The M5 with the 22 was a great 2nd camera for me for a few years. It rarely gets a mention but I was impressed from the first look and feel. Even for larger hands it just worked.

Canons lazy, 'were not trying' direction with RFS is super unfortunate. My m5/m62 + 22f2 and 11-20 is still in service, and was hoping to replace them. both lenses simply DELIVER. So I agree with everything in this writeup. Somebody high up at canon really came to hate the M series, IMHO.

To this day I'm still amazed at the output from the 22f2 especially. The 22 is not super wide, but f2 flexibility, great build, and no hood needed. Superb iq. The 11-22 was used for my widescapes any chance i got. Too convinent, and 32p, sharp corners on the m62. Pure win.

The m1 served me well for years -I bought the m50 in 2019 and didn't like it much. But the build is phenomenal..compact, angular, solid. It went back in the box for 2 years. I bought the m62 to replace that (FOUR versions from canon refurb, 2 was DOA) , and learned about the shutter shock phenomenon that pretty much all reviewers skipped over. Totally random AF misses. And the bad internal battery issue, that the con tech told me they dont fix. The m50 came back otu of the box, and history was made .

That said, the s9 has otherwise ended my crop camera career. Don't need an evf, Im well trained on the original m1 bac screen only use case. It's small compared to the r5. It's fantastic.

I waiting for canon...and I'm glad thats over. Cheers to the EFM - good stuff.

I thought Canon's camera assembly was so robotic/automated that labor costs weren't an issue.

LDS said:

Meanwhile, Fujy sells a lot of compatcs with buttons and dials. And probably those looking again for compact cameras and using old models are not exactly looing for touch screens, Since a camera unlike a smartphone is designed for a single task, it's bette driven by a specific interface. Sure, the smartphone crowd has to learn something new - if this is a real barrier... mankind is doomed.

Click to expand...

I just returned to Canon after 25+ years with EOS and a switch to Fuji for the past 4. I thought the switchback through carefully and slept on it for the past year.
Since I liked the Fuji color science, 40MP crop friendly + IBIS it really came down to ergonomics and my constant fight with the unintuitive menu system (BSNYC would kill me for that term). I was bumping dials and buttons left and right...it's a pretty crowded machine.
My macro suffered, there was too much to toy with and the subpar AF after being spoiled by Canon 3, 5 & 6 series bodies from the EOS 3 to the R6 was really the final straw.
I had no flow.

Canon in hand, flow returned

Contrasty fellows! I particularly like the congregation in the first photo.

AlanF said:

Please explain the 2nd sentence. I do have a little background in molecular biology but the meaning escapes me.

Click to expand...

Sure - it’s when missing data is guessed.

When reading in chemistry data like which genes were active in a cell in a tissue slice it’s common to have no value read. Could be for all sorts of reasons.

To get around that some people will fill in the blanks with (educated) guesses. It could be that many similar tissue slices are scanned and averages are made for each approximate cell location, or perhaps neighboring cells with values are used to determine what likely was going on.

But a guess is a guess, no matter how good. It’s still invented.

If everyone knows that and is appropriately cautious then all is well. If not, or the software using the data is unaware, then overall errors can be made. Not unlike the use or abuse of rounding, which is handy but can compound into an error.

DocInfoSci said:

OMG. Uh, yeah… DPP or the camera applies the DLO data. Let me extract the rake from my face. And then get more coffee…

Click to expand...

Yeah, it's probably just one line in Exif data, that DPP reads and applies accordingly, but the RAW image data is not really modified.

DocInfoSci said:

Interesting! Maybe they’re sharing now, at least partially!

Click to expand...

Actually, I have to correct myself: the files from the R5 II do the same, but those from my original R6 do not.
Also, I updated Adobe Camera RAW today, and now it has profile for the 45mm, but I can still show the difference:


R5 II on the left, my original R6 on the right. Both photographs are corrected for vignetting and distortion.
Canon is including lens profiles in the RAW file now or, at least, Adobe is able to read that information for newer cameras.

Prior to this update, the photographs from my R6 with the 45mm had no correction at all on ACR, while with the other cameras they had since day one.

I much prefer this approach, since Adobe profiles tend to overcorrect.

DocInfoSci said:

I guess so long as one is as truthy as the other. Makes me think of cringy imputed gene expression values for mediocre slides.

Click to expand...

Please explain the 2nd sentence. I do have a little background in molecular biology but the meaning escapes me.

I am looking forward to this rumoured sensor (if it turns out to be real). I have an R5 that’s kept up with all my demands. I earn a living shooting portraits, headshots, product, and interiors/boats. I have have a wildlife photography hobby.

For a secondary/backup body, the R7ii, with a prosumer (5/6 series) design would tick most of my boxes. For wildlife I’d have more pixels on subject. And, for everything else I control the light, so there’s no diminished signal in the S/N ratio. (I don’t often deliver files that need more than 20-24mp - it’s only a couple times a year a client actually needs high resolution).

I think I’d also like to see what I do with the alternative FOV provided by a crop body mounted to my FF lenses. For example, I have a big’ol Sigma art 85/1.4 that I use for headshots and portraits. I could see selling it and using my RF 50/1.2 on the rumoured R7ii, for something nearly the same. I don’t shoot the Sigma wide open - headshot need more DOF and I prefer a sharper portrait (most of the time).

This might also encourage me to upgrade my EF 16-35/4 to the RF 14-35/4, which I think would make a nice little, relatively light, and flexible walk around lens for an R7ii with a 5/6 series style body.

I just hope it has a very substantial buffer. My wildlife skills are not up to par and I lean heavily on a deep buffer to make up for my lack of timing…

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

Click to expand...

OMG. Uh, yeah… DPP or the camera applies the DLO data. Let me extract the rake from my face. And then get more coffee…

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

(1) Effects are only applied to the JPEG file

The in-camera DLO function makes corrections in real time, but its effects are applied only onto JPEG files at the time of recording. To apply DLO to RAW files, you can either;

- Post-process your RAW files in-camera. You can apply DLO (if it wasn’t already enabled) or change the effect level, and the effects will be visible in the exported JPEG image.

- Use Canon’s free Digital Photo Professional (DPP) software to post-process your RAW files on the computer.

Click to expand...

m4ndr4ke said:

the way, recently I’ve seen a difference. RAW files from the R6 Mark III have the lens profile built-in, as noted by Adobe Camera RAW (which does not have a profile for the RF 45mm yet), where the files appear with a profile loaded by default and it’s not an Adobe one. And it’s the camera, not the lens, as RAW files from the R5 II do not exhibit the same behaviour.

Click to expand...

Interesting! Maybe they’re sharing now, at least partially!

m4ndr4ke said:

And people really ignore how much profile corrections EF lenses had. I’ve shared examples in this forum a few weeks ago. While distortions were usually more corrected optically, vignetting levels were very similar to those of RF lenses.

Click to expand...

Oh, totally. It’s why I do use them.

Taking this back to my original comments:
- yes I use the corrections
- I also prefer higher standards / effort for the physical side

m4ndr4ke said:

DLO does nothing to RAW files.

Click to expand...

It does read the optimizer data and performs the adjustments. Third parties aren’t provided with instructions on how to parse the optimizer data and need to do their own math, which is often limited to apparent distortion, shading, etc. and less so the physics of the lens that Canon’s engineers have bothered to calculate.

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.

Click to expand...

I guess so long as one is as truthy as the other. Makes me think of cringy imputed gene expression values for mediocre slides.

DocInfoSci said:

Wait, are you saying that Canon’s digitally corrected lenses are already corrected in the raw file itself and digital optimizer isn’t needed?

Click to expand...

DLO does nothing to RAW files.

By the way, recently I’ve seen a difference. RAW files from the R6 Mark III have the lens profile built-in, as noted by Adobe Camera RAW (which does not have a profile for the RF 45mm yet), where the files appear with a profile loaded by default and it’s not an Adobe one. And it’s the camera, not the lens, as RAW files from the R5 II do not exhibit the same behaviour.
(EDIT: no, the R5 II reads the same way, it's my original R6 that does not)

Anyway, it has been stated by Canon that optical corrections imply sacrifices as well. If I’m not mistaken, they have clearly mentioned that this approach allows them to create sharper lenses.

And people really ignore how much profile corrections EF lenses had. I’ve shared examples in this forum a few weeks ago. While distortions were usually more corrected optically, vignetting levels were very similar to those of RF lenses.

neuroanatomist said:

If you want to use Canon's Digital Lens Optimizer, then yes you need to take JPGs from the camera or use Canon's DPP for RAW conversions. But 3rd party RAW converters have profiles for RF lenses that require digital correction, and they work just fine. Personally, I view using Canon's DPP with the same affection that I view getting a Norovirus infection. I use DxO PhotoLab for RAW conversions, which is what I did for the aforementioned RF 14-35/4 vs. EF 11-24/4 comparison, though I also included camera JPGs along with DPP and Adobe RAW conversions for completeness.

It's not. I see no reason to use Canon's software to process Canon RAWs. DxO, Adobe, Affinity, CaptureOne, and a bunch of others seem to manage just fine (as they do with RAW files from Nikon, Sony, Fuji, etc.). IMO, DxO handles noise reduction much better than Canon's DPP, for example. No reason a software pipeline couldn't run demosaicing and image corrections if properly coded, just as 3rd party RAW converters do.

Click to expand...

Wait, are you saying that Canon’s digitally corrected lenses are already corrected in the raw file itself and digital optimizer isn’t needed? And therefore any third party editor gets the same benefit of Canon’s software corrections before their own third party corrections are applied? i.e., I could theoretically put the RF lens on a Nikon or Sony body with an adapter and get the same image for the same shooting situation like I could with an EF lens?

If so, then I guess the lens really is hardware plus soft box in a self-contained box.

But my impression is Canon’s magic is more like digital lens optimizer in reality.

I have yet to use DxO or Capture One.

neuroanatomist said:

The film analogy was broader – it's about resistance to change. People (at the time, not now) argued that film was analog and pure while digital was 'fake' and 'computer trickery'. The only 'true' workflow was negative to print or slide film to projection. Your suggestion of scanning the developed film would not satisfy those folks, that's just more digital trickery. Interesting that you used that same word about digital

Click to expand...

Ah. OK.

neuroanatomist said:

Also worth noting that RAW images from the camera are never 'good to go'. At a minimum, they require demosaicing / color interpolation.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

neuroanatomist said:

The EF 50/1.2L has 1.5% barrel distortion (enough to be noticeable, almost as much as the 1.7% of the EF 14/2.8L II), strong axial CA and significant focus shift...it can produce lovely, dreamy images but as example of what can be achieved with pure performance based on physics it leaves much to be desired. OTOH, the RF 50/1.2L has a native 0.2% barrel distortion and requires no digital correction, it has very little axial CA (especially for an f/1.2 lens), no focus shift and is very sharp.

Click to expand...

Is the RF performance equal or better without correction? Or did Canon just try harder with the software? Not being facetious, I don’t know the answer and you might.

neuroanatomist said:

Leaving that aside, for your 'pick any other L EF lens challenge, I pick the EF 17-40mm f/4L. Convince me that the physics-based optical corrections are doing the job there. Unless you like the fisheye-esque look, that lens desperately needs 'a little push' to correct the ~4% barrel distortion, as does the EF 11-24/4L.

Click to expand...

Did I miss a new Canon RF 17-40 that avoids those issues without correction?

But in fairness the 16-35 f4 replaced it.

And in any event since I’m bringing up the 16-35 and I did say “any”… touché.

neuroanatomist said:

Sorry, I disagree with your conclusion that 'any other' L EF lenses is 'good to go' without some digital correction applied. Unless you're shooting in-camera JPGs or are happy with distorted images with visible chromatic aberration, most images benefit from digital correction even if they don't strictly require it.

Click to expand...

Uh, huh — I didn’t say that I don’t use corrective software, the opposite. I just prefer to start with better source material and apply software as an option and not a necessity for missing corner data, etc.

neuroanatomist said:

I'm definitely results oriented. I can promise you that the 0.6 kg RF 10-20/4L that I pack for a trip will deliver significantly better flexibility and outcomes than the 1.2 kg EF 11-24/4L that I would often leave at home.

Click to expand...

Haha! I’m certainly not going to argue against you being results oriented!

For personal work I’m OK with optional correction that I tend to do all the time anyhow. For lab image capture and processing by AI pipelines I’ll hope the labs stick with EF or third party for now.

So I’ll keep hitting the gym and lug around my EF beasts.

DocInfoSci said:

Totally fair!

But… the aspherical elements don’t require additional software. They distort all on their own.

I expect lens designers to use all of the material engineering tricks. I expect those tricks to fall short of perfection, although I wish they didn’t.

I guess the question is how much balance is OK? For me personally, I see some value in software but prefer it to be tweaks and not essential. For me scientifically, I’d hate to have to through in digital photo as part of an automated pipeline.

For you? Your workflow seems good with it and you’re obviously very happy. So for you, Canon’s strategy seems like a win!

Click to expand...

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

Del Paso said:

Though I very subjectively tend to prefer optically corrected lenses, the latest Canon primes prove that which way is chosen has no incidence on the result. The RF 20mm is a stunning lens, and I doubt it would /could be better with optical correction.
And, frankly, I don't care, what I saw when I checked this lens fully convinced me. Visibly better than the Zeiss 21mm, and an f/1,4!
Did you ever talk to optical lens developers about the tricks they used when "physically" designing lenses? What about asphericals?

Click to expand...

Totally fair!

But… the aspherical elements don’t require additional software. They distort all on their own.

I expect lens designers to use all of the material engineering tricks. I expect those tricks to fall short of perfection, although I wish they didn’t.

I guess the question is how much balance is OK? For me personally, I see some value in software but prefer it to be tweaks and not essential. For me scientifically, I’d hate to have to through in digital photo as part of an automated pipeline.

For you? Your workflow seems good with it and you’re obviously very happy. So for you, Canon’s strategy seems like a win!

DocInfoSci said:

Canon's software correction requires a Canon pipeline -- right? Unless I'm mistaken, you can't take the raw image straight to Photoshop or Affinity photo and get Canon's special sauce applied; either the HEIF or JPEG needs the in-camera adjustment, or Digital Photo is needed for a raw adjustment combined with export to, say, TIFF — only then can I edit the image with the adjustment somewhere else.

Click to expand...

If you want to use Canon's Digital Lens Optimizer, then yes you need to take JPGs from the camera or use Canon's DPP for RAW conversions. But 3rd party RAW converters have profiles for RF lenses that require digital correction, and they work just fine. Personally, I view using Canon's DPP with the same affection that I view getting a Norovirus infection. I use DxO PhotoLab for RAW conversions, which is what I did for the aforementioned RF 14-35/4 vs. EF 11-24/4 comparison, though I also included camera JPGs along with DPP and Adobe RAW conversions for completeness.

DocInfoSci said:

If my understanding remains current, then I'd have to say Canon's solution is still pretty janky and unique to them among a sea of camera and lens options. I'd say that the original lens performance still matters if other software pipelines are desired -- say, for custom agentic LLM architectures ingesting images for medical or other scientific purpose. And there are many teams out there who can easily grab a camera and do advanced imaging plus analytics vs those who can afford to spend all of their research money on a big, dedicated box with 240v mains supply.

Click to expand...

It's not. I see no reason to use Canon's software to process Canon RAWs. DxO, Adobe, Affinity, CaptureOne, and a bunch of others seem to manage just fine (as they do with RAW files from Nikon, Sony, Fuji, etc.). IMO, DxO handles noise reduction much better than Canon's DPP, for example. No reason a software pipeline couldn't run demosaicing and image corrections if properly coded, just as 3rd party RAW converters do.

DocInfoSci said:

I think that's actually quite different from film. For film, one develops and then scans and then carries on like normal. Digital built the "scan" in, but the convenience is entirely within the camera and the scan-equivalent (i.e., raw) is good to go on export from the camera. (Except Canon just broke that with some of its modern lenses.)

Click to expand...

The film analogy was broader – it's about resistance to change. People (at the time, not now) argued that film was analog and pure while digital was 'fake' and 'computer trickery'. The only 'true' workflow was negative to print or slide film to projection. Your suggestion of scanning the developed film would not satisfy those folks, that's just more digital trickery. Interesting that you used that same word about digital corrections.

Also worth noting that RAW images from the camera are never 'good to go'. At a minimum, they require demosaicing / color interpolation.

DocInfoSci said:

But as an example the EF 50mm 1.2 makes some pretty usable shots with no special sauce on any camera you can mount it to, where as RF successors require a little extra push to get the result out the door. Pick any other L EF lens and we can have essentially the same discussion. That little extra push can be a big deal in many contexts.

Click to expand...

The EF 50/1.2L has 1.5% barrel distortion (enough to be noticeable, almost as much as the 1.7% of the EF 14/2.8L II), strong axial CA and significant focus shift...it can produce lovely, dreamy images but as example of what can be achieved with pure performance based on physics it leaves much to be desired. OTOH, the RF 50/1.2L has a native 0.2% barrel distortion and requires no digital correction, it has very little axial CA (especially for an f/1.2 lens), no focus shift and is very sharp.

Leaving that aside, for your 'pick any other L EF lens challenge, I pick the EF 17-40mm f/4L. Convince me that the physics-based optical corrections are doing the job there. Unless you like the fisheye-esque look, that lens desperately needs 'a little push' to correct the ~4% barrel distortion, as does the EF 11-24/4L.

Sorry, I disagree with your conclusion that 'any other' L EF lenses is 'good to go' without some digital correction applied. Unless you're shooting in-camera JPGs or are happy with distorted images with visible chromatic aberration, most images benefit from digital correction even if they don't strictly require it.

DocInfoSci said:

So I'm not saying the current approach is unusable or doesn't make great final images. I'm just saying hedging to the physical probably yields more flexible, if not ultimately better, outcomes than hedging to the software. Glad it's working for you, though.

Click to expand...

I'm definitely results oriented. I can promise you that the 0.6 kg RF 10-20/4L that I pack for a trip will deliver significantly better flexibility and outcomes than the 1.2 kg EF 11-24/4L that I would often leave at home.

DocInfoSci said:

I think that in the context of Canon's current default-approach of software correction it's fine to call-out any such afflicted lens for awards. I mean, it is clear by now that Canon decided that a singular lens is a combination of its hardware + post-shot-enhancements. A lot of people here seem feel the same way, although I assume mostly due to an acceptance of lack of options for the Canon-supplied, in-production lens catalog.

I personally still prefer to evaluate everyone's lenses on their physical characteristics. I see the software-corrections / enhancements / visual-sugar to be an early-stage post-processing trick that, while surely convenient, is still a trick and not a lens.

That stated, I also use the R6's built-in digital optimizer for making better JPEGs for quick shares with family/friends. Or I use the digital optimizer in Digital Photo Professional for more serious work as a RAW-based refinement precursor to Adobe or Affinity edits. Edits are edits in that regard, especially when just accounting for light physics.

But there is something about that olympian goal of pure performance based on physics. High quality glass / plastic combinations within a price point should always been the community pressure on vendors, in my mind, and that alone is where I'd like to see the mount open up to competitors: to curb design laziness on Canon's part.

Click to expand...

Though I very subjectively tend to prefer optically corrected lenses, the latest Canon primes prove that which way is chosen has no incidence on the result. The RF 20mm is a stunning lens, and I doubt it would /could be better with optical correction.
And, frankly, I don't care, what I saw when I checked this lens fully convinced me. Visibly better than the Zeiss 21mm, and an f/1,4!
Did you ever talk to optical lens developers about the tricks they used when "physically" designing lenses? What about asphericals?

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

neuroanatomist said:

Not for me. I'm not bothered by the need for digital corrections because I understand that 'pure performance based on physics' also requires compromises. I see no reason (or evidence) that optical correction is inherently superior to digital correction. They are different means to the same end.

My opinion was crystalized when I empirically tested the RF 14-35/4L (which requires digital distortion correction to 'fill the corners') against the EF 11-24/4L. At 14mm, the latter has essentially zero geometric distortion, yet the corrected corners of the 14-35 were just as good.

I hear echos of the argument that film is better than digital because it’s analog and therefore ‘pure’.

Incidentally, Canon was certainly not the first lens manufacturer to require digital correction of distortion in MILC lens designs.

Click to expand...

I think that's a fine perspective. Just different.

Canon's software correction requires a Canon pipeline -- right? Unless I'm mistaken, you can't take the raw image straight to Photoshop or Affinity photo and get Canon's special sauce applied; either the HEIF or JPEG needs the in-camera adjustment, or Digital Photo is needed for a raw adjustment combined with export to, say, TIFF — only then can I edit the image with the adjustment somewhere else.

If my understanding remains current, then I'd have to say Canon's solution is still pretty janky and unique to them among a sea of camera and lens options. I'd say that the original lens performance still matters if other software pipelines are desired -- say, for custom agentic LLM architectures ingesting images for medical or other scientific purpose. And there are many teams out there who can easily grab a camera and do advanced imaging plus analytics vs those who can afford to spend all of their research money on a big, dedicated box with 240v mains supply.

I think that's actually quite different from film. For film, one develops and then scans and then carries on like normal. Digital built the "scan" in, but the convenience is entirely within the camera and the scan-equivalent (i.e., raw) is good to go on export from the camera. (Except Canon just broke that with some of its modern lenses.)

So in that regard I agree that in a context for some people, such as yourself, it's OK to consider the physical material and the Canon processing pipeline to equal a lens in practice; but I'd say there's plenty of use cases beyond wall photos by which optimizing the physical aspects to whatever price point context is appropriate remains an important desire, if not goal. Will imperfection remain? Probably. But as an example the EF 50mm 1.2 makes some pretty usable shots with no special sauce on any camera you can mount it to, where as RF successors require a little extra push to get the result out the door. Pick any other L EF lens and we can have essentially the same discussion. That little extra push can be a big deal in many contexts.

So I'm not saying the current approach is unusable or doesn't make great final images. I'm just saying hedging to the physical probably yields more flexible, if not ultimately better, outcomes than hedging to the software. Glad it's working for you, though.

The Best and Worst of 2025

Worst: When Canon Rumor announced it was closing.

Best: When the forum reopened.

Many thanks to the entire team.

Happy holidays to all!

DocInfoSci said:

I mean, it is clear by now that Canon decided that a singular lens is a combination of its hardware + post-shot-enhancements. A lot of people here seem feel the same way, although I assume mostly due to an acceptance of lack of options for the Canon-supplied, in-production lens catalog.

Click to expand...

Not for me. I'm not bothered by the need for digital corrections because I understand that 'pure performance based on physics' also requires compromises. I see no reason (or evidence) that optical correction is inherently superior to digital correction. They are different means to the same end.

My opinion was crystalized when I empirically tested the RF 14-35/4L (which requires digital distortion correction to 'fill the corners') against the EF 11-24/4L. At 14mm, the latter has essentially zero geometric distortion, yet the corrected corners of the 14-35 were just as good.

I hear echos of the argument that film is better than digital because it’s analog and therefore ‘pure’.

Incidentally, Canon was certainly not the first lens manufacturer to require digital correction of distortion in MILC lens designs.