AlanF said:

We once had a troll called dilbert. He loved dishing it out, and the more he was fed, the more he spewed out, never abashed.

Click to expand...

Some people just need to vent their frustration or aggressiveness. A psychiatrist might help...

We once had a troll called dilbert. He loved dishing it out, and the more he was fed, the more he spewed out, never abashed.

Sweet shots Dragon

mimbu said:

All you're saying is that you haven't used any 3rd party glass in the last several years. There is a ton of stunning 3rd party glass around. You can get lenses for the same or less than Canon's budget glass that performs 90% as well as Canon's very best L glass. In some cases, it matches L glass.

If you have infinite money then sure, buy all Canon/Sony/Nikon glass. Or buy all Leica glass. Whatever floats your boat. But the reality is that when viewing a processed & printed photograph from a normal viewing distance, 99.999% of the population (if not 100%) won't be able to tell if you spent $2.5k on Canon glass or $250 on Viltrox glass. If you pixel peep, you can tell. So what's more important, the print or the pixel peeping?

Click to expand...

Hmm 90%....exactly my point. When friends and family look over my website, I never hear those words "gee I could take that with my mobile". I also never hear...I bet that was taken with a tamron or a sigma lens. I would suggest to you that my older EF glass is superior to most current 3rd party lenses in terms of sharpness, colour balance, weather sealing, robustness / build quality, AF accuracy and speed. Sure a 3rd party lens might match a few of these high bar quality specifications but not all. With Canon you get a "full" package and with it comes reliabilty and re-sale value. Some of my lenses I've owned and used professionally for well over 15 years.
Here's a list of my current lenses and you decide:
EF 8-15mm fisheye, EF 11-24L, EF 24-70 f2.8 II L, EF 70-200 f2.8 LIS II, EF 100-400mm f5.6 LIS II. That's the zooms.
EF 35mm f1.4 II L, EF 85mm f1.2 II L, EF 100mm f2.8 Macro LIS, EF 135mm f2.0 L, EF 400mm f2.8 LIS II. These are my primes and there's also the two mk III teleconverters.
With this portfolio, when mated to my R5 and R6ii, I literally want for nothing. I have bought into the Canon eco-system over a long time and I have slowly investing in my glass. However, if I wanted to upgade a specific lens (the RF10-20 is very tempting) all my upgrade or side grade options are found in Canon, not 3rd party. In fact with my current lens choice, they even give Canon's RF offering a hard time. Yes, some of these lenses are quite old and that shows the reliability and engineering of Canon.

It will probably also be about the price. If it costs a few dollars, there will probably be people interested in buying it.

Considering that Canon already has a compact affordable RF 16mm f/2.8 and RF 28mm f/2.8 primes and somewhat more expensive 24mm f/1.8, my guess is that the first RF-S prime will be pancake design 20mm or 24mm with the maximum aperture of either f2 or f2.8.

AlanF said:

Sure, if all you do is take simple shots and view the whole image without cropping at a moderate size then most gear, including a smart phone, will be adequate in many cases. But, if you are working at the limit of needing very rapid, reliable AF and cropping greatly and then viewing, then you really see the difference between cheap optics and inferior AF compared with the top grade, and the inferior unacceptable. And what counts is not what appeals to 99.999% of the population but your own standards, which might overlap with the 99.999%.

By the way, your numbers are suspect. The remaining 0.001% of the population adds up to 82,000 people, and the estimates of the number of professional photographers ranges from 1 to 2.5 million, with 20-30 million serious prosumers. So, a figure of 97.5% of the population is a more realistic estimate of the population not being serious about quality.

Click to expand...

The interesting thing for me was the person not worried about lower quality lenses is worried image quality loss with less expensive / advanced camera bodies.

blackcoffee17 said:

They never release anything anyway. If i every buy a Canon APS-C camera, i will be perfectly happy with Sigma offerings.

Click to expand...

If only Sigma would introduce a small and light 50-140 f/2.8 DC OS C. I already own most of the rest.

mimbu said:

If you have infinite money then sure, buy all Canon/Sony/Nikon glass. Or buy all Leica glass. Whatever floats your boat. But the reality is that when viewing a processed & printed photograph from a normal viewing distance, 99.999% of the population (if not 100%) won't be able to tell if you spent $2.5k on Canon glass or $250 on Viltrox glass.

Click to expand...

But everyone will instantly know that you used that garbage Canon R100 and not the stupendously awesome Sony a6100, right? Yeah, we know that’s what you actually believe.

Very nice series. I especially like the last photo.

I really like your series, ISv. Well done.

neuroanatomist said:

Indeed. My core travel kit comprises the R8 and three zooms – RF 10-20/4, RF 24-105/4, and either the RF 100-500L or the RF 100-400L, depending on how much telephoto shooting I anticipate doing. I supplement those lenses with a few primes, typically one or both of the 17mm and 24mm TS-E lenses, a fast WA/UWA prime (24/1.8 or now one of the 14-20-24/1.4 trio), and I will often include the 28/2.8 just because it's great on the R8 for walking around unencumbered.

Click to expand...

And that's your "core" kit. Do you also carry a lightweight tripod? Update: the RF 100-400 isn't L. It is small and light and remarkably sharp.

mimbu said:

Denying the obvious just makes you look like a bootlicker. If Sony made a camera like the R100 I would have zero problems calling it garbage. Garbage is garbage and denying it is dumb.

Click to expand...

No, I just understand the market and the position of the R100 in it. You just want to prove that you’re an arrogant ass, and at least that’s one thing for which you’ve provided convincing evidence. So, well done?

mimbu said:

You guys really need to be a bit more objective.

Click to expand...

This, from a slavering Sony fanboi. Oh, the irony.

neuroanatomist said:

You’re confusing the guy running this site with one of the writers for the site.

Regardless, the R100 is a far more capable camera than the entry-level DSLR that was my first. For many people, it will be the best camera they can afford. It’s a capable camera that can deliver great results in the right hands, if not in yours.

Your opinion of it is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

I got an excellent deal on a refurbished r100 after seeing it on CPW at approximately the buying price on KEH. Autofocus isn't great but it can successfully get a bird. I'm used it for close to water level photos that I would be afraid to do with something more expensive. The blur on the left is 100% my fault and low contrast is intended. I'll post a more normal photo later

tad1111 said:

I would like to see them make an RF-S 22mm or 24mm pancake. I had the EF-S 24mm but sold it as I moved away from adapted lenses. But now I wish I would have kept it.

Click to expand...

An RF-S 22mm would be very welcome. I have a very beaten up M100 and EF-M 22mm which has been my go to pocket camera for years. (I tried a Fuji X100 but didn't get on with it, or its price.) A small RF-S camera and 22mm lens would be a nice upgrade.

Maximilian said:

Thanks for that catch...


I've used it quite a lot for traveling (light) and for being cheap (in case of theft) together with my 200D and it performed (both photos @250mm plus cropping):

View attachment 228575
View attachment 228577

Click to expand...

Great shots Maximilian! I recall you took them on Kos. I think it is the best of your many fine shots of an Emperor Dragonfly and one of your best BIFs.

mimbu said:

All you're saying is that you haven't used any 3rd party glass in the last several years. There is a ton of stunning 3rd party glass around. You can get lenses for the same or less than Canon's budget glass that performs 90% as well as Canon's very best L glass. In some cases, it matches L glass.

If you have infinite money then sure, buy all Canon/Sony/Nikon glass. Or buy all Leica glass. Whatever floats your boat. But the reality is that when viewing a processed & printed photograph from a normal viewing distance, 99.999% of the population (if not 100%) won't be able to tell if you spent $2.5k on Canon glass or $250 on Viltrox glass. If you pixel peep, you can tell. So what's more important, the print or the pixel peeping?

Click to expand...

Sure, if all you do is take simple shots and view the whole image without cropping at a moderate size then most gear, including a smart phone, will be adequate in many cases. But, if you are working at the limit of needing very rapid, reliable AF and cropping greatly and then viewing, then you really see the difference between cheap optics and inferior AF compared with the top grade, and the inferior unacceptable. And what counts is not what appeals to 99.999% of the population but your own standards, which might overlap with the 99.999%.

By the way, your numbers are suspect. The remaining 0.001% of the population adds up to 82,000 people, and the estimates of the number of professional photographers ranges from 1 to 2.5 million, with 20-30 million serious prosumers. So, a figure of 97.5% of the population is a more realistic estimate of the population not being serious about quality.

GMCPhotographics said:

I can't think of a single lens that Canon hasn't offered a better version, superior specs or similar offerings than 3rd party. When i look at 3rd party lenses, there's always a downside fro the cheaper price. Poor AF or a lack of critical sharpness at the long end of a zoom range. For me, even Canon's older EF mkII and mkIII glass is far superior to most of the current 3rd party offerings. For me, my upgrade path is with Canon, not 3rd party.

Click to expand...

All you're saying is that you haven't used any 3rd party glass in the last several years. There is a ton of stunning 3rd party glass around. You can get lenses for the same or less than Canon's budget glass that performs 90% as well as Canon's very best L glass. In some cases, it matches L glass.

If you have infinite money then sure, buy all Canon/Sony/Nikon glass. Or buy all Leica glass. Whatever floats your boat. But the reality is that when viewing a processed & printed photograph from a normal viewing distance, 99.999% of the population (if not 100%) won't be able to tell if you spent $2.5k on Canon glass or $250 on Viltrox glass. If you pixel peep, you can tell. So what's more important, the print or the pixel peeping?

David - Sydney said:

There is no 'harm' involved - only choices.
There are telephone numbers you can call for support if you feel that you are harmed.
But hey, you are generating clicks so good for you!

Click to expand...

I sure seem to have upset a whole lot of Canon fanatics / corporate bootlickers. You guys really need to be a bit more objective. Actually, a LOT more objective.

neuroanatomist said:

It's an entry-level camera. Characterizing it as garbage is just you being arrogant. Grow up.

Click to expand...

Denying the obvious just makes you look like a bootlicker. If Sony made a camera like the R100 I would have zero problems calling it garbage. Garbage is garbage and denying it is dumb.

AJ said:

This is perhaps one bit I can empathize with. I'm not sure if harms is the right verb though. But IMO Canon does hold their users back.

Which brings me back to the 300-600. Sigma has a 300-600/4 that sells for 6600 USD and was released a year ago. I wonder if this release scuttled a Canon announcement, and why it has taken so long for Canon to release the 300-600 which they purportedly have been working on. Maybe they had a 300-600/5.6 ready for a similar price? Releasing a lens at a that's a full stop slower and shutting out Sigma by not licensing their mount to them would be bad optics (pun intended). Pure speculation on my behalf, of course.
(edit spelling)

Click to expand...

Canon would sell a 300-600/5.6 for the same price as the 100-300/2.8 which it shares the same size front element with. Or even more. So...Canon 300-600/5.6 for $12k or a Sigma 300-600/4 for $6600. The Canon will undoubtedly be lighter but that Sigma is an incredible lens at a bargain price.

My first for the season Bristle-thighed Curlew. They seems to be unusually low number on Oahu this year - today (after two unsuccessful attempts before) I saw two. In the previous years I have seen 10-20 at once! With something between 7-10, 000 total for the world population it's alarming. Hopefully it's just this year!
And Saffron Finches on Australian Iron Tree where they can't hide very well in the foliage...

Dragon said:

As I said before, I don't shoot JPEG (because I don't believe in digging ditches with a shovel when I own an excavator ).

Click to expand...

Makes sense — I always have a raw copy, but a lot of my week day stuff is more amusement and shared quickly with family. In the end, raw is where it’s at.

Dragon said:

I can offer some samples with default LR processing, which is typically pretty close to OOC with the exception that Canon typically uses a bit steeper gamma curve than Adobe color, so the OOC pics will have a little more contrast.

Click to expand...

On my iPhone these are all lovely! Thank you for sharing. I’ll look in more detail when I get back to my computer.

Dragon said:

By comparison […] I think you will find that vendors other than Samyang (aka Rokinon/Opteka/ya de ya) have made much better lenses. I was quite impressed with the TTartisans as it is very small and fast enough to easily use handheld in more situations than the longer slower lenses.

Click to expand...

Very. I’ll definitely be looking into the used market for some copies. I assume they’d be very good for mid-field Astro as well. (I mainly use my mirrors for such on a tracker and stack the frames because they’re so lightweight.)

Dragon said:

BTW, your DOF expectations are likely optimistic because the central obstruction in the mirror lenses flattens the airy disc and thus causes perceivable focus to degrade considerably faster than with a refractor.

Click to expand...

That had not occurred to me. Thinking about this, I’m inclined to agree. Neither lens has ever felt like f/8 for light or depth. But at usual telescope distances the wedge is razor thin anyhow so hard to put a finger on it. Fwiw, I have 3D printed caps that attach to the central point to “increase” the f-stop for depth and that has seen some success, but I’ve been too lazy to do all the math yet.

Dragon said:

Also, I have found that using the focus peaker is optimistic at best. If your want accurate focus with a mirror, use the magnifier.

Click to expand...

Yes! And this is also true of my refractor lenses as well, just not as bad. But that bird was definitely not sitting around!

Thank you again! It’s my pleasure to make your digital acquaintance!

No no doubt everyone else here has totally forgotten by now about the 300-600 for $15k and will now go for mirrors here out. Right?! (j/k)

Sony is DOOMED.

A visit to Secret Beach today. M6 II with 11-22mm