer the original 24-100/1.8-2.8 equvalent lens.
But I don't believe that one can keep that form factor if you want that 24-240/2.0-4.5 equ.
With the same lens size, my linear cross-multiplication gives me f/6.7 @240mm.
Still welcome?

For a vacation pocket camera, that would be acceptable, I think. Although at f/6.7, you start running into higher ISO in lower light situations. But in general, being able to snap photos in a wide variety of situations with a decent sensor and operating system.

I have this little SX620 HS that I bought a few years ago, specifically for taking images of a well-lit celebrity from basically the nosebleed seats. It served that purpose well, though it's not a great camera. It also sports a 25X zoom range, going from 4.5 to 112.5 mm (25-625 mm 35mm equivalent). The max aperture is listed as f/3.2 at the wide end and f/6.6 at the tele end of that range. The lens fully retracts into the camera when you turn it off. I really don't use it, but I think that some of its capabilities regarding size would be beneficial in another body.

Of course, it has a very tiny sensor, 1/2.3 inch, so it's definitely a different animal than what this possible G7 replacement would be.

blackcoffee17 · Monday at 4:06 PM

Is it that hard or expensive to make an APS-C zoom? Because it takes Canon 20 years and 50 patents to finally make one. All this while selling millions of APS-C cameras every year. In the same time Sigma somehow manages to design a whole series of high quality APS-C lenses. And even the much smaller Nikon.

Nathalietje86 · Monday at 3:26 PM

Still hoping for a compact camera like the 740hs with enough zoom around 300mm, an evf and raw mode and a bigger sensor for shooting wildlife with it
And if they make it in a G7 or a V3 or a new 740HS thats up to canon

but please canon make some compact camera's especially for photographers

Del Paso · Monday at 3:11 PM

EricN said:
The 45mm is a little closer to 35 by 5mm. It's not much, but at least it wasn't 55mm, right?

What a great solace for someone waiting for an RF 35mm f/1,2 L !

AlanF · Monday at 3:02 PM

Thank you @Skux and @neuroanatomist.

scyrene · Monday at 2:59 PM

There's definitely a place for lenses like the RF 100-400 for insects, but there is a particular look that you get from true macro at long focal lengths (partly due to sharpness at MFD?), which is why I keep my Sigma 180 f/2.8 as well

neuroanatomist · Monday at 2:49 PM

Skux said:
The newer ones can be set to "Exposure Simulation + DOF preview" where they will stop down in live view. This resolves the issue of focus shift with the 45mm f/1.2, 100mm f/2.8 L, and other lenses by letting you focus at the desired aperture rather than wide open.

ExpSim + DoF Preview is my usual setting. Agree that it does resolve the issue of focus shift, though FYI it does not always let you focus at the desired aperture because if you stop down far enough, the camera may need to open the aperture somewhat to allow enough light for AF. Focus shift is evident close to wide open, stop down enough and the increased DoF mitigates the issue.

Here's an example with the R1 and 28-70/2. Stopped way down from wide open, you can see it open the aperture briefly (not to wide open, just 'enough') just before the first AF confirmation beep. I then opened the aperture up a bit (not to wide open, but to an aperture where focus shift could be an issue if this lens exhibited it, which it doesn't) and there is no aperture change before the second AF confirmation beep.

View attachment Stop down focus.mov

Skux · Monday at 2:35 PM

AlanF said:
Which Canon bodies stop down during AF?

The newer ones can be set to "Exposure Simulation + DOF preview" where they will stop down in live view. This resolves the issue of focus shift with the 45mm f/1.2, 100mm f/2.8 L, and other lenses by letting you focus at the desired aperture rather than wide open.

This appears to only be available on RF lenses (when I tried adapting EF glass the option is not available, however this may be limited to a selection of lenses).

Bodies with Exposure Simulation + DOF preview:
R1
R3
R5 II
R6 II
R7
R8
R10
R50

Bodies which do not have this feature:
R
RP
R5
Ra
R100

Snapster said:
I'm surprised more of the reviews didn't catch the focus shift issue. Or it could be a quality control issue because of the cheap price?

If you can't get eyes in perfect focus at f/1.4 - f/2 on an R5 autofocus, the lens is absolutely a no go.

Focus shift is a property of the lens design, not a production issue.

Portraits should be fine as the issue is only noticeable at close shooting distances.

neuroanatomist · Monday at 2:13 PM

Exploreshootshare said:
I´ve read the article a second time and I somehow get the feeling that something gets overlooked what a lot of customers want:
- First of all: they want lenses and cameras to fit their budget.
- furthermore, they want good, sometimes great images, that are better than their SP. Otherwise why buy a camera...
- secondly: they want creative control (not all, some just shoot in automode)

A lot of customers don't demand "clinically perfect" images and lenses. But most reviewers don't get that...

I wonder how many actual buyers read one or more reviews, dig deep into test chart results, etc. No real idea, but the #1 mirrorless lens on amazon.com is the RF 50/1.8, which Klaus gives 3 stars of 5. Heck, the #7 mirrorless lens on Amazon is the RF 75-300, and even Bryan's rose-colored glasses struggle to find the silver lining there – "...it is not a high-performing model. If you are severely budget-constrained or using the lens in a high risk scenario (such as use by the kids), this lightweight lens might be the right choice for you."

I think your initial point is spot on, most people first look at spec and cost and make a decision mainly based mainly on that. It bears repeating – those of us discussing camera gear on the internet are not representative of most buyers.

P-visie · Monday at 2:10 PM

DocInfoSci said:
But your needs and preferences are yours, absolutely!

That is exactly my point.

DocInfoSci · Monday at 2:06 PM

P-visie said:
Maybe YOU do not want or need a macro lens, but please do not tell me what I want (or need).

I suspect "you" is meant as the royal you, as in "a person of the community in general". In which case, the statement probably holds. The EF 300 IS f/4 L plus an extender (some image quality impact) or spacer (no image quality impact) has been used by many for great insect shots in lieu of a dedicated macro -- as an example.

In fact, I still have this combo still and while I prefer it for ducks, cows, and bears the odd dragonfly has been captured with great detail. I also keep dedicated macro lenses laying about.

But your needs and preferences are yours, absolutely!

BlueBomberTurbo · Monday at 2:05 PM

Snapster said:
I'm surprised more of the reviews didn't catch the focus shift issue. Or it could be a quality control issue because of the cheap price?

If you can't get eyes in perfect focus at f/1.4 - f/2 on an R5 autofocus, the lens is absolutely a no go.

Depends on the camera and settings used. It can be resolved with exposure and aperture previews turned on in cameras that support this setting combo.

AlanF · Monday at 2:00 PM

EOS 4 Life said:
Most reviewers tested the lens on the R6 III.
New cameras do not have a focus shift.

Which Canon bodies stop down during AF?

EOS 4 Life · Monday at 1:51 PM

Snapster said:
I'm surprised more of the reviews didn't catch the focus shift issue. Or it could be a quality control issue because of the cheap price?

If you can't get eyes in perfect focus at f/1.4 - f/2 on an R5 autofocus, the lens is absolutely a no go.

Most reviewers tested the lens on the R6 III.
New cameras do not have a focus shift.

Old Man FL/FD · Monday at 1:42 PM

Maximilian said:
The acronym stands for "Global Positioning System". And there were too many *** discussions here, so Craig seemed to have blacklisted it

Global Positioning System - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And IMO it is only bad, if you can't switch the battery drain off (when not needed) or when it is jammed by military

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

roby17269 · Monday at 1:36 PM

EricN said:
Probably nobody cares...

Aaaaww

roby17269 · Monday at 1:34 PM

DocInfoSci said:
I'm always fascinated by the hate for the EF 1.2. What do people use it for and on which body that it becomes unfit for purpose? I use the EF 50 1.2 for portraits of people and animals. I have always loved the outcome. On an R6 it's great, and with DLO it's amazing. In my humble opinion and for my purpose, of course.

I used it for fashion portraiture but, imho, it did not hold a candle to the 85 1.2 II and, especially for the money, I found its performance unacceptable. Never understood the point of a 1.2L lens that was not useable at 1.2
Just to be clear, I absolutely do not mind you liking it, but I reserve my right to loathe it

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics