Latest activity

Bob Howland · Mar 28, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
I know. I think you misunderstood my point, which was ‘technically’ in the sense of a technicality. I wrote in response to a claim that Canon was lying. If Canon sets license terms that effectively make it unprofitable for a 3rd party to make a certain lens, then when the 3rd party doesn’t make that lens, Canon can truthfully say it’s the 3rd party’s choice to not make the lens…and be technically correct.

A distinction without a difference

neuroanatomist · Mar 28, 2026

GMCPhotographics said:
Considering Canon's recent releases of pro / press orientated zooms have both been USM motored lenses, the RF 24-105mm f2.8 L IS USM Z , the RF 70-200mm f2.8 F2.8 L IS USM Z and the RF 100-300mm f2.8 L IS USM come to mind. I suspect that the issue that Canon has with implementing VCM across it's range..

The title of the post is, “Is Ring-Type USM on the Way Out?” The lenses you list use Nano USM, not Ring USM. There’s a significant difference. Most of the VCM lenses have two AF motors, one VCM and one Nano USM.

neuroanatomist · Mar 28, 2026

Martin0815 said:
Please note that all RF and RF-S cameras use the same RF mount, only the image circle of an RF-S (APS-C) lens is smaller than FF. Consequently, 3rd party lens manufacturers face no additional 'technical' difficulty for FF autofocus compared to RF-S (APS-C) autofocus. Actually, there are already several 3rd party autofocus RF-S lenses available, e.g. Sigma 15mm f/1.4 DC, but no FF autofocus.
To me it is clear that Canon either deliberately blocks FF autofocus lenses for RF, or asks high licensing fees, which effectively block any 3rd party, while there is no 'technical' reason.

I know. I think you misunderstood my point, which was ‘technically’ in the sense of a technicality. I wrote in response to a claim that Canon was lying. If Canon sets license terms that effectively make it unprofitable for a 3rd party to make a certain lens, then when the 3rd party doesn’t make that lens, Canon can truthfully say it’s the 3rd party’s choice to not make the lens…and be technically correct.

PinholeR5 · Mar 28, 2026

Michael Clark said:
The 7D Mark Ii was far more than an update to the 7D. For those who used it to shoot night/indoors sports, flicker reduction was REVOLUTIONARY.

There was no comparison between the poor shot-to-shot consistency of the 7D's 19 point AF system and the much more consistent 65-pont AF system which also covered a larger percentage of the frame. Just read Roger Cicala's take on the 7D Mark II:

Compare that with his assessment of the original 7D, even when using single shot AF on a stationary subject using only the center AF point. It was the second most inconsistent camera he tested from the following list: 1Ds Mark III, 5D Mark II, 1D Mark IV, 1D X, 5D Mark III, 7D, 50D, 60D, T4i, T3i. Only the T3i was barely more inconsistent. The 1D X and 5D III had standard deviation of 15 line pairs per image height (lp/ih). The 7D had a standard deviation of 40 lp/ih, the T3i came in at 41. The 50D and 60D scored 34, and the T4i posted a 29.

My own experience when I transitioned from the 50D to the 7D was similar: The 50D missed focus less often and by lesser amounts than the 7D. When looking through the viewfinder and shooting with the 7D, it felt like a more capable camera. It certainly had a more configurable AF system in terms of settings options. But when looking at the results on even a 24" FHD monitor with the entire image on the screen, the results were undeniable.

I loved my 7D!. Never had the 7DII. Moved to the 7D from a T2i, so perhaps that is why I was very happy. I stopped doing sports (thriathlon) and moved into new born / kids photography

That is when I got the 5DIII. Man, that was a nice upgrade. I still regret selling the 5DIII when I moved on to the R5.

John Wilde · Mar 28, 2026

"The death of the retro dream? We'll see. Maybe it'll be saved for PowerShot and not for EOS."

A retro PowerShot would make sense. The low-end is a good target audience for "fashion cameras".

GMCPhotographics · Mar 28, 2026

Considering Canon's recent releases of pro / press orientated zooms have both been USM motored lenses, the RF 24-105mm f2.8 L IS USM Z , the RF 70-200mm f2.8 F2.8 L IS USM Z and the RF 100-300mm f2.8 L IS USM come to mind. I suspect that the issue that Canon has with implementing VCM across it's range, is that it doesn't have the motors available in all sizes yet. With every lens, they have to design an enirely new motor each time and it slows down design and manufacturing time. Where as the ring USM, Canon's pretty much got an available parts bin for anything that an engineer / lens designer could wish for.

Martin0815 · Mar 28, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
...
Why? I honestly don’t get comments like that. Except from trolls, or people with zero business acumen. Why lie when you can just leave it at ‘no comment’ (which was the main answer anyway). It could easily be true that the lack of 3rd party FF autofocus lenses is the choice of the 3rd parties, technically…Canon sets the terms, and if they don’t want such lenses made they just need to set terms to make it undesirable. 3rd parties won’t make the lenses if Canon’s licensing fee makes them unprofitable. It’s not personal, it’s business.

Please note that all RF and RF-S cameras use the same RF mount, only the image circle of an RF-S (APS-C) lens is smaller than FF. Consequently, 3rd party lens manufacturers face no additional 'technical' difficulty for FF autofocus compared to RF-S (APS-C) autofocus. Actually, there are already several 3rd party autofocus RF-S lenses available, e.g. Sigma 15mm f/1.4 DC, but no FF autofocus.
To me it is clear that Canon either deliberately blocks FF autofocus lenses for RF, or asks high licensing fees, which effectively block any 3rd party, while there is no 'technical' reason.

neuroanatomist · Mar 28, 2026

candyman said:
You mean R6 III.
I never had issues with the image quality of FSI. Also not on my 6D II

Ha, yes I did mean the R6II. Whoops.

mb66energy · Mar 28, 2026

Hugin said:
An RF 20-70/4L IS, as light as possible, would be nice.
Though there are already so many lenses covering the standard zoom range so I don’t have to much hope.

Would be a fine lens reaching the outer limits of ultra wide lenses and is 32 ... 112 equiv on APS-C which is a very usable range for my use cases.
But too many options keep me away from taking photos, so less options might be good for me ;-)

mb66energy · Mar 28, 2026

I like that e.g. Laowa has used the EF mount in a newly developed lens, the f/4.5 180 macro which is a very versatile and fun producing lens - and can be used on my M50 too!
Why EF? EF allows to convert the EOS R50 V with a ND adapter into a small cinema camera with internal ND exposure control!

candyman · Mar 28, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
the 6DIII

You mean R6 III.
I never had issues with the image quality of FSI. Also not on my 6D II

EricN · Mar 28, 2026

mimbu said:
It sure was said to be by everyone who owned Canon and Nikon when the A9III came out and blew everything else in the market away. When the Z6III came out with much worse DR but none of the A9III benefits, Nikon users suddenly got quiet. Can't imagine why. The R6III has similar problems but with an even worse (FSI) sensor.

Is the A9III perfect? Nope, there is room to improve. And guess what? Sony spends truckloads on sensor R&D and they will improve it. Even in its current form it's a marvel of a sensor that is unmatched in any other hybrid camera sold today. It's not even close. But, if you want a camera with maximum DR at low ISOs, it is not the right tool for the job. It's also a poor choice for very high ISO use.

That's an excessive amount of nuance compared to "garbage"

neuroanatomist · Mar 28, 2026

Sounds like a typical Canon interview. Nice to see the plan is to continue at 6-8 lenses per year.

FSI for the 6DIII wasn’t a surprise, the R5’s FSI sensor delivered IQ as good as any other FF sensor on the market. BSI is a marketing gimmick for current full frame pixel sizes (though you can’t get the speed benefit of a stacked sensor without BSI).

Bob Howland said:
My guess is that Canon is lying.

Why? I honestly don’t get comments like that. Except from trolls, or people with zero business acumen. Why lie when you can just leave it at ‘no comment’ (which was the main answer anyway). It could easily be true that the lack of 3rd party FF autofocus lenses is the choice of the 3rd parties, technically…Canon sets the terms, and if they don’t want such lenses made they just need to set terms to make it undesirable. 3rd parties won’t make the lenses if Canon’s licensing fee makes them unprofitable. It’s not personal, it’s business.

GMCPhotographics · Mar 28, 2026

Bob Howland said:
Interesting!! So Sigma could port their 300-600 to RF if they chose to do so?! Given that Sigma offers a lens mount conversion service, the differences between mounts must be well known and relatively minor. My guess is that Canon is lying.

The big question about that particular lens, which is typical for Sigma…is it sharp at its longest focal length? Does it suffer from horrendous flare and focal breathing and what’s it like with tele converters?
If none of these are “amazing” or “take your breath away” but merely “ok”, “adequate” or 90%, then a used EF 600 lis II might be a better option.

Hugin · Mar 28, 2026

An RF 20-70/4L IS, as light as possible, would be nice.
Though there are already so many lenses covering the standard zoom range so I don’t have to much hope.

Bob Howland · Mar 28, 2026

Interesting!! So Sigma could port their 300-600 to RF if they chose to do so?! Given that Sigma offers a lens mount conversion service, the differences between mounts must be well known and relatively minor. My guess is that Canon is lying.

Bob Howland · Mar 28, 2026

David - Sydney said:
Mate... you may have joined in 2022 but I think that the majority of your posts are in this thread.
We are here to learn and to create images - not talking about how Sony's tech would magically make my pictures look better or how I must save money or somehow gain access to stuff available for other users.
Not sure what your end game is but it doesn't seem to be working. You aren't convincing anyone here so perhaps a different forum would be appropriate for your musing.
Clearly no point in continuing the conversation from me

Often, the best way to end the conversation is to let the other party have the last word.

David - Sydney · Mar 28, 2026

mimbu said:
No, but defending Canon isn't the answer either. Openly pushing them to do better is the answer. Same as people did with Sony for things like proper weatherproofing on bodies when that wasn't a thing in the past.

Apple is a great example because they are being forced by the EU to open their platform more, and to offer things like RCS compatibility. It's not enough yet and it's not global enough yet, but it is a step in the right direction. And yes, I am a long-time iPhone user. That doesn't mean that I won't call Apple out on their BS and their closed-platform practices.

There is a very large gap in sensor tech between Canon and Sony. In fact between everyone and Sony. Sony created a brand new type of sensor that went into the Z6III (bad implementation by Nikon with no dual gain readout), the S1II (much better implementation by Panasonic), and now a 33mp version in the A7V. Meanwhile Canon stuffed another ancient FSI sensor into the R6III and just cranked up the readout clock. There are two full generations of sensor tech (and a lot of small other improvements) between FSI and the new "partially stacked" BSI sensors. They are not equal, and they don't perform equally.

Mate... you may have joined in 2022 but I think that the majority of your posts are in this thread.
We are here to learn and to create images - not talking about how Sony's tech would magically make my pictures look better or how I must save money or somehow gain access to stuff available for other users.
Not sure what your end game is but it doesn't seem to be working. You aren't convincing anyone here so perhaps a different forum would be appropriate for your musing.
Clearly no point in continuing the conversation from me

David - Sydney · Mar 28, 2026

AlanF said:
The troll dilbert was eventually outed and revealed to be an Aussie. He was so embarrassed that he manually deleted every one of his posts and disappeared. The cloak of anonymity was essential to him and I presume to many suchlike.

Crikey! An Aussie... I don't remember that. Trolling vs doxxing is a troubling issue.

neuroanatomist · Mar 28, 2026

Del Paso said:
Friends!
When will we understand that it doesn't make sense to keep arguing with sect members, political fanatics, trolls or Sony fanboyz?
They never listen, convinced to be the beholders of Truth.
Let them keep their cute little tinfoil hats on and enjoy spreading their drivel !
If they have time to waste, let's not waste our time answering them.

Indeed. I don’t mind debating, even arguing, with mature, intelligent people who hold a viewpoint different to mine. But arguing with petulant morons is pointless. The inability to simply admit that one was wrong (“I may have been mistaken,” is not doing so) is the hallmark of a blind fool, or a purposeful troll (and those are synonymous).

mimbu · Mar 28, 2026

Del Paso said:
Friends!
When will we understand that it doesn't make sense to keep arguing with sect members, political fanatics, trolls or Sony fanboyz?
They never listen, convinced to be the beholders of Truth.
Let them keep their cute little tinfoil hats on and enjoy spreading their drivel !
If they have time to waste, let's not waste our time answering them.

The thing with Canon folks is that they have such a superiority complex that they can't help but answer. And will never admit that (a) Canon is way behind on sensor tech (and innovation in general, really) and (b) that Canon is the master of shoveling out garbage-tier cameras at rock-bottom prices.

At least Canon has finally caught up to Viltrox with VCM focus motors. So there's that.

Michael Clark · Mar 28, 2026

Steve Balcombe said:
I really don't see it that way. The 7D was pretty good for 2009, and it came along just as I was wondering how to upgrade my 40D with something genuinely better that I could actually afford! Five years later I was well and truly ready for the Mark II, but not because of any real dissatisfaction with the 7D, just that five years of catching up was sorely needed by then.

The R7, on the other hand, was a dreadful disappointment. A fairly decent R-series successor to the 90D, masquerading as a mirrorless 7D3 which of course it wasn't. The one consolation was the 90D-level price, but the fact remains that in this, the twelfth year since the 7D2 was launched, it still has no successor. The R7 Mark II needs to be head and shoulders above the R7, not just an update like the 7D to 7D2.

The 7D Mark Ii was far more than an update to the 7D. For those who used it to shoot night/indoors sports, flicker reduction was REVOLUTIONARY.

There was no comparison between the poor shot-to-shot consistency of the 7D's 19 point AF system and the much more consistent 65-pont AF system which also covered a larger percentage of the frame. Just read Roger Cicala's take on the 7D Mark II:

It looks like the original 7D with just some minor button rearrangements and the obvious GPS plate in front of the flash mount. The image quality, especially at higher ISO, is a bit better. I’m not an expert on it but shadow salvage seems better, too.

But when you started playing with the autofocus you’ll realize this isn’t your grandfather’s 7D. Some people claim to like the original 7D’s AF, but some people claim to like brussel sprouts. The 7DII had me doing ‘hey, y’all, look at this’ autofocus tricks in 2 minutes.

Compare that with his assessment of the original 7D, even when using single shot AF on a stationary subject using only the center AF point. It was the second most inconsistent camera he tested from the following list: 1Ds Mark III, 5D Mark II, 1D Mark IV, 1D X, 5D Mark III, 7D, 50D, 60D, T4i, T3i. Only the T3i was barely more inconsistent. The 1D X and 5D III had standard deviation of 15 line pairs per image height (lp/ih). The 7D had a standard deviation of 40 lp/ih, the T3i came in at 41. The 50D and 60D scored 34, and the T4i posted a 29.

My own experience when I transitioned from the 50D to the 7D was similar: The 50D missed focus less often and by lesser amounts than the 7D. When looking through the viewfinder and shooting with the 7D, it felt like a more capable camera. It certainly had a more configurable AF system in terms of settings options. But when looking at the results on even a 24" FHD monitor with the entire image on the screen, the results were undeniable.

mb66energy · Mar 28, 2026

As someone who likes 50mm for wide angle shoots and is spoiled by 100-200mm (in FF terms):
Ultrawide is needed sometimes so maybe I would prefer a zoom with the same max. aperture.
Maybe I will be fine with the EF-S 10-18mm lens which has an image stabilizer for the R50 V and can be used with a variable ND filter inside the RF-EF adapter. Wide open is not too important at UW for me.

RF-S 28 might be a great choice if it has perfect image quality especially very high contrast in contraligh/no ghosting, low distortion and overall clarity + good closeup range.

And yes: EF-M 32 1.4 is a stellar lens which would be very welcome in the RF world. Maybe with the same 43mm thread I have a variable ND filter for.

Del Paso · Mar 28, 2026

Friends!
When will we understand that it doesn't make sense to keep arguing with sect members, political fanatics, trolls or Sony fanboyz?
They never listen, convinced to be the beholders of Truth.
Let them keep their cute little tinfoil hats on and enjoy spreading their drivel !
If they have time to waste, let's not waste our time answering them.

mimbu · Mar 28, 2026

Ring USM died when hybrids became the future. It's nearly silent to us humans but it gets picked up by mics and makes on-camera mics mostly useless. It was a revolutionary tech for its time but there are better options now.

What I want to see is for Canon to stop putting STM AF into lenses. There is no excuse for Canon to still be using STM. It's not fast enough and not good enough for the level of micro-adjustment needed by today's AF systems.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics