Latest activity

Traveler · Dec 22, 2025

it is funny to compare CanonRumors and SonyAlphaRumors. When I check this article quickly, it looks like an anti-Canon website. Best camera is Nikon, best lens is Sony, worst camera and lens is Canon

And then I check SonyAlphaRumors and they brag that Sony leads with the largest booth at CP+

scyrene · Dec 22, 2025

Bob Howland said:
Consider the number of heated arguments that occur on this web site over trivial issues. In Neuro's previous account, he had over 30,000 postings. I'd bet money that at least 10,000 included some unnecessary snipe at another poster.

I don't disagree with this, but I still fail to understand its relevance to anything that came before.

Bob Howland · Dec 22, 2025

scyrene said:
What an odd reply.

Consider the number of heated arguments that occur on this web site over trivial issues. In Neuro's previous account, he had over 30,000 postings. I'd bet money that at least ~~10,000~~ 5000 included some unnecessary snipe at another poster.

scyrene · Dec 22, 2025

mangobutter said:
came here to say this... my X-T5 is frustrating to use w/ the 40mp sensor. it requires you to be in try hard mode in terms of lens selection, technique, etc. any mistake you make on any level will show quite easily. diffraction sets in super early too which limits how far you can stop down, more so than on other cameras. i'm a perfectionist so its hard to have fun with the X-T5.

Mistakes won't show more easily on higher MP sensors if you view the image at the same magnification. It's only if you insist on viewing at 100% or cropping more on the higher pixel sensor that eg diffraction or camera shake will be more clearly resolved.

Bob Howland · Dec 22, 2025

Del Paso said:
After having compared the EF and the RF 100 macros, I didn't hesitate one single second and put the EF on sale. This was already my 3rd. EF version, the first ones were even inferior , and it was still far inferior to the RF for landscapes. Don't you please tell me macros aren't for landscapes too, many use them in a more universal way, unless you want to always carry 2 100mm lenses.
The RF is just a full class above the EF. You don't want SA control? Don't use it, I do.
My 2 centimes of an Euro.

I don't consider any prime lens to be remotely "universal." I made a trip to the local zoo recently with a Black Rapid double harness, an R6-2 with an adapted 100 Macro on one hip and a 16-300 Sigma on an R7 on the other. I've used an adapted EF24-105 f/4 in the past instead of the 16-300 but the extra reach proved handy for animals at unpredictable distances.

scyrene · Dec 22, 2025

Bob Howland said:
Not if you consider the human race to be a highly social species where social dominance matter.

What an odd reply.

ISO64 · Dec 22, 2025

foda said:
The Gray-breasted Mountain-Toucan inhabits the high Andean cloud forest from Colombia to Peru. I photographed this individual while birding at Hacienda El Bosque, Colombia, November, 2025. I particularly like this image because of the imminent action and because it displays all aspects of this species' plumage.

R5 RF200-800mm

View attachment 227142

Outstanding photo! None of RGB components should complain

mangobutter · Dec 22, 2025

scotsman said:
I think a camera of this spec would probably also need a decent range of dedicated glass to be fully attractive.

came here to say this... my X-T5 is frustrating to use w/ the 40mp sensor. it requires you to be in try hard mode in terms of lens selection, technique, etc. any mistake you make on any level will show quite easily. diffraction sets in super early too which limits how far you can stop down, more so than on other cameras. i'm a perfectionist so its hard to have fun with the X-T5.

So Canon will need to offer some really high end primes for the 40mp sensor if they come out with one. pretty much no zoom would be worthy, other than likely the 70-200 2.8Z. I can't really see Canon offering any RF-S L primes to counter Fujifilm's dedicated LM primes... mostly cause Canon has never shown any interest in making any truly high spec aps-c primes... other than maybe the EF-M 32 1.4

Bob Howland · Dec 22, 2025

DhlcadR6 said:
No honourable mention to Sigma as a whole this year? They are cooking on all fronts.

Considering the number of Sigma lenses I've purchased in the last two years, I'd have to agree. Now if they would just introduce a 50 to 135-140 APS-C lens, I'd buy it. A 120-300 f/2.8 Sport lens would be nice as well but only if they can make it in RF mount.

Click · Dec 22, 2025

P-visie said:
Purple sandpiper (Calidris maritima) feeding:
View attachment 227186

Sanderlings (Calidris alba) taking a stroll along the floodline:
View attachment 227187

Both taken this morning on the beach of the Dutch island Texel, R5 MK II + EF 600mm f4 II + 1.4 extender.

Very nice shots, Pieter. I really like the first one. Well done.

Click · Dec 22, 2025

ISv said:
From today: checked if the "strange Waxbills" are still there. They were and actually I did see one more partially leucistic Waxbill - totally different pattern of the white feathers from that on the photo! Didn't succeed with taking image...
Also Yellow-fronted Canary...

View attachment 227179 View attachment 227180 View attachment 227181 View attachment 227182 View attachment 227183

Very nice series, ISv. My favorites are the second and last ones.

Etnaphele · Dec 22, 2025

neuroanatomist said:
It should be noted that both aperture and focal length are intrinsic properties of a lens, having nothing to do with the size of the sensor behind it. Manufacturers have no problem printing the FF-equivalent focal length in big numbers on fixed-lens cameras, sometimes along with the aperture like Panasonic does with “25-600” and “F2.8” on the FZ300 (though Leica puts the real focal length on the lens itself).

View attachment 227188

It’s not true that ‘light gathering is the same’. Light gathering is a function of the size of the iris diaphragm, not the f/number. The lens on the Ricoh GR IV gathers the amount of light of an 18.3mm f/2.8 lens, not a 28mm f/2.8 lens. The latter would have a larger iris diaphragm and gather more total light.

Exposure is a function of the light intensity (per unit area), and that is proportional to f/number. Also, even though the exposure triangle doesn’t change, image noise at the same ISO setting is higher with a smaller sensor. There’s no free lunch.

Thanks for pointing this out, with "light gathering" I meant photons on unit area, not total light - I wasn't clear.

For most applications it boils down to less DOF and more noise, while comparing FF-equivalent focal lengths and a certain aperture value.

I think this is the mechanism that keeps medium format in the niche it is, because while there are very bright hand-holdable FF lenses, medium format lenses are relatively slow and can't exploit the much larger sensor size Let's not start that tangent here

DhlcadR6 · Dec 22, 2025

No honourable mention to Sigma as a whole this year? They are cooking on all fronts.

neuroanatomist · Dec 22, 2025

roby17269 said:
What happened to the latest 35 1.2 thread?
I am traveling so I haven’t logged in for a few days

The thread is ephemeral, just as lens is illusory.

neuroanatomist · Dec 22, 2025

Etnaphele said:
I would suggest avoiding this way of thinking, because it's wrong: f/2.8 refers to a physical property of the lens and Richard's text is correct.

DOF matches f/4.5 on FF, but light gathering is the same as f/2.8 FF (exposure triangle doesn't change). It's not easy to really understand this, I had to douple check multiple times with my cameras

It should be noted that both aperture and focal length are intrinsic properties of a lens, having nothing to do with the size of the sensor behind it. Manufacturers have no problem printing the FF-equivalent focal length in big numbers on fixed-lens cameras, sometimes along with the aperture like Panasonic does with “25-600” and “F2.8” on the FZ300 (though Leica puts the real focal length on the lens itself).

It’s not true that ‘light gathering is the same’. Light gathering is a function of the size of the iris diaphragm, not the f/number. The lens on the Ricoh GR IV gathers the amount of light of an 18.3mm f/2.8 lens, not a 28mm f/2.8 lens. The latter would have a larger iris diaphragm and gather more total light.

Exposure is a function of the light intensity (per unit area), and that is proportional to f/number. Also, even though the exposure triangle doesn’t change, image noise at the same ISO setting is higher with a smaller sensor. There’s no free lunch.

AlanF · Dec 22, 2025

Bob Howland said:
Not if you consider the human race to be a highly social species where social dominance matter.

The analogy is ridiculous. Most arguments by analogy are unsound as situations are rarely exactly analogous but if they are close enough they can make sense. We use analogies much of the time, but your one goes too far and you use it to ridicule @neuroanatomist and others. So, it's ridiculous on two counts.

Bob Howland said:
Frankly, this whole issue seems suspiciously like some guy with a penis and XY chromosones demanding that everybody must say that he’s a she. Social dominance only goes so far.

Del Paso · Dec 22, 2025

Bob Howland said:
And if a lot of people feel that way, then Canon will have made a mistake. They could replace the current lens with another lacking the SA control or, my guess, introduce an additional lens without it. My solution to the issue is to continue using my EF lens. The adapter doesn't bother me.

After having compared the EF and the RF 100 macros, I didn't hesitate one single second and put the EF on sale. This was already my 3rd. EF version, the first ones were even inferior , and it was still far inferior to the RF for landscapes. Don't you please tell me macros aren't for landscapes too, many use them in a more universal way, unless you want to always carry 2 100mm lenses.
The RF is just a full class above the EF. You don't want SA control? Don't use it, I do.
My 2 centimes of an Euro.

Del Paso · Dec 22, 2025

Zadak said:
I would think so, Canon screwed up the 100mm by giving it that useless SA control. Who approved that feature...

I did!

roby17269 · Dec 22, 2025

What happened to the latest 35 1.2 thread?
I am traveling so I haven’t logged in for a few days

Richard CR · Dec 22, 2025

Bob Howland said:
And if a lot of people feel that way, then Canon will have made a mistake. They could replace the current lens with another lacking the SA control or, my guess, introduce an additional lens without it. My solution to the issue is to continue using my EF lens. The adapter doesn't bother me.

Canon has experimented with going past 1.0x maybe from their feedback it just wasn't something that people were clamouring for.

Nathalietje86 · Dec 22, 2025

What is that with fixed range lenses for compact camera's

Bob Howland · Dec 22, 2025

P-visie said:
What a ridiculous comment.

Not if you consider the human race to be a highly social species where social dominance matter.

Bob Howland · Dec 22, 2025

Zadak said:
I own it and many other L series RF lenses, and I think it's useless

I would take a 1.4x compatibility any day over it

And if a lot of people feel that way, then Canon will have made a mistake. They could replace the current lens with another lacking the SA control or, my guess, introduce an additional lens without it. My solution to the issue is to continue using my EF lens. The adapter doesn't bother me.

Richard CR · Dec 22, 2025

Brown said:
What's so great about the Sony 100mm macro compared to the RF equivalent?
Is it just the ability to use teleconverters?

1.4x macro down to 2,8x macro with tc's, it's amazingly fast to focus, includes all the gadgets, focus limiter, FOUR focus motors - and its MTF is near perfect. for a pure macro you really can't do much better than that lens.

AlanF · Dec 22, 2025

P-visie said:
Purple sandpiper (Calidris maritima) feeding:
View attachment 227186

Sanderlings (Calidris alba) taking a stroll along the floodline:
View attachment 227187

Both taken this morning on the beach of the Dutch island Texel, R5 MK II + EF 600mm f4 II + 1.4 extender.

Texel looks like a worthwhile trip from the UK. Is it good in Spring and Summer?

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics