EricN said:

Is the higher than normal noise on Sony a9iii garbage?

Click to expand...

It sure was said to be by everyone who owned Canon and Nikon when the A9III came out and blew everything else in the market away. When the Z6III came out with much worse DR but none of the A9III benefits, Nikon users suddenly got quiet. Can't imagine why. The R6III has similar problems but with an even worse (FSI) sensor.

Is the A9III perfect? Nope, there is room to improve. And guess what? Sony spends truckloads on sensor R&D and they will improve it. Even in its current form it's a marvel of a sensor that is unmatched in any other hybrid camera sold today. It's not even close. But, if you want a camera with maximum DR at low ISOs, it is not the right tool for the job. It's also a poor choice for very high ISO use.

AlanF said:

Please be honest. You didn't write about the general situation of identifying any camera and any lens combination but specifically a very low quality named manufacturers lens against a very high quality named one, namely:

Click to expand...

Sure, the same thing applies. Mix and match in a double-blind test and people will not be able to reliably identify which photos came from which camera or which lens. That's the reality of today's world, and with AI gunning for everything it is only going to get worse.

David - Sydney said:

Ha! I remember him now.
A lot of turnover over the last 12 years

Click to expand...

The troll dilbert was eventually outed and revealed to be an Aussie. He was so embarrassed that he manually deleted every one of his posts and disappeared. The cloak of anonymity was essential to him and I presume to many suchlike.

David - Sydney said:

Should I sell all my Canon gear and then rebuy Sony + 3rd party and lose money on the switch? Just because you say that I shouldn't put up with a closed ecosystem (for AF and only full frame)? Am I being absurd with my own money?

Click to expand...

No, but defending Canon isn't the answer either. Openly pushing them to do better is the answer. Same as people did with Sony for things like proper weatherproofing on bodies when that wasn't a thing in the past.

David - Sydney said:

You will be telling me to switch from Apple to something else next!

Click to expand...

Apple is a great example because they are being forced by the EU to open their platform more, and to offer things like RCS compatibility. It's not enough yet and it's not global enough yet, but it is a step in the right direction. And yes, I am a long-time iPhone user. That doesn't mean that I won't call Apple out on their BS and their closed-platform practices.

David - Sydney said:

Sony makes good sensors. Canon also makes good sensors.
In past, Sony had comparably great sensors but poor bodies compared to Canon's great bodies but older sensor tech. That isn't the case on either side now.

Click to expand...

There is a very large gap in sensor tech between Canon and Sony. In fact between everyone and Sony. Sony created a brand new type of sensor that went into the Z6III (bad implementation by Nikon with no dual gain readout), the S1II (much better implementation by Panasonic), and now a 33mp version in the A7V. Meanwhile Canon stuffed another ancient FSI sensor into the R6III and just cranked up the readout clock. There are two full generations of sensor tech (and a lot of small other improvements) between FSI and the new "partially stacked" BSI sensors. They are not equal, and they don't perform equally.

Quack said:

I put up with Canon's locked mount BS because I am a mature adult. I understand that Canon believes that it will be negatively impacted if it allows 3rd party AF lenses to be made without a financial agreement with 3rd party lens makers. I understand they are a business trying to make the most profit they can.

Click to expand...

Being a bootlicker does not make you a mature adult. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Quack said:

Sony elected to allow 3rd party lenses for exactly the same reason - they felt it was necessary to build their sales figures. Now, they are trying to limit the functionality of 3rd party lenses, apparently believing that they accomplished their original goal, and now see 3rd party lens makers as a negative.

Click to expand...

From a photography standpoint, the limits on 3rd party glass have not changed.

For video, as Sony has added additional firmware features such a focus breathing compensation, they have not made those features available to 3rd party lenses. However some features such as gyro stabilization for video do work with 3rd party glass.

Ultimately I hope that Sony allowing 3rd party FF AF glass will force Canon into doing the same thing, but with fewer restrictions than Sony has. If that happens, Sony is more likely to ease restrictions as well.

The consumer wins when companies compete. The consumer loses when companies refuse to compete.

Quack said:

Personally, I have no issue with Canon, as i have no interest in 3rd party lenses. I understand that companies make decisions to try and maximize profits, so their is nothing to defend or not defend.

Click to expand...

There's the bootlicking again. Companies should be regulated heavily and forced to provide choice to consumers. Open platforms should be the de facto standard across all industries. For example, it's wonderful to see Apple being forced to open their platform more. It's not enough, but it's a start. I hope with time that camera makers (all of them) are forced to provide open platforms as well.

Quack said:

Canon's sensor tech has been at the same level as Sony and all other sensor makers for the past 7 or 8 years or so.

Click to expand...

This is demonstratively incorrect. Canon stuck another ancient FSI sensor into the R6III, and just cranked up the readout clocks. This resulted in a big enough drop in DR that they had to bake in NR at lower ISOs to compensate. Meanwhile Sony created an entirely new type of sensor that actually supports faster readout for the A7V, as well as dual gain readout and greatly improved DR. This sensor tech will move to the A7RVI and also into all of Sony's medium format sensors. It is a significant step forward from BSI which itself is a big step forward from FSI. Sony hasn't released a FF camera with an FSI sensor in over a decade.

Then we get to the GS sensor in the A9III, the first FF GS sensor with AF. That sensor did take a hit in DR and base ISO, but it is still an incredible achievement and step forward. Sync flash at any speed. 120fps with no sacrificies. And beyond that, stunning video performance that is almost as good as seen in $80k cine cameras. The CineD review was amazing.

Sony controls a huge percentage of the global sensor market, and as such spends a fortune on sensor R&D. Canon has little hope of keeping up and will probably eventually end up buying Sony sensors. Same as everyone else in the FF and MF world.

mimbu said:

Unlike you, if Sony starts shoveling garbage out the door, I will happily call them out on it.


Projection at its fineist.

Click to expand...

Is the higher than normal noise on Sony a9iii garbage?

neuroanatomist said:

I see no need for 3rd party lenses, so why would I care that the there are no 3rd party FF autofocus lenses for the RF mount? Clearly, the majority of camera buyers out there, and the majority of mirrorless camera buyers, are not sufficiently bothered by this 'issue' to buy another brand.

Click to expand...

Canon may sell the most MILCs but they do not sell the majority of MILCs. Not even with shoveling garbage out the door as fast as they can crank it out are they able to make that claim.

neuroanatomist said:

Yesteryear sensor tech? Now, that's an absurd comment...to the point of just sounding puerile.

Click to expand...

FSI sensors are indeed yesteryear sensor tech. Nikon has never made a FF MILC with an FSI sensor. Sony hasn't done so since the A7SII was released in 2015. As a 12mp sensor, FSI wasn't such a big deal. (The A7SIII is 48mp BSI with on-sensor binning for 12mp readout and even better low light / low noise performance.)

neuroanatomist said:

Defending? I suppose you perceive it that way because you're on the offensive here (in addition to being personally offensive). What I have done is state facts, e.g., "Canon leads the mirrorless ILC market," and "The R100 is an entry-level camera." What you have done is lie, e.g., "Sony sells the most mirrorless cameras," and make silly value judgements, e.g., "The R100 is garbage," and in both cases repeated those absurdities like a petulant child.

So let me repeat: grow up.

Click to expand...

You remind me of a particularly vile ex from my 20s. She could never let go of anything that happened in the past. I explained my MILC comment. I granted that Canon currently sells more MILCs than Sony. I even explained that it's because Canon is (and long has been) the best in the world at shoveling garbage out the door. Maybe in time Sony will become a garbage pedlar too, and things will get closer again. Unlike you, if Sony starts shoveling garbage out the door, I will happily call them out on it.

neuroanatomist said:

So let me repeat: grow up.

Click to expand...

Projection at its fineist.

I wish when people were joking they wouldn't be so obvious. Who on Mars could possibly believe this Mumbai person is serious? I'm not that silly!

The stock out is likely caused by a delayed part shared by those lenses OR production line is scheduled before expected stock out.

Geopolitics may be causing this.

I doubt any RF lens will get a Series II before 2028 or 2030. Based on EF L refresh cycle's typically every decade, dozen years or 2 decades.

Tom R5R7 said:

Yeah, the 85/1.2L in EF form, as well as the 50/1.2 (and the old 50/1.0), the focusing motor moved the entire length group. And that lens group is quite HEAVY! Still have my EF 50/1.2L though. For all its quirks, it is a nice producer of bokeh. The 85 was even smoother. But old school, both of them.

Click to expand...

Last month I started using the 2024 R1 on an 2006 EF 85mm f/1.2L II with DLO and other optical correction improvements enabled.

The EF 85mm's AF response time, focus speed and accuracy is as if I was upgraded to a Series III lens. Especially when the SOOC JPEG were largely missing CA and LoCA!

I used it effectively for evening indoor and outdoor pickleball. It locks into the head/eyes then rarely lets go of the AI Servo focus of it.

When I attach the R1 to a 2001 EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS Series I it had difficulty locking onto focus for more than 20% of the action shots.

Having said that I wish I sold all my pre-2006 EF lenses & 2008 5D Mark II & 2009 1D Mark IV before 2018.

To maximize R1, R5 Mark II, R3 and R7 would be to use RF L lenses like the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z.

I'm old and getting older waiting for this lens. Shooting wildlife and birds of prey. The Rf 100-500 is my workhorse, but I want to upgrade. I want that extra 100m to 600mm in an "L" series lens. I like the versatility of a zoom, so I'm not into primes.

The EF 200-400 f4 with teleconverter was considered a great wildlife lens. A variable aperture of 4.0 to 5.6 for the 300-600, would be similar. But I can live with 5.6. Just release something!!!!

mimbu said:

I do not understand why people like you not only put up with Canon's locked mount BS and yesteryear sensor tech, but defend the company for it. It's an absurd position to take.

Click to expand...

I see no need for 3rd party lenses, so why would I care that the there are no 3rd party FF autofocus lenses for the RF mount? Clearly, the majority of camera buyers out there, and the majority of mirrorless camera buyers, are not sufficiently bothered by this 'issue' to buy another brand. Yesteryear sensor tech? Now, that's an absurd comment...to the point of just sounding puerile.

Defending? I suppose you perceive it that way because you're on the offensive here (in addition to being personally offensive). What I have done is state facts, e.g., "Canon leads the mirrorless ILC market," and "The R100 is an entry-level camera." What you have done is lie, e.g., "Sony sells the most mirrorless cameras," and make silly value judgements, e.g., "The R100 is garbage," and in both cases repeated those absurdities like a petulant child.

So let me repeat: grow up.

mimbu said:

....

I do not understand why people like you not only put up with Canon's locked mount BS and yesteryear sensor tech, but defend the company for it. It's an absurd position to take.

Click to expand...

I put up with Canon's locked mount BS because I am a mature adult. I understand that Canon believes that it will be negatively impacted if it allows 3rd party AF lenses to be made without a financial agreement with 3rd party lens makers. I understand they are a business trying to make the most profit they can. This makes them exactly the same as Sony, Nikon, and all other camera brands. Sony elected to allow 3rd party lenses for exactly the same reason - they felt it was necessary to build their sales figures. Now, they are trying to limit the functionality of 3rd party lenses, apparently believing that they accomplished their original goal, and now see 3rd party lens makers as a negative. For people who want 3rd party AF lenses, I have no argument with them if they decide to choose another brand.

Personally, I have no issue with Canon, as i have no interest in 3rd party lenses. I understand that companies make decisions to try and maximize profits, so their is nothing to defend or not defend.

However, the fact that you mention Canon's "yesteryear sensor tech,", completely removes any credibility from your comments, and seems to reveal that you are just trolling, as Canon's sensor tech has been at the same level as Sony and all other sensor makers for the past 7 or 8 years or so.

Here's me thinking that 2018 is a "modern" lens haha.

It might have to do with video. My 28-70 f2 makes audible noise when focusing, completely overpowering the internal mic when recording video. An external mic helps, but it's still not perfectly silent.

I could see that as the main drawback of the focusing tech for hybrid shooters.

AlanF said:

We once had a troll called dilbert. He loved dishing it out, and the more he was fed, the more he spewed out, never abashed.

Click to expand...

Ha! I remember him now.
A lot of turnover over the last 12 years

mimbu said:

I do not understand why people like you not only put up with Canon's locked mount BS and yesteryear sensor tech, but defend the company for it. It's an absurd position to take.

Click to expand...

Now you are being a troll on a canon forum.... and for what purpose?

Should I sell all my Canon gear and then rebuy Sony + 3rd party and lose money on the switch? Just because you say that I shouldn't put up with a closed ecosystem (for AF and only full frame)? Am I being absurd with my own money?
You will be telling me to switch from Apple to something else next!

Sony makes good sensors. Canon also makes good sensors.
In past, Sony had comparably great sensors but poor bodies compared to Canon's great bodies but older sensor tech. That isn't the case on either side now.
Good to have choice.

dobiewancanobie said:

Hi I am new here, but need some advice! I have a r5m11 and also a r7. I bought the r7 for bird photography and the crop sensor. I haven't used the r7 really at all.....
So I am trying not to become a hoarder but then something inside me says keep the r7 but the other side is technological obsolescence and the new r711 coming out soon.
I have an offer from an online platform to buy the camera for 800 which is 1/2 of what I paid and again, the camera has been used maybe 4 x. so trepidation in selling at such a discount. I also have the rf 100 macro lens (used rarely) - they are offering me 1/2 price on that as well. What would you do. I don't want to be stuck with an obsolete camera but I don't really want to sell at 800 that seems way off the mark. thank you Bianca

Click to expand...

Have you tried seeing what KEH, MPB, etc. are offering? Or were those one of the ones you already looked at?

Bob Howland said:

If only Sigma would introduce a small and light 50-140 f/2.8 DC OS C. I already own most of the rest.

Click to expand...

It's been a pretty confusing gap in their crop lens lineup for quite a while. Something like copying the Olympus 40-150/2.8 would be a great lens for APS-C - not exactly 'small and light', but not too bad and excellent optically. Unfortunately, with the introduction of the 17-40/1.8 it seems more likely that Sigma may look at updating the 50-100/1.8 instead and I'd find that a much less interesting lens.

. Very nice series, Nemorino.

mimbu said:

I doubt most photographers would be able to accurately pick between first party & third party glass in a print from a normal viewing distance. Or which brand of camera was used.

99.999% is likely too low a number as it implies 1 in 100,000 people could reliably tell, and I do not think that is the case. If you put up 1000 photos taken with different cameras and lenses in a properly managed double-blind test, I doubt there is a single person on the planet who would be able to reliably pick out the camera & lens used for each photo. Experienced photographers could likely pick out the approximate focal length and aperture ("taken at somewhere between 400 and 800mm at a fairly wide aperture" type description) but not anything beyond that. There are too many factors to consider that are only known to the photographer and would not be shared in a double blind test.

Click to expand...

Please be honest. You didn't write about the general situation of identifying any camera and any lens combination but specifically a very low quality named manufacturers lens against a very high quality named one, namely:

mimbu said:

If you have infinite money then sure, buy all Canon/Sony/Nikon glass. Or buy all Leica glass. Whatever floats your boat. But the reality is that when viewing a processed & printed photograph from a normal viewing distance, 99.999% of the population (if not 100%) won't be able to tell if you spent $2.5k on Canon glass or $250 on Viltrox glass. If you pixel peep, you can tell. So what's more important, the print or the pixel peeping?

Click to expand...

AlanF said:

Sure, if all you do is take simple shots and view the whole image without cropping at a moderate size then most gear, including a smart phone, will be adequate in many cases. But, if you are working at the limit of needing very rapid, reliable AF and cropping greatly and then viewing, then you really see the difference between cheap optics and inferior AF compared with the top grade, and the inferior unacceptable. And what counts is not what appeals to 99.999% of the population but your own standards, which might overlap with the 99.999%.

By the way, your numbers are suspect. The remaining 0.001% of the population adds up to 82,000 people, and the estimates of the number of professional photographers ranges from 1 to 2.5 million, with 20-30 million serious prosumers. So, a figure of 97.5% of the population is a more realistic estimate of the population not being serious about quality.

Click to expand...

I doubt most photographers would be able to accurately pick between first party & third party glass in a print from a normal viewing distance. Or which brand of camera was used.

99.999% is likely too low a number as it implies 1 in 100,000 people could reliably tell, and I do not think that is the case. If you put up 1000 photos taken with different cameras and lenses in a properly managed double-blind test, I doubt there is a single person on the planet who would be able to reliably pick out the camera & lens used for each photo. Experienced photographers could likely pick out the approximate focal length and aperture ("taken at somewhere between 400 and 800mm at a fairly wide aperture" type description) but not anything beyond that. There are too many factors to consider that are only known to the photographer and would not be shared in a double blind test.

neuroanatomist said:

No, I just understand the market and the position of the R100 in it. You just want to prove that you’re an arrogant ass, and at least that’s one thing for which you’ve provided convincing evidence. So, well done?


This, from a slavering Sony fanboi. Oh, the irony.

Click to expand...

I have absolutely zero brand loyalty. Not only in the camera world but with any product. Brand loyalty is for suckers and fools. I'll buy whatever is best at any given time. I've owned & used Canon in the past. And Nikon. And Pentax. And Minolta. And Hasselblad. And Contax. And Olympus. (Oddly never an L mount camera, at least not yet.) Often several mounts at once. These days Sony, yes, but if Sony suddenly decided to lock their mount down and disallow 3rd party glass, I'd move to something else.

I do not understand why people like you not only put up with Canon's locked mount BS and yesteryear sensor tech, but defend the company for it. It's an absurd position to take.

Lapwings in display flight
R5m2 + RF 200-800
@ 1/4000s, f/10, iso 2500, 604mm


+ 1.4TC @ 1/4000s, f/13, iso 2500, 1120mm

Bon appétit. Nicely done, Nemorino.