Click said:

Beautiful series. Well done, danfaz.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Click!

OK, let’s see what Canon writes down:

Canon Canada’s R6 III page:

Effective Pixels: Approx. 32.5 megapixels

And at Canon Europe:

32.5 megapixel resolution

(The word approximate does not appear near that text.)

Wax on about the difference between megapixels and resolution as we might, but Canon uses the terms simultaneously. Lay people don’t care about the difference and Canon marketing plays to that.

My R6 box has appropriate versions of those numbers stamped on as well. In terms of sales, yes that forms a promise in countries such as Canada due to truth in advertising laws.

I appreciate that the end image is of the proper size (thank goodness). I’m not going to sue them. I’m just speculating on what one danger of leaning hard on small image circles with digital compensation might lead to if taken to the extreme. I figured in part that’s part of the nature of this thread.

I do agree with what I think neuroanatomist implies in that the promise is serviced by the final image. Canon would have to fight on that premise, and the ruling would have industry implications for design to be sure.

Anyhow, I won’t shake the tree too much further on this. Just looking at this in the spirit of the thread from the perspective of a tech COO who prior was in charge of R&D pipelines for a large US based tech company.

Surely everyone will keep looking at the tech marvel part of this story.

P-visie said:

Left or right?

Click to expand...

Hmm. Well, I guess that depends on which creature was having a problem with their gait.

I also thought it was the mid-change footprints of lycanthrope.

Beautiful series. Well done, danfaz.

scyrene said:

Anyhow, with these lenses the camera does indeed produce an image of the MP count that it is "supposed" to - just that it is sometimes done with more digital manipulation than some other lenses.

Click to expand...

Indeed. My R1 and R8 give at least 24 MP images from all my lenses. If I use DxO and turn off the 3:2 constraint, some lenses give me >24 MP.

Most buyers of lenses with this characteristic aren’t even aware of it, and of those that are (likely from spending too much time on forums like this one), many don’t care.

Class action lawsuit? LOL. That would be as frivolous as me suing those complaining about this problem for the emotional pain and suffering of reading their complaints. If you know about this issue, and you don’t like it, don’t buy the lenses. Too simple, I guess. Better to go litigious.

DocInfoSci said:

Canon promises a resolution based on a sensor when it sells a camera: 45mp for the R5 line, and 20-32mp for the R6 line depending on when you buy-in

Click to expand...

Megapixel count is not the same thing as resolution. Some of your long following fantasy stems from this misapprehension to an extent. But Canon doesn't even "promise" in the way you claim. Anyhow, with these lenses the camera does indeed produce an image of the MP count that it is "supposed" to - just that it is sometimes done with more digital manipulation than some other lenses. Is it not enough to simply dislike something - even in the face of evidence that it doesn't do what people fear? Why must what-ifs and unreasonable future scenarios be concocted?

Hi All,
Had a bountiful birding day yesterday, photographing seven different species!

Interesting list of lens. True RF versions of the big whites are inevitable. It will be interesting whether they can be much lighter. Surprised a 200-400 with inbuilt teleconvertor is not on the list. I wonder can they design a converter that can be on and off without removing.
Personally I’d love a 14mm TS-E. I don’t need autofocus. 24 TS-E II is still amazing but the 17mm TS-E is fine but not as good.
A high MP R3 would be on my wish list.
I can’t help feel though improvements will be hard to come by from now on. EF lens are still great, just heavy. It’s hard to notice improvement from RF lens in images. On charts they might be better but practically the difference is minimal. Cameras too are coming to limits. FPS gains from here on are just creating photo management issues. ISO improvements are minimal these days. Higher MP is possible but there comes a point the file sizes are a pain. Tracking can still improve but how much better can it get. It’s been a great run but it’s coming to an end. Computational improvements may improve cameras but we’ve been able to do it in post processing anyway.

shire_guy said:

Green Catbird

View attachment 228069

View attachment 228070

Click to expand...

Does it sound like a cat?

EthenJ said:

That's not crazy. There are tons of Canon crop cameras out there, and users have almost nowhere else to go for RF-S lenses; I can imagine such an exclusive, high volume market being a big business priority.

...On a related note, do you think Sigma (or Tamron) will add IS to any of their RF-S lenses besides the travel superzooms?

I find it odd, as stabilization was far more common in their EF-S lenses.

Click to expand...

A number of the lightweight FF RF lenses are pretty clearly also designed to sit and operate well on an APSC sensor body. For eg the RF 28-70 f2.8. I know it's not specifically designed for RF-S, but crop camera owners have always adapted FF lenses. And from Canon's point of view, yes, they would love crop camera owners to then upgrade to a FF body, and use their lenses on that body.

AccipiterQ said:

I'm behind on the whole VCM thing....can someone explain if it results in lower IQ on photos? I get that the noiseless aspect is big for videos (although personally lenses like the 15-35 2.8 are silent enough for me to shoot video with), but is there a negative aspect for image quality using this motor??

Click to expand...

The discussion is not about the focus motor, but the fact that the 24/1.4, 20/1.4 and 14/1.4 do not ‘cover the corners’ and require correction of the barrel distortion to ‘stretch’ the image into the corners.

This isn’t VCM lens thing, several other RF lenses have this same feature (24-240, 16/2.8, 14-35/4L, 24-105/2.8L). Other manufacturers do this, as well.

As for IQ, I found that the digitally corrected corners of the RF 14-35/4 at 14mm yield IQ equivalent to the EF 11-24/4 at 14mm (where the latter has much less distortion than at the wide end).

Click said:

Nice shot! Just having the chance to see one is already something.

Click to expand...

Pure luck, right time! Seen just off the path through Sweetwater Wetlands Park, Tucson.

I'm behind on the whole VCM thing....can someone explain if it results in lower IQ on photos? I get that the noiseless aspect is big for videos (although personally lenses like the 15-35 2.8 are silent enough for me to shoot video with), but is there a negative aspect for image quality using this motor??

Nice shot! Just having the chance to see one is already something.

I have it too and use as my main body. It’s definitely been dropped by Cannon quite early and it’s life though.

Bobcat, Arizona:

Black Rapid Cross Strap with QD port to my Roxie L plate. Also use a Custom SLR handstrap for a combo of carry choices. Been using this since the 5D3 years back and still with my X-T5 and R6ii.

becceric said:

I first thought "What unusual orthotics."

Click to expand...

Left or right?

OK, that semi-rant aside — to return to the topic of this thread, digital correction being here to stay, I have a few more thoughts:

First, I think that what the VCM line represents is a good thing. I very much enjoyed the classic Canon EF prime line-up of the 20mm, 28mm, 50mm, 85mm, 100mm, and 100mm macro EF gold-ring USM series. I now very much enjoy the L series upgrade for the equivalent prime line (but I kept the 20mm -- the rest went to my kiddo). With the addition of the 14mm VCM and the hybrid-shooting qualities of the set I do feel these are spiritual successors for that gold-ring line, but with an L-leaning bump in quality thanks to the passage of technology and time (in the same spirit anti-lock brakes were passed on to the consumer from airplanes and F1 cars). For the modern lens investor, the VCM line should bring decades of joy.

The fact that the image circle does not encompass the full sensor and digital correction is needed to make the full resolution image as promised by Canon in terms of the camera sensor is an implementation detail. You can like it (as some do) or not (as I am prone), but it is functional and the results seem overall good -- as least as good as a corrected image from a gold-ring prime, if not better. I think it's fine for Canon to pursue this strategy. Especially since it doesn't seem like Canon's software is making up anything that a standard stretch and lighten achieves elsewhere.

But I have been thinking about the lack of sensor coverage in another way. Canon promises a resolution based on a sensor when it sells a camera: 45mp for the R5 line, and 20-32mp for the R6 line depending on when you buy-in (I ignore the exact dot count here but do assume I am focused on the exact amount in the brochure). Here's the rub: if Canon were to move its total consumer accessible lens line to less than sensor coverage then I bet (and it's a very educated bet) that a class-action lawsuit could be brought to bear with the claim that Canon makes a false promise with its camera line as the advertised resolution of the camera is not being provided to the consumer. It likely wouldn't matter if the extreme lenses did provide coverage, because — and I speculate — likely most people buying an R6 camera are not buying $5k+ lenses. In other words, the economically-aligned lens options would not satisfy the marketing claim. It would probably come down to whether or not Canon could argue that the software transformation engine provided a de facto equivalent to the marketing claim, but were that true then there would be no need to advertise a megapixel count for the camera because AI can remarkably resize any photo to astounding outcome (indeed, a feature of the R1 and yet it still claims a megapixel count). So, I agree that software transformations are fair game for being a part of lens design, but I think that in the case of compensating for unused pixels the camera manufacturers producing lenses do need to be somewhat cautious. Third party lens makers would not be subject to the same issue as they aren't also selling a camera with declared capabilities to go with their lenses.

Put another way, Canon promises on the box and in the brochure that if you buy a 32mp R6 III it will take pictures using its 32mp sensor; Canon is not promising that it will take 31 or 30 or 29 mp pictures that get transformed into 32mp pictures using some software and a specific lens. But the VCM line with its smaller coverage and the software engine being applied is exactly that second scenario. If that approach were to become prolific then at some point someone will notice and make an expensive complaint.

Dr_Flash said:

That the problem if you look overall Numbers. If you look deeper: 2025 Mirrorless Camera Shares:

Click to expand...

In their financial documents, Canon reports that they sold 2.88 million interchangeable lens cameras in 2025, for a market share of (2.88/6.7) 43%. In their financial documents, Nikon forecasts that their market share for this fiscal (not calendar) year will be (900/6700) 13%. In their financial documents, Sony never reports camera unit sales, so their market share is unknown.

dolina said:

I turned on my 2024 EOS R1's DLO for my 2006 EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM & 2008 EF 200mm f/2L IS USM.

All the noticeable CA, LoCA and other image quality oddities were absent from my SOOC JPEGs.

It was like having a newer gen EF lens without extra money much less RF L lens money.

Click to expand...

DLO has basically reinvigorated my entire EF lens stable. I have yet to see the need by means of final image quality or mechanical function to upgrade to RF. I do enjoy playing with RF lenses as my friends bring them by, but my EF stable has been quite fit for purpose for what I enjoy photographing when combined with the R cameras. My EF stable covers the focal range from 20mm through 600mm in primes and zooms.

In fact, I'm starting to doubt that many of the RF lenses truly have a quality or mechanical difference that justifies the multi-thousand dollar price hikes vs their EF peers. Yes, some clearly outperform their predecessors — but not the majority. I feel that many RF lenses are living off of hype from the cream of the crop and the fact that EF is starting to fade frm the shelves. Not that I blame Canon for making a buck, but I think many (but not all) photographers would better off buying cheaper yet more reasonable priced glass than RF glass, especially with the inventory clearing deals popping up.

To be clear, I'm not saying the RF glass is bad — it's great on its own merit. I'm saying mm for mm most of it is not worth a premium for the performance difference, for my experience, when mm equivalent EF glass is on the shelf.

Just last year in Canada the EF 50mm f/1.2 and 24mm EF 1.4 II when on sale for ~ 50% off, new with warranty, placing them in the $1,500 +/- range. They are more than adequate for all of my family and friends, whether they print or post. And I'm willing to bet that most photographers aren't so extreme in their needs that the size or focus speed differences are justified in job-accomplishing terms. At the Olympics? Sure! The new 14mm lens for astro? Yup! Photos of children at graduation, gymnastics, hikes, picnics, family reunions, or travel? Not a chance. Any need for RF in those moments for the typical well heeled person would be gear-head need (and yes, I can fall into that category too) or lack of EF glass availability due to time.

I say this as a guy who can afford the newer stuff. But most of my family and friends cannot, and I'd rather see the cost-benefit balance of Canon's EF lenses return to the fold. If smaller is what Canon needs to do to put good glass in the hands of family and friends going forward, well so be it. But history and competition shows this is more a modern Canon choice, and one self-imposed, than anything else.

dpc said:

Cherry blossoms...

View attachment 228071

Click to expand...

This is much more cheerful than what I currently see out my window, snow and what the bunny left in it.

EthenJ said:

That's not crazy. There are tons of Canon crop cameras out there, and users have almost nowhere else to go for RF-S lenses; I can imagine such an exclusive, high volume market being a big business priority.

Click to expand...

There are tons of Canon crop cameras out there, but most of those users are content with the lens(es) that came in the box with their camera.

stillviking said:

For a f5.6L $6k is too much. I remember EF 400mm 5.6L is a brilliant lens and was $1k.

Click to expand...

The EF 1200 f/5.6 was also famously cheap, because f/5.6 = f/5.6

dpc said:

Man and beast...

View attachment 228072

Click to expand...

I first thought "What unusual orthotics."