Latest activity

Click · Dec 21, 2025

Thanks for sharing. Beautiful scenery, very high image quality. Great shots. Well done!

AlanF · Dec 21, 2025

Maximilian said:
Sorry, but when you tend to argue down to sensor size and adjusting to just "1 stop", I can tell you from my direct comparisons that I use my R6m2 up to ISO 6400 while I wouldn't use the R7 at higher than ISO 2000, because of s/n in the photos, given the RAW files I get out of the camera. (Of course, you can use SW to compensate this in PP)
So this is more than you say or think to calculate.
This is my direct experience, and here I would say, if Canon had to chose to get the same noise with 32 MP at ISO 3200 or 4000, or with 40 MP at ISO 2000 I would prefer s/n over resolution.
IF we are at physical borders here and it is not possible to increase s/n then it is as it is.

By chance, I was testing the RF 200-800mm on the R7 on Thursday and took a shot of a Robin at iso 8000 - this would be equivalent to iso 20,000 on FF given a crop factor of 1.6, which corresponds to 1.36 stops. This shot is from RAW straight out of DxO PL6 (yes I'm 3 generations back) with absolutely standard XDDeepPrime with no boosting. Going through back files I found a shot of a Great Tit taken by wife with the R7 + RF 100-400mm at iso 32k (equivalent to iso 82k on FF!), again straight out of DxO PL6 with no boosting of noise reduction. They look as good as I would get out of the R5 at the higher isos.

neuroanatomist · Dec 21, 2025

mimbu said:
I know that buying a three thousand dollar camera with a sensor using tech that should have been retired a decade ago isn't something I'm interested in doing. Add in the entirely locked down mount and I don't get the attraction at all. In a just world, Nikon and Canon would flip places in market share.

It’s far more likely that the factors on which you base your camera buying decisions aren’t those that matter to the majority of camera buyers. It’s not injustice, it’s the reality of Canon knowing the market and you…not so much.

EricN · Dec 21, 2025

P-visie said:
Are you boasting, confessing or complaining?

Half confession / half recommendation.

P-visie · Dec 21, 2025

EricN said:
I've recently begun studying Arthur Schopenhauer. It's changing my life.

Are you boasting, confessing or complaining?

Mikehit · Dec 21, 2025

I am using a EF Canon 600mm f4 Mkii and it has recently started playing up when it is on my R5ii.
When I first put the lens on the camera (or first turn it on), everything look good but it wont autofocus and the menus wont come up when I press the 'menu' button. If I press the lens release button and rotate the camera then twist is back into position, everything is absolutely fine. This is the case whether I use the lens-adapter lens release or the adapter-lens release.
At first I thought it could be a software thing so I update to firmware 1.2.0 but this has not solved the problem.
I have tried cleaning the contacts but no luck there.

I have called CPS but the lens is now out of service life so they will not touch it.
Does anyone have any suggestions?
I am living in the UK -does anyone know of any reputable third party repairers who may be able to help? (my favourite is H Lehmann in Stoke-on-Trent but I have not been able to contact them - maybe they have stopped trading)

EricN · Dec 21, 2025

P-visie said:
What a ridiculous comment.

I've recently begun studying Arthur Schopenhauer. It's changing my life.

EricN · Dec 21, 2025

Del Paso said:
What I liked most about this post is its objectivity.
I more or less expected a "Canon über alles", this was fortunately not the case.
As a German saying goes: "Other mothers also have beautiful daughters."

Really? I'm absolutely incensed neither Sigma or Tamron were mentioned.

P-visie · Dec 21, 2025

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.

What a ridiculous comment.

Zadak · Dec 21, 2025

Exploreshootshare said:
If the Nikon Z5iii gets the nod over the Canon R6iii because of ones favors "value for money" over "overall specs with all the whistles and bells" that premise should be applied to lenses as well. In that case, the 45mm F1.2 should be favored over the Sony 50-150mm f/2 GM. Don't get me wrong, the Sony lens is absolutely great, but I just don't get why in one case "value for money instead of overall specs" makes the decision and in the other category it is the opposite.

The 45mm F1.2 brought together two things that I´ve never seen put together: F1.2 and cheap (or at least affordable). That imo is an absolute game-changer and easily the best "value for money" this year concerning lenses.

I kind of agree, while the 20mm 1.4L is probably a great lens (haven't tried it), it's just one piece on a whole line of VCM lenses, which I wouldn't count as "great", just a good "mid"-L lens. Nothing groundbreaking there

Exploreshootshare · Dec 21, 2025

If the Nikon Z5iii gets the nod over the Canon R6iii because of ones favors "value for money" over "overall specs with all the whistles and bells" that premise should be applied to lenses as well. In that case, the 45mm F1.2 should be favored over the Sony 50-150mm f/2 GM. Don't get me wrong, the Sony lens is absolutely great, but I just don't get why in one case "value for money instead of overall specs" makes the decision and in the other category it is the opposite.

The 45mm F1.2 brought together two things that I´ve never seen put together: F1.2 and cheap (or at least affordable). That imo is an absolute game-changer and easily the best "value for money" this year concerning lenses.

m4ndr4ke · Dec 21, 2025

JohanCruyff said:
it'd be useful to see how many times it is a real problem with R, RP, R6 and R5.

It’s an issue for all cameras, as we’re not going to set them to perform autofocus at smaller apertures and risk being unable to focus in the dark. Honestly, I think Chris shouldn’t have mentioned that, because he made it sound like the lens “isn’t compatible” with certain cameras.
Low light autofocus is precisely one of the reasons I’m considering buying a fast prime, for instance.

JohanCruyff said:
For example: is it only visible when the aperture is stopped down one or more stops AND the camera is focussing close to the minimum focus distance?

Yes, it should be more noticeable at close focus, your thinking is correct.
For instance, I have the sample files from James Reader’s review and all his photographs are perfectly focused in the eye, including those shot at f/2.8.
I have tried the lens, but I have to be honest: I barely stopped it down, I don’t think I went past f/2, because I was trying to exemplify my use-case scenario, where I’d have the 28-70mm f/2 on the other camera.

JohanCruyff said:
I think I can convince myself that, for me, a RF 50mm 1.2 is the way to go using very solid arguments like "i only own 77mm filters", "I can't afford to buy a lens hood" etc.

A lens hood costs 3 bucks and 67mm filters are cheap

(not an issue to me as I have many sizes, I keep my filters when I sell lenses).
I have pretty much discarded the RF 50mm f/1.2, at this point. I don’t like its rendering due to that low contrast look it has, its autofocus is a bit slow, and I consider it to be too heavy for a secondary lens (which is what it would be to me).
I’ll have to test the 45mm again, and try to replicate the issue.
Other than that, there’s the 50 VCM, that I also tried and loved.

mkamelg said:
Canon RF 45mm f/1.2 STM Review - OpticalLimits

A Canon lens with an aperture of f/1.2 and offered below $500 USD? Can this work out here? Let's check the Canon RF 45mm f/1.2 STM ...

opticallimits.com

Oh boy, that’s gonna be harsh for sure

EDIT: focus shift detected by Optical Limits as well

Del Paso · Dec 21, 2025

What I liked most about this post is its objectivity.
I more or less expected a "Canon über alles", this was fortunately not the case.
As a German saying goes: "Other mothers also have beautiful daughters."

Richard CR · Dec 21, 2025

mimbu said:
That Sony 50-150/2GM is a staggeringly good lens, and just 1340g. The 16-28/2GM is coming soon to complete the trio, hopefully it matches up to the other two f2GM zooms.

The Sigma 200/2 with it's hyper-fast AF, incredible image quality, and excellent stabilization is worth a mention. If only Sony didn't cripple 3rd party glass with that 15fps limit, or if Panasonic had AF that was able to track fast moving subjects. Or if Canon & Nikon weren't terrified of Sigma. This lens deserves better cameras to be mounted on.

Laowa's incredible T/S lenses are another highlight of the year. Superb performance at bargain (for T/S glass!) prices. Being MF only, they are available for RF, too.

I'm not a fan of sony cameras, but they really do hit it out of the park for lenses. overall, it was a great year for lenses.

Richard CR · Dec 21, 2025

Brown said:
Why does the article text alternate between the R6 Mark II and Mark III?

because that typo will haunt me until the end of days, or until the R5 Mark III comes out. 5D mark II vs R5 Mark II is another one, i think both Craig and I have made that one.

Richard CR · Dec 21, 2025

mimbu said:
A few errors jump out in this one...

"There were 27 cameras announced in 2025, with Canon releasing 4 of them, from the do-it-all R6 Mark II"
"it’s hard to argue that the Nikon Z5II delivers an excellent camera"
"Runner-Up for Best Camera of 2025 – Canon EOS R6 Mark II"

thanks!

After a while it gets so laggy on editing that I miss things when proofing and of course, after staring at the document for 2 days, my eyes glass over.

mimbu · Dec 21, 2025

Dragon said:
Clearly, you know how to run Canon's business better than they do. Maybe you should apply for the CEO job. There is an old saying "don't should on me" and methinks it applies here .

I know that buying a three thousand dollar camera with a sensor using tech that should have been retired a decade ago isn't something I'm interested in doing. Add in the entirely locked down mount and I don't get the attraction at all. In a just world, Nikon and Canon would flip places in market share.

mimbu · Dec 21, 2025

Richard CR said:
I realize that. But it doesn't necessarily mean it's truly NR. This is something I've discussed in prior PhotonsToPhotos analysis on CR, and Bill actually agrees. It's just assumed that it's why it's there, but we don't have actual, identifiable proof of it.

For all we know, it could have something to do with dual-pixel sensors in general, as Canon needs to do some processing as they are combining the results from two wells, and they have to include the possibility that only half of the A+B overflows, which will change both auto focus and also color accuracy.

Yeah, and it's just pure coincidence that those are the only three graph points that chart significantly higher than the R6 II. Yep. Must be. Couldn't possibly be heavy use of NR to game the numbers from an ancient sensor tech that should have been retired a decade ago:

Blue = II, Black = III

Yet somehow when both are using NR & the mechanical shutter, the II and III track very, very closely over those same chart points. I'm sure that's just pure coincidence, too:

Blue = II, Black = III

It's okay to call Canon out on stuff like this. Really, it is. Canon should be pushed to do better on a camera priced at $3k + tax.

mimbu · Dec 21, 2025

Richard CR said:
I'm not sure you realize just how hard it would be for Canon to change a fab over to a new process. It's incredibly expensive.

Absolutely, Sony has been doing it for years and at scale, but that makes it far easier to accomplish, while Canon is more of a boutique sensor fab.

Then perhaps Canon should be sourcing their sensors from Sony.

mimbu · Dec 21, 2025

That Sony 50-150/2GM is a staggeringly good lens, and just 1340g. The 16-28/2GM is coming soon to complete the trio, hopefully it matches up to the other two f2GM zooms.

The Sigma 200/2 with it's hyper-fast AF, incredible image quality, and excellent stabilization is worth a mention. If only Sony didn't cripple 3rd party glass with that 15fps limit, or if Panasonic had AF that was able to track fast moving subjects. Or if Canon & Nikon weren't terrified of Sigma. This lens deserves better cameras to be mounted on.

Laowa's incredible T/S lenses are another highlight of the year. Superb performance at bargain (for T/S glass!) prices. Being MF only, they are available for RF, too.

mimbu · Dec 21, 2025

Richard CR said:
We are getting closer to the end of 2025, and I decided to assemble my list of the best and worst in 2025. Initially, I was going to limit it to Canon, but then I thought I should expand it further. Maybe not the worst, though, because that baby is all Canon. The Best Camera […]

A few errors jump out in this one...

"There were 27 cameras announced in 2025, with Canon releasing 4 of them, from the do-it-all R6 Mark II"
"it’s hard to argue that the Nikon Z5II delivers an excellent camera"
"Runner-Up for Best Camera of 2025 – Canon EOS R6 Mark II"

Chig · Dec 21, 2025

I would argue that the RF 45mm f/1.2 STM is a freakishly good lens for the money giving amazing bokeh and fabulous portrait possabilities for a very affordable price.
I bought one and I love it

Brown · Dec 20, 2025

Why does the article text alternate between the R6 Mark II and Mark III?

Josh-H · Dec 20, 2025

A ten-day passion project of Wolves and Bears in Finland.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqNnLR44sr0
Shot with a variety of different cameras and lenses.

neuroanatomist · Dec 20, 2025

Bob Howland said:
I read Butler’s essay when it first came out but the James piece is new to me. Let me be blunt. Joseph James, Richard Butler and you do not have the social power to tell everybody what “equivalence” means and force them to use your definition, especially because your definition is almost certainly different than what most people use.

The physical reality is known by almost everybody here. We’ve certainly discussed it enough. Given three parameters (1) Field of View, (2) Depth of Field and (3) exposure, it is possible to define “equivalence” of lenses for different sensor sizes such that two of the three are held constant but the third must be allowed to vary. In your (and Butler’s and James’) definition, the FOV and DOF must be the same but the exposure is allowed to change. I maintain that most people, including me, say that FOV and exposure must be the same but, because the focal lengths of the two lenses differ, the DOF also differs. The difference in DOF is simply less important.

(So how does one hold exposure and DOF constant and allow FOV to change? Answer: use a different size sensor with the same lens at the same distance from the sensor using the same aperture. Alternatively, simply crop the image differently.)

FWIW, Chris Niccolls of PetaPixel has, within the last year or so started stating (usually rapidly) that some lens is equivalent to some FF lens but the DOF must be changed to some different aperture value. I suppose the PetaPixel folks got tired of folks complaining.

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.

Equivalence means the resulting images are equivalent – same FoV, DoF and noise. It's right there in the word, equivalent is defined by the Oxford dictionary as equal in value, amount, function, meaning, etc. Equivalent doesn't mean two things are the same and one is different. That applies in any context, not just photography. You're saying that having two apples and an orange is equivalent to having three apples. Toddlers know better.

Incidentally, the difference in focal length is not what causes the DoF to change, and keeping focal length, distance and f/number constant but using a different sensor size does not hold DoF constant. Seems there is more than one photographic concept where your understanding is sorely lacking.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics