Dr_Flash said:

But, I'm not talking whole camera market, I just focus on wildlife photography as I focus on the super tele lenses.

Click to expand...

Oh, well ok then. A niche market.

Dr_Flash said:

…as once Kodak did

Click to expand...

Right, because not making a couple of mid-range lenses for a niche market for which Canon already offers multiple relatively inexpensive and very expensive primes, as well as inexpensive and mid-range zooms, is totally analogous to the film to digital paradigm shift.

ShowMeTheEagles said:

No way the R3 is going to have all those features and cannibalize the bodies above and below it. I'm really dubious of any R3 II though.

Click to expand...

Assuming the R3 II ever comes into being, it will be a high-end camera at least as expansive as the R5 II, so Canon will not care one bit if it "cannibalizes" R5 II sales. It can't in actuality, if one means that Canon will lose money. Nor do I think Canon worries if R3 II sales take away from R1 sales. It's all camera sales and money in Canon's pockets, so as long as it''s a Canon being sold, there is no cannibalization. Why people keep thinking this is a "thing' is beyond me. What it means in reality is that at least some people will buy an extra camera that they might not have before.

neuroanatomist said:

Yeah, everyone was deserting Canon for Nikon. Then Sony. Now, apparently, Nikon again. Been hearing it for 15 years. Meanwhile, Canon continues to dominate the market. But maybe this time, this time maybe @Dr_Flash is right...

View attachment 228038

...but probably not.

Click to expand...

totally with you on that, hearing it even for 25 years .I would never switch overall. But, I'm not talking whole camera market, I just focus on wildlife photography as I focus on the super tele lenses. This niche market was dominated by Canon for a very very long time, similar to Sports using the same equipment. After Sony came in with great AF in their mirrorless (toy) cameras but not super great lenses - still a significant number switched. With the Z9 and the 400 2.8 with TC in 2021, Nikon had an OKisch AF and the best Lens on the market. More switched, even in not so easy times after COVID. Since then Nikon pushed a lot for high quality "mid" price range super tele (600mm 5.6, 800mm 6.3) and updated their camera software far more than Canon. So you see definitely more effort from them, as they know they have to win over customers.

As I said before, I'm not looking forward to have Canon and Nikon in my bag. I would love to see more effort from Canon to keep me as a local customer also for my wildlife photography. If Canon come to the conclusion, we don't need this niche anymore, we found e.g. video content creators as our new focus customer group - bad for me, but as you said, they probably continue to dominate for at least a couple more years the overall market - as once Kodak did

DocInfoSci said:

Capturing photos. Isn't that what the sensor is all about?


I agree. I just paid for them, so I want them used. I mean, it's not like my sensor is oval or anything like that.


Of course it is! Hyperbole is a useful tool when it comes to writing and stressing a point.

Per the Oxford dictionary:
Noun: exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.


I disagree. A more accurate analogy would be if only the centre tread is used, which is a real world scenario and equivalent in terms of whether a full product sees use. And yeah, I'd be miffed about that too (including my incompetence of the moment for not setting or inflating the tire correctly).

I think that misses my point.

1. I didn't complain about the potential losses from stretching, warping, etc. In fact, I said that I shamelessly use DLO and image editors. My point was I just prefer that all of the sensor be activated to provide pixels for the stretching etc.
2. I acknowledged that in the end the final product is what matters most. "Better is better."

Obviously Canon's opinion is that no one is going to miss those extra pixels when the final image is produced. Anyhow, Canon is also pursuing more pixels in its sensors anyhow -- perhaps in a more tacit acknowledgement of the corner cutting than what people realized.

In the end, hey -- if you're OK with not using your full sensor while you enjoy a sweet image then rest with a peaceful mind. I'm also resting with a peaceful mind, but in the context of the question implied by CR I'm simply stating I want to use everything in my system, not just 99%. But regardless of my wants, Canon is getting the job done -- so Bravo to Canon.

Click to expand...

All fair points, and choice is good.

The EF 11-24/4 uses the whole sensor, and the RF 10-20/4 needs correction to fill the corners. I've owned both and I use the 10-20/4 far more often than I used the 11-24/4 because it's trivial to include the former in the bag with several other lenses whereas including the latter (twice the weight and much larger) meant taking out another lens (usually one of my TS-Es).

Comparing the new 14/1.4 VCM with the Sigma 14/1.4 Art (also a mirrorless lens) yields a similar conclusion – the Sigma lens is twice the weight and much larger.



Choice is good, and I know which lenses I prefer.

scyrene said:

A tale as old as time. For Nikon's sake, I hope you're right! They need the custom.

Click to expand...

Yeah, everyone was deserting Canon for Nikon. Then Sony. Now, apparently, Nikon again. Been hearing it for 15 years. Meanwhile, Canon continues to dominate the market. But maybe this time, this time maybe @Dr_Flash is right...



...but probably not.

Del Paso said:

And I thought Canon had already lost every single wildlife photographer, you must be the last survivor!

Click to expand...

it definitely changed a lot, I wonder if this is Canon strategy or just Sony and Nikon prioritize this niche more? Let's see and wait, at least a little bit longer - It is definitely a good thing that we have now 3 major competitors fighting for our money .

neuroanatomist said:

How do you define 'created'? As @screenshooter correctly states, distortion correction involves interpolation and that's still 'creating' data in my opinion. The color and intensity values assigned to interpolated pixels are not 'original data' (but as has been pointed out, color is interpolated anyway since each pixel has a spectrally restricted color mask in front of it). The difference is that interpolation is a mathematically straightforward way to create those values, compared to extrapolation or AI-based generation.

Part of the problem here is that some people don't understand the difference between interpolation and extrapolation/AI, and/or they read somewhere that 'corners are filled by AI' and believed it.

Click to expand...

Yes, a poor choice of word on my account. Interpolation is ‘creating’, but it’s creating directly around the same data that has already been captured. I was referring to adding unrecorded data / AI generation rather than correcting distortion and of course this has been an easily accessible post processing option to correct for at least fifteen years or so.
A case in point; a couple of years ago an acquaintance of mine was unfortunate enough to have a malignant tumour develop behind one of his eyes. His eye and part of his skull was removed and the surgeons took a lump of his thigh and stitched it over the poor guy’s face, they must have known he wasn’t going to last long. You can imagine what it looked like. Anyway, his wife had taken a picture of him on her iPhone, and it had tried to generate the outline of an eye over the patch. Quite horrible, and the sort of computational photography that we don’t want in proper cameras.

Dr_Flash said:

Canon you are on the clock until early summer... A real RF 400mm 2.8 replacement with build in TC is long overdue and I'm really loosing hope. As soon as Nikon will release the Z9 II, even more wildlife photographers will leave Canon, including me...

Click to expand...

And I thought Canon had already lost every single wildlife photographer, you must be the last survivor!

Concerning "New Higher-End RF-S Lenses", I wonder if Canon might not let Sigma do that for them. but then I don't know how much Sigma is paying Canon in licensing fees. If Sigma introduces a 50-140 f/2.8 DC OS C, I'll almost certainly buy it. I'm pretty sure Richard will too.

Dr_Flash said:

I would predict, that many people will go for Nikon

Click to expand...

A tale as old as time. For Nikon's sake, I hope you're right! They need the custom.

neuroanatomist said:

Be sure to stamp your foot a little bit, it will make the threat more effective and ensure that Canon responds to your demand in a timely manner.

Click to expand...

I'm sure Canon can differentiate between a threat and a customer voice. Spending my money with other companies isn't a threat, it's a business decision as much as Canon has to decide if they want to invest now on new big white prime lenses with certain features. I bought the EF 200-400 4.0 with build in TC, as I thought and still think it is an amazing idea. Unfortunately, not Canon continued to implement it but Nikon did. So far, Nikon is a bit behind in AF capabilities but I would expect this will change with the next generation Z9. Canon needed quite some time to get a competitive mirrorless wildlife Cam into the market - they finally did with the R5 II but the big white lenses don't cut it, especially with such a price tag. I would like to replace my EF lenses for lighter RF lenses. Mid 2026, I would predict, that many people will go for Nikon in a comparison a R5 II + RF 400.28 vs Nikon Z9 II with the Z 400mm 2.8 with build in TC (if Nikon manage to get this Cam out and if Canon is not refreshing its big white 400mm and 600mm primes). Just my opinion, no threat, not happy if I have to change to Nikon but in my opinion Canon will not convince me and others with its current offering.

RF 24-70 2.8 LZ (II) and RF 300-600 5.6 L?? Damnnn!! That's all I dream for!!

Maybe interested in the 300-600 mm f5.6, but I already have the 100-300 mm f2.8 which is more flexible with 1.4x and 2x TCs. Potentially interested in a 2nd generation 400 mm f2.8, but it really depends on what it brings to the table. Either lighter weight or built-in TC at the same weight would be very nice. No rush on my part.

I am kind of going to repeat what I already wrote recently about RF-S lenses. Last year there was a rumor that we are going to get two power zoom and one fast prime RF-S lenses. In the meantime 14-30mm power zoom was released. Therefore next two RF-S lenses are probably:

1. Additional power zoom RF-S lens
2. Fast RF-S prime, maybe 32mm f/1.4

They would be nice companions to R50V and at least one will be released before summer. A constant aperture f/2.8 zoom is also in the works but we will have yo wait a little bit more.

Sony will soon have a complete trinity of f2 zooms (16-28, 28-70, 50-150) while Canon ist stuck with a rather heavy 28-70/2 alone.
They need to do something about this!

I played around with the 800mm DO for a bit. It's fun, but I just had no practical use for it. If all you needed was 600 or 800mm, these lenses would be a good (cheap) way to get there. For almost the same, or a tiny bit more (?), I picked up an EF 100-400 IS ii and EF 2x teleconverter. This combo is far more useful when traveling. Yes, I would rather have the RF 100-500, but this combo gets me most of the way there for half the price.

It's not going anywhere and, for what most people are paid to photograph professionally, it doesn't matter at all unless you don't like the result that the automatic correction produces. I'd prefer that RAW files continue to be imported without a lens profile applied and then I can choose whether or not I want to apply it, though I understand why applying it would be the default behavior.

As others have correctly pointed out, there are many decisions being made by the camera that are completely out of our control. Honestly, it was like that even back in the days of film: did you make the film stock yourself? Was every batch perfectly consistent? There have always been variables that are outside of our control and it seems like this may be another one of them.

neuroanatomist said:

Utilized for what?

Click to expand...

Capturing photos. Isn't that what the sensor is all about?

neuroanatomist said:

Even if you routinely make large prints (bigger than 16x24") from your images, it probably won't make a meaningful difference.

Click to expand...

I agree. I just paid for them, so I want them used. I mean, it's not like my sensor is oval or anything like that.

neuroanatomist said:

Even then, your analogy is hyperbole.

Click to expand...

Of course it is! Hyperbole is a useful tool when it comes to writing and stressing a point.

Per the Oxford dictionary:
Noun: exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

neuroanatomist said:

A more accurate analogy would be if you bought those four tires and they had 8.8 mm of tread depth on each of them instead of the full 9 mm.

Click to expand...

I disagree. A more accurate analogy would be if only the centre tread is used, which is a real world scenario and equivalent in terms of whether a full product sees use. And yeah, I'd be miffed about that too (including my incompetence of the moment for not setting or inflating the tire correctly).

neuroanatomist said:

As an example, if I take an uncorrected image from my RF 24-105/2.8L Z at 24mm and crop the image to remove the black corners, then my 24 MP (6000x4000) image becomes a 22 MP (5754x3836) image. Say I then took a few steps back and shot the same scene with the lens zoomed in to 28mm where the corners are filled by the lens. Do you honestly believe that if I printed the cropped 22 MP image vs the full 24 MP image at 16x24" and hung them on a wall side by side, that you or anyone else could tell the difference? I highly doubt it. And if there's no objectively meaningful difference, then it only matters in your mind.

Click to expand...

I think that misses my point.

1. I didn't complain about the potential losses from stretching, warping, etc. In fact, I said that I shamelessly use DLO and image editors. My point was I just prefer that all of the sensor be activated to provide pixels for the stretching etc.
2. I acknowledged that in the end the final product is what matters most. "Better is better."

Obviously Canon's opinion is that no one is going to miss those extra pixels when the final image is produced. Anyhow, Canon is also pursuing more pixels in its sensors anyhow -- perhaps in a more tacit acknowledgement of the corner cutting than what people realized.

In the end, hey -- if you're OK with not using your full sensor while you enjoy a sweet image then rest with a peaceful mind. I'm also resting with a peaceful mind, but in the context of the question implied by CR I'm simply stating I want to use everything in my system, not just 99%. But regardless of my wants, Canon is getting the job done -- so Bravo to Canon.

Dr_Flash said:

Canon you are on the clock until early summer... A real RF 400mm 2.8 replacement with build in TC is long overdue and I'm really loosing hope. As soon as Nikon will release the Z9 II, even more wildlife photographers will leave Canon, including me...

Click to expand...

Be sure to stamp your foot a little bit, it will make the threat more effective and ensure that Canon responds to your demand in a timely manner.

DocInfoSci said:

I'll always err on the side of full sensor coverage because I don't think it's unreasonable for a person to want all of the pixels purchased utilized. Before anyone disagrees -- remember that a disagreement basically means that you're OK with purchasing but not using sensor pixels. Frankly, if I have to purchase four tires for a car but only get to use three then I don't care how well it drives -- I'm gonna be ticked about the dangling tire!

Click to expand...

Utilized for what? Even if you routinely make large prints (bigger than 16x24") from your images, it probably won't make a meaningful difference. Even then, your analogy is hyperbole. A car with three tires can't be driven, an image with a few less MP is perfectly fine for most use cases. A more accurate analogy would be if you bought those four tires and they had 8.8 mm of tread depth on each of them instead of the full 9 mm. Would you even know?

As an example, if I take an uncorrected image from my RF 24-105/2.8L Z at 24mm and crop the image to remove the black corners, then my 24 MP (6000x4000) image becomes a 22 MP (5754x3836) image. Say I then took a few steps back and shot the same scene with the lens zoomed in to 28mm where the corners are filled by the lens. Do you honestly believe that if I printed the cropped 22 MP image vs the full 24 MP image at 16x24" and hung them on a wall side by side, that you or anyone else could tell the difference? I highly doubt it. And if there's no objectively meaningful difference, then it only matters in your mind.

Canon you are on the clock until early summer... A real RF 400mm 2.8 replacement with build in TC is long overdue and I'm really loosing hope. As soon as Nikon will release the Z9 II, even more wildlife photographers will leave Canon, including me...

Billybob said:

This

"Canon does not need another $10,000-$15,000 big white lens."

and this

"The current versions [ RF 400 F2.8 L & RF 600 F4 L lenses] were designed for the EF mount, so it's time for native RF mount versions."

Interesting seeing the author disagreeing with himself...so I don't have to.

Click to expand...

I guess replacement is not another lens...

Sporgon said:

So digital correction is nothing to get hot under the collar about, as long as it’s not taken to the point where it is so severe that data is having to be created after the event.

Click to expand...

How do you define 'created'? As @screenshooter correctly states, distortion correction involves interpolation and that's still 'creating' data in my opinion. The color and intensity values assigned to interpolated pixels are not 'original data' (but as has been pointed out, color is interpolated anyway since each pixel has a spectrally restricted color mask in front of it). The difference is that interpolation is a mathematically straightforward way to create those values, compared to extrapolation or AI-based generation.

Part of the problem here is that some people don't understand the difference between interpolation and extrapolation/AI, and/or they read somewhere that 'corners are filled by AI' and believed it.

If Canon brings out a RF 600mm f4 + 1.4x lens, that would leave only a long RF macro lens on my RF lens wishlist.

I'll always err on the side of full sensor coverage because I don't think it's unreasonable for a person to want all of the pixels purchased utilized. Before anyone disagrees -- remember that a disagreement basically means that you're OK with purchasing but not using sensor pixels. Frankly, if I have to purchase four tires for a car but only get to use three then I don't care how well it drives -- I'm gonna be ticked about the dangling tire!

But I'm totally OK with Canon (or whomever) making the pixels that did capture a photo better in the final image. I use DLO shamelessly for a better final image, and I use image edits as well. Better is better. And the fact that Canon is baking a better-ing engine into their cameras can only be a good thing, especially as lenses ship with data that the better-ing engines can take advantage of. If Canon also allows third party lenses to also include DLO-enabling data then that would be even more amazing and well worth the licensing hassle for third parties -- at least from a consumer perspective.

I also admit that I simulate this bettering using my lenses anyhow, and always have. Bad night time comma on the EF 24mm L II? I stop down to f/2 which gets me to a place that makes me happy. How is that different than Canon making coma look better via software? And if they let in more light along the way then bonus.

So personal preferences for using all of my pixels the first time aside, the fact of the matter is Canon is producing stuff the majority of purchasers seem to like. I mean, if someone buys a multi-thousand dollar lens then one has to assume they like what they get. And the final product is ideally an image that makes the photographer smile or that pays the bills (which also probably elicits a smile).

Yet all of that stated, let us also not kid ourselves: Canon is imposing constraints upon itself, like the intent of a smaller lens, and so any compromise in lens design is self-imposed. I'm perfectly fine with a bigger lens if it does a full projection. I'm capable of lifting a little more iron. For mid- to top-tier lenses I'll pay for a solution that makes full use of the system. For budget lenses I'm OK with Canon cutting corners -- literally in this case. Regardless, however the gears turn, for several thousand dollars I expect an image within my talent and luck that makes me smile. And Canon has done a very good job of that over the years, long before RF.